2012年9月27日星期四

梁美芬-----A貨學者


梁美芬法律書曾涉抄襲 改版重印

【明報專訊】任職城大法律學院副教授的梁美芬,多年來主攻內地法律,她於2006年出版的法律著作,曾被指涉嫌抄襲港大法律學院教授陳弘毅,最終要收回改版重推。她亦是首個要求政府堵塞「公投」漏洞的議員,更曾就此提交私人草案。

梁美芬於06年出版The Hong Kong Basic Law:Hybrid of Common Law and Chinese Law,在第5章提及臨時立法會的合法性時,引用了陳弘毅的意見,卻未有註明出處,被指有抄襲之嫌。她在接獲投訴後,決定收回06年的版本,翌年推出更新版時補回引述意見出處。

身為法律學者的梁,在「五區公投」後,率先要求政府堵塞「公投」漏洞。她向立法會提交私人草案,禁止議員同屆任期內隨意辭職再參選,及後又極力支持政府推出的「遞補機制」,更發表備受非議的「懲罰選民論」。最終政府在22萬人上街後決定撤回遞補機制,梁又即時「轉」,派單張表示支持。另外,梁美芬在前年就「釋放劉曉波」動議辯論發言時,嚴辭批評內地法院就劉曉波的裁決書「粗濫,看不到很多理由」,但卻表明不會就此議案投票。
(26/9/2012明報)

梁美芬據報導有意問鼎立法會司法及法律事務委員會主席一職,一直擔任此職的法律界議員吳靄儀已退出立法會,原任副主席的梁美芬覬覦主席一職之心,可以理解。但這種料子,不信鏡子也要信一泡尿。如果是學者,應該知道剽竊他人學術論據之可恥,這種治學態度簡直要不得。搞法律的人對侵犯版權的警覺性會特別高,沒可能會犯抄襲之錯,根本是想蒙混過關。不禁使人聯想她的博士學位,是不是錢鍾書筆下《圍城》的主人翁方鴻漸那樣郵購得來。梁美芬覬覦的是香港立法會司法及法律事務委員會主席一職,香港的司法及法律,她懂個屁。我覺得主席一職,「長毛」比她更加適合。起碼「長毛」上庭上得多,熟悉法律及司法情況,而且「長毛」思路清晰,立場鮮明,比起看似是A貨產品的梁美芬更像學者。一個不學無術,不懂法律,欠缺法治情操的人,也屬剽竊法律學者之名,另類的plagiarism.













2012年9月26日星期三

小丑裝上庭


Sydney man appears in court in clown suit

A man has appeared in court dressed in a clown suit.

Shane Cuthbert, 22, who represented himself on a count of damaging the side mirror of a taxi, was nearly slapped with a contempt charge when he appeared in Parramatta Local Court today.

The landscaper from Blacktown said he had earlier been warned by a court officer to take off his rainbow wig.

The get-up was enough for magistrate Anthony Marsden to threaten him with jail.
"Why are you dressed as a clown?" Mr Marsden asked.

Mr Cuthbert said he was protesting against religious extremism and the use of children in such behaviour, but the magistrate said a court was not the forum to raise awareness of any particular issue.

"I'm seriously considering holding you in contempt of court," Mr Marsden said.

"You have rights and you have freedoms but they are not unlimited; otherwise, there would be anarchy."

Mr Cuthbert, after saying he meant no disrespect, was let off with a warning to dress appropriately at his next court appearance.

He pleaded not guilty to the charge of damaging the taxi mirror and will appear in the same court on November 7.
(26/9/2012 Sydney Morning Herald)

帶小丑假髮上庭來宣示對最近回教徒利用孩童,手持「斬頭」抗議標語遊行的做法,使人摸不著頭腦,自顧不暇,還要弄些噱頭。幸好他帶的假髮可以即時除下,如果穿小丑衣,當然不能叫他脫衣,只可叫他回家換衫或者處以藐視法庭。以前也有女律師穿衣不莊重,胸口太闊,遭法官訓斥,回家更衣。要知道法官坐在上面,高人一等,有些情境,一覽無遺,成何體统。

法官進入競技場之五

標少以前寫了幾篇法官進入競技場的文章(法官進入競技場Trial Judge Entered The Arena , 再談法官進入競技場 ,三談法官進入競技場 , 法官進入競技場之四),怎樣構成法官進入競技場,見仁見智。今天上載上訴庭的HKSAR and Wu Yui Yuen and others CACC 151/2011,辯方多處批評原審法官干預審訊,窒礙辯方盤問,並列出一連串例子,但上訴庭這次組合的法官,覺得沒有問題,引用了前終審法院首席法官李國能,在Chan Kam Keung v HKSAR (2008) 11 HKCFAR 664 一案所講

Assessments of judicial interventions must be made recognizing the court’s duty to exercise proper management over the proceedings in what often are difficult conditions.

上訴庭支持原審區域法院法官Kevin Browne的判決,駁回辯方每一項指責法官干預的指控,說出下面一段話。支持就是這道理,不支持就另一番道理。另一番道理是甚麼?找楊振權及杜麗冰兩位法官的判辭來看就可以見到。

32. We would like to add that in considering the issue of bias by reason of judicial intervention, the emphasis must be on whether the intervention is necessary and fair. The context in which the intervention was made is important (The Queen v. Lam Wai Hang [1997] HKLRD 562 at 570). Judges are not expected to sit passively during the proceedings but rather are entitled to and are expected to exercise proper control over the proceedings so that ambiguities can be clarified and issues can be properly identified. This applies both to intervention during the giving of evidence and oral submissions. It is important to bear in mind that the common use of written submissions enables judges to know in advance the ambit of the oral submissions and the issues that call for determination. Invariably during submissions, there will be exchanges between the judge and counsel. Views proffered by the judge during the exchange may not necessarily be the basis of the final decision. Very often one can readily form an impression whether the interventions are unnecessary and biased (aggressiveness and hostility of the intervention may be relevant considerations but they are not the sole consideration) or whether they are necessary and fair.

2012年9月24日星期一

無期徒刑


New violent prisoner proposal flawed, say lawyers

LAWYERS say a NSW government proposal to keep violent prisoners that show no signs of rehabilitation in jail beyond their imposed sentence are flawed and threaten to undermine the justice system.

The NSW Law Society says it has serious concerns about the new legislation announced yesterday by Attorney-General Greg Smith who said his changes were about protecting the community from the "worst of the worst".

The changes, modelled on existing legislation for serious sex offenders, will allow the state to make an application to the Supreme Court to have a violent prisoner kept in jail or placed under extended supervision upon their release.

This can include the use of GPS tracking devices on released offenders.

The proposed laws follow a Sentencing Council report which stated the government "should introduce a continuing detention and extended supervision scheme for high-risk violent 'offenders"'.

But the legislation was yesterday praised by victims support groups.

Victims of Crime Assistance League spokesman Howard Brown said society expected judges to "have crystal balls" when sentencing, but they could not predict if an inmate would make any attempt at rehabilitation.

The chair of the NSW Law Society's criminal law committee, Pauline Wright, said if a prisoner misbehaves while in jail then then they can be charged and punished if convicted.

