何來踩單車罰款 上訴得直
【明報專訊】保育人士何來前年在東涌踏單車時，被指沒有遵從單車徑交通標誌下車推車而行，被警員截停票控，被判處罰款500元。她早前不服判決上訴，高等法院昨日頒下判辭指出，公眾對有關標誌的意思可以有不同詮釋，具誤導性，遂判處何來上訴得直。
判辭指標誌誤導
根據判辭，專家於其交通標誌的報告中指出，單車徑的部分標誌具誤導性，惟有關報告在原審時，控方並沒有應辯方的要求在庭上披露。法官認為交通標誌需要向道路使用者帶出簡單明確的意思，但公眾對涉案標誌可以有不同理解。
何來（48歲）一直以其個人對標誌的理解使用單車徑，其間未曾被警員截停，遂不知道有關標誌的真正意思。
(21/4/2015明報)
【明報專訊】保育人士何來前年在東涌踏單車時，被指沒有遵從單車徑交通標誌下車推車而行，被警員截停票控，被判處罰款500元。她早前不服判決上訴，高等法院昨日頒下判辭指出，公眾對有關標誌的意思可以有不同詮釋，具誤導性，遂判處何來上訴得直。
判辭指標誌誤導
根據判辭，專家於其交通標誌的報告中指出，單車徑的部分標誌具誤導性，惟有關報告在原審時，控方並沒有應辯方的要求在庭上披露。法官認為交通標誌需要向道路使用者帶出簡單明確的意思，但公眾對涉案標誌可以有不同理解。
何來（48歲）一直以其個人對標誌的理解使用單車徑，其間未曾被警員截停，遂不知道有關標誌的真正意思。
(21/4/2015明報)
何來上訴得直，值得高興嗎？不如看判詞法律討論以外的幾段，那才有味道。
Disrespect for the rule of law
74. In correspondence with the Prosecutions Division of the Department of Justice, the solicitors for the appellant, stressed that she was a person of positive good character who was a caring and considerate member of the community with a clear record. It was also stated that she was a full-time charity worker who was well-known in her community for her commitment to public service.[4] I mention this because of her behaviour when she was stopped by the police sergeant for riding her bicycle.
75. The police sergeant was in uniform as was his colleague, a woman police officer, who were patrolling this area where cycling was prohibited.
76. When the police sergeant stopped the appellant he explained to her that she had committed an offence against the traffic regulations and he asked her for her proof of identity. She ignored the police officer’s request and proceeded to leave. The police sergeant stopped her by grabbing her arm and he again asked her for her proof of identity otherwise he would arrest her. She refused and asked him under what power could he arrest her. He told her section 50 of the Police Force Ordinance. She said he was pointing at her and spoke to her in a rude and threatening tone. The police sergeant said she was being uncooperative and difficult. It was about then that the woman police officer joined the police sergeant. She said she would give her identity card to the woman police officer but not to the police sergeant. She then gave her address and telephone number. As she was about to leave she told the police sergeant “Ah Sir, if not for that I was going to a meeting, I can play a lengthy game with you. Let me teach you one more word. Civil disobedience”. It was not challenged that this exchange took place.
77. The appellant in her evidence said that when she was stopped by the police sergeant, he asked her why she did not dismount from her bicycle and she asked him why. He replied because of the sign she needed to dismount from her bike. She said “No, because this sign doesn’t say that”. He asked her for her identification and she refused because she wanted his explanation why she needed to give him her identity card. She said she did not see that she had committed a crime or that she had done anything wrong. She asked for the police sergeant’s warranty card because she wanted to know his name. She said he insisted that she give him her identity card but instead she asked him which law had she offended and whether she was arrested. She said he did not show her his warranty card at that time although he did after the matter was finished.
78. She testified that she was suspicious as to what the matter was about and that the police officer was quite rude when he tried to stop her and ask for her identity card. She said she was quite displeased and she took photos of the officer if she needed to make a complaint about his attitude.
79. She took two photographs of the police sergeant who was in full uniform with identification as to his rank and number. In the background of one of the photographs was the woman police officer talking to another cyclists who appeared to have been stopped by her.
80. It is clear to me that the two police officers were performing their duties, monitoring and policing the area for the general safety of road users. Disrespect is like any other insidious behaviour, it can escalate to a level and degree where it can have a grave effect. The rule of law is the lifeblood of the community in Hong Kong. The persons entrusted to enforce the laws should be given due respect and understanding from members of the community, and at least the same due respect and understanding that members of the community expect them to give to persons upon whom they seek to enforce the law. Mutual trust and respect may not have the force of law but it is the driving force that upholds the rule of law. The obdurate and disrespectful behaviour by the appellant to the police sergeant was unwarranted and totally inappropriate. It is clear to me that the police sergeant was doing no more than his duty in seeking to control an area that may pose as a safety risk to road users. This sort of behaviour is not conducive to the maintenance of a civil society based on mutual trust and respect.
