法庭的新遊戲規則

標少在鳴冤一文提及張慧玲法官批評Wahab不應拘押被告以索取精神報告，認為就算要索取有關報告，也可以給予被告保釋。我相信有關課題在高院法官之間引起討論，我這樣講是看了賴盤德法官(Peter Line)在 HKSAR and Su Wei HCMP2589/2011的裁決而來。第7段這樣講，

7. The reason I am taking the course of adjourning these proceedings into chambers open to the public, giving reasons is this: that there has been some publicity recently about the use of section 51 of the Mental Health Ordinance, and it is a section that does merit some close reading, and what becomes apparent on reading it is that the power to make a remand under that section only arises where it may be or is alleged that the Defendant is a mentally-incapacitated person and the purpose of the remand is for observation, investigation and treatment.

案件的背景是這樣的：被告公幹後回港，在機場等候行李期間，盜取了他人的行李而被捕。他即時對警方承認出於貪念，帶回警署錄口供時卻說自己有一股偷東西的衝動，這樣做帶給他興奮及挑戰性的感覺。他在裁判官席前認罪，被收押兩星期索取精神、心理、社會服務及背景報告。被告聘請律師到高院申請擔保，賴盤德法官批准被告擔保之餘，撤銷了精神報告，還判令控方賠堂費。

這件案有兩點值得注意，第一，高院最近兩件案的判法，會改變以後裁判官索取被告精神報告的傾向，如果沒有明顯證據顯示被告有精神問題，裁判官會傾向不索取報告，以免受到批評，連給予被告擔保索取報告也不用考慮，到頭來有否維護社會和被告的利益呢？

第二，賴盤德法官在原審法官還沒有判刑前，干擾原審法官的判刑考慮，是否干擾得太早呢？他有權這樣做嗎？是富爭論性的。賴盤德法官認為倚賴刑事程序條例第9J條，他有權改變原審裁判官索取的報告。9J是這樣講：

Chapter:	221	Title:	CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ORDINANCE	Gazette Number:
Section:	9J	Heading:	Review of refusal of bail or conditions of bail

(1) Where a District Judge or magistrate has refused to admit a person to bail or has so admitted a person subject to any condition, that person may in the case of a refusal, apply to a judge to be admitted to bail or in the case of an admission to bail subject to any condition, apply to a judge to be admitted to bail without bail being subject to that condition.
(2) On the hearing of an application under subsection (1), a judge may by order confirm, revoke or vary the decision of the District Judge or magistrate, and may make such other order in the matter including an order as to costs as he thinks just.

賴盤德法官的看法是，他有權撤銷裁判官索取精神報告的命令，他的理據如下：

4. I granted bail yesterday, and what I did was replace the order the magistrate had made with a new order pursuant to my powers under section 9J of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 221. I made it a three-week remand and not a two-week remand, and I said the remand would be on unconditional bail, and the reports I requested were a psychologist’s report, which is going to be organised by the Social Welfare Department, who would also be responsible for the community service report and the background report.

5. I thought carefully about what my powers were in regard to dealing with the reports. Section 9J of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance allows me to confirm, revoke or vary the decision of the District judge or magistrate, and it says I may make such other order in the matter, including orders as to costs, as I think to be just, and it is that wide power that I have used here, because I think the order I have made now is the just one.

我完全不同意他闡釋9J的看法，9J賦予高院法官干預被告的擔保及擔保條件的權力，及衍生出來的堂費問題，而並不包括其他權責。9J的標題也說明是Review of refusal of bail or conditions of bail，再者索取精神報告，本身也不是一種擔保條件，高院法官應該無權干預。不能罔顧法律原文的大前題，而把such other order的意思無限放大。我覺得賴盤德法官為了干預原審裁判官的命令，而曲解了法律釋義，如果such other order蘊含無限權力，為何不乾脆直接判罰被告。上級法院肆意批評下級法官的判決，造成了很多裁判官，尤其是暫委裁判官，索性用不同理由判被告無罪，好過上訴時受到批評。

































9

法庭故事

好朋友是虔誠的教徒，明知我是頑固不化的人，總會有意無意之間談點宗教，希冀點化我這頑石。可惜我看見那些表面偽善，骨子裏毫無宗教情操的人太多，鄙夷之心，揮之不去。大道理誰不會說，身體力行卻是兩碼子事。昨日朋友電郵一則《每日聖言》給我，裏面包括以下一段文字：

默想：每日，法庭處理很多大大小小的審訊。法院的種類也很多：有小額錢債審裁處、勞
資審裁處、地方法院、高等法院、終審庭。無疑，法律有助維持社會公義和秩序，但也有
許多事情，是原了本不用鬧上法庭的。

筆者聽過一個這樣的故事：一位法官義正詞嚴地訓示被告庭上的犯人不應違例泊車，審訊
結束後，法官脫下假髮，陪同犯事者去繳交罸款，令在場者大吃一驚。原來，這被告是他
的兒子。天主有時就像這法官一樣，不會因愛我們而捨棄公義。祂的兒子來到人間，承受
著我們的過犯，更希望我們感受到祂的慈愛。

我的反思：殉道聖人斯德望臨終的一句話，反映著天主慈愛的光輝。也願我們能效法祂，
為迫害我們的人祈禱。

看到法庭兩個字，自然吸引我注意。嚴以律己是我做人的大方向，寬以待人我還要很努力學習，要為迫害我們的人祈禱，恐怕我這一世都做不到。要做當然不是口惠而實不至那種lip service，空談騙自己的人太多。用生活實例來闡釋教義，是很務實有効的方法，舉錯了例子可能適得其反。我無意挑剔，也不會冒犯信教的人，但講這法庭故事的人恐怕是講了虛構的故事。

故事存着三個毛病。首先，法官爸爸不會處理自己兒子的案件，就算是親戚朋友也為了避嫌，而轉往別的法官處審理；再者，交通違例，定額罰款方式處理了絕大部份的案件，尤其是違例泊車，除非抗辯，否則不用上庭；第三，這類案只會在裁判法院處理，法官不會戴假髮，不存在法官脫下假髮的情況。

小黑

小學雞自稱黑幫 當差夢或碎
 
【狙擊組報道】一名志願做警察，且是少年警訊的小六學生，因在校內衝口講了一句「我係黑社會」，遭人報警，最終要接受警司警誡，令警察夢可能破滅。學生家長不滿校方如此對待少不更事的學生，做法不近人情