But, Ms Wright said, it was completely inappropriate to punish someone for "something they might do in the future". The proposed legislation could turn the "entire justice system on it's head", she said.

"It could have really serious effects," Ms Wright said. "If you start chipping away at the pillars of the justice system the whole thing can come crashing down and this is one of those fundamental pillars - you don't punish someone unless they've done something wrong and that is proven beyond a reasonable doubt."

The Australian Lawyers Alliance said Mr Smith's proposed legislation was flawed. Alliance spokesman Greg Barns said a person was entitled to know when they are sentenced to jail, what their term will be.

“What Mr Smith is proposing is that a further sentence of some years, towards the end of a sentence, be imposed, presumably at the behest of the attorney-general in order to keep a prisoner in jail for a longer period," Alliance criminal law spokesman Greg Barns said.

"This amounts to depriving a person of their liberty. Not for what they have done and for which they have been punished, but for what they might do in the future. Once again, this is fundamentally unfair.”

(24/9/2012 Sydney Morning Herald)

今天這則新聞,看了心有戚戚然。判刑時考慮一切因素及案例後,定出了適當的刑期,餘下的是犯人在獄中表現,決定刑期扣減的程度。以香港而言,判了監9年的囚犯,如果在獄中行為良好,加上假期,實際坐牢6年。最差的情況,也不過是坐足全期。新南威爾斯州提出草案,賦予政府權力,向最高法院申請,延長懲而不受教的暴民的刑期,聽起來是保障公益,使社會更安全。想深一層,這樣做十分危險,有違法治精神。如果囚犯在獄中犯法,可以受到檢控,刑滿出獄再犯,也可繩之以法。有期監禁,不能變成無期徒刑,這樣做有欠公允,豈不是為了他有可能再犯,先下手為强。那麼,不如挑他腳筋,毀他經脈,把他打殘,像葉繼歡那樣,更加乾淨利落。這樣做有點像大陸的行政拘留,沒有犯法,沒有定罪,先行判囚。







2012年9月23日星期日

警權過大?


Policeman kills double amputee 'armed' with pen

HOUSTON: A US police officer has shot and killed a one-armed, one-legged man in a wheelchair after the double amputee waved a metal object that turned out to be a pen.

Police spokeswoman Jodi Silva said the man cornered the officer at a group home on Saturday and was making threats while trying to stab the officer with the pen.At the time, the officer did not know what man was waving, Silva said.

She said the man came "within inches to a foot" of the officer and did not follow instructions to calm down and remain still.

"Fearing for his partner's safety and his own safety, he discharged his weapon," Silva said.

Police did not immediately release the name of the man who was killed.

They had been called to the home in Houston, Texas, after a caretaker there reported that a man in a wheelchair was causing a disturbance.

The owner of the group home, John Garcia, told the Houston Chronicle that the man had a history of mental illness and had been living at the house about 18 months.

Garcia said the man had told him he lost a leg above the knee and one arm when he was hit by a train.

"He sometimes would go off a bit, but you just ignore it," Garcia told the newspaper.

Silva identified the officer as Matthew Jacob Marin, a five-year veteran of the department.

He was immediately placed on three-day administrative leave, which is standard in all shootings involving officers.

Houston police records indicate that Marin also fatally shot a suspect in 2009.

Investigators at the time said Marin came upon a man stabbing his neighbour to death at an apartment complex and opened fire when the suspect refused to drop the knife.

AP  
(23/9/2012 Sydney Morning Herald)

明報報導監會主席翟紹唐資深大律師,昨日在無綫電視節目《講清講楚》中表示,不認為本港警權過大,認為警民衝突雙方均有責任。翟紹唐屬政府「御用」的大律師,代表政府打官司多不勝數,他對警權的評價是否中肯呢?

警權的大小,究竟用甚麼準則來衡量,我真的不懂。「大」「小」基本上是相對的概念,可以用比較來衡量,用香港以前的情況和現在比,用現在的情況和外國比。毫無疑問,近20年的警權必定比以前縮小了,那是隨着廉署成立,警察的新思維建立新形象,為確保97過渡,穩定民心而訂立人權法,個人權力抬頭及終審法院一連串開明態度的裁決,都是直接影嚮的因素。

如果和外國比,當然要以標榜人權民主的老大哥美國來比。我們要從法律條文(statue)裏界定警察執行職務時的權力,拘捕時使用的武力及使用武器的指引以作衡量。認真的這樣比較,要以寫法律學術論文的態度去做,我沒有這能力。上面這則美國新聞,以及我以前寫過的當自由神閉上眼睛的時候----從Florence案看美國人權 及過分武力 Excessive Force ,清晰表達我的看法。要客觀討論這課題,就不要把香港選舉制度及特首怎樣選出來混為一談,那是先天的缺陷。也不要膜拜偶像,否則變成跟錯大佬吹錯鷄。

至於中國大陸,就不談也罷,一個法治不彰,只靠黨治人治的地方,「權」其實是「拳」的白字,老百姓只有挨打的份兒。住在香港,不要身在福中不知福。














2012年9月22日星期六

過分武力 Excessive Force


疑犯暴斃 3懲教員囚16月
使用過度暴力 官批濫權

【明報專訊】台灣詐騙案疑犯陳竹男被還押荔枝角收押所期間,3名懲教員使用過度暴力制服對方後,疑犯翌日被發現死在保護室內,3人早前被裁定引致他人嚴重受傷罪成,昨日被判囚1年4個月。法官直指3被告濫用權力,其行為削弱懲教署的道德權力及良好管治。

由於事主陳竹男(33歲)的死因研訊下月5日展開,預料為期30日,懲教署發言人及懲教事務職員協會主席趙志強均表示,不宜評論今次案件。

但趙志強表示,一般而言,因犯人性格各異,部分更有濫藥習慣或暴力傾向,懲教員作為前線執法者,有時亦會遇到犯人情緒失控,「我們監管很貼身,可能無身體屏障,若他們情緒反應很大甚至有暴力行為,只能靠身上武器,亦無可避免身體接觸」,懲教員只能靠即時反應判斷形勢。

工會:對執法構成衝擊

他又表示,同僚之間對事件感惋惜,對執法亦構成衝擊,他們會先仔細研究判辭,稍後約見署方商討是否有需要檢討現行指引。

署方發言人則指有關懲教人員已於今年2月被停職,又指今次純屬個別事件,懲教署會仔細研究判辭,並作適當跟進,而懲教署對員工使用武力有明確規定。

過百親友同僚到庭支持

3名被告梁盛志(46歲)、蘇嘉瑋(34歲)及鄧旭波(48歲)一如以往,昨獲過百名親友及同僚到庭支持,法庭內通道亦站滿人。早前曾指3人使用過分暴力的暫委法官練錦鴻昨指當日事主手上並無武器,又不能逃走,其中一被告更手持胡椒噴霧,難以想像3人僅為制服事主,卻需將對方毆至重傷。練官相信,事主必帶着極大痛楚下死亡,絕不能忽視其痛苦。

