司法機構今日上載這判辭：香港特別行政區 訴 羅華保，睇到標少擰哂頭。案情相當簡單：
「3. 2013年4月11日，入境處人員去到一間名為文利的餐廳巡查，結果發現印尼籍女子Yuni正身穿水鞋圍裙在廚房裡洗碗。Yuni曾為外籍家庭傭工，在2013年3月8日被入境處發出遣送離境令，期間可擔保外出，但不可合法受僱。上訴人是文利餐廳的負責人。他在警誡下承認，Yuni是一位「臨時替工」。他在其後的會面紀錄裡補充，自己不認識Yuni。」
控辯雙方不爭議案情，控方呈遞同意案情，辯方傳召證人作供。
「辯方說法
4. 上訴人選擇作供，內容與其他三位辯方證人（DW2至DW4）的證供綜合如下。
5. 2010年7月，上訴人開始經營位於佐敦的文利餐廳。2011 年11月，他把「洗碗部」的工作外判給了魯先生（DW3）。在實質運作下，碗會由DW3及另一名工人洗，但上訴人對洗碗工的人選及輪班時間無權過問。
6. 2013年3月，DW3提出要終止合約。上訴人「貼紙搵人」，並於同年4月9日與女子Anna達成口頭協議，由她在4月11 日接手洗碗部的外判工作，形式與DW3相同。當時，上訴人查閱過Anna的身分證，但沒有留下副本，原因是餐廳沒有影印機。他打算在4月11日，待外判協議書準備妥當，才與Anna正式簽署。
7. 4月11日早上8點，DW3在文利與Anna交收過工作後正式離開。同日上午11點半，身兼收銀員的樓面陳小姐（DW2）上班。根據DW2供稱，Anna在下午5時因事提早離開，在此之前頃刻則有另一名女子把Yuni帶到文利洗碗。當時，Anna有請DW2就她先走、但有「搵人嚟頂」的事轉告上訴人。
8. 由於上訴人在5點30分才回到餐廳，他當天未及見到Anna。他只從DW2口中得知，上午的「新洗碗阿姐」已離開，當時由「臨時替工」頂替，之後也因事忙而沒有見過後者。同日晚上，入境處人員到來巡查，查問Yuni的身份，他向身邊的DW2求證過後，便如實向對方轉達。這點有DW2證實。
9. 上訴人續稱，事後他曾多次按照Anna名片上的資料與她聯絡，但不成功，所以未能把她傳召出庭。至於4月12日以後的洗碗工作，則由文利的廚雜頂替，無人填補。這是DW2的證供。
10. 最後，Yuni也替辯方作供（DW4）說，案發當日下午2 點，她在油麻地公園被一名陌生的中國籍女子因病請到文利頂替自己工作數小時，每小時30元。她說，她並非受僱於上訴人，完工後會回到公園找該名女子拿工資，否則無法與對方聯絡。Yuni續稱，她在下午3點50分到達文利，當時洗碗部沒人。那名女子在給她取過水鞋圍裙及把工作稍作交代後離去。」
原審裁判官周燕珠聽完啲咁嘅廢話，梗喺釘佢喇，你畀我我都釘喇。呢個Anna好明顯喺作出嚟架喇，你揾鬼信咩。Miranda分析合理，推論合理，Anna人又失咗蹤，身份證都未睇過，無影印機喎，揾手機影張身份證都得喇，不如你話上帝包咗嗰檔嘢嚟洗碗好過，有無上帝都好，起碼有咁多人信。跟住仲可以喺公園揾到個三唔識七嘅替工嚟，咁都信，我當堂覺得自己弱智，appeal allowed。唉！大老爺自己睇番呢種判辭都瞓得著？經一事長一智，睇一篇卻減一智。你唔同意嘅話，自己跟連結入去睇到飽。上訴人肯定笑到合唔埋嘴。資深大律師Selwyn Yu咁都博到，肯走拗到頭髮都甩哂，都唔知佢原先喺唔喺有信心拗得甩。
多年前我知道有些請黑工的判頭都是會在穿煲後想以上述情況為理由脫身，估不到真係得。有時司法真非局外人可了解，希望唔好成案例和法庭多些像標少般行公義的好官。
回覆刪除Ray
别開玩笑，標少一介草民，只是看到火滾才説幾句。
刪除或者我主觀，希望其他人看下判辭，有沒有同感。
刪除I am curious. What do you think of paragraph 13 (reproduced below)?