被帶回警署的偉仔（化名）今年十一歲，在屯門區一間小學讀小六，其母陳女士指出，偉仔早前在校影全體合照，因未有帶備運動服，而需向校方借衫以便拍照。拍照後，偉仔在廁所更衣，一名男職員在廁格外隔門辱罵他：「你咁樣實畀人打死啦，阻住晒！」有人更猛力踢開廁門，令偉仔撞傷額頭。對於突然被襲，偉仔不忿爆出一句：「我係十×K，我搵人接你放學呀。」


須接受警司警誡


職員事後將偉仔自稱黑社會事件告知校方，校方知會家長，陳女士到學校了解，校方並無提及報警。但翌日凌晨時分，突有三名屯門警區探員到訪，指偉仔涉嫌自稱黑社會，將其笠頭帶返屯門警署問話。

偉仔直言自己不是黑社會，只因無端被罵才作此回應。就自稱黑社會一案，偉仔現要接受警司警誡。協助偉仔的屯門區議員江鳳儀表示，校方應了解事件詳情和提供輔導，不應事事也交由警方處理，斷送學生前程。校方則稱，有關事件並非由校方報警，強調會對學生行為問題經查證及家長溝通後，才按情況適當跟進。 (26/12/2011東方日報)

東方日報這則新聞，使我聯想到兩星期前看到BBC另一則報導，有關英國腦科專家研究，年青人大概到18歲，腦部才會發展成熟，清楚懂得分辨對錯，因此要求英國政府把少年刑事責任年齡由10歲提高至12歲，即12歲以下，做了甚麼事也無需負上刑事責任。腦科研究是否會被法庭接納，尚未可料，但政府已否決有關要求。香港少年刑事責任的年齡也是10歲起，見諸香港法例第226章少年犯條例第3條。世界各國的少年刑責年齡，差別很大，由6歲至18歲都有，中國大陸是14歲。

本案的小學生沒有受檢控，而以警司警誡的方式處理，對他是否已經寬容，抑或口頭警告就足夠，很難下定論。畢竟現在「吹雞曬馬」的黑社會份子，不少是心智未成熟10多歲的少年。但要在凌晨時分，上門把11歲的小孩帶返警署調查，做法並不恰當，也無需笠頭。這種對付小孩的方法，與案件的嚴重性及迫切性，不合比例。

法官與刁民As If The Judge Was Not There Again

	CHOY BING WING	Plaintiff
	and
	BUILDING AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, CHINA	1st Defendant
	DIRECTOR OF CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, CHINA	2nd Defendant
	COMMISSIONER OF INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, CHINA	3rd Defendant

____________________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Au-Yeung in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 15 November 2011

Date of Decision: 15 November 2011

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

1. This is Mr Choy’s application for leave to appeal against my decision dated 4 October 2011.

2. Mr Choy appeared this morning and asked me whether I had answered his letter dated 7 November 2011. In substance, the background of this matter was a request for transcripts. As will be revealed in the reasons for dismissing the leave application below, I had in fact answered Mr Choy’s previous request for transcripts, but I had not answered his letter dated 7 November 2011 because I considered that letter as abusive in nature.

3. Without hearing further from me, Mr Choy walked out of court at about 10:09 am and did not pursue his application for leave to appeal.

4. In the premises, that application ought to be dismissed outright. However, to put the record absolutely straight, I would deal briefly with that leave application. (extracts from HCA2458/2007)

上面是昨天上載的判辭的一段，看了相信你丈八金剛摸不著頭腦。申請人蔡炳榮幾乎無法官不識，不單只是法院常客，辱罵法官也習以為常，結果因藐視法庭而入獄也不只一次。從判辭可見，他質問法官之後，便拍拍屁股離開法庭，視法官如無物。不要講是法庭，就算走入銀行問點事情，也應該具備待人接物的基本禮貌，不可能掉頭就走。上一次他藐視法庭被判監，正正是辱罵這件案的主審法官歐陽桂如。怎樣為之辱罵呢？讓我舉一些從HCMP1313/2010的判辭找到，處理他藐視法庭案中的例子讓大家感受下。

Re: Payment of Blackmail aided and abetted by Bitch Queenie (sic) Au-yeung for the cover-ups of crimes committed”.

“Bitch Queenie (sic) Au-yeung (Registrar of High Court) stopped documents which slandered me made known to me by my Most Honourable Friends on Government Service, her attempt to the further crime cover-ups”.

“… I pay the blackmail of judicial cheatings committed by Criminal/ Bitch Au Yeung, Registrar of HKSAR”.

“I demand Mr Tsang to clear the complaints and the treatment of payment of ransom of the blackmail conspired together with Bitch Queenie (sic) Au-yeung”.

究竟他是精神出問題抑或膽大包天，並非我能判斷的，據報他大學畢業，今年65歲。在早幾年的另一件案，他罵上訴庭副庭長羅傑志(Rogers)是騙子。把法官罵成男盜女娼，無出其右。從HCMP4694/2003，舉一兩個例子給你看：

“We have applied for Rogers VP to be removed from this court in a notice of motion submitted on 22 April 2003, because we consider that you are a crook, a serious crook.”

“My Lord – my Rogers, not my Lord – you are not quite entitled to be called a Lord. It’s okay that cheating was had been … was made by you. If a judge made cheating it’s okay if they got authority and you just throw it away in the rubbish bin and make decision and play dirty trick with Winston Poon in court and order … and struck out the petition of Mr Ng Yat-chi on behalf of me. That is very dirty and filthy of you.”


