2014年5月6日星期二

無事忙

朋友問我幾天沒有新作的原因,理由有三,下星期家裏開始裝修,花了點時間去看物料及參觀開放的示範屋拿點靈感,越看就越難定奪,一時之間唯有走著瞧。

第二個理由是中華人文主義者協會開了blog,在萌芽階段,邀請其他博客發表文章,我也責無旁貸,加入討論。希望讀者跟隨連結入去發表意見,順帶在此徵求與人文主義對題的稿件,一稿兩投也可以。當然那是比較嚴肅的課題,我們對質素是有要求的。中華人文主義者協會也開了個論壇,請從連結入去瀏覧。

第三個理由是,真的難以啓齒,一樁羽毛小事。原來用放大鏡去看鵝毛,鵝毛會變大象。本來不值一哂,卻花了我不少時間去定規則,也順帶寫點羽毛的政治聯想。事緣是這樣:標少四肢發達,頭腦也不很簡單,讀書時候是籃球及田徑隊員。蟄居南隅後,四體不勤,沒有運動。7、8年前開始打羽毛球,一打就上了癮。打羽球的地方離家約10公里,有很多不同人以興趣小組方式籌辦的,絕大部份都不是註冊團體,因為註冊的話,保險費就會很昂貴。故此這些團體組織鬆散,主事的人往往獨攬大權。我定期參加那一組辦得很好,主事的人輪流擔當,我也做過兩年,坦白講,那算得甚麽工作,比街市賣菜還簡單。我把收費制度改革之後,吸引了越來越多人參加,收費廉宜,盈餘卻不斷累積。我自知是好管閒事又不木訥的人,為免自己過份覇道,傾向獨裁,所以我做了兩年就不做了。到了現在因人多關係,難免產生矛盾衝突。這鷄毛蒜皮小事,處理得宜就消弭於無形,殊不知主事的人儼然是個主子模樣,搞到别人都怕了他,不是害怕而是煩厭那種敬而遠之的怕。加上主子頭上還有女主子開簾聽政,情況更加難耐。當然,怎樣搞也不敢欺負一向心高氣傲的標少。不敢搞我並不會使我置若罔聞。

上週終於炸了鍋,因此我提出制度改革。男主子頭上那個主子竟然把這組織視為己出,這種態度做後母就偉大了,把大家共同建立的東西私有化,所持的理由是這小組是他們發起的。嘩!不講尤自可,一講立即觸動標少的神經,立即聯想到毛澤東及他的愛人,繼而想到張勳,最後一個擺明要稱帝復辟想家天下的人。幸好標少觸動神經,自己卻沒有神經,神經的另有其人。口舌爭鋒是家常便飯,我終於花點時間中英並茂的寫了幾通電郵,體現民主,邀請球友發表意見。無疑,這舉措給一些人帶來難題。沉默的人居多,原因是這本質上幼稚的事不值一哂,也有人不想得罪任何人而沉默的,不淌渾水,明智之舉。標少一向敢言,更不抬花轎,也有使命感,於是就把時間花了下去,刀筆如劍,當仁不讓。做得罪人的買賣,所倚的就是道理。值得花這種時間做不相稱的小事嗎?見微知著,防微杜漸,不因惡小而不除之也。講到尾我為大眾謀福祉,就等如場地漏水,投訴遇到冷待,我就直接寫給Mayor,終於連行車路的破損也一併修理好。不為個人,道理如刀筆如刃,那怕得罪大小人。

11 則留言:

  1. http://hkm.appledaily.com/detail.php?guid=18712082&category_guid=4104&category=daily&issue=20140507
    想問下陸大狀係咪又出來亂講?明明Cap. 212 s.42係包括勒索贖金的行為,即係本案的案情也屬觸犯本條,可處終身監禁(初步search過如果冇造成實際傷害的綁架一般量刑起點係10年)。False imprisonment同blackmail明顯同綁架係part and parcel,冇咩必要分開告,就算分開告都應該同期執行。另外佢所講的普通綁架罪可囚7年是否指普通法中的綁架罪?

