陳振聰的上訴沒有出人意表的結果，他上一次庭，就給法官罵一次騙子。上訴庭這次是三位法官分工寫判辭，判辭聯名發表，判決一致。判辭全長47頁，共117段。睡不着的話，不妨一讀。笫20頁至43頁，分析筆跡證供，是引睡良媒，我不堪沉悶，沒有細閱。
小甜甜與王廷歆争產時，沒有上證人台作供，胡里胡塗的把誓章呈遞成為證供而不用面對盤問。代表王廷歆的律師沒有作出反對，便宜了小甜甜。陳振聰卻撿不到這便宜，他在證人台上面對資深大狀駱應淦的盤問，一敗塗地，任憑他狡黠閃爍其詞，自圓其說，林文瀚法官最終指他不可信，是精心剪裁證供的騙子。上訴庭交待案情背景的一段文字，可見一斑。
The judge considered the evidence and the arguments in the case in meticulous detail. It has to be observed that on a number of occasions in the judgment the judge repeated that he was forced to the conclusion that the first defendant was untrustworthy and a liar, tailoring his evidence to suit his case as he went along. One aspect that also clearly impinged on the judge’s mind in that regard, as he mentioned it more than once, was a Georgetown University document which referred to the first defendant as having received a university education in Canada in biological engineering. That was false and the judge held that the first defendant had connived in the false pretence. (para 8)
上訴庭最後的結論是
The first defendant has persisted in pursuing a thoroughly dishonest case. In doing so, he has abused the process of the court.
所以判以懲罰性堂費costs on an indemnity basis.
陳振聰的敗訴當然大快人心，然而，小甜甜當初敗訴又是否大快人心呢？她最後勝訴，又是否天地有正氣呢？
A friend asked me by email as the basis for the appellate court for upholding the costs order. I quote from the judgement, "It was proved that the first defendant (Tong Chen) knowingly put forward a forged will in the hope of securing for himself an immense fortune. In doing so he told lies. That must on any footing be an egregious abuse of the process of and an affront to the court. Any other order than costs on an indemnity basis would be inconceivable." (para 112)即是說圖謀詐騙，覬覦巨富，濫用程序，當罰堂費。
回覆刪除