練官續指案件已嚴重影響懲教署的聲譽,對署方造成長期損害,並削弱其道德權力及良好管治,希望今次僅為單一事件。他又說,懲教署賦予3被告權力,他們必須謹慎及小心使用,且懲教院所屬密封空間,公眾難以監管,需依賴懲教員良好的意識;惟3名被告身為懲教員,竟濫用其職權及社會的信任,是本案最嚴重之處,若不加以懲罰,將削弱社會對刑事司法的信心。

法官表示,考慮3人並非完全邪惡,今次定罪亦令3人失去努力多年的工作、退休金及其應得酬勞,加上他們對社會貢獻甚多,終判3人各監禁1年4個月。

【案件編號﹕DCCC280/12】 (21/9/2012 明報)

3名懲教署職員沒有被控謀殺已屬幸運,判監也算輕手。有到庭聽審的懲教署職員表示,對於怎樣才算使用過分武力,認為難以界定。事實上不論使用甚麼指引,都不能夠對每一種情況定出仔細原則,大原則是在當時的情況下,使用合理的武力。以香港的整體情況而言,尚算不錯。我這樣講,很多人會不同意,會舉警方使用胡椒噴霧對付示威者及以武力方法驅散或抬走示威者為例,提出反駁。使用武力怎樣才算合理,沒有絕對準則。如果要制服囚犯,把他毆至遍體鱗傷而死,怎樣講都不是合理武力。

如果你不同意我對香港執法人員評價的講法,讓我們看以人權立國的老大哥----美國的案例來比較一下。下面一則新聞摘自Seattle Weekly去年的報導,今年5月29日美國聯邦最高法院駁回Malaika Brooks的上訴。從案情而言,發生在大陸的話,我一點也不驚訝。美國嘛,也司空見慣。如果在香港的話,黑衫示威圍了警察總部。用下面這件案作為比較,香港不算差罷?


Malaika Brooks Case: Pregnant Woman Tasered by Seattle Police Can't Sue Them, Court Rules

Categories: City of Seattle
copswild.jpg
Malaika Brooks, the pregnant woman Tasered by Seattle police during a 2004 traffic stop, finally won her battle after seven years but may have lost the war, at least in federal court.
A U.S. appeals court in San Francisco yesterday ruled that the Seattle woman was the victim of excessive force when Seattle police Tasered the then-seven-months-pregnant Brooks with a stun gun three times. But the court also said the three officers involved cannot be sued by Brooks in U.S. court. They have qualified immunity from any legal action because laws regarding stun-gun use were unclear at the time of the incident.

"It's a terrible ruling," says Brooks' Seattle attorney Eric Zubel. He still hadn't been able to reach Brooks late yesterday to ask whether she wanted to continue the lawsuit, but there's a chance she could. "At least the appeals court agreed the police were clearly out of line by Tazing her," Zubel says. "We could still pursue a civil assault-and-battery claim in the state courts if she so chooses."
The case was detailed in a Seattle Weekly cover story earlier this year. Brooks was driving her 12-year-old son Jahrod to the African American Academy on Beacon Hill when an officer pulled her over for doing 32 in a 20-mph school zone.
Brooks, then 34, denied the violation and refused to sign the traffic citation, mistakenly thinking it was an admission of guilt. The officer threatened to arrest her for failing to sign the ticket. Brooks again refused but said she'd "accept" the ticket.
Two other officers arrived and Brooks was asked to step from the car (her son had already gone on to school). She refused, and an officer displayed a Taser stun gun and asked if she knew what it could do to her. Brooks told the officers she was pregnant.
"How pregnant?" one asked. Her baby was due in two months, she said. She again refused to step out.
After a discussion among the officers, one opened the driver's door, reached in and grabbed Brooks by the left arm as another cop put the device to Brooks' thigh in touch-stun mode and shocked her with 50,000 volts. She began honking her horn, screaming for help as she resisted.
She was given another shock on the arm, and she stopped blowing the horn. She was shocked a third time in the neck, and Brooks then fell over on the car seat, unable to move. She was pulled out of the car and held face-down on the street while being handcuffed. After an examination by fire-department medics, she was jailed for resisting arrest. The charges ultimately were dismissed.
Brooks, who two months later gave birth to a healthy baby girl, has been in court since, contending that police used excessive force. Her case worked its way up to a federal appeals panel last year, where two of three judges ruled that the police had acted within the law and used proper force.
But after another appeal, Brooks' attorney Zubel was allowed to appear before the full 11-member court at a session in Pasadena, Calif., in December to re-argue the issue, resulting in yesterday's ruling.
In concluding that Seattle police unnecessarily Tazered Brooks, the court, writes Judge Richard A. Paez, recognizes "the importance of having people sign their traffic citations when required to do so by state law. However, we have no difficulty deciding that failing to sign a traffic citation and driving 32 miles per hour in a 20-mile-per-hour zone are not serious offenses."
Officers also were at no risk from the the pregnant driver, Paez adds. "At no time did Brooks verbally threaten the officers. She gave no indication of being armed and, behind the wheel of her car, she was not physically threatening....A reasonable fact-finder could conclude, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Brooks, that the officers' use of force was unreasonable and therefore constitutionally excessive."
However, because case law on the use of lasers in 2004 "was not sufficiently clear at
the time of the incident to render the alleged violation clearly established," the court concluded, "the defendant officers are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity."
The case has cost city taxpayers at least $345,000 in legal fees and left Brooks with weighty legal costs and several Taser scars. "If the police had done their job right," says Zubel, "this never would have happened."



















2012年9月18日星期二

就香港法律改革委員會 《強姦及其他未經同意下進行的性罪行》諮詢文件作出的一點小意見

標少在春光乍"攝"所干犯的罪行 一文提出,香港現行檢控拍攝裙底的控罪並不切題,並富爭議性,建議香港仿效新南威爾斯州的法例,針對拍攝裙底的行為立法,本來打算有空就寫信給律政司或者立法會,剛巧法律改革委員會  《強姦及其他未經同意下進行的性罪行》諮詢文件昨天出爐,也建議應為此立法。我也凑熱鬧,把下面的意見電郵給他們。他山之石,可以攻玉。


The Consultation Paper on Rape and Other Non-consensual Sexual Offences was published by the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong on 17 September 2012. I have some suggestions to make in respect of "under-the-skirt" photography or "up-skirt" photography.

In paragraph 6.22 of the Paper, the Commission recognises that the charges of Disorderly Conduct in Public Place, Loitering, Outrage Public Decency or Dishonestly Use of Computer are not charges designed to deal with the mischief. They are actually remotely appropriate charges which were not stipulated to cope with this modern offence. In some instances, when the filming or photo taking in the private place without using the computer to upload the photos or films will end up with no charge laid against the culprit. Without doubt, a new piece of legislation is required to pinpoint this rampaging problem as a result of the development of modern electronic technology.

The Commission suggests a specific statutory offence to be created to deal with the criminal activity "under-the-skirt" photography. In this regard, I wholeheartedly agree. The Commission has considered the Canadian and New Zealand statues which focus on the invasion of privacy. It seems the Commission does not mention it has considered the legislation in New South Wales, Australia, dealing with this criminal behaviour. In Crimes Act 1900 Division 15B - Voyeurism and related offences 3 sections of the law are stipulated to cover a variety of filming scenarios seriously violating individual sexual autonomy. Unlike the Canadian and New Zealand statues, the New South Wales ones do not place emphasis on the civil intonation of encroachment of privacy. I paste them below (highlighted) for you to consider.