    回覆刪除
  2. 唔好問我喇,我就會一條綁架全包宴,所有元素都有。在這情況下,不應考慮普通法的綁架,see Archbold 20-358。

    回覆刪除
  3. "...Power VP expressed the view that kidnappings for ransom should be charged under section 42 of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance (Cap 212), rather than under common law. His Lordship’s concern was that the maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment available for common law kidnapping did not enable the courts to pass appropriate sentences in kidnapping for ransom situations. At the other end of the scale, cases arising out of family tiffs or lovers disputes would seldom require anything more than 18 months and should properly be charged as common law kidnappings. However, in R v Dzokamshure [2009] 1 Cr App R (S) 112, CA, where the appellant had forced his way into the home of his former partner and dragged her violently before driving her off in his car, saying that he needed to teach her a lesson for forming a new relationship, the court rejected an argument that this was a “family tiff” or “lovers dispute”." Archbold 20-341

    明白晒,即係話common law kidnapping係aggravated form of false imprisonment,只適合在不涉贖金或人口販賣的情況下控告,陸偉雄又講錯野啦,如果好似佢咁講又告kidnapping又告false imprisonment同blackmail,豈不是好似告robbery+theft+common assault咁多餘?

    回覆刪除
  4. 或者報紙報導唔清楚呢!不如就假設性咁傾吓,好唔好?我都唔識嫁,我都成日畀人指出錯處。

    回覆刪除
  5. 標少,我現在不在香港沒archbold ,只有Blackstone's criminal practice 2014 想問終審法院就specific offence 同 general offence的指引是邊單案,我只揾到毛玉萍案,但沒有好詳細描述

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Sorry mate, I cannot remember where I read it now. There should be two sources, Addison Digest back in the old days and then a FACC case.

      刪除
  6. 唔該哂標少,回答樓上另一匿名問題,根據blackstone's criminal practice 2014, 過往英國的判刑案例都有綁架連同blackmail 同 false imprisonment一齊告,如Ra [2012] 1 Cr App R 550 Kidnap and blackmail, Razzaq[2009] 2 Cr App R 553 kidnapping and false imprisonment,kidnapping differs from false imprisonment that it requires v to be taken or carried away , either by force or the threat of force or by fraud ,kidnapping definition: taking or carrying away of one person by another by force or fraud without the consent of that person and without lawful excuse.暫時以我理解,拐打人是綁架,但之後的行為是false imprisonment

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. When false imprisonment is part and parcel to kidnapping and it is a continual offence, I don't think it is necessary to lay further charges. False imprisonment does not need the taking or carrying away. It can be as simple as restricting the victim's freedom of movement. A single charge of kidnapping suffices.

      刪除
    2. 我所知資料有限,這是高等法院陪審團就212章綁架的指引
      這禁錮是以武力進行的;換言之,是使用暴力或威脅要使用暴力;
      3. 這禁錮是違反X先生的意願的;
      4. 被告人知道這禁錮是違反X先生的意願的;
      我因為不清楚被告有否用暴力或威脅使用武力去綁架該受害者(被告可能用fraud去欺騙受害人而fraud 起成文法是沒有的)或該受害者由於年紀少,不適合上庭,所以我才建議用common law 綁架加上其他罪行,因我認為該案用二種方法即成文法的綁架或普通法的綁架的判刑刑期應沒有太大分別,請指教

      刪除
    3. 我明白你講Specimen Directions 62.1,控罪本身可以用「欺詐方式」,3歳BB當然畀人呃,infer得到,唔使用common law.

      刪除
  7. 請問各位大大如果cap 212 sect 42 煽惑他人用欺詐方式 咁量刑起點有是否一樣係10年呢?

    回覆刪除