Jonathan May-Bowles這名字大家肯定陌生，他就是用一碟剃鬚膏擲向傳媒大亨梅鐸的男子，在事件中鄧文迪(Wendi Deng)最出風頭，Tiger Wife的名堂不脛而走，被告May-Bowles卻成為階下囚，昨天被判監6個星期，連一向主張嚴刑峻法的標少也覺得刑罰重得過份。區域法院法官Daphne Wickham認為
... the aim of the attack was to disrupt proceedings, which were "of huge importance".
She said she had also taken into account the fear of injury Mr Murdoch would have experienced, as he did not know what was in the pie.
The judge said: "This is a parliamentary process, which as you know conducts itself with dignity and in a civilised fashion. (extract from BBC 2/8/2011)
被告代表律師即時申請保釋等候上訴，法官拒絕了。標少認為判刑過重，就算虎乸沒有推開被告，剃鬚膏擊中老亨也不見得會受傷，梅鐸當時最驚的是作供出岔子，而不是惡作劇。香港應該邀請這位法官去審案，屆時立法會的紙飛機會停飛，香蕉也不會亂飛。
這件案其實可以判被告簽保守行為，而無須即時入獄。被告會對判刑上訴，上訴排期需時，如果不給他保釋，聽審上訴時，被告已刑滿出獄，如果上訴得直，豈不是變成冤獄。況且報導指梅鐸也不支持這控罪(The tycoon had not supported the assault charge, the court heard, but prosecutors proceeded with the case)，控方這次的處理手法不合情理。
Bill,
回覆刪除The sentence must be excessive in all the circumstances and I agree that the judge should have given bail pending appeal (again, not an easy task to get bail pending appeal in front of the same bench). However, it does appear that on previous occasions, those who disrupt Legco proceedings in HK before did receive sentences of immediate imprisonment but with a much shorter period (i think it was 7 days or 14 days) although it may have been a second similar offence within a short period.
L
L,
回覆刪除Thank you for following my blog so closely. I would have thought the sentence was manifestly excessive. There are two principles the District Judge did not give regard to i.e. the likelihood of success in the appeal and that by the time the appeal is heard, the sentence will have been served. Disruption of Legco proceedings was originated from within, some Legco members just enjoy unfettered freedom of speech and show time.
Bill
Bill,
回覆刪除Probably the Judge did not think D could succeed on the "merits" ground, it appears that it takes a judge/magistrate who is confident that his or her judgment would be upheld on appeal to grant bail pending appeal nowadays, so often it is where Ds would only get bail in CFI. To be fair, we do not know what this particular defendant's past criminal record is, but the reasoning given by the judge certainly appears to only reflect one side of the coin only.
L
L,
回覆刪除So far from all the media reports, I cannot find any mentioning of his previous record. The judge did not say a word about it. If he has a record, I suppose it would be mentioned.
I am not sure if you have mis-stated CFI for CFA. Do you mean the High Court where application for bail will normally listed for hearing. The CFA does not hear bail application. CFA will grant bail to deft when leave for appeal is granted and the Judges feel that the deft who is in custody serving a sentence has a good chance of success.
Bill
Bill,
回覆刪除I think what L meant is those who are refused bail pending appeal in the Magistracy usually have to resort to CFI.
For CFA, I trust bail pending appeal can be granted by a single PJ even before leave is granted by the Appeal Committee. See for instances Sher Ali Khan FAMC 4/2006 and Lo Wai-yan FAMC101/2010. Somehow the CFA, particularly Bokhary PJ, is adopting a rather generous appraoching in terms of bail. I think you talked about it in a post earlier on.
I
Thanks I for clarifying, I meant that usually the appellant would only get bail pending appeal from the CFI judge as the trial magistrate would usually refuse bail pending appeal.
回覆刪除L
I and L,
回覆刪除It is my mistake. I am not used to call Court of First Instance in acronym. It just came to my mind a mis-type of CFA. I realized it until you folks commented further.
Single PJ granting bail is not only rare, hearing the unmeritorious application by CFA is absurd. I would have thought the primary function of CFA in criminal appeal is stipulated in Section 32, Cap 484 that a point of law of great and general importance is involved in the decision or less importantly it is shown that substantial and grave injustice has been done. If May-Bowles case happened in HK, he has to go to CFI first before he can venture to CFA. As I said before, Bokhary PJ is too liberal minded or too defence minded to the extent that impartiality cannot be seen.