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 91I

Definitions

91I Definitions


(1) In this Division:
"building" includes a vehiclevessel, tent or temporary structure.
"private parts" means a person’s genital area or anal area, whether bare or covered by underwear.
(2) For the purposes of this Division, a person is "engaged in a private act" if:
(a) the person is in a state of undress, using the toilet, showering or bathing, engaged in a sexual act of a kind not ordinarily done in public, or engaged in any other like activity, and
(b) the circumstances are such that a reasonable person would reasonably expect to be afforded privacy.
(3) For the purposes of this Division, a person "films" another person, or another person’s private parts, if the person causes one or more images (whether still or moving) of the other person or the other person’s private parts to be recorded or transmitted for the purpose of enabling the person or a third person to observe those images (whether during the filming or later).

91J Voyeurism


(1) General offence A person who, for the purpose of obtaining sexual arousal or sexual gratification, observes a person who is engaged in a private act:
(a) without the consent of the person being observed to being observed for that purpose, and
(b) knowing that the person being observed does not consent to being observed for that purpose,
is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.
(2) An offence against subsection (1) is a summary offence.
(3) Aggravated offence A person who, for the purpose of obtaining sexual arousal or sexual gratification, observes a person who is engaged in a private act:
(a) without the consent of the person being observed to being observed for that purpose, and
(b) knowing that the person being observed does not consent to being observed for that purpose, and
(c) in circumstances of aggravation,
is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: imprisonment for 5 years.
(4) In this section, "circumstances of aggravation" means circumstances in which:
(a) the person whom the offender observed was a child under the age of 16 years, or
(b) the offender constructed or adapted the fabric of any building for the purpose of facilitating the commission of the offence.
(5) Alternative verdict If on the trial of a person charged with an offence against subsection (3) the trier of fact is not satisfied that the offence is proven but is satisfied that the person has committed an offence against subsection (1), the trier of fact may acquit the person of the offence charged and find the person guilty of an offence against subsection (1). The person is liable to punishment accordingly.
(6) Attempts A person who attempts to commit an offence under subsection (1) or (3) is liable to the penalty provided for the commission of the offence.

91K Filming a person engaged in private act


(1) General offence A person who, for the purpose of obtaining, or enabling another person to obtain, sexual arousal or sexual gratification, filmsanother person who is engaged in a private act:
(a) without the consent of the person being filmed to being filmed for that purpose, and
(b) knowing that the person being filmed does not consent to being filmed for that purpose,
is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.
(2) An offence against subsection (1) is a summary offence.
(3) Aggravated offence A person who, for the purpose of obtaining, or enabling another person to obtain, sexual arousal or sexual gratification, filmsanother person who is engaged in a private act:
(a) without the consent of the person being filmed to being filmed for that purpose, and
(b) knowing that the person being filmed does not consent to being filmed for that purpose, and
(c) in circumstances of aggravation,
is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: imprisonment for 5 years.
(4) In this section, "circumstances of aggravation" means circumstances in which:
(a) the person whom the offender filmed was a child under the age of 16 years, or
(b) the offender constructed or adapted the fabric of any building for the purpose of facilitating the commission of the offence.
(5) Alternative verdict If on the trial of a person charged with an offence against subsection (3) the trier of fact is not satisfied that the offence is proven but is satisfied that the person has committed an offence against subsection (1), the trier of fact may acquit the person of the offence charged and find the person guilty of an offence against subsection (1). The person is liable to punishment accordingly.
(6) Attempts A person who attempts to commit an offence under subsection (1) or (3) is liable to the penalty provided for the commission of the offence.

91L Filming a person’s private parts


(1) General offence A person who, for the purpose of obtaining, or enabling another person to obtain, sexual arousal or sexual gratification, filmsanother person’s private parts, in circumstances in which a reasonable person would reasonably expect the person’s private parts could not be filmed:
(a) without the consent of the person being filmed to being filmed for that purpose, and
(b) knowing that the person being filmed does not consent to being filmed for that purpose,
is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.
(2) An offence against subsection (1) is a summary offence.
(3) Aggravated offence A person who, for the purpose of obtaining, or enabling another person to obtain, sexual arousal or sexual gratification, filmsanother person’s private parts, in circumstances in which a reasonable person would expect that his or her private parts could not be filmed:
(a) without the consent of the person being filmed to being filmed for that purpose, and
(b) knowing that the person being filmed does not consent to being filmed for that purpose, and
(c) in circumstances of aggravation,
is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: imprisonment for 5 years.
(4) In this section, "circumstances of aggravation" means circumstances in which:
(a) the person whom the offender filmed was a child under the age of 16 years, or
(b) the offender constructed or adapted the fabric of any building for the purpose of facilitating the commission of the offence.
(5) Alternative verdict If on the trial of a person charged with an offence against subsection (3) the trier of fact is not satisfied that the offence is proven but is satisfied that the person has committed an offence against subsection (1), the trier of fact may acquit the person of the offence charged and find the person guilty of an offence against subsection (1). The person is liable to punishment accordingly.
(6) Attempts A person who attempts to commit an offence under subsection (1) or (3) is liable to the penalty provided for the commission of the offence.
(7) Double jeopardy A person cannot be convicted of both an offence against this section and an offence against section 91K in respect of conduct occurring on the same occasion.

91M Installing device to facilitate observation or filming


(1) Offence A person who, with the intention of enabling that person or any other person to commit an offence against section 91J, 91K or 91L, installs any device, or constructs or adapts the fabric of any building, for the purpose of facilitating the observation or filming of another person, is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.
(2) An offence against this section is a summary offence.
(3) Alternative verdict If on the trial of a person charged with an offence against section 91J, 91K or 91L the trier of fact is not satisfied that the offence is proven but is satisfied that the person has committed an offence against this section, the trier of fact may acquit the person of the offence charged and find the person guilty of an offence against this section. The person is liable to punishment accordingly.











2012年9月14日星期五

再評悉尼私人停車場的違例告票



先前寫了給悉尼朋友寫的一個blog-----私人停車場的違例告票 一文,有朋友告訴我收到繳款通知書(payment notice) ,一定置之不理,因為那是我的意見。可是,置之不理並非我的建議,我在文中及留言清楚說明立場。為了謹慎起見,終於找了一張「告票」來看(見上圖),並再前往Carlingford Village 停車場觀察泊車告示是否清晰,再作評論。

從上面的繳款通知書可見,這張單完全沒有提及fine, parking penalty,penalty ticket或infringement notice等字眼,而清楚表明是Breach of Condition,沒有誤導成份。故此網上有關課題的討論,已經過時,這些私人停車場的管理公司,已優化了追討違反泊車規則的方法。在Carlingford Village停車場多處清楚提示泊車展示泊車票的規定,連樓上茶樓門口也貼出通告。以告示而言,算是清晰明確,無可厚非。可資批評的地方也有兩處,第一,停車場應符合一般人入閘出票的習慣,加設門柵(boom gate),避免忘記取票;第二,違反泊車條件要繳付66元賠償定得過高,這本屬違反合約性質的罰款,很難使人信服這66元怎樣計算出來。