我講這一大堆話，想提出的是，法庭為甚麼會對這些浪費時間，無理肆意批評的人寬宏大量。每件案的判辭都十分認真的寫，嚴肅認真對待那些荒謬申請，豈非變成姑息養奸，這是九七後才看到的現象。縱容這些人，無疑鼓勵仿效者，也妨礙了其他人更快捷獲得裁決的機會。更甚者是由於上級法院法官「開明」，下級法院法官給人罵狗官也不吭聲。10多年前一次判刑會議(sentencing conference)，某法官(現貴為上訴庭副庭長)訓斥一眾裁判官，不要動輒就對講粗口的被告，以藐視法庭懲處。大法官認為，一些學歷低，出身草根的被告，粗口就由他講吧，不要計較。說溜了嘴的粗口，不作計較還可以，以粗口罵法官又如何呢？標少不寫副庭長的名字，以免看了這blog的人，到大人席前放肆而歸究於我。裁判官給人罵粗，一般運用裁判官條例第99條作簡易懲處，有人罰錢，有的加監。有一次(20多年前)，被告罵當時是裁判官的Gerard Muttrie "f" your mother. Muttrie看他一眼然後說:Go ahead, defendant. My mother is 80. 老外法官可以採取這種開放態度，華人法官卻不能嚥下這口氣。法官沒有驚堂木，也沒有殺威棒，時代變了，但也總不能受人肆意辱罵，無禮對待。這不是個人榮辱的問題，彰顯法治的地方，尊嚴受挫，法治精神也蕩然無存。

A$89m的豪宅

Russian billionaire's daughter buys $89m New York pad


The daughter of a Russian billionaire has broken New York real estate records by paying $US88 million ($89 million) for a huge Manhattan apartment, Forbes magazine reports.

Dmitry Rybolovlev, paid full asking price for the multiroom spread at 15 Central Park West, the magazine reported on Monday, saying this was a record for an individual transaction in a city renowned for pricey property.

The record was previously owned by Sanford Weill, a former chairman of Citigroup.

Forbes quoted a representative for Rybolovleva, 22, saying she had "signed a contract to purchase an apartment at 15 Central Park West ... Ms Rybolovleva is currently studying at a US university. She plans to stay in the apartment when visiting New York

She is a resident of Monaco and has lived in the principality and in Switzerland for the last 15 years, the statement said.

Rybolovlev is one of the small group of Russians who became fabulously wealthy during the post-Soviet privatisation of the economy and are known as oligarchs. He is the former owner of fertiliser business Uralkali.

Sydney Morning Herald今天這則新聞可能羨煞不少子女，尤其是想和父母簽約由父母養過世的公主少爺。A$89M相等於7億港元，對於億萬家財的富翁而言，可能只是微塵。窮等人家當然不能想像7億港元的住所如何宏偉壯觀華麗，只有那些一跤跌進幸福窩裏，爬也爬不起，最後可能站也站不起的人才能體會。

標少是窮等人家，不敢講甚麼治家格言，對女兒的要求十分簡單：把書讀好，自立生活。兩個女兒未進大學之前已經一面上課，一面兼職，最終達至自給自足。小女兒也畢業了，剛完成專業登記，也快將上班了，標少又可以多一份家用了。朋友羨慕我，女兒給我家用。我自己也覺得幸運，起碼她們自動自覺，符合我的要求。每年我母親生日，我的女兒也會匯點錢給她，聊表孝意。我們下一代沒有經歷生活貧窮，物資匱乏的歲月，卻在保護主義中孕育成長。栽培子女，理所當然。過份呵護，會剝奪了他們獨立成長的機會。為自己好，為他們設想，不要簽下這終身兒女債的欠單。有錢不一定要留給他們，有錢不要推掉他們給你的錢。

金正日與黑社會

讀理科的小女兒問我，金正日之死怎會引起政治動盪及股巿下跌，這課題並非我慣常留意的範疇，既涉及國際政治，又涉金融，標少怎敢胡謅，但也舉了一個實例來解釋。可能是職業病的緣故，例子與以前的工作有關。

香港的漁市場都受到有勢力人士操控，多年前，反黑探員喬裝買手到長沙灣漁市場搜集證據，然後拉人。別以為從此消滅了黑社會在漁市場的勢力。平靜過後，就開始了一場爭地盤的廝殺，勢力定位之後又回復黑社會操控。金正日死前，採取那種爛仔行為，以發展核武來敲榨外間援助，大陸對他又愛又恨。金正日死了，他的兒子上位，既無功績，又無威信，隨時釀成權力鬥爭內亂。等如拉了原本漁市場操控的黑社會，覬覦俎上肉的人蠢蠢欲動，如出一轍。

誤殺中國學生惡少年脫難

星島日報澳洲版本週末的頭條新聞以「誤殺中國學生惡少年脫難」為題，報導了2008年7月18日一宗中國留學生被殺案的進展。星島日報澳洲版的電子版既落後又滯後，竟然找不到這頭條新聞，我只好花時間把判刑判辭看一遍(R v Toal [2009] VSC 304 (3 August 2009) 及R v Toal [2011] VSC 631 (16 December 2011)，把案情描述一下。


21歲的中國留學生Yuxiong Han到維省的TAFE修讀汽車工程(automobile engineering)，案發時他抵埗才12星期。他一面讀書，一面在餐館當侍應。2008年7月7日晚，死者下班乘巴士回家，和被告Aaron James Toal及他的7個夥伴在同一站下車。大家互不相識，沒有交談，也沒有任何衝突。死者原本走在這班16至18歲的青年後面，死者超越了他們向住所的方向走。這8個人分成幾堆的打算走到其中一人的家裏，被告和另外兩人走在最前。被告和同案16歲的另一被告OJS決定要揍死者一頓(有人講Let's roll him，即廣東話的「郁佢」)，被告還應承給OJS10元。兩人跑向死者，死者立即逃跑，OJS打了死者背部一下，死者逃向3線行車限速70公里的馬路，被中線迎面而來的車撞倒，頭部嚴重受傷，11日後死亡。這8個人在警察到場之前離開了現場。

兩名被告被控誤殺，OJS年幼，認罪獲得輕判，Toal原本不認罪，也改為認罪，被判兩年內做500小時社會服務(CBO, Community Based Order)及要服從感化官命令。2011年12月16日，Toal因為5次違反感化官命令及8次沒有履行社會服務，而被重新判刑。維省最高法院(Supreme Court)法官Kaye判被告在12個月內完成未履行的227小時社會服務。

朋友看了這則新聞，無名火起，再加上在星島這頭條新聞下面，是另一則「華裔大學畢業生被人活生生打死」的新聞，更加火上加油，給我發電郵表示不滿，並且問我看法。我於是把判刑的判辭看一遍，然後寫了這個blog。我的結論是fair sentence。

