新省一拳奪命的立法及終審法院聽審的一拳奪命上訴

One-punch assault laws: complication delays legislation

New ''one-punch'' laws are proving difficult to implement and the government has been forced to delay the introduction of mandatory sentencing for serious assaults until the end of next month.

Many publicans still do not know whether theirs will be among venues in the Sydney CBD entertainment precinct subject to lockouts and 3am last drinks. The boundaries of the precinct have yet to be clearly identified.

Premier Barry O'Farrell said he would introduce, on Thursday, minimum mandatory sentences for assault causing death, as announced last week, but he would have to delay legislation covering serious assaults.
Advertisement

The proposed mandatory sentencing laws would apply to violence involving alcohol and drugs as part of a crackdown on one-punch assaults that have killed some victims and left others with serious brain damage.

''When we come back in the last week of February, in three weeks' time, we'll deal with the minimum mandatory sentences for serious violent assaults,'' Mr O'Farrell said.

Asked why there would be a delay, Mr O'Farrell said on Tuesday that ''some of these things are easy to introduce, others will take some time''.

''What I said last Tuesday is that Parliament would come back depending on how the drafting was going,'' he said.

''What we're determined to do is ensure that we put in place laws that are effective.''

NSW Bar Association president Phillip Boulten said the proposed legislation would be difficult to implement.

''It is clear the government is finding it difficult to translate this announcement of the Premier's into legislation and that is not surprising,'' he said.

''It will be difficult for the government to identify an appropriate way to identify whether someone is affected by alcohol or drugs at the time of the offence.''

Mr Boulten said drugs such as cannabis could remain in the body and be detected within a month of being taken. The question of how alcohol consumption would be measured and at what point a person would be deemed to be affected by alcohol, was also problematic.

Mr O'Farrell said section 10 bonds, which allow for the dismissal of charges against someone found guilty of an offence, would not be available to magistrates under the proposed one-punch laws.

He also rejected concerns that the legislation would disproportionately affect Aborigines.

''I don't believe that's the case,'' he said. ''I do know the legal profession is campaigning against it. I'm not surprised that there will be claims made. But this is a measured response to a very serious problem, not just in the Sydney CBD but across the state.''

According to the NSW Bar Association, Aboriginal offenders were grossly over-represented in jails when mandatory sentences were introduced in the Northern Territory and Western Australia.

It said the Australian Bureau of Statistics had reported a 58.6 per cent increase in the indigenous incarceration rate between 2000 and 2010. The non-indigenous rate increased only slightly.

(29/1/2014 Sydney Morning Herald)

前些時我寫了幾篇反對新省為一拳奪命立法的文，對上一篇是一拳奪命引發的新猷，新省政府承認立法存著技術困難，要延後實施。新省大律師公會也對怎樣證明揮拳時受酒精或藥物影響置疑。湊巧香港終審法院昨日頒佈了一宗一拳奪命的上訴判辭，所不同的是終院講法律觀點，有關謀殺的意圖，跟新省的強制刑罰無關。

終院這件案是HKSAR and Ma Kwok Fai (馬國輝) FACC 1/2013，案情如下：

1. 2010年8月11日，答辯人、伍先生（受害人）及其朋友梁先生參與打鬥。答辯人用拳猛擊伍先生的鼻樑，令他跌倒地上，面朝向天。接着答辯人踢了伍先生數次，令伍先生肋骨斷裂。翌日，伍先生因頭部重創而死。換言之，伍先生之死是答辯人拳擊而非腳踢導致的。

2. 答辯人被控謀殺罪，辯稱其行爲出於自衛。審訊後，陪審團裁定答辯人謀殺罪名成立。原審法官在引導陪審團時指出，可基於答辯人拳擊繼而腳踢伍先生的行爲，而推斷答辯人有謀殺罪的必要意圖。上訴法庭裁定答辯人上訴得直，撤銷謀殺罪名，改判以非法行為為基礎的誤殺罪。上訴法庭裁定原審法官應提醒陪審團，答辯人對伍先生的踢擊並沒有導致他死亡，並引導陪審團考慮答辯人用拳猛擊伍先生時(該拳擊導致他死亡)，有沒有意圖去造成嚴重身體創傷。上訴人尋求撤銷上訴法庭的裁決，並基於有關答辯人於襲擊死者時的精神狀況的新醫學證據，尋求以減責神志失常為基礎的誤殺罪來代替謀殺罪。

（取自判辭的中文版新聞摘要）

上訴庭不同意高院法官引導陪審團的講法，把謀殺定罪改判誤殺，理由是控方不能證實被告具備使死者嚴重受傷的意圖，終身監禁改判入院令（無限期扣押在小欖精神治療中心接受治療）。終院推翻上訴庭的看法，認為原審法官正確引導陪審團，應該把所有襲擊一起看來推斷被告的意圖，上訴庭則認為只由致命的襲擊來推斷。最後終院雖然推翻上訴庭的看法，但以被告減責神志失常（diminished responsibility）為理由判他誤殺，入小欖治療，而沒有恢復原本的謀殺罪。

香港除了謀殺會把刑期定為終身監禁，其他控罪都沒有固定的刑期，由法官考慮一切因素來量刑。新省如果實施這種強制刑期的法例，將來未必經得起法律挑戰的考驗。一拳奪命，有些可以推論到嚴重傷害他人的意圖，倒不如控以謀殺，乾浄利落。

法學生今早的留言給我一點鼓勵，在擅闖軍營不應保釋應被槍擊之二 他這様講：

Steven2014年1月29日 上午2:58

你的講法跟BL Article 19(2) 一樣, "continuity of restrictions that existed before 1997".

今天上Basis Law堂講到jurisdiction, 記得你的blog 有提及, 上來引證.
獲益良多

我講些膚淺看法對讀法律的人有幫助，實屬巧合，僥倖沒有講錯，講錯的時候也請讀者告訴我，讓我也可以好好學習。