有些人覺得以前收到繳款通知書置之不理,事情便不了了之,最近卻有人收到郵寄往家中的追討繳款信,這情況很有可能是當初寬容期(grace period)不作追討,現在正式執行有關規定所致。有朋友叫我想辦法防止其他司機無辜受罰,我雖有自知之明,並非振臂一呼,應者雲集的人,也勉為其難,找一張繳款通知書來看,加上現場觀察,也找不出破綻,便打消了寫信批評Australian National Car Parks Pty的念頭。另一辦法可試行的是網上發起抵制在Carlingford Village消費,逼使商場管理人安裝門柵,避免其他人墮入陷阱。不過,若要這樣做,我不會是合適的人,我是習慣做loner的人。









2012年9月13日星期四

潘敏琦罵得痛快

已婚漢姦14歲繼妹囚5年涉長期虐待 官怒斥:有無當佢係人

【明報專訊】建築公司少東把14歲繼妹當成泄慾對象,多次在家中、辦公室及私家車內與她發生性行為,他早前承認非法性交罪,昨被判囚5年4個月,事主更被揭發長期被體罰、虐打及性侵犯,情況與奴婢無異,她甚至寧願被侵犯也不願被體罰。法官斥責被告及其家人應感到羞恥,下令控方調查被告及其家人是否涉及其他刑責。

內地領養 當奴婢看待

29歲的被告在父親的建築公司任職地盤工人,早前在高院承認6項與16歲以下兒童非法性交罪。案發時他與父母、妻兒及父母從小自內地領養回來的繼妹X,在旺角弼街的單位一同居住,X現時已搬到社署庇護中心。法官潘敏琦昨勸勉X忘記過去,展開新的一頁。

法官潘敏琦引述X的報告,指X在家庭中受長年虐打及性侵犯,然而除了被告的胞妹,沒有家庭成員為被告寫求情信時為X說過一句話。X自2008年由內地來港後,便過着與奴婢無異的生活,法官質疑X為何要做大量家務,而被告只知道與X發生性行為。收養X的被告母親,昨為了親兒受審在庭上不住飲泣,被潘官斥責「收聲呀!要喊出去喊!」

被告判刑插嘴 官罵「你收聲」

潘官特別把事主被打的傷勢照片交予被告看,被告回答有關傷勢是「我造成」,解釋因事主「搞到阿媽喊」,故用雞毛掃打她,潘官即指﹕「你依家都激到你阿媽喊啦,打到(雞毛掃)毛都甩晒……你當個妹係人咩?」

被告求情時聲稱深感後悔,令家人蒙羞,卻在潘官判刑期間「駁嘴」指X「講大話」,潘官即叫「你收聲」,坦言由於法例所限,不能判處更重的刑罰,「呢個家庭(被告母親)剩係喊,唔係應該覺得醜咩?」

無避孕措施 事主憂懷孕

案情指出,約於2010年9月,被告在妻子懷孕期間,叫年僅14 歲的X到貯物室為他按摩小腿,在沒有使用避孕套下與X發生性行為。稍後二人兩度在父親位於旺角的建築公司內性交。翌年1月10日,兩人在家中性交後,X更要為其住院的大嫂煲湯。被告的次子出生後不久,被告曾駕私家車載X到偏僻樹林與之性交。同年10月24日午夜,因X未獲批准吃了一些餅乾,遭被告掌摑,稍後X要為被告按摩、口交及性交。X後來擔心懷孕,向同學傾訴揭發事件。

【案件編號:HCCC115/12】
 (13/9/2012明報)

標少一向喜歡潘敏琦法官(Maggie Poon)的做官風格,現在法官難當,過份展示威嚴,會被指責欠缺judicial temperament,上訴時印你幾隻黑豬。但事事都溫柔敦厚,這種法官就沒有味道。應該罵的時候就罵,應該寬大仁厚的時候,就恰如其分的寬厚,這樣做才顯示法官的魅力。10多年前在sentencing conference聽某大官教誨,叫一眾小吏不要動輒就把在法庭上用粗言穢語的被告處以藐視法庭,正是有這種心態的人造就出放肆的被告,也造就講廢話的律師。如果老母老祖宗也任人羞辱,坦然對待,那些人去做烏龜好了,不要做法官。

Maggie, good on you. Keep going. My salutation to you.











2012年9月12日星期三

上課哺乳

American University professor breast-feeds sick baby in class, sparking debate

By Nick Anderson, Wednesday, September 12, 2:18 AMThe Washington Post

Adrienne Pine was in a jam. The assistant anthropology professor at American University was about to begin teaching “Sex, Gender & Culture,” but her baby daughter woke up in the morning with a fever. The single mother worried that she had no good child-care options.

So Pine brought her sick baby to class. The baby, in a blue onesie, crawled on the floor of the lecture hall during part of the 75-minute class two weeks ago, according to the professor’s account. The mother extracted a paper clip from the girl’s mouth at one point and shooed her away from an electrical outlet. A teaching assistant held the baby and rocked her at times, volunteering to help even though Pine stressed that she didn’t have to. When the baby grew restless, Pine breast-fed her while continuing her lecture in front of
40 students.

Now Pine finds herself at the center of a debate over whether she did the right thing that day and what the ground rules are for working parents who face such child-care dilemmas.

On Tuesday morning, university officials issued a statement about the incident that seemed to indicate some disapproval of Pine’s actions, generally citing them as a health issue because the baby was sick. But school officials also noted that the situation was one that could confront any parent with multiple responsibilities. The university emphasized that faculty members should take advantage of options such as sick leave, break times and private areas for nursing mothers to express milk so they can “maintain a focus on professional responsibilities in the classroom.”

“Every working parent can empathize with facing the choice of an important day at work when a child gets sick,” officials added in a second statement Tuesday afternoon. “Both demand your focus and attention. There is no easy or ideal alternative.”

Some students interviewed Tuesday said breast-feeding doesn’t belong in the classroom.

Pine, who expected that headlines would emerge when a student newspaper reporter asked her about what happened in the Aug. 28 class, sought to frame the discussion with an online essay titled “The Dialectics of Breastfeeding on Campus: Exposéing My Breasts on the Internet.”

In the Sept. 5 essay, Pine wrote that she was “shocked and annoyed that this would be considered newsworthy.” She lamented that her workplace had suddenly become “a hostile environment.” She also upbraided journalists at the Eagle student newspaper — which, as of Tuesday afternoon, had not published any article on the matter — and wrote that the tone of a reporter’s questions implied an “anti-woman” view.

University officials, however, said professors should avail themselves of other options rather than expose students to potential illness.

“For the sake of the child and the public health of the campus community, when faced with the challenge of caring for a sick child in the case where backup childcare is not available, a faculty member should take earned leave and arrange for someone else to cover the class, not bring a sick child into the classroom,” university spokeswoman Camille Lepre said in an e-mail.

That statement indicated that the university follows federal and D.C. law for nursing mothers.

The university also said that Pine’s essay “does not reflect professional conduct,” with officials taking issue with the professor’s sharply critical characterizations of the student journalists.

Pine, in her fourth year of teaching at AU, continues to teach, Lepre said. Via e-mail, Pine declined requests for comment on Monday and Tuesday, referring questions to Lepre.

