的士司機找少5毫被控
否認濫收車資 憂釀骨牌效應
【明報專訊】自去年傳媒屢次揭發「黑的士」司機濫收車資，警方認為事態嚴重並影響香港形象，多次派出警員「放蛇」，揪出多名千方百計竄改咪表及以不同藉口蒙騙車資的害群之馬。不過，近日一名駕駛的士逾30年的譚姓司機遭警方控告濫收車資，案情明顯與「黑的」同業有別，被告人僅多收了5毫車資，且當時乘客並無異議，事後才向警方投訴。對於被律政署用公帑起訴，譚先生不禁感嘆﹕「駕了30年的士，想不到臨退休為了5毫子，被人告上法庭！」
入行30年 「落客會問數目對不對」
譚開志回歸前曾於英軍任採購文職，其間亦偶爾兼職駕的士掙外快，直到1997年回歸，英軍撤離後轉職夜更的士司機，至今兼職或全職駕的士逾30年。57歲的他自稱年老力衰，左腳早前受傷，已有退休打算，萬料不到竟因5毫惹上官非，案件將於本周四於九龍城裁判法院審訊。譚開志無奈說：「想不到快退休才在職業生涯留下一個瑕疵。」他擔心一旦罪名成立，會對同業造成先例及骨牌效應，令眾多司機因同一原因被控。
原告稱曾以為司機有權多收5毫
事發去年10月26日凌晨約一時，譚開志於北角廉政公署總部外接載一名女乘客，經東區海底隧道過海到鑽石山蒲崗村道。根據控方的案情摘要，當時車上咪表顯示車資為136.5元，譚稱車資為137元，女乘客指當時以為司機有權多收5毫，故此付了137元，並取了收據。其後，女乘客到消委會查詢，得悉的士司機只能按咪表收費，不能多收車資，因此到交通諮詢委員會轄下的交通投訴組投訴，指譚濫收車資。
問及事發經過，譚開志苦笑說，每日接載逾20名乘客，而且事發於大半年前，對事件毫無印象，去年12月收到警方信件，要求他到警署錄取口供，感到莫名其妙。身為退休英軍僱員的譚開志，在一個月後到警署以英文錄供辭，他表示印象中事發當天沒有接到乘客投訴，但承認有時為免找贖麻煩，會多收或少收5毫，惟每次乘客下車前，均會問客人「數目對不對？」車上亦常備充足零錢，若乘客要求，必提供零錢找贖。
拒為5毫請律師 選擇自辯
他表示，連日來四出求助，無法工作而損失約5000元收入，感到身心俱疲。他曾向消委會求助，亦曾考慮申請法援或聘請律師，但最後決定自辯，「我若花萬多元聘請律師，勝算必定比現在高，但為了5毫，值得嗎？」他說，業內不少司機為免找贖麻煩，均會多找或少找贖5毫，故同行都叫他不要認罪，以免造成骨牌效應。
罪成可罰5000元囚6月
濫收車資最高可判罰款5000元及監禁6個月。家住北角自置單位的譚開志表示，子女已長大成人，一家生計不成問題，坦言案件造成極大精神困擾，惟絕不認罪。他已於今年3月在庭上否認控罪，控辯雙方將於本周四對簿公堂，問及會否擔心審訊結果，他說：「我相信香港的法治制度。」
(12.5.2013 明報)
不要以為我在自打嘴巴，這件案跟打15元斧頭案完全不同，不是在於銀碼，而是律政司應行使檢控的酌情權(prosecutorial discretion)，主控官在本案第一次上庭答辯的時候，就應該聯絡中央交通檢控科，商討撤銷傳票。這種控罪具合理辯解作為抗辯理由，被告純粹為了兔找零碎的5亳子，才收了137元而並非要收140元，又發了收據，根本沒有瞞騙之心，為何要告他呢？其實警方在替他錄取口供之後，給他勸喻或警告，不就可以了結這件事嗎？
女投訴人也十分奇怪，懂得去消委會、交諮會投訴，當初又會以為司機有權多收5毫子。她也應該在投訴之前想下，這司機省麻煩找少5毫子，引致被投訴，對她自己和司機所花的時間精神，值不值得這樣做，是否有點涼薄？如果我是主控，我會立即撤銷控罪，叫被告不用上庭。香港有些人為了行使自己的權利，瘋起來了。
女投訴人也十分奇怪，懂得去消委會、交諮會投訴，當初又會以為司機有權多收5毫子。她也應該在投訴之前想下，這司機省麻煩找少5毫子，引致被投訴，對她自己和司機所花的時間精神，值不值得這樣做，是否有點涼薄？如果我是主控，我會立即撤銷控罪，叫被告不用上庭。香港有些人為了行使自己的權利，瘋起來了。
I heard about this case before when I was at the same court last time
回覆刪除The CP in charge of the case did "complain" why the driver was being charged. But obviously, the CP did not take any other action.
