In all fairness to the Senior Public Prosecutor (there is no need to associate Miss I with the prosecutrix)who might have very ably presented the prosecution argument in the Court of Appeal, from the additional information provided by Miss I, I have a clearer picture of the case now. I should say don't bother about what I said in the blog. I am only a country pumpkin who has developed a weird hobby of reading HK appeal cases and continued the weirdom by reducing my shallow views in writing. Who am I? Why bother?
My apology to anyone annoyed by my comments, friends or foes alike. People reading this blog should first read the comments made in the preceding blog, especially the meticulous analysis by Miss I and L. I truly think they are enlightening. By saying so, I do not think I can soothe the nerves of Miss I.
First of all, I am unable to spend time to research the law and legal precedents as suggested by Miss I because I do not have the resources and support. I have been reading the appeal cases from the Judiciary website which does not have a user friendly search design. My memory always fails me. The more I read, the more I forget. Only in very rare occasions I could be able to make a mental note of certain cases of interest. On the other hand, I am helping a friend pro bono at the moment for some other non legal matter. I cannot concentrate on doing legal research uninterrupted. I will simply accept what Miss I said about the sentencing authorities without demur. I have no reason to doubt her veracity.
Is my preceding blog a fair comment then? Without the insider information, I can only read the appeal judgement * as it is. The language is plain and straightforward. I have re-read it before I started writing the preceding blog. I also read Chau Wan Fun.
The judgement gives me the impression that the prosecutrix has in fact conceded the reduction of the sentence to the extent that the Court of Appeal accepted it per her initiation. Without giving regard to the comments made in my preceding blog supplementing the background of the case, was my understanding correct when I read the case? If what was said in paragraph 11 of the judgement below was not what the prosecutrix intended to achieve in opposing the appeal, is there a better way to advance the argument in reflection? Did the prosecution oppose to the reduction in sentence at all? I was asked to make suggestions, which I do now.
There is no absolutely right or wrong in legal arguments. There is no hard and fast rule either. The only difference is the way you approach the issue. It may be rhetorical. It may be personal style. The most important thing is how aggressive you are and what result you want to achieve. Put myself in the shoes of the Senior Public Prosecutor (SPP), I will respond to the appellant's argument differently. I will attack in all aspects. To begin with, I do not accept the starting point of 4 years. In the appeal judgemnt, it was mentioned that the trial judge, Joseph Yau, relied on張美嬌 when he considered 4 years as the starting point for the amount of 3 million dollars the appellant embezzled. Does 張美嬌 suggest 4 years? Why not apply 陳瓊惠 (CACC289/2009)? My approach is all offensive, unyielding at the outset. The 陳秀紅case is in error when one leniency is added to another leniency creating a cumulatively excessive effect. If we can argue the starting point of 5 years and resist certain discount to reach an eventual reasonable sentence, why not? The sentence of 22 months shows that justice was tampered with too much mercy. The SPP rightly argued that the 1/3 reduction should include previous unblemished character but she should further advance that less credit be given to restitution. Why accept 6 months' reduction for that? In any event, I will not rectify the flawed leniency of Joseph by proposing further cut to the sentence. A plain reading of the case from a bystander will get the impression that the Court of Appeal was hesitant but acceded to the request of the prosecution and finally reduced the sentence. The SPP let the Court of Appeal put words into her mouth if she did not intend to have the sentence of the appellant cut. Isn't it a matter of approach? It is not an application for review of sentence by the prosecution. We do not expect to see an upward adjustment despite it being manifestly inadequate. On the other hand, I would strongly resist in all aspects when asked to respond. My stance will be crystal clear. If the Court finally reduces the sentence, on record, no attribution to the prosecutor.
My apology to the SPP for using the title I used in the preceding blog. It hurts but it did not mean to be a gimmick. I do not write to earn a living or arouse applause. I write for interest. I comment when I see things I disagree. Don't take offence. I know Joseph since 1988 but this fact does not refrain me from forming a demurred view. I know Anthony Yuen since 1973 but I criticised him for his extreme leniency in the Amina Bokhary case. Andrew Chan certified my migration documents when he was the coroner in Eastern Magistracy but I criticised him for his severity in the chess paper appeal case. I comment objectively and independently without fear or favour, without giving face to friends. It matters not when we have different points of view. I respect people's way of seeing things though I may not agree. If the 陳秀紅 was handled in the way I proposed, would the result be different? Ask a person outside the legal field to read the appeal to see why he thinks the sentence is reduced. If the impression is that of the stance of the prosecutor, then there is certain failure in the way the case was handled.