Pine’s essay, published on CounterPunch.org, summed up her view: “So here’s the story, internet: I fed my sick baby during feminist anthropology class without disrupting the lecture so as to not have to cancel the first day of class. I doubt anyone saw my nipple, because I’m pretty good at covering it. But if they did, they now know that I too, a university professor, like them, have nipples. Or at least that I have one.”

Jake Carias, 18, a sophomore from New York, said Tuesday that he was in Pine’s classroom the day she brought her daughter and that he was okay with the situation once the professor explained the circumstances.

“I wasn’t too distracted initially,” he said. “We’re college students, things go on all the time. Whatever. We’ll survive.”

But when Pine started to breast-feed mid-class, Carias said, it crossed a line.

“I found it unprofessional,” he said. “I was kind of appalled.”

Carias fired off a tweet: “midway through class breast feeding time.” He also posted a message on his Facebook page. He said he later dropped the class.

Now, the Northwest Washington campus is abuzz.

At the Tavern, a dining room just off the central quad, Jenna Wasserman, 18, a freshman from New Jersey, said she has heard two opinions from students: that breast-feeding “is very much natural,” and that doing so in class is “kind of unprofessional.” Wasserman said she leans toward the latter view. “There were alternatives,” she said.

Leyla de Avila, 18, a freshman from California who was sitting with Wasserman, said she sympathizes with the child-care emergency. “I understand she could bring her baby to class,” she said. “Just don’t breast-feed in class.”

But some faculty members said it is not unheard of for a professor to breast-feed in the classroom. Eileen Findlay, an associate professor of history, said she breast-fed her two children during AU research seminars after obtaining permission from students.

Findlay said Pine’s response to her parenting challenge provided a teachable moment.

“Why don’t we use this as an opportunity to have a discussion about how one can actually be an embodied person in a classroom?” Findlay said. She said the episode challenges the notion that faculty members “are ‘walking brains’ — that we don’t have lives and we don’t have bodies.”

At the office of the student newspaper Tuesday afternoon, Eagle editor in chief Zach C. Cohen praised the “utmost professionalism” of the reporter who spoke with Pine and declined to comment on the professor’s criticism of the paper. Asked whether the paper will publish a story on the matter, Cohen said, “We’re still deliberating.”

標少又開筆寫小說了,但寫了不足2000字便無以為繼,於是打岔做別的事情。今天的上訴判辭又看過了,比較觸目的是補習教師以手機拍攝女學生裙底的判刑覆核,是律政司不滿罰款過輕所提出的上訴,上訴庭把原本罰款2萬改判為坐監4個月(律政司司長 訴 鍾曜隆 CAAR 2/2012)。以被告的違反誠信行為而言,這4個月罪有應得。判辭第39段也引起我的興趣

39. 以“為不誠實地獲益而取用電腦”作為控罪,針對答辯人的不當行為,表面上看來有點奇怪。但該議題在裁判官席前已多番考證而控辯雙方亦同意在本案的特殊情況下,以不誠實使用電腦作為撿控答辯人的做法是適當和合理的。...

我在春光乍"攝"所干犯的罪行 一文講過新南威爾斯州偷拍裙底的控罪訂立了清楚的法例條文,在這方面值得香港仿效,免卻不必要的法律爭拗,有空我要寫信給立法會提這意見。

看完香港新聞,便看美國的,上面華盛頓郵報這一則,eye-catching。單親大學教授,在40名學生面前,堂上餵哺母乳,真的有點那過。教授還大義凜然,唉,BB真的餓得要死嗎,不餵不快乎?真的等不到找間空班房或返回辦公室才餵嗎?想像一下如果女法官這樣做,後果如何?我忽然聯想到毛澤東接待外賓時那痰盂,不吐不快。









2012年9月9日星期日

給悉尼朋友寫的一個blog-----私人停車場的違例告票

以前有朋友問我在Carlingford Village泊車購物,忘記了從泊車機取票,以致沒有在車頭展示泊車首3小時免費的有效時間,往取車時便收到罰款66元的告票,兩星期內不繳付便會增至88元。朋友很不服氣,問我怎麽辦。昨日另一位朋友遇到相同的情況,便驅使我動筆寫自己的看法,請勿視作legal advice,畢竟我連這裏的法庭都沒有去過,先卸責任,不想誤導任何人。

首先,這種由私人公司管理的停車場,發出罰款(fine)或告票(penalty ticket),用字上已存誤導成分。只有政府人員(ranger)(即香港的traffic warden),經立法授權才能發出告票,而且違例事項,經議會立法,成為法律條文(statue),方為有效。任何一個立法環節的疏漏,都可致使條文失效(void),施行的程序越權(ultra vires)。交通違例檢控,採用的是刑事檢控程序,私人停車場所發的告票,也叫penalty ticket/fine的話,實屬刻意誤導,使人以為被ranger抄牌一樣,理所當然的去繳罰款。在這裏,沒有任何法例賦予私人公司發出告票的權力。

這樣講商場的停車場不能為泊車設限嗎?

商場的停車場當然可以定下進場的條款(conditions of entry),譬如每小時的泊車收費、首兩小時免費或購物多少錢便可免費泊車之類的條款,那是屬於合約(contract)性質。若然不同意有關條款,閣下有權不駛進去。故此,違反進場條款的情況,只屬賠償損失的追討,民事訴訟性質,並不能叫告票罰款或違例罰款。

收到告票,交錢還是不交錢?

如果停車場駛進時要按票才能入閘,離開時入票才能出閘,沒有人為此吭聲,因為泊車票無效就不能出閘。像Carlingford Village那種沒有門柵(boom gate)的停車場,收到告票才會出現交不交錢的問題。在此我不講自己會怎樣做,只講考慮因素。我們要看進場條款是否清晰展示,字體的大小及展示牌的數量。如果展示牌四週可見,字的體積又不是要放大鏡才能看清楚,便不存在不公平條款的情況。如果你還是不想繳款,應該怎辦及有甚麼後果呢?應該做的是:甚麼都不做。

如果你沒有繳交罰款,私人停車場的管理公司要向法庭提出申索,才能夠向你追討賠償,首先當然要找到你的資料。他們只能夠要求法庭批准RTA披露登記車主的資料,才可以採取進一步行動。沒有法庭許可,基於私隱,RTA不能披露有關資料。如果你見到水撥夾着罰款單而不試圖寫信或以其他方式聯絡該公司,希望游說對方撤銷罰款,便不會泄露住址,自投羅網。況且要求撤銷罰款,做法枉然,他們一定不會放過這賺錢的機會。如果你沒有自動獻身,泄露個人資料,他們未必會採取成本高的法律追討行動,事情會不了了之。以Carlingford Village為例,起碼我沒有聽過有人被入稟追討。

當然,置若罔聞,不繳罰款也有風險。萬一私人停車場的管理公司真的訴諸法律,你一旦敗訴,付出的代價會包括對方的律師費,costs follow event,爭拗空間有限。真的很不服氣而不惜訴訟的話,也需要足夠的理據,一時之氣冲昏的頭腦,上到法庭甚麼氣也洩掉。平常口齒伶俐的人,上到法庭可能緊張得木訥內斂,啞巴一樣。真的要抗辯的話,基本上從案情事實(facts)入手,他們的弱點所在。細節不在這裏談,因為我從來不鼓勵不必要興訟。


