熱水淋孟傭 六旬婦緩刑
新菲傭求情稱願同囚
彭官仁厚，這件案卻過分寬大，沒有理由不判監，尤其是家傭傷勢不算輕。從報導看，控罪是有意圖傷人(Wounding with Intent)，在司法機構網頁的審訊案件表的描述，只寫出是「判刑」，並無清楚列出控罪。無論如何，不論是第17條抑或第19條的傷人罪，這判刑在法律上犯錯，因為傷人罪屬於例外罪行(excepted offence)，不能判處緩刑，彭官一時走漏眼了。
新菲傭求情稱願同囚
【明報專訊】患頸椎退化的六旬退休女公僕，因不滿其孟加拉女傭所斟熱水的水溫，多番要求對方飲水「試溫」遭拒，突然把熱水淋向女傭胸部。她早前經審訊後被裁定有意圖傷人罪成，昨於區院判囚6個月，緩刑18個月。現時為被告工作的菲傭特地撰寫求情信，表示若法庭判被告入獄，希望能把她同時「判監」，好讓她能在獄中照顧被告。
法官彭中屏昨判刑時，斥責被告區惠珍（62歲）沒有悔意，並指外傭飄洋過海來港工作，對本港社會有很大貢獻，但被告的行為破壞外傭對僱主的信任，亦有損本港僱主的國際名聲。法官指事主Raksona Begum（27歲）的傷勢不輕，身體有一至二級燒傷，事後更需留院5天，強調法庭不會容忍此種野蠻行為。
官信一時氣憤 非刻意虐待
惟法官接納辯方的說法，認為被告本性善良及不暴戾，而且身世坎坷，30年來受頸椎退化困擾，令她四肢乏力及不良於行，坐監將較一般人辛苦。法官相信被告並非刻意虐待事主，可能是出於一時氣憤，重犯可能不大，決定判處被告緩刑。
事主早前供稱，去年8月起受聘照顧被告，去年9月30日晚上，事主應被告要求斟了一杯熱水，但被告喝了一口便說水不夠熱，事主則認為水已「九成熱」。被告辱罵「孟加拉人是垃圾」，更三度要求事主試飲但遭拒絕，其後突然出手扯低事主的上衣，把熱水倒進其上衣內。事主感胸口灼熱和極痛，遂向大廈保安員求助，但不獲理會，最終有街坊替她報警並拘捕被告。
【案件編號：DCCC269/14】
法例第221章《刑事訴訟程序條例》附表3第5條，訂明法例第212章《侵犯人身條例》第17及第19條屬例外罪行，而例外罪行不能判處緩刑訂於法例第221章《刑事訴訟程序條例》第109B(1)條。故此，這件案判錯了。法庭書記，控辯雙方律師都有責任提醒法官有關的限制。
當然也不得不提，2013年6月24日，香港法律改革委員會發出諮詢文件，建議取消例外罪行，這種諮詢，由實際收集建議，之後作出定論，繼而立法改變，一般都談上好幾年。故此，例外罪行還未可以判處緩刑。
Thank you Madam.
回覆刪除I was unable to find out the exact charge because the court list only said "Sentence". I tried to check the list dating back for two weeks but it only showed several days. Without doubt, Judge Pang is very prudent. That said, no one is immuned from mistakes. Let's hope His Honour has not erred. At least this blog can remind junior lawyers about this easily oversighted matter.
I am sure you can find out from your colleague handling the case.
hi, bill siu,
回覆刪除i have read your blog for quite sometime.
i always wonder, with respect to rape or other sexual offences, is male offender always disadvantaged regarding bail application or plea mitigation (if convicted)?
this is what i came across when having pcll lecture. how can a defence counsel possibly argue anyway to obtain favorable conditions for the cilent?
John,
刪除Generally speaking, there is more sympathy for female offenders. You cited rape and sexual offences to show how males are disadvantaged. Do you think the fact speaks for itself? The victims of sexual offences are bssically females. If you use this to show disparity of treatment, I am afraid it is not a good one. You may say the court takes serious views about sexual offences and always impose stringent bail conditions and upon conviction imposes more severe penalties. One of the reasons is prevalence. The last part of your question is not easy to answer. The strength of evidence is of primary importance. Then it comes to the background of the defendant. In an ordinary sexual case, I do not really see bail wil be denied.
thanks bill siu.
刪除so it is fact sensitive.
for example, if the alleged victim is a prostitute and did have a course of dealings with my client in the past, one may possibly argue this time it was no more than a usual transaction, and the rape accusation is possibly no more than the victim's afterthought...or the medical reports provide no clear signs of her being raped but only some bruises, etc...or the fact the she went with my client voluntarily....sth. like that.
John,
刪除You are talking about a case of factual finding. The veracity of the witness plays the determining role. Medical evidence may corrobate. Even a wife canbe raped, why not a prostitute? I suppose there is also other evidence inferring guilt.
thx bill siu.
刪除am i supposed to go into the details of the case and assess the merits or evidence of prosecution's allegations at the stage of bail application?
is it possible to secure bail for client charged with rape anyway i wonder.
John,
刪除You can certainly go into the strength of evidence, the background of the deft, the flight risk and likelihood of interference etc. They are all relevant matters for bail consideration. If bail is not granted at mag level, it may be granted in High Court.
審訊案件表列出的控罪是「有意圖而導致身體受嚴重傷害」。
回覆刪除Thanks.
刪除人總有犯錯
回覆刪除以標少經驗會唔會有最後check唔到?
希望沒有理解錯誤，你所講check唔到是指控罪嗎？若是如此，你可以放心，VL是律政佳人，她要check一定check到。若然是以前，我也打個電話就check到。
刪除人會犯錯要分開兩個層面來看。在這裏不是刻意犯錯，只是無心之失。控罪本身在法例上完全看不到是例外罪行，要靠記憶，及翻閱有關法例來核對。如果法官本來打算判監，辯方律師極力求情要求緩刑，當時的重心就會是究竟應否緩刑，而忽略了不能緩刑這因素了。
「孟加拉人是垃圾」香港人的種族歧視太嚴重, 就算是意氣話也即代表了心底裡有這樣的想法。標少為何完全不來找我們聊天?
回覆刪除劍文，
刪除本篇講純法律，沒有考慮歧視，歧視也非量刑考慮。你可見我近期懶惰，文也少寫，產量大跌。沒有去中華人文主義者協會聊天就是少用facebook. 我沒有接納你的friend's request實在抱歉，近年幾乎所有朋友我都無add, 早兩日有位法官的request也不add, 所以無大細昭。另一原因不add司法人員是因為不想我以前加入為朋友的人可以看到司法人員私人的資料。
我知道, 法律上沒甚麼高見, 只是對那一點有點嘆息。少用facebook也好, 那有時很浪費時間。
刪除Sorry for late reply.
回覆刪除Albeit I was told about the result, I do not want to disclose my enquiry which is double / triple hearsay. I will wait until I get some written / concrete information. You know, your blog is very popular and I do not want to make reckless mistake.
Maybe, 匿名 concern that someone will conceal the mistake by "check唔到". Let alone the mechanism in DOJ, the verdict and reason of sentence will be posted at the judiciary website within 2-3 weeks. Everyone would know the result and it is only a matter of timing.
VL
VL,
刪除I am flattered by what you said. Thank you for your contributions.
thanks for replies from 標少 and VL
刪除clearly explain the case