I opine the magistrate should give absolute discharge in this case.
I recall SCMP did report last year that it becomes a custom/ norm of taxi driver in Hong Kong for not tendering exchange for cents.
When the case first landed in court, the prosecutor should have looked into it to see the merit of proceeding further. From the news report, it looks like the deft never has transgressed the law before, a warning suffices.
回覆刪除I do not know the exact charge of this case but if the mens rea requires dishonesty, I cannot see how the first limb (objective test) of the Ghost test can be satisfied.
回覆刪除The first limb of the test, if I recall correctly, is whether the act in question would an ordinary person consider dishonest.
But this case does bring in a bigger question that Hong Kong becomes a very intolerance society, intolerance in the sense that many people nowadays consider their rights are absolute. It also gives a good reflection of the working attitude of civil servants in the criminal justice system.
I tried very hard to find the charge but in vain. I basically look at Cap 374D Public Service Vehicles Regulations. Most of the traffic contraventions are of strict liability. So Ghosh may not apply here. Ghosh is a two-stage process, objective and subjective tests. Hong Kong has so many questions now there is no solution. This case is a salient example of what problem HK is facing. To hold a clear and independent mind is not easy at all. You are complaining unfairness of prosecutors?
刪除Of course, if it is a strict liability offence, the Ghosh test is not applicable.
回覆刪除No, I am not complaining unfairness of the prosecutor. I just do not understand why the OC, the CP and the magistrate allow this case to go on.
There are rooms for each of them to handle the case in an alternative way. However, the case now sets for trial later this week.
As trivial as 50 cents, the case does cause disruption to the livelihood of the driver, and I have no doubt it is also a very stressful experience for him.
I agree this case is totally different from the "HKD15 Filipino maid" case. Among different things, that case involves breach of trust, which in my view, always a very serious aggravating factor.
I guess the charge has been laid under r.47(2) and 57(4) of Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) Regulations, Cap. 374D. Correct me if I am wrong.
回覆刪除W
Thanks. I suppose so. I visited this yesterday but the penalty does not tally with what Mingpao says. That was why I kept looking elsewhere.
刪除的士司機多收5毫獲撤控罪
回覆刪除的士司機因為多收乘客5毫車費，被控濫收車資一案，今早獲控方決定撤銷起訴。
事發去年10月26日凌晨約1時，被告譚開志於北角廉政公署總部外接載一名女乘客，經東區海底隧道過海到鑽石山蒲崗村道。
根據控方的案情摘要，當時車上咪表顯示車資為136.5元，譚稱車資為137元，女乘客指當時以為司機有權多收5毫，故此付了137元，並取了收據。
其後，女乘客到消委會查詢，得悉的士司機只能按咪表收費，不能多收車資，因此到交通諮詢委員會轄下的交通投訴組投訴，指譚濫收車資。
案件今早在東區裁判法院聆訊，控方表示慎重考慮過案件及證人證供後，決定撤銷起訴。
57歲的譚開志表示，為應付官司，自己身心俱疲，他指法律程序不公，令自己成為受害者，要求政府交代。
Thanks. I read the news too. Costs should be awarded to the defendant.
刪除