星島日報澳洲版對這宗新聞的處理手法值得商榷，兩則新聞放在一起使人聯想到頭條也是種族問題，另外也使讀者認為量刑太輕，誤殺也判社會服務，這是甚麽世界。

Toal這件案在發生過程裏，完全沒有證據顯示種族成份，被告心裏怎樣想正是天曉得。我只能把它視作無聊終日的青年，在街頭仗多欺少的事件來看。Toal在這件案的刑責是acting in concert，他有沒有打到死者並不重要，但死者逃跑而被車撞死，是否構成誤殺，我覺得有爭議的空間，手頭沒有法律典籍，不能進一步討論。以誤殺罪而言，屬於較輕的一種，意外的成份大於有意把死者置死或致使嚴重身體傷害，只是spur of the moment引致的慘劇。法官列出七大求情理由，包括被告認罪、初犯、有悔意、年輕、不會重犯及改過自新機會大。法官在判刑前也考慮死者在大陸家人的impact statements，做足一切量刑前所有要做的工作。還有一點最重要的考慮是，主控官也支持辯方判處被告CBO的要求。

被告違反CBO及感化官命令又是甚麽一回事，為何法官又再對他這樣寬容呢？判辭顯示被告違反的情況是2010年12月開始，被告心理出現很大轉變，他患上憂鬱症。今年10月更入住精神院舍，精神科醫生診斷他患上創傷後壓力症候群(post traumatic stress disorder)。辯方要求法官延長CBO，讓被告完成227小時未履行的社區服務，控方再次支持這做法，故此法官才下此命令而沒有改判被告監禁。

不要問我那麼死者的家人所受的痛苦，又可以向誰討回公道。那是更複雜的課題，不同文化背景的人，有不同看法。我只能說在現行法律制度下，法官列出量刑的考慮，相當週全，強調給予年輕人改過自新的機會，讓他可以重新投入社會。這件案的被告在2008年惹禍之後，沒有再犯事，對他的懲處，是否足夠，值得我們深思，不要單憑傳媒的報導而反應過敏。

倘若死者是自己親人，或者被告是自己兒女，你會怎樣反應呢？網上資訊氾濫，眼花繚亂，你可否有心寧平安，排除煩囂，思考這類問題的時候。如果沒有的話，久而久之，看到報章的報導，看到網上的呼籲，又怎樣的義憤填膺一番，失去客觀判斷的能力。

As If The Judge Was Not There

控辯大狀當官無到上訴庭轟此風不可長

【明報專訊】上訴庭昨在處理鳥克蘭船與內地貨船相撞刑事上訴時，狂轟原審時控辯雙方共3名資深大律師及兩名大律師，審訊期間不理庭上禮儀，不單經常無謂「插嘴」打斷審訊，大律師之間更經常在法官李素蘭面前互相討論，更甚的是沒有站回應法官提問，實行「當法官無到」，上訴庭明言此風不可長。 (15/12/2011明報節錄)

 

明報這則新聞報導並不全面，上訴庭副庭長司徒敬(Frank Stock)在倫明高法官(Michael Lunn)頒布主判辭之後，特別用了20段來批評控辯雙方律師對法官無禮的情況，同時批評原審法官李素蘭(Suzie Remedios)多次沒有阻止不必的提問，審訊節拍控制得不好。舉例如下：

 

502. This type of conduct is unseemly and whilst I have some sympathy for this experienced judge faced with a difficult case, it is conduct which, at an early stage, ought to have been stopped.

 

509. The question pressed by Mr Westbrook was not a question; it was a comment. But more significantly, the remark to the witness¾to a defendant mind you¾“I’m not interested in your explanation” was rudeness itself delivered by counsel clothed with the authority of his professional robes to a person in a wholly unequal position. The judge should not have permitted it.

 

510. Cross-examination of the type displayed in the passages I have reproduced, apart from

constituting poor advocacy, is never permissible.

 

不要以為上訴庭在替主審法官撐腰，在我看是因為要看8600頁審訊謄本看到光火，才作出批評。

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

邏輯謬誤

為鄰爭執 蕭定一稱梁太氣燄大

【明報專訊】特首競選人唐英年獲中國3D數碼娛樂董事蕭定一及武打影星甄子丹力挺，蕭定一更主動爆料，指90年代與梁振英為鄰時，曾與其太太爆爭拗，對方當時甚有氣燄，質疑梁振英「連屋企也管得不好，如何管香港」。梁振英競選辦發言人回應時表示，事件相隔10多年，同時亦非直接涉及梁振英本人，所以他難以記起事件詳細始末，且只是一樁鄰里間瑣碎小事，故不會評論。(15/12/2011明報節錄)

這段新聞看了真的啼笑皆非。蕭定一是甚麼東西，這種不合邏輯的歪理怎樣講得出口。我不知他究竟在幫唐英年抑或在害他呢。唐英年已三番四次強調阿媽識教仔，給人一種唐媽媽還要不斷教他做人道理的印象。他朝有日唐唐做了特首，唐媽媽便要垂簾聽政，正是養兒一百歲，長憂九十年。

唐唐必勝，身邊的跳樑小丑卻走出來耍猴子戲。人家老婆惡，如果可以做特首夫人，立法會裏就不會有人把香蕉飛來飛去，特首夫人坐鎮立法會，誰敢搗亂就像鄧文迪(Wendi Deng)救梅鐸(Murdoch)一樣，扭打起來，虎虎生威，做個tiger wife。

如果蕭定一這些是道理，豈不是要叫兩位包大人執包袱(終審法院包致金法官及高等法院包鍾倩薇法官)兩位大人的女兒曾經高買，姪女又幾次襲警，兩位法官家人都犯法，他們又怎能說法。大一讀過的三段論已忘得一乾二淨，不知這叫甚麽謬誤。

鳴冤

裁判官涉無故拘押 男子枉囚小欖索償

【明報專訊】中年漢捲入刑毀案，在沒有律師代表下在裁判法院受審，惟審訊期間突被裁判官指「語無倫次」，無故被囚禁小欖兩周以索取精神報告。恢復審訊後，中年漢被定罪，他不服之下提出上訴，高院質疑裁判官無故收押他的做法，判其得直。上訴人並促請當局發放恩恤金，律師指此案有可能是首宗涉及裁判官疏忽而發放恩恤的案例。

