被控非禮的被告的妻子寫來求救，又是背後的女人站出來，詳情不講，只講一點，何謂「公義」？那是一件地鐵車廂內摸屁股案，妻子把受害人的口供傳給我看，單看這口供紙，這證人講得中肯，由當初覺得可能是意外觸碰，繼而再受侵犯，確定被非禮，才決定報警。還有一點對被告不利的是，在車廂內，在受害人身旁的另一位女士曾經問受害人是否被摸及是否需要報警，雖然沒有留住這女士做證人，這種對話對被告相當不利。辯方還有自相矛盾的講法，但我不在這裏講了。
我想妻子相信丈夫沒有非禮是十分正常的事，得罪講，這種信念其實十分盲目。妻子對我講她覺得沒有公義，我不能責怪她用這嚴肅的詞語來表達忿懣和無奈，我想講的是就算丈夫信誓旦旦，對天日涕泣，誓神劈願，有誰可肯定枕邊人會如實講出事情的經過？他是顧家的好丈夫，他是虔誠的教徒，他努力工作養家，他沒有行差踏錯，他沒有不良嗜好，他沒有可疑的行徑，他值得信賴。牧師非禮、校長非禮、老師非禮、醫生非禮、一個普普通通的人也非禮。如果是自己的親人，你可以不信，因為你可能以為你清楚了解你的配偶，有信心他不是那種人，潛意識裏不接受不利、不光采、不想是事實的事。但這跟孩子給警察抓了，很多人第一反應是：我個仔好乖架，佢唔會做啲咁嘅嘢架！有何分別？
如果他朝有日標少涉嫌非禮被警察抓了，你可能會講：佢平日寫埋咁多有關非禮嘅嘢，佢自己點會知法犯法？或者另一種反應：估唔到佢人面獸心，咁嘅嘢都做得出，該煨囉！我希望讀者能夠有這種反應：案情係點樣架？有乜嘢證據呢？醫生看過、診斷時接觸不少女病人的身體，就對非禮免疫嗎？我不會輕信任何人、任何事，不信不等如對一切都猜疑，在生活中有不少細微事，稍加觀察，就讓我們知道多一點事實，掌握多一些真相，不要輕言有違公義。
she's simply giving too much weight to the propensity limb of the Vye direction (Tang Siu Man 1998 CFA)!?
回覆刪除另外，請問口供紙可唔可以俾與案件無關既第三者睇(例如: 標少、記者、私家偵探、朋友)?
依稀記得新聞話有個人將ICAC的口供紙貼左係大廈大堂...
有個官叫個答辯人唔好俾法庭通知佢出庭既信俾記者睇, 都唔知係咪真係唔得...
(公眾人士問個檢控官攞D呈堂證據黎睇下又得唔得?)
口水佬純粹想吹下,
PHLI
對被告的家人而言propensity用不著, 他們很自然地bias。 這案我一開始就叫她交給律師處理, 也沒有叫她把案情或口供給我看, 是她自己把證人口供傳給我。 她這樣做或者你以上第二段的問題我不知答案, 但不覺得犯法。
回覆刪除ICAC是另一類別, 披露調查是犯法的。我唔覺得法官有權叫答辯人唔好俾上庭信俾記者看, 這有越權之嫌。其實這女士也有蒙騙我的地方, 三兩個電郵就看到, 當然給女人騙也不是怎樣大不了的事。
I am more interested in the psychology behind it now. What drive them to such action? Why is it so rampant in Asian societies while I hardly heard of anything in the West? Is it just because of the tight space in the subway? or is it part of the issue of sexual harassment? Good research topic for social-psychologists.
回覆刪除It is really worth a comparative study. I suppose not many places have the same teeming population and the overcrowdedness of the public transport. I would say it is an opportunistic sexual gratification resorting to taking advantage of the situation. Why don't you post it for discussion in the Association?
回覆刪除>還有一點對被告不利的是，在車廂內，在受害人身旁的另一位女士曾經問受害人是否被摸及是否需要報警，雖然沒有留住這女士做證人，這種對話對被告相當不利。
回覆刪除Would this be inadmissible hearsay?
Depending on how you use it. It was said within the hearing of the defendant, PW may be asked about the reaction of the deft and it also strengthened the victim's determination to call the police. Besides, there were other conversions arising. I better stop here.
刪除Although 博主 does not seem to be too familiar with the law of hearsay evidence, luckily he may be right this time.
刪除Mr Someone on the scene may give evidence on the bystander lady’s conversation. The evidence is to prove the existence of the bystander lady’s conversation itself, not the truth of the content of the conversation. In this respect, Mr Someone's evidence is not inadmissible hearsay evidence.
It is a good observation. Unfortunately luck is not always on my side, that is why I always said the wrong thing.
刪除The main psychology should be due to the conservative nature of the Asians, which think sex as something like taboo. The more conservative the place is, the more worse sexual harassment can be.
回覆刪除I don't know.
刪除https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152301858677230
回覆刪除Bill, did you read this news? As a current CU student, I was originally shocked when I first saw it on the news yesterday, though I am open enough to accept that this can be a form of legitimate art expression. Anyway I want to ask some legal questions on this. Assume the model did not cover his private part in taking this photo, would he be guilty of any offence? If he is prosecuted, can he raise Article 34 of the Basic Law (freedom to engage in artistic creation) and Article 27 of the Basic Law / Article 16 of the Bill of Rights (freedom of expression) as defences?
I actually burst out laughing after reading the explanation by the author of the photo. Why do people need to make a fuss about the case. Supposing the private part is fully exposed, the charge of indecent exposure may not make out because there is a requirement of in the view of the public ie he has to be seen by two persons. If his buttock is exposed instead of his genital, then I will tend to argue whether it amounts to indecency because the law itself has not clearly defined which part of the body cannot be exposed. That is why I feel there is room for argument. Constitutional law is too big for me. The several constitutions to safeguard human rights are not unfettered. I dare not venture to discuss them. I do not think it will help the artist if he exposes his genital in public where two or more persons must have been able to see it and furthermore, in a place where there is a real possibility members of the public may see it/the act. Whatever purpose the performer has, there is an acceptable social moral standard to fulfil. This is a hurdle I don't think the naked performer can get over.
回覆刪除Thanks. I do think that safeguarding the public from seeing indecent behaviour in public comes under the concept of "ordre public" and thus the right to artistic creation and freedom of expression may be legitimately limited provided the impairment to these constitutional rights are no more than necessary in achieving the legitimate aim.
刪除By the way, I think that using the characters to climb up the stone is not a good practice. This is rather dangerous and may cause damage to University's property. When I walked pass the four-columns last week, I found that the 'S' in 'CHINESE' was detached from the stone already, probably because many graduates climbed the stone. The 'S' was leaning on the two 'E's besides it so that it did not fall down.
The campus is so unfamiliar now given the immense changes all these years and has no place for my nostalgia. My last visit was some 13 years ago and it was a very brief one.
刪除Mr/Ms 2:19
回覆刪除I think Mr Siu knows what hearsay is, you don't need to teach him here.
Hey, take it easy. I learn from comments all the time.
刪除