回覆刪除"正如上訴方指出，裁判官以禁止傳聞證供為理由，阻止辯方對上訴人及DW3的部分主問，是不對的。當時，這兩名證人，正要覆述與Anna源於4月5號和9號兩次「見工」的對話，但目的只在顯示對後者的了解，及對整個涉案情況所因而產生的認知，因此不會構成不可呈證的傳聞。就此，辯方有向裁判官解釋，裁判官實在沒有理由反對。還有，這個錯誤，雖然在某程度上得到了減輕（主控在盤問時問到Anna的若干資料），但它的發生，卻始終令人難以肯定，上訴人的說法已全面地得到應有的展述。裁判官指「上訴人對於Anna的背景資料一概不知，甚至連Anna有沒有洗碗的工作經驗也不清楚」[3]，就相當可能來自這個錯誤所產生的印象。（其實裁判官在這點也有錯：上訴人和DW3都曾供稱知道Anna有這方面的經驗。）"
In what way is this paragraph unreasonable?
The way I look at this. The point made by the judge is that the magistrate committed a mistake in law. Evidence of oral conversations should be allowed if the purpose is not to prove the truth of what was said, but to show that as a result of the conversations, the witnesses acquired information which they reasonably believed to be true at the time and acted on such information. It was legally wrong for the magistrate to exclude such evidence, and then accuse the witnesses of knowing nothing about Anna. According to paragraph 13, the witnesses were just about to explain what they knew about Anna before their evidence was wrongfully cut short. That was what made the conviction unsafe. The decision seems to me to be legally correct.
刪除Do you agree?
Just curious whether I am the only one here who would agree that the conviction should be quashed (because of what was said in paragraph 13 above).
Even if there is an error made my the magistrate on the hearsay point, the judge may still apply the proviso in s.83(1) to dismiss the appeal?
刪除S
The point is, the judge has no idea what the witnesses would have said about Anna if they had not been wrongfully prohibited from giving that evidence. He can't possibly just make a guess and says the evidence would not have made any difference. The correct way to deal with such a situation is to have the conviction quashed. If the DoJ wants a re-trial, they can make submissions to that effect.
刪除這傳聞證供看似關鍵,看不到謄本,當然難以深入評論,周燕珠是否真的犯錯呢?對話的目的是在建立一個法官覺得虛構出來的人物,虛構出來的對話,屬虛構上的虛構,還講甚麼not to establish the truth of its content but the fact that something was said. Why did the judge follow the appellant's lead to play along this line of thought. Anna is only a fictitious character. Miranda was right for not being fooled around by the rhetorical legal precepts. These arguments can be attractive before some but unmeritorious before others. Looking at the case in its entirety, don't fog your eyes with nonsense. i agree with S, at least, it is a case proviso could have been applied.That said, it is more likely my retardedness fails me to digest the wisdom of the above.
回覆刪除我覺得周燕珠真的犯錯而且錯得好過份因為佢未聽證供就先入為主認定證人講乜都會係大話索性唔聽為官大忌!
刪除是否這樣我從判辭看不到。不過,看法也講過了,不必再猜測或爭論,各抒己見。
刪除睇到我擰哂頭，大佬呀，乜唔係由 prosecution proves the case beyond reasonable doubt 嘅咩，而家唔係求其喺街邊揾個亞嬸做 man-in-the-street test ，「各抒己見」呀。
回覆刪除「原審裁判官周燕珠聽完啲咁嘅廢話，梗喺釘佢喇」，我想香港司法界不至於淪落到這地步，周燕珠裁判官會用「梗喺釘佢」這種思維判案。
I agree. If the magistrate or prosecutor really had this 「梗喺釘佢」 mentality in dealing with cases, even before the witnesses had been wrongfully stopped from giving their evidence about what Anna told them, this is not a jurisdiction I want to live in. Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. How can it be seen to be done if the witnesses were wrongfully stopped from giving evidence, and then you have a crowd of people here saying that is actually okay?
刪除In fact, if I were the judge hearing the appeal, I would have severely reprimanded the magistrate for wrongfully cutting short the evidence of the defence witnesses. It is one thing to have heard their evidence in full and then fairly decide whether that's the truth or just some nonsense, and quite another thing to have decided that the evidence must be nonsense before hearing it. The magistrate did the later, and this is, in my view, so awfully wrong I am surprised it happened.
刪除懇請愛惜身體，唔好擰傷條頸，否則抬不要頭對上面尊敬，垂唔到頭對自己謙卑。
回覆刪除共勉之。
刪除標少前輩，
回覆刪除這些所謂「交太空人」的人做法在不同罪行都很普遍，想不到真的有人信。無論如何，擰晒頭的應不止前輩你。
晚輩Ben
豈敢，甚麽前輩晚輩的，標少只是個平凡的普通人，只具一般見識，也許智商還差一點。
刪除