指被告「語無倫次」 囚禁索報告

裁判官馬保華早前裁定上訴人陳樹雄（59歲）於去年12月6月，在觀塘康濤閣毀壞天台的防盜鐵線罪成，罰款1500元。高院法官張慧玲表示，審訊期間裁判官懷疑正在盤問證人的上訴人有精神問題，決定將之囚禁索取報告，更對被告說「抱歉」。裁判官似乎未必得悉，上訴人可保釋外出等候報告的做法。

張官形容上述做法「奇特」，當法官20多年從未遇過，又指上訴人若非涉及暴力或有自殘傾向，不應在未定罪前無故拘押。張官認為「裁判官權力係好大，加上（上訴人）無律師代表，更可以話係『肉隨砧板上』」，促裁判官小心運用，「唔好立亂困住人」，否則對當事人不公。 (13/12/2011明報節錄)


昨天上訴判辭還沒有上載，我也按捺不住，寫這blog為Wahab(馬保華)呼寃。不認識香港法律的讀者，可能給報導誤導，班太(Judianna Barnes即張慧玲)對Wahab的批評有欠公允。首先，先談法理。香港法例第221章刑事程序條例第75條是否適宜受審，是裁判官押後案件，索取被告精神報告的權力來源。第75條的英文版本比中文更易明白，張貼如下：

chapter:	221	Title:	CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ORDINANCE	Gazette Number:	32 of 2000
Section:	75	Heading:	Fitness to be tried	Version Date:	09/06/2000

---

(1) This section applies where on the trial of a person the question arises (at the instigation of the defence or otherwise) whether the accused is under a disability, that is to say, under any disability such that apart from this Ordinance it would constitute a bar to his being tried. (Replaced 37 of 1996 s. 3)
(2) The court, if having regard to the nature of the supposed disability is of opinion that it is expedient so to do and in the interests of the accused person, may postpone consideration of the said question (hereinafter referred to as "the question of fitness to be tried") until any time up to the opening of the case for the defence, and if before the question of fitness to be tried falls to be determined the jury return a verdict of acquittal on the count or each of the counts on which the accused person is being tried that question shall not be determined.
(3) Subject to subsection (2), the question of fitness to be tried shall be determined as soon as it arises.
(4) The question of fitness to be tried shall be determined by a jury, and-

(a) where it falls to be determined on the arraignment of the accused person, then if the trial proceeds the accused person shall be tried by-
(i) where paragraph (a) of the definition of "court" is applicable, a jury other than the jury which determined that question;
(ii) in any other case, the same jury which determined that question;
(b) where it falls to be determined at any later time, it shall be determined by-
(i) where paragraph (a) of the definition of "court" is applicable, a separate jury or the jury by whom the accused person is being tried, as the court may direct;
(ii) in any other case, the same jury by whom the accused person is being tried. (Replaced 37 of 1996 s. 3)

(5) A jury shall not make a determination under subsection (4) except on the written or oral evidence of 2 or more registered medical practitioners (of whom not less than 2 shall be psychiatrists on the Specialist Register established under section 6(3) of the Medical Registration Ordinance (Cap 161)). (Replaced 37 of 1996 s. 3. Amended 32 of 2000 s. 11)
(6) In this section-
"court" (法庭) means-

(a) the Court of First Instance acting in the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction; (Amended 25 of 1998 s. 2)
(b) the District Court acting in the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction; or
(c) a magistrate;

"verdict of acquittal" (無罪的裁決) does not include a special verdict that the accused person is not guilty by reason of insanity. (Replaced 37 of 1996 s. 3)
(7) In this section, any reference to a jury shall, where the trial concerned takes place in the District Court or before a magistrate, be read as a reference to a District Judge or the magistrate, as the case may be. (Added 37 of 1996 s. 3)

從75(3)可見，當是否適宜受審的問題出現時，即須予以裁定，那是法律上的規定。Wahab覺得被告語無倫次，把案件押後，索取被告的精神報告，做法正確，可謂duty bound。如果班太真的像明報所講「高院質疑裁判官無故收押他的做法」，我覺得批評罔顧法理，並不公正。班太無需講一大堆煽情的話，把Wahab講成犯下彌天大罪。班太講得正確的是「裁判官似乎未必得悉，上訴人可保釋外出等候報告的做法。」根據第136章精神健康條例第51(2)(a)條讓被告保釋在外，索取報告：

(2) (a) A court or magistrate may, in lieu of remanding a person under subsection (1), admit him to bail in accordance with the periods specified in subsection (1) on his procuring or producing such surety or sureties as the court or magistrate thinks fit.

可是，慣常的做法是在第一庭，在被告第一次提堂時，控方提出對被告索取精神報告的申請，以決定被告是否適合答辯(fit to plea)，或者在把被告定罪之後，在判刑之前，索取精神及背景報告。兩種情況下都把被告還押小欖。審案中途要索取報告，雖然較少，但Wahab沒有做錯。唯一可以批評Wahab的，只是有關扣押的做法。如果把裁判法院索取精神報告的案件來做統計，恐怕不是全部也會是絕大部份都把被告收押。我的看法或許過時，在此，有經驗的讀者，真的要給我指點一下。

奉天承運

梁唯一出路：打民望牌
....
早前有傳手握58個選委議席的工聯會為促成建制派對壘的局面，將保送梁振英入閘，但有工聯會高層否認此說法，認為這個說法是「講大了」。他坦言，相信中央對下屆特首人選必會有所表態，工聯會將跟隨中央意旨提名。他認為，目前中央仍未「發號施令」，主要因為唐的民望仍大幅落後於梁，「如果唐英年能與梁振英追到四六之比，便沒那麼難看」。(13/12/2011明報節錄)

工聯會真坦白，對大家心知的中央欽點特首做法直認不諱，連塗脂抹粉也省掉，勝過以大花臉見人。梁振英何來出路，只要聖旨下，來個奉天承運，皇帝詔曰，賜誰做特首誰就是特首，擋路者推出午門，或者被強邀去遊覽紫禁城。飯民蟻民，自古以來只能夠做順民。甚麽唯一出路是打民望牌，都是廢話。再做點戲極其量是賜梁振英參選資格。


