2015年3月25日星期三

佔中重讀

佔旺藐視法庭撤控 公大生獲2100元訟費

明報專訊】執達主任去年11月26日清理「佔旺」區域,多人因阻礙清場被拘,及後被控阻礙公職人員與藐視法庭。公開大學學生事後獲撤銷所有檢控,表示因案件影響而須重讀一科,向法庭申索訟費逾8000元,昨判獲2100元。
指須重讀一科 申索8057.4元
公開大學學生黃顯力於清場當天被捕,出席高院聆訊兩次後得悉律政司撤控,提出訟費申請。他因案件須到法庭、警署及律師行簽署文件,同時因案件欠交作業,未能合格須重讀。他申索報名費及上學的交通費共8057.4元。
高院昨頒下判辭,指黃未有提供資料,解釋處理藐視法庭案的工作所花時間。他欠交功課雖與案件有關,但案件未使他受金錢損失。高院按例以每小時訟費上訴200元計算,考慮他曾為本案出庭兩天,批出10小時訟費及交通費,命令律政向黃發2100元訟費。

朋友今早看了明報這則新聞就電郵給我,問我這人明顯犯法,為何要撤銷控罪。這我答不到,因為撤銷控罪是往事,這件案發展至今只有對申請訟費的判決。我以極速看了今天上載的判辭,只講看了的印象。
申請人黃顯力修讀公開大學的一科叫Hong Kong Literature in English,其中一個要求是需要呈交一份作業,寫一篇不少於800字的短篇小説,這作業佔評核的20%。他聲稱面對刑事檢控而深受困擾,受極大心理壓力,以致睡不安穩,也擔憂家人對此事的感受,最終沒有呈交作業。沒交作業,於是肥佬。他打算再報讀該課程,學費為$6825,由天水圍至公開大學交通費為$1232.4,故此申索訟費共$8057.4。
參與公民抗命的人,不是一早心存會被檢控的結果嗎,為何會憂心忡忡?
我還以為佔中有飯食、有涼冲、有堂上、有功課可以做,寫篇800字小説,題材俯拾即是,寫佔中已有不少故事可寫,簡單功課也交不到,那就不如回家做好功課才去,別找藉口,諉過他人。這些人總有不同理由推卸責任,本末倒置,安坐家中也無能力寫這篇小説,正好找到心安理得,堂而皇之搪塞家人,欺騙自己的理由。
佔中發生在2014年9月尾,申請人被指在2014年11月26日妨礙執達主任履行職務而被拘捕,作業限期是2014年12月15日。故事題材多的是,可以寫佔中愛情故事、勇武故事、催淚故事、抄幾句口號都佔幾十字,怎會無所事事,交不出功課呢?又是社會的錯!


4 則留言:

  1. The dates of assignment submission are usually listed in a course outline handed out to students on the first day of class. Shameless to use his participation in the "OC Movement" as an excuse for non-submission.

    This assignment in question only accounted for 20% of the total assessment. Non-submission of this assignment will not lead to course failure. The passing mark is 40%, to have failed this course, this guy must have done poorly in other assignments, or had not submitted a number of them. I wonder if it had occur to the judge that this student was just making up excuses.

    BJ

    I was in higher education before and had seen many such students.

    回覆刪除
  2. Typo above: I wonder if it had OCCURRED to the judge that this student was just making up excuses.

    BJ

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Though Anderson Chow, the judge, was a First Class Honour student when he obtained his LLB, he should know the unattractive excuse put forward in the application. The nonsense was obvious. Next time when Wong fails again, he can still blame the after effect of OC. The award of costs was not based on what was said by Wong. It based on costs follow event. That is, the time used in the whole proceeding and matters leading to it.

      刪除
  3. 奸有奸輸,黃的行為反映他是徹頭徹尾的失敗者,申索成功或重讀課程合格,只會助燃他時不我予的怨恨。

    回覆刪除