今天明報這樣報導：
美林案殺夫犯申赴美服刑
囚終身不上訴
【明報專訊】美林證券亞太區董事總經理簡崇諾（Robert Kissel）妻子Nancy Kissel，上月在高院第二次被裁定謀殺罪成，判囚終身。據悉，Nancy Kissel不會再就定罪提出上訴，並擬申請轉往其家鄉美國服刑。
如果Nancy Kissel真的不再上訴，究竟是心力俱疲，再受不住訴訟的壓力，含冤負屈；抑或是罪孽深重，咎省悔悟；又或者是鐵證如山，主審法官公正持平，沒有上訴空間，所以被告才不再上訴，那就不得而知。
我再三評論這件案的目的是要指出，不要輕信法庭的裁決彰顯公義，有的時候過分鑽牛角尖，矯枉過正，在寧縱無枉的刑事法律制度裏，再進一步縱容被告，彰顯了的是對被告的偏袒，而並非社會的公義。
Nancy Kissel 第一次被定罪後，隨即申請上訴，上訴庭駁回上訴，措詞嚴厲，上訴庭認為
"This was as cogent a case of murder as might be imagined." 鐵證如山，怎能推翻。可是終審法院把這判決完全推翻。尤其是包致金法官所寫的判辭，對被告存着不公正的同情，他的口吻使我覺得像辯方的陳辭多過公正不阿的裁決。法律界有人稱讚他開明(liberal minded)，對辯方有利自然獲辯方讚許。如果Nancy Kissel 覺得自已罪有應得而不再上訴，無疑是對包致金那種睿智分析，打了幾記耳光。也給標少臉上貼金，證明批評有理。(要看標少對這件案的批評，請參閱《從爭產案看終審法院》一文)
返美國服刑，由邊個政府養佢一世?
回覆刪除小沛子I am unable to answer your question. I suppose the recipient government has the duty to take care of the prisoner. I went through the relevant legislation in this regard, ie Chapter 513 Transfer of Sentenced Persons Ordinance, Laws of Hong Kong. It does not shed any light on your question. The ordinance deals with the legitimacy of such an arrangement without going into minutiae. I suppose the practical aspect need not be elaborated in the legislation. This transfer of prisoner will not be started before the criminal proceeding has come to an end. That is to say the prisoner will not lodge any more appeal. Apart from that the authorities (here the HK Government and US Government consent to such a program)and the prisoner herself agree to take such a course of action. If Nancy Kissel has gone banana in the end, she will end up in a psychiatric institution instead of a prison.
回覆刪除The SAR Government has to notify the Central Government of each request and the latter can instruct the former to take or not to take action on the request in the interest of sovereignty, security or public order.