中央最頭痛的是傻龍太不成器，笑料百出。以工展會買蛋撻為例，金枝玉葉，怎會知道蛋撻一打要多少錢。高官時常給人批評不知民間疾苦，不知米價，唐英年應付這種場面的警覺性不足。報導說他拿了200元出來付款，叫檔主收足錢，檔主有點愕然，找回140元給他。換了是我，一定會問一打蛋撻多少錢，然後付100元不用找贖，也不應付200元，否則給人財大氣粗的議論。小事一樁，本來不值深究，但見微知著，應對能力可見一斑。恨鐵不成鋼，奈何是土法鍊出來的。

新南威爾斯的頭號通緝犯

Malcolm Naden是新省的頭號通緝犯，自2005年涉及兩宗殺人及一宗兒童性侵犯受通緝，警方一直束手無策。自上星期至今還未完結的圍捕，已經是第7次的大規模行動了。上星期是警察和他最近距離的相遇----20米，一個穿上避彈衣的警員肩膊中彈，其他同僚為了照顧受傷的隊友，便終止追捕。中槍的警員一日後出院，通緝犯相信一年後也拿不到。這一槍也替其他隊友找到不繼續行動的藉口。當然在這裏要下註腳，警察連是誰開槍都看不見，開槍的距離也靠猜測。

儘管警方出動直升機、定翼機、衛星定位儀器、多種數碼通訊及夜視器材，通緝犯依然蹤影杳然。懸紅由$100,000增加至$250,000(對港元相等於2百萬元)，而且懸紅的條件也放寬了，本來提供消息由拘捕至定罪才能領取獎金改為只要成功拘捕便可以，這是澳洲立國以來第一次無需定罪就可以獲得獎金的做法。

7次的圍捕都拉不到人，警方的能力及方法當然備受批評。茂密的叢林，地形複雜，使追踪困難當然是主因，但通緝犯多次在農舍爆竊，偷取食物、啤酒、衣服、望遠鏡及槍彈，手法(modus operandi)如出一轍，警方已掌握了他的指紋及DNA，如果反應快一點，着力一點，成効應該更大。

問道於盲

一位讀法律的讀者告訴我他經常看我的blog，留言提出學習上不明白的地方來問我。這真的把我害慘了，標少一向讀書根基不穩，勉強應付過關，不求甚解。可能批評別人太多，信口雌黃，像汽球越吹越大，使人錯覺以為標少真的有點道行。為免這位朋友過份失望，標少於是硬著頭皮，冒着一夜白頭的風險，花幾小時做點研究，殫精竭慮，寫了一點看法電郵給這位同學。恰巧憑着一點僥倖，獲得這同學的首肯。標少得到這同學的同意，把問題及答案張貼出來，與遇到相同問題的讀者分享。也藉此拋磚引玉，希望在職的主控也看一下，堪誤指正。我也需要强調，我這blog並非法律信箱，並不是吝嗇，而是不敢胡亂教人。

The question posted is about venue of trial. The law involved is the Second Schedule, Magistrates
Ordinance, Cap 227 Laws of Hong Kong.

I quote the original questions from the email,


I have looked at those ordinance, but its kind of confusing me a bit. Take an example, When i did the exam pass paper, one of the questions was about a person throwing corrosive fluid to hurt others. I know this offender is liable under s29 throwing corrosive fluid, with intend to do GBH. This is the offence triable upon indictment and shall be liable to imprisonment for life. But when I looked at the 2 Schedule, Part 3 MO, it says DC can hear any indictable offence not listed in 2 Sch , PArt 3 MO. In 2 Sch, Part 3 Pont 2, any offence which is punishable with imprisonment for life except throwing corrosive fluid with intend to do GBH.(Does ''except'' mean that DC can hear this case??)

And I know that only CFA can hear any indictable offence listed in second Sch, part 3, . In second Sch, part 3, point 2: any offence which is punishable with imprisonment for life except throwing corrosive fluid with intend to do GBH ( Does 'except' mean that CFI cannot hear this offence?it does not make sense to me!)

The answer to the corrosive question is that CFI should be the court to hear this case. Am I misunderstanding the second sch, part 3?? If I have not made my question prefectly clear, please let me know, i will rewrite it. I have attached second sch, part 3.

2.Another case like this
Jim Chan and his younger brother Joe Chan approached a light goods vehicle parked on the roadside outside New Town Plaza in Sha Tin. They walked around the vehicle then kicked the offside door twice with their legs. They also smashed three of the windows. The vehicle subsequently required repairs costing $26,000. A police officer happened to be on duty nearby. He witnessed their actions and arrested the brothers for criminal damage, contrary to section 60(1) and punishable under section 63 of the Crimes Ordinance

s63 says A person guilty of any other offence under this Part shall be liable on conviction upon indictment to imprisonment for 10 years.

when I was doing this question, I doubted, because up to 10 yrs. Well, I just wonder how you can be sure how many years they will be sentenced and in turn picking the right court, since MC 3 yrs, DC 7 yrs ?the answer to the above criminal damage is MC. For professional lawyers, they surely know MC, but for student, its difficlut to determine either MC or DC when facing the sentence like this up to 10 years.

Bill Siu's reply

Your question can be divided into 2 parts. The first part is jurisdiction and the second part is selection of venue. The first part is pure statue and the second part is sentencing tariff from appeal precedents and reasonable expectation by the prosecution as the like sentence will be.

Jurisdiction is of fundamental importance. The prosecution is bound by the statue and does not have the free will to decide which court to go to. Just like your question posted, the power comes from Second Schedule, Cap 227.

What you have to do is to look at the list of offences in the Second Schedule and the empowering and triggering sections in the Magistrates' Ordinance. Sections 91 and 92 Cap.227 empower magistrates to deal with indictable offences with the exception of offences in Part I Second Schedule (I will disregard the power of special magistrate and concentrate on that of the permanent magistrate’s for brevity of discussion here). What will confuse you is apparently the use of double negative in the statue. The double negative comes from the word “except”. It first appears in Section 92

Whenever any person is accused before a permanent magistrate of any indictable offence except an offence specified in Part I of the Second Schedule…

When reading in conjunction with Part I of Second Schedule,

2. Any offence (except an offence against section 10 or 12 of the Theft Ordinance (Cap 210), or an offence against Part VIII of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap 200)) which is punishable with imprisonment for life.