* 請参閱 再評悉尼私人停車場的違例告票
































2012年9月5日星期三

申訴人身分的保密anonymity of complainants

非禮罪成醫生 醫委准執業
出獄執業年半方研訊


【明報專訊】因非禮病人入獄的屯門醫院急症室前醫生,刑滿獲釋私人執業近1年半後,醫務委員會今年4月才召開紀律研訊,至昨日終被判停牌1年,但緩刑3年,即仍可執業。是次紀律研訊主席麥列菲菲承認案件進度慢,源於醫委會非業界成員不足,但有醫生委員質疑增加由政府委任的非業界人士,只為削弱醫生權益。

須由另一醫生監督

現年29歲的被告醫生羅仲康,2009年2月為15歲女病人檢查時,扯高病人連身裙和胸圍按壓其乳房,同年10月非禮罪成,判監9個月。他前年8月服刑完畢,2個月後恢復執業,去年2月獲醫生馬正興聘為全職醫生,於將軍澳和新蒲崗的醫務所看症,醫委會今年4月始展開紀律研訊。

醫委會索取被告的心理報告,指被告為人喜歡受到注視,未見他有異常性癖,但他仍向臨床心理學家聲稱沒觸及女事主胸部。研訊委員團認為今次是單一事件,被告現僱主觀察他超過1年,認為被告可繼續執業。委員相信被告已受到教訓,日後會多加留意,重犯風險低。

委員團最終判被告停牌1年,3年緩刑期內須與一名獲醫委會同意的註冊醫生,在同一物業執業。該醫生要監督被告,每半年向醫委會交報告,另外被告為病人檢查時,須有護士在場。

醫委會目前有28名委員,一半是政府委任(10名醫生、4名非業界委員),另外一半則由醫學會和全體註冊醫生選出。涉及醫生專業失當的指控,會先交由7名委員(其中1人為非業界)成立的初步偵訊委員會,若表面證據成立,便會交醫委會,由最少5名委員(其中1人為非業界)正式研訊。但在初步偵訊處理過該個案的委員,不能在正式研訊處理同一案件。

研訊遲因非業界委員不足

醫委會前主席麥列菲菲承認此案進展緩慢,源於要遷就各委員和雙方律師時間,認為要縮短至1年內處理。她指出目前只有4名非業界委員是不足,建議擴大名額。

蔡堅:增業外委員削醫生權益

現任醫委會初步偵訊委員會主席的蔡堅表示,若只增加非業界名額,將打破醫委會內政府委任和民選醫生委員一貫的五五比例,質疑麥列菲菲的說法只為加強政府的聲音,無法保障業界權益,但醫委會沒討論過同時擴大兩個組別的名額以保持比例的可行性。蔡堅說將會在醫委會提出,將涉及風化案的醫生個案優先排期研訊。本報昨向醫委會查詢紀律研訊案件排期進展,截稿前未獲回覆。

(5/9/2012)

我並不是評論紀律研訊進展太慢,抑或判罰太輕,無可否認,醫委會一向對醫生的懲處,都給我一種偏坦印象。這則新聞驅使我重讀香港特別行政區 訴 羅仲康 HCMA984/2009 的上訴判辭。15歲女受害人受到《刑事罪行條例》第156條申訴人身分的保密的保障,可惜在上訴判辭第23、24段,引用原審裁判官撰寫的裁斷陳述書作分析時,揭露了這女學生的名字,上訴法院法官在這方面應多加注意。




施以終身監禁?


法庭:「鞋帶色魔」倘再犯將囚終

【本報訊】有孌童癖及虐待癖的卡拉OK男侍應,因性侵犯六名十三至十九歲女童,去年被判監十八年。這名因嗜好用鞋帶綁起受害人、被稱為「鞋帶色魔」的被告,上月申請上訴,獲上訴庭減刑至十五年。上訴庭昨頒發書面判決理由,指被告承認大部分控罪,判監十五年已能反映案件嚴重性,但強調如他出獄後再犯,法庭將會判他終身監禁
(4/9/2012 東方日報)

This news relates to 香港特別行政區 對 歐永傑(AU WING KIT) CACC40/2011, newly uploaded on 4/9/2012. Without disrespect to the Court of Appeal(CA), I have to say don't be kidding me. Let's see what Yeung VP says when delivering judgment for the court. In paragraphs

94. 本庭認為以本案的背景,包括申請人承認了20項罪中的18項,總判刑15年已足夠反映案件的嚴重性,而該隔離期應足夠保護年輕女童避免她們再受申請人的侵犯,亦希望能足夠令申請人接受適當治療,以改變其精神及心理病態。

95. 但本庭需強調,如申請人經過長期隔離和治療,仍不能改變其變態行為,在再犯的情況,則唯一可行的處理方法是對他施以終身監禁。

Her Lady Maggie Poon sentenced the defendant to 18 years in total including one charge of Rape and another of Attempted Rape the defendant contested. The original sentence of 18 years may be on the high side of the scale, but the interference of CA is questionable. When tampering with the sentence by reducing it, CA does not seem to rely on any precedents to consider the appropriate quantum. In paragraph 95, when CA says ,'在再犯的情況,則唯一可行的處理方法是對他施以終身監禁' are only empty words. CA, when emphasizing the only option is to give him a life sentence, refers only to Rape. However, when we look at the sentencing precedents, there were occasions rapist being sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum of 20 years ( HKSAR and Cheung Lai Man CACC533/2002) or life imprisonment with a minimum of 18 years (HKSAR and Chan Li Fat CACC308/2009). The former's life sentence was quashed when regarded as wrong in principle and the latter was upheld but involving facts of far more serious nature.

In the instant case, given the discount for good behaviour during the incarceration, the defendant is actually serving 10 years. If he is to re-offend after his release, I don't believe he would be sentenced to life imprisonment involving similar facts. What if he only commits Indecent Assault and Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with Girl under 16, it is impossible to sentence him to life. The maximum for Indecent Assault is 10 years and that of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with Girl under 16 is only 5 years. Is it justifiable for me to say the CA is kidding this time? I would rather CA uphold Maggie's original sentence instead of empty threats.