Disrespect for the rule of law
74. In correspondence with the Prosecutions Division of the Department of Justice, the solicitors for the appellant, stressed that she was a person of positive good character who was a caring and considerate member of the community with a clear record. It was also stated that she was a full-time charity worker who was well-known in her community for her commitment to public service.[4] I mention this because of her behaviour when she was stopped by the police sergeant for riding her bicycle.
75. The police sergeant was in uniform as was his colleague, a woman police officer, who were patrolling this area where cycling was prohibited.
76. When the police sergeant stopped the appellant he explained to her that she had committed an offence against the traffic regulations and he asked her for her proof of identity. She ignored the police officer’s request and proceeded to leave. The police sergeant stopped her by grabbing her arm and he again asked her for her proof of identity otherwise he would arrest her. She refused and asked him under what power could he arrest her. He told her section 50 of the Police Force Ordinance. She said he was pointing at her and spoke to her in a rude and threatening tone. The police sergeant said she was being uncooperative and difficult. It was about then that the woman police officer joined the police sergeant. She said she would give her identity card to the woman police officer but not to the police sergeant. She then gave her address and telephone number. As she was about to leave she told the police sergeant “Ah Sir, if not for that I was going to a meeting, I can play a lengthy game with you. Let me teach you one more word. Civil disobedience”. It was not challenged that this exchange took place.
77. The appellant in her evidence said that when she was stopped by the police sergeant, he asked her why she did not dismount from her bicycle and she asked him why. He replied because of the sign she needed to dismount from her bike. She said “No, because this sign doesn’t say that”. He asked her for her identification and she refused because she wanted his explanation why she needed to give him her identity card. She said she did not see that she had committed a crime or that she had done anything wrong. She asked for the police sergeant’s warranty card because she wanted to know his name. She said he insisted that she give him her identity card but instead she asked him which law had she offended and whether she was arrested. She said he did not show her his warranty card at that time although he did after the matter was finished.
78. She testified that she was suspicious as to what the matter was about and that the police officer was quite rude when he tried to stop her and ask for her identity card. She said she was quite displeased and she took photos of the officer if she needed to make a complaint about his attitude.
79. She took two photographs of the police sergeant who was in full uniform with identification as to his rank and number. In the background of one of the photographs was the woman police officer talking to another cyclists who appeared to have been stopped by her.
80. It is clear to me that the two police officers were performing their duties, monitoring and policing the area for the general safety of road users. Disrespect is like any other insidious behaviour, it can escalate to a level and degree where it can have a grave effect. The rule of law is the lifeblood of the community in Hong Kong. The persons entrusted to enforce the laws should be given due respect and understanding from members of the community, and at least the same due respect and understanding that members of the community expect them to give to persons upon whom they seek to enforce the law. Mutual trust and respect may not have the force of law but it is the driving force that upholds the rule of law. The obdurate and disrespectful behaviour by the appellant to the police sergeant was unwarranted and totally inappropriate. It is clear to me that the police sergeant was doing no more than his duty in seeking to control an area that may pose as a safety risk to road users. This sort of behaviour is not conducive to the maintenance of a civil society based on mutual trust and respect.
(HKSAR and HO LOY HCMA 280/2014)
“Ah Sir, if not for that I was going to a meeting, I can play a lengthy game with you. Let me teach you one more word. Civil disobedience”
回覆刪除最難頂還是這段, 太rude 了. 也不關civil disobedience事..
"mutual trust and respect" 本來以前是有的, 但後來没有了
原因各有各解譯. 要復和, 需要時間吧
SL
復修社會和諧，朝夕難成，要有突變才能改變氣氛。當然不是通過政改，或者獲得真普選。突變是指戰亂、禍患、瘟疫或者嚴重經濟打擊，比上次GFC更厲害的。否則就妄想了。
刪除可能是這個標誌? 當年學車都覺得有D 混淆
回覆刪除http://www.td.gov.hk/tc/road_safety/road_users_code/index/chapter_4_for_cyclists/riding_on_the_road_/index.html
Yes.
刪除“FIGURE No. 155
56.365C.gif
Cycling Restriction
This sign shall indicate that cycling is prohibited beyond the sign and cyclists must dismount and push their bicycle or tricycle if they wish to proceed beyond the sign.”
“FIGURE No. 156
24.gif
End of Cycling Restriction
This sign shall indicate the end of a cycling restriction indicated by the traffic sign of the type shown in Figure No. 155.”
我個人並不認同對正當地執行職務的前線警務人員作出刁難。然而，何來當日的行為也似乎未至於去到觸犯阻差辦公罪的程麼，上訴的法官是否 in a position to comment on her behaviour as "unwarranted and totally inappropriate"?
回覆刪除也不用學術性討論何來不合作程度是否構成阻差，畢竟那不是她面對的控罪，而且最後她也交出身分證接受檢控。上訴的法官處理完正審，對被告行為的評論並無影響考慮上訴理據的公正性，有不妥嗎？而且這評論是被告沒有爭議的事件過程的一部份，我又不覺得不合適。這連obiter也不是的observation，原審裁判官又可不可以講呢？我覺得同樣可以。
刪除