When the double negative is read together, it becomes a positive. That means, in this instance, the magistrate has jurisdiction to try the case. If you look at Section 10 of the Theft Ord, you can see the charge is Robbery which is liable on conviction upon indictment to imprisonment for life. That is why robbery cases can be dealt with in magistrate’s court if the nature is not very serious. This will help you understand more easily. The rule is double negative makes a positive just like mathematics.

The general principle is a magistrate cannot try an offence which carries death penalty or life imprisonment and then you have to see if there is any exception. The exceptions are listed out in Part I Second Schedule. The exceptions in Part I empower the magistrates to deal with the offence. Part I Second Schedule covers a wider range of offences than Part III, analogous to a universal set and a subset. So when a magistrate has no jurisdiction to deal with offences mentioned in Part I, he does not have jurisdiction to deal with offences contained in Part III because Part I is inclusive of Part III. There are more exceptions in Part III which means a District Judge has wider power and can deal with more offences than a magistrate. For instance, Section 17 (Wounding with Intent) Cap 212 can be dealt with by a District Judge but not a magistrate.

The jurisdiction of a District Judge comes from Section 75 Cap 336 District Court Ord. The interpretation of Section 75 Cap 336 is just like Section 92 Cap 227. When you see a double negative situation, it means the District Court has jurisdiction to deal with the offences. If you see it this way, there will not be any confusion. One more thing to remember is any offence triable summarily only standing alone can only be tried in the magistrate court unless it is brought alongside an indictable offence .  On the contrary, the magistrate can try any indictable offences not listed in Part I Second Schedule with the consent of the prosecution (S 94A Cap 227).

The question you asked in your email about the Throwing Corrosive Fluid with Intent to do GBH (S29 Cap 212) is an exception in Part III Second Schedule. So the District Judge can deal with it and of course CFI can deal with it too but a magistrate cannot because it is not an exception in Part I Second Schedule.

For the second part of your question about the selection of venue, it is true that it is difficult for an inexperienced person to select the correct venue. If you are not familiar with the sentencing tariffs, you cannot make the right choice. Look at the example you gave about the criminal damage of the car. Use a common sense approach instead of being overwhelmed by the maximum sentence can be imposed. The repair cost for the damage to a Corolla may be $20,000 but a similar damage to a 7 series BMW may cost $200,000. The act itself is only a few kicks or using a pole to hit the bonnet or smash the windscreen. The cause can be a road rage resulting in a momentary fit of anger instead of a well-planned premeditated act. What sentence will a court pass?  I should say at most a few months’ incarceration. How about stealing a few items from the supermarket? Theft (S.9 Cap 210) carries a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment. The normal sentence for the first offender is a fine of a few hundred dollars. So don’t be misled by the maximum sentence.

What you can do to acquire more knowledge about the tariff is to read the appeal judgments or read the court news in the newspaper.   

Gilham謀殺案

JEFFREY GILHAM, now a free man, said he was looking forward to the first Christmas with his three-year-old daughter, on his return home yesterday.
Standing outside his St Ives home, Mr Gilham, 41, hugged his wife, Robecca, and gave a short statement. ''This week has been very overwhelming for us. I'm glad to be back home with my family and we're all looking forward to a very special Christmas together, seeing as it'll be the first one I'll have with my youngest daughter,'' he said.
Mr Gilham was released on bail on Friday, after winning an appeal against a conviction for murdering his parents, Helen, 55, and Stephen, 58, in August 1993 at their Woronora home.

The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal is yet to decide whether to order a retrial or acquit Mr Gilham. Even if it orders a retrial, the Director of Public Prosecutions may decide not to proceed.
Mr Gilham has always maintained his innocence, saying it was his brother, Christopher, who had stabbed his parents to death and then set them on fire. Mr Gilham admitted to killing his brother in response, and was given a five-year good behaviour bond after pleading guilty to manslaughter in 1995.
But at Mr Gilham's trial in 2008, the Crown alleged he had killed all three family members and then set the house on fire, and he was jailed for life.
The prosecution's case hinged on forensic evidence that suggested Christopher had died before the fire started, but in Mr Gilham's appeal, a leading toxicologist said Christopher was almost certainly alive at the time the fire was lit.
Mr Gilham's friends, family and neighbours had spent countless hours working on his appeal.

(5/12/2011 Sydney Morning Herald)

Gilham案並非報章報導得這樣簡單，上訴庭的裁決還沒有上載，實際推翻定罪的理據為何，暫時只能依賴報章的報導。從2009年3月11日的判刑紀錄謄本，可看到更多背景資料。

被告Jeffrey Gilham和哥哥Christopher跟50多歲的父母同住，他們一家在社區中受人尊重，兩兄弟讀書成績好，被告尤為同儕典範。1993年8月28日早上4時30分，被告赤裸上身，穿著短褲，奔往鄰居處求助，告訴鄰居Christopher殺死了父母，然後放火，自己因此殺了Christopher。

被告被帶往警署錄取口供，他提供了較詳細的講法。被告稱他住在大屋外面的船屋(boathouse)，從內部對講電話(intercom)聽到母親在大屋的呼救聲，於是走進去看，見到Christopher站在躺在地上的母親身旁，正想點火，並向被告承認殺了父母，然後立即點火。被告呆站了幾秒，看着火勢蔓延。被告沒有救火，也沒有察看父母的狀況。他看到Christopher掉在地上的兇刀，拾了起來把Christopher殺了，然後走出屋外，順手關上玻璃門，跑到鄰居處求助。警察搜屋的時候發現一截用過來入油的膠喉，被告的解釋是他的父親在案發前的晚上替遊艇加汽油(但用錯了汽油)。

警方只告了他一項殺害Christopher的謀殺罪，扣押了一個月，他獲得擔保。1995年審訊的時候，控方接納了他承認誤殺，他被判簽保守行為5年(good behaviour bond)。同年的死因研訊也裁定是Christopher殺了父母。這件案本來是這樣了結，但到了2000年，被告的叔伯由原本相信被告清白，變成相信被告是殺害父母的真兇，觸發重新調查本案，也重新展開死因研訊。死因庭對案件重新評估立論，把案件轉介刑事檢控專員，建議控告被告謀殺父母，但刑事檢控專員不同意這看法，沒有採取行動。2001年被告的叔伯對被告提出私人檢控(private prosecution)，刑事檢控專員卻中途介入，撤銷了這件案(我不知道究竟是withdraw the case抑或enter nolle prosequi, 謄本沒有交代，我在李成康的禁錮事件 的blog介紹過香港私人傳票的法律程序，NSW信相也類似)。