*
|
CACC 252/2010
香港特別行政區
高等法院上訴法庭
刑事司法管轄權
判刑上訴許可申請
案件編號：刑事上訴案件2010年第252號
（原區域法院刑事案件2009年第1362號）
______________________
______________________
判案日期： 2012年8月7日
判案書
上訴法庭法官關淑馨頒發上訴法庭判案書：
2. 申請人沒有在法定期限內，即是判刑的28天內就刑期申請上訴。廉政公署人員在2010年6月接觸她，問她是否願意就一宗相關案件提供資料，及在有需要時做控方證人。她答應廉署的請求，在2010年7月20日提供了一份詳盡的簽署證人口供。2010年7月26日，她申請許可就刑期上訴，她的申請比法定期限逾期約一個月。上訴的唯一理由，是判刑之前廉署未有請求她協助和作證，故此原審法官沒有考慮其後她給予控方的實質協助，沒有就此給她額外的刑期扣減。 3. 本庭接納申請人延誤申請，是出於誠實意圖，延誤的時間只是約一個月，她提出的上訴理由亦是可爭辯的，於是行使酌情權，准許她逾期申請上訴許可。 4. 申請人在相關時間，任職香港大學外科系行政助理，負責處理該學系的醫療技能發展中心的行政工作。發展中心以申請人及執掌該學系黃健靈教授的名義，向銀行申請了兩張公司信用卡，支付中心的費用。2004年1月至2006年12月，申請人在未獲中心授權下，利用她和黃教授名下的公司信用卡，購買物品及服務，又提取現金透支，所涉款項共為HK$3,026,117。當中心的儲蓄帳戶不足以支付信用卡的欠款時，她擅自利用黃教授的印鑑，由中心的往來帳戶或其他有關帳戶，轉帳至中心的儲蓄帳戶付款。2004年1月至2007年3月，共有HK$623,992存入了中心的儲蓄帳戶，作還款之用，其中HK$195,332是申請人直接支付的。 5. 2007年初，申請人向黃教授承認挪用公款。在2007年7月至9月，她償還了HK$1,500,000和HK$600,000。2007年12月，她辭去香港大學的職位。她在2009年2月被廉署拘捕，2010年5月被定罪和判刑。 6. 原審法官考慮了申請人的身世背景，和林希維大律師求情時的陳述，申請人犯案是由於她的婚姻破裂、猝然喪失至親和工作繁重的壓力下，錯誤地以揮霍購物來發洩，來掩飾婚姻的失敗，以致盡毀一生努力的成果。她雖然受過高深教育，卻不懂得如何處理個人的問題，不去尋求專業協助，法官認為實在令人非常欷歔。由於案件涉及僱員嚴重違反對僱主的誠信，盜竊行為持續了數年，法官採用香港特別行政區 訴 張美嬌 [2006] 4 HKLRD 776的判刑指引。基於盜取的款項約 HK$3,000,000，法官以4年做量刑起點，給予1/3即16個月做認罪的扣減，就她償還約 HK$2,700,000，又給予6個月扣減，最後由於她過往良好的紀錄，進一步扣除4個月監禁，總共的扣減是26個月。 7. 2011年2月，應控方和申請人的請求，上訴法庭押後這個逾期申請上訴許可，並且准許申請人在等候處理申請期間保釋。當時，申請人已在監獄服刑9個月有多。 8. 2012年初，申請人在香港特別行政區 訴 黃健靈DCCC 694/2011 為控方作證，該案主審法官接納她的證供為可信，裁定黃教授兩項公職人員行為失當，及兩項偽造帳目罪，罪名成立。 9. 申請人就著對控方的協助，和出庭為控方作證，要求本庭給予更多的刑期扣減，由22個月減為14個月，由於她已服刑9個多月，加上服刑期間表現良好可獲的刑期減免，這樣便可即時獲釋。林大律師陳詞說，根據案例申請人協助控方並出庭作證，可獲50%扣減，即是24個月，加上原來的還款扣減6個月，和良好紀錄扣減4個月，總共的扣減應為34個月，故此恰當的刑期是14個月。 10. 林大律師提出扣除34個月，等於是70%的扣減，本庭不予支持。本庭也不同意他的論點，良好背景與良好紀錄應有分別，申請人的良好背景可構成額外減刑的理由。 11. 原審法官判以22個月的刑期，其實已是寬大的處理。唯一要考慮的，就是應否就申請人其後對控方協助並出庭作證，再就刑期作適度調整。高級檢控官指出，原審法官以申請人的良好紀錄，再扣減4個月刑期，是不恰當的 (Secretary for Justice v Chau Wan Fun [2006] 3 HKLRD 577第15和16段) 。檢控官提出，即使是調整，適當的扣減，應不超過4個月，計算是以48個月做起點，扣除24個月作為協助控方和作證，再就還款減6個月，刑期是為18個月。 12. 本庭接納檢控官持平的論點，准許申請人就刑期上訴，判她上訴得直，把刑期由22個月減為18個月。
申請人：由韓潤燊律師樓轉聘林希維大律師代表 答辯人：由律政司高級檢控官曾藹琪代表 |
沒有留言:
發佈留言