2012年9月3日星期一

坦白從寬,抗拒從嚴


質疑裁判官偏見
交警脫不小心駕駛

【明報專訊】休班交通警被指為超越前面巴士,駕私家車到對面行車線爬頭,將擬在安全島過路的婦人嚇得退後一步。警員被裁定不小心駕駛罪成,罰款4000元及停牌9個月。警員認為原審裁判官處理不公提出上訴,高院昨指雖認為裁判官無偏見,但質疑其做法易惹人誤會,將案件發還重審。

法官: 原審裁判官做法易惹誤會

 被告鍾志堅在警隊服務約20年,平時工作負責巡邏及檢控違例交通事件。他原被裁定於今年1月15日下午,在觀塘碧雲道近德田不小心駕駛。鍾志堅指裁判官在開審前向他告誡認罪及不認罪的分別,又提醒控方案情嚴重,可考慮改控危險駕駛,鍾認為裁判官做法不公,對他早有偏見。高院法官認為原審裁判官只是提醒被告,但做法易惹人誤會,強調「公義必須彰顯於人前」,故判被告上訴得直,案件發還重審。

 【案件編號﹕HCMA369/12】
 (29/8/2012)


這件上訴案的判辭今天上載了,由高等法院暫委法官邱智立聽審,判辭第21段講述了上訴得直的理由:

21. 本席堅信裁判官完全沒有游說上訴人認罪及在他不認罪的情況下,才提示控方會否修改控罪。但很遺憾,所發生的事很容易令人有所誤會和得到一個錯誤的印象,就是裁判官沒有公正地處理本案。本席必須重申,並不認為裁判官有任何不公正的地方, 但我們司法制度中的其中一條金科玉律就是公義必須彰顯於人前(justice must be seen to be done)。在這大前題下,本席認為上訴人的定罪出現不穩妥的情況,因此裁定上訴得值。

看案情,控方證據確鑿,被告重審也難以脫罪,當然這只是我個人的看法,對被告重審不會產生偏見。我不知原審裁判官是何許人,從本案的處理手法看來,可謂落後了18年。香港的法庭在1994年開始使用了DARTS (Digital Audio Recording and Transcription Services)之後,審訊紀錄不再依賴法官的筆錄,再沒有「口同鼻拗」的情況,有爭拗就看謄本。如果有人投訴法官疾言厲色,聲大夾惡,聽一下錄音便一目了然,無所遁形。裁判官遣詞用字,不得不加倍小心。坦白從寬,抗拒從嚴,只能放在心裏,不能掛在嘴邊,授人口實。然而,裁判法院工作量大,每個被告都不認罪,尤其是審交通案的「車仔庭」,法官怎樣交差?首先「認命」,然後「認真」地默默耕耘。有的案情鐵證如山,被告卻冥頑不靈,死撐到底,難免使人氣忿。主動對被告講解認罪或不認罪的判刑利害,實非上策,除非被告自己提問,否則不講為妙,因為講這種說話很容易被指游說被告認罪,成為上訴得直的原因。邱官在判辭中對原審裁判官的批評,已經十分客氣,換了是某人,已打電話給你「老細」,插你幾刀。

對付冥頑不靈的被告,方法總是有的,先來過抗拒從嚴,殺一儆百,妙不可言。標少誑語,汚蔑了司法的莊嚴,罪過罪過。可慨歎的是,現在太多審案能力低的人,簡單的案也拖長審,動輒就adjourn part-heard,,adjourn for verdict。這就叫少做少錯,要麼就全部放過,判全部被告無罪,何來上訴?

























2012年9月2日星期日

駕駛時使用手機

習慣在香港駕車,畧懂交通規則的朋友,來到悉尼之後,很多時會理所當然地以為交通條例都大同小異,違了例也不知道。這個blog講駕車時使用手機要注意的地方。

在香港駕車時使用手機的規範,來自《道路交通(交通管制)規例》Cap 374G第42(1)(g)


(1) A driver shall not-
    .........
    (g) if a motor vehicle being driven by him is in motion-
      (i) use a mobile telephone while holding it in his hand or between his head and shoulder;
      (ii) use any other telecommunications equipment while holding it in his hand; or
      (iii) use, while holding in his hand, any accessory to-
        (A) a mobile telephone; or
        (B) any other telecommunications equipment.


香港的法例寬鬆,汽事移動時(in motion)手持或置於頭與肩膀之間的方式使用手機,才會犯法。如果遇上塞車或紅燈,車輛停下來時才使用,則不屬違法。

新南威爾斯州在這方面的規管,較為嚴厲。規管的法例來自-

ROAD RULES 2008 - REG 300

Use of mobile phones by drivers (except holders of learner or provisional P1 licences)

300 Use of mobile phones by drivers (except holders of learner or provisional P1 licences)

(1) The driver of a vehicle (except an emergency vehicle or police vehicle) must not use a mobile phone that the driver is holding in his or her hand while the vehicle is moving, or is stationary but not parked, unless the driver is exempt from this rule under another law of this jurisdiction.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.
Note: "Emergency vehicle", "park" and "police vehicle" are defined in the Dictionary.
(1-1) Subrule (1) does not apply to the driver of a vehicle who is the holder of a learner licence or provisional P1 licence.
Note: "Learner licence" is defined in the Act, and "provisional P1 licence" is defined in the Dictionary.
Note: Rule 300-1 places restrictions on the use of mobile phones, whether or not held in the hand, by the holder of a learner licence or provisional P1 licence.
Note: This subrule is an additional NSW subrule. There is no corresponding subrule in rule 300 of the Australian Road Rules .
(2) In this rule:
"mobile phone" does not include a CB radio or any other two-way radio.
"use", in relation to a mobile phone, includes the following:
(a) holding the phone to, or near, the ear (whether or not engaged in a phone call),
(b) writing, sending or reading a text message on the phone,
(c) turning the phone on or off,
(d) operating any other function of the phone.

條例這樣寫,塞車或停燈也不能使用手機,stationary but not parked的情況下使用手機,也屬違法。故此,不要誤以為駕駛期間講電話才算犯法,無論香港或悉尼,法例禁止「使用」(use)而並非單只講電話。香港沒有羅列使用的情況,悉尼列出4種涵蓋甚廣的「使用」也並非窮盡所有情況,下次駕駛時使用手機先想清楚,除非不用手持(holding),否則還是放置一旁好了。如果不用手持,怎樣使用手機也無問題。














2012年9月1日星期六

寒夜漫漫-----悉尼踏入春天

9月1日是悉尼春季的開始, 凌晨3時還未能入寐,寒氣逼人,只有4度,何只春寒料峭,凍煞年少,羽絨被也不耐五更寒,遑論羅衾。過去兩年帶來潮濕多雨的拉尼娜(La Nina)天氣週期完結,今年會由厄爾尼諾(El Nino)取代,換句話說,將會温暖乾燥,山火頻仍。温暖,暫時還未能感受到,中午時份,書房室温只有13度,比香港一般冬日還要冷。

剛好替朋友完成了那未了的事,解開了一個經年的結,也熬過幾個寒夜,一番唇舌。始末何須多說,交給我辦,兩脇插刀,成事方休。

上星期標少札記讀者瀏覽人數突破100,000,比我預期早了幾個月。謬文淺見,本不值一顧,既蒙讀者不棄,只好破帽遮顏,厚着臉皮寫下去。下列自2011年1月17日開blog以來瀏覽文章及讀者的頭10位,以資參考。

EntryPageviews
Aug 20, 2011, 12 comments
3696
Aug 24, 2011, 13 comments
988
935
584
Mar 4, 2011, 2 comments
559
Jun 26, 2011
414
Feb 26, 2011, 10 comments
374
Aug 15, 2011, 4 comments
294
Feb 4, 2012, 27 comments
262
Aug 29, 2011, 2 comments
248


EntryPageviews
Hong Kong
72066
Australia
14714
United States
3762
Taiwan
2717
China
1498
United Kingdom
1432
Canada
1084
Malaysia
657
Russia
584
Singapore
387