2004年引發另一次重新調查該案，2006年刑事檢控專員終於檢控他兩項謀殺父母的控罪。2007年被告申請終止聆訊(stay of proceeding)理由是再檢控他對他造成迫害、不公平及違反一罪不能兩審原則(oppressive, unfair and in breach of the rule against double jeopardy)。法庭駁回申請，及後上訴也被上訴庭及高等法院((這裏的High Court相等於香港的CFA)駁回。

審訊終於在2008年2月開審，到了4月審結，但陪審團未能達成一致裁決而解散，同年10月再審，最後陪審團退庭商討(deliberation)8日才把被告定罪。這件波折重重的案件上星期判令上訴得直，會否重審暫時還未知曉。


昨天朋友之間閒談講起這件案，其中一點講到就是殺父母定罪得直，殺兄那項還有發展嗎？可以肯定講，殺兄那一項控罪已處理終結，不能兩審，屬於曾就同一控罪被定罪(autrefois convict)。我曾在一罪兩審 Double Jeopardy的blog講過NSW在2006年通過了一罪可以兩審的法例，但這項殺兄的控罪在16年前已處理了，新法例沒有追溯力，不能重新檢控他謀殺。

從這件案可見這裏警察辦案的能力，兒戲馬虎卻充滿自信。我看到上載了的幾篇不同階段的上訴，若果我是陪審員，我會把被告定罪。當然怎樣發展下去，還要拭目以待，朋友幾句閒聊，我卻多看幾十頁判辭去找答案，雖然花了時閒，自己卻有得益。

小販管理

補鑊狂發告票 檔販一殼淚

【本報訊】受火警影響的排檔販商，昨返回現場執拾貨物，指摘食環署在火警後忽然大力執法，限令兩日內將貨物及車仔搬走，又突然規定將攤檔降至二點五米高，拆除僭建部分及更改檔位面積，根本無給予販商足夠時間。連日來近百攤檔連接多張告票，令他們百上加斤，怒斥食環署不近人情。(2011/12/5東方日報節錄)

標少對食環署的小販管理職員素無好感，十多年前因工作關係對他們的批評上了報章的頭條，成為他們心目中的頭號敵人。有一次他們的副署長微服走來觀察，管理階層找我吃飯溝通，試圖攀點關係。當然吃一餐飯怎能封了我的嘴，多吃幾餐也枉然。問題的癥結在於小販管理主任職系的人，學歷低，質素差，是一個最應解散的政府部門。我心中把他們比作九龍城寨，如果藏污納垢的地方消滅了，不知所謂的人頓失其所。可以想像要滅掉他們會遇到的抵抗，等如要拆掉花園街及女人街的排檔所遇到的阻力一樣。若果這街道要重建，排檔自然會消失，就等如舊街市拆掉改建成市政綜合大樓一樣，事在人為。當這些人太靠不住，就應該把他們幹掉。

香港很多社會問題，都是政府姑息養奸所造成。小販霸佔面積和屋宇僭建，源於同一性質的問題。公務員老化，尸位素餐的人多，玩忽職守的人不受制裁，積重難返。食環署長期寬鬆執法，造成小販合理的期許，一下子要嚴厲執行，就惹來本末倒置的批評。像那些無法無天的新界丁屋僭建問題，那些野蠻言論，罔顧法紀的行動，稍為姑息，萬劫不復。

沒有強勢領導，這政府還有指望嗎？甚麼豬狼？甚麽豬狗？笨豬傻龍，可惜都是近乎欽點，大眾都沒有選擇權。香港需要一條吊睛白額虎來當特首。

姑息再養奸

朋友問我，這幾天為何沉默，一點東西也不寫。沒有題材，不能為賦新詞強說愁。我最不喜歡把家門前的溝渠寫成清溪那類矯情飾行之作。明報今天的報導提供了題材：

官僚苟且 政府撇帳1700萬

遭拖數13年 議員轟「衰到無人有」


【明報專訊】自上世紀1970年代開始與香港政府合作的拍賣行，臨尾一鋪清政府袋。政府用了13年追討拍賣行1700萬元欠款不果，直至拍賣行老闆的破產令早前亦解除，政府最終投降，回歸以來首次向立法會財務委員會申請撇帳。立法會議員狂轟事件荒謬、「衰到無人有」，不滿事件只由一名月薪約5萬至7萬元的政府高級會計主任負責了事。

涉事會計料罰俸6萬 當局﹕懲處不輕

【明報專訊】累及政府少收1700多萬元，被指為主要負責人的高級會計主任，最終只被罰「嚴厲譴責並處以罰款」，估計罰款僅約6.6萬元；其他涉事的5名公務員，則只被口頭警告或書面警告，沒有高級官員須為此負責。多名議員批評懲處過輕，立法會保險界議員陳健波說，事件若在私人機構發生，「（高級會計主任）已經即炒啦)！」(2011/12/3)

標少初入公務員行列，也要負責為下屬寫appraisal，因為寫得太手緊，第一次寫就給上司打回頭。當時心中嘀咕，自己寫的是實際情況，卻不能過關，原因有兩個，第一，那下屬尚不算太差，比他更差的大有人在；第二，評核寫得差，要把職員調走，別人就不肯要。這是很有代表性的寫照。要解僱不稱職的人，就更加困難。就算是回歸後把解僱公務員的程序簡化了，始終是甚少執行的懲處方法。這不單是為省麻煩而疏於執行的問題，而是公務員文化的問題，癥結是姑息養奸(connivance)。以新聞報導這事件為例，如果行動果斷，用心着力，不尸位素餐，欠款就算追不回來，起碼在被拖欠的初期，及早反應，把欠款減到最低。犯錯的公務員罰俸6萬，當局已覺得懲處不輕，這種管治心態，又怎能夠改善公務員的辦事態度和効率呢？怪不得唐英年較之梁振英更受公僕歡迎，他太容易應付了。