2015年7月30日星期四

以胸襲警,換官判刑?

陳碧橋卸膊避判刑 胸襲警案今早宣判

本台於政府司法機構的官方網頁下的審訊案件表發現,本案的裁判官由暫委裁判官陳碧橋改為劉綺雲裁判官作判刑。劉綺雲裁判官正是下令撤銷由警方對「粉筆少女」申請的兒童保護令,而「胸襲案」案中有一名未成年被告,未知調任是否與此有關。

一名曾任職律政司律師的執業大律師向本台表示,認為暫委裁判官陳碧橋有可能是因為今日現場有大量市民聚集而「淆底」(臨陣退縮),故此借故將案件轉至他人判刑,亦為了有可能出現的輕判而作了下台階,因早前陳碧橋曾表示將判具阻嚇性的判刑。該大律師最後表示,希望這只是他一廂情願的猜測,因如實情果真如此,因只會影響大眾對法官的形象,認為他們是沒有勇氣承擔及面對大眾。

本台向擁有大律師資格的公民黨陳淑莊詢問有關情況,她表示到判刑時改法官並非罕見,而是次判刑的刑罰主要看相關報告、暫委裁判官陳碧橋就審訊至判罪成的facts finding (案情事實)及律師的求情內容。劉綺雲裁判官於判刑時需充分考慮上述各點,而陳淑莊認為由於劉綺雲只有一晚時間,到時律師有可能於法庭上再作求情,以確保劉綺雲裁判官能充分掌握案情。記者追問,判刑內容是否到時由劉綺雲裁判官決定,陳淑莊表示更換後的裁判官對判刑有完全決定權。記者於是直言「咁係咪即係暫委裁判官陳碧橋推個波比人?」陳淑莊表示「都可以咁講。」



上一篇讀者Stephen留言,然後把上面這篇報導的連結給我看,未附連結之前他這樣問:

「乳房襲警案」,陳碧橋自己單案人哋判,尋常嘛?

看了留言,我起初一頭霧水,不知道Stephen是看了上面的報導才來問我,我只用最平常簡單的看法來答:

不明白你為何這樣問,陳官聽審,無理由別人判,當然不尋常。如果被告認罪,同意案情,去了別的法官處判刑,都要重新確認一次。不認罪而被定罪的,別的法官就不能判,除非是聽判刑上訴的法官。

看完連結,OMG,這些大律師真的上庭揾食的嗎?

先講第一段報導所講的粉筆少女案,原先該案由署任主任裁判官李唯治處理,後來改為劉綺雲做,我不去翻查紀錄,只作正常推測,為何要再講粉筆少女案呢?因為報導會引起可以隨便換法官的誤解,故此要解釋一下。李唯治坐第一庭,一般少年法庭的案都不會兼顧,但少年法庭案的數量不多,故此未必每天都開庭,李唯治當初處理,到最後交回少年法庭的裁判官去做,是十分平常的事。況且,那件案並非否認控罪的審訊,由不同法官處理的做法平常。譬如在第一庭認罪,到索取報告時原審主任裁判官放了長假,會由替假的裁判官代辦,但會先再確認被告認罪和同意案情,才會判刑。又舉另一例,Amina Bokhary(包致金侄女)在阮偉明席前認襲警罪被判感化,後來違反感化令,當時阮偉明已調離東區法院,故此違反感化令由當時東區的主任裁判官Amanda Woodcock執手尾。別忘記,那也不是一件不認罪而經審訊定罪的案件。

不認罪經審訊後定罪的被告,裁判官對事實作出裁斷,那是他個人的判決,另一裁判官面對相同的案情,可能會有不同判決,又怎可以替他判刑呢?如果你不同意定罪,你怎判得落手。用下common sense喇。裁判官之間屬coordinate jurisdiction,無權推翻同等級的法官看法,所以不論定罪或判刑,只會在上訴時才可以由上訴法院的法官去替代原審法官的職能,重新審視證據及刑罰。

上面報導講經審訊定罪的判刑可以換官,please enlighten me. 

如果法官審完未判刑已患病或者仙遊,怎辦?Trial de novo,由另一位法官重審囉!

陳碧橋之所以暫委,是因為他已經退休,所以用暫位身分聘用,他之前有10多年坐在死因庭,他不是試工那種暫委。今早各被告已被他判刑,各人也獲bail pending appeal。對於以胸襲警的判罪,先不要亂噏,看下上訴庭點講再評。

6 則留言:

  1. True Media Hong Kong 已作出更正, 沒有換裁判官判刑。
    "10:30更正:開庭後,本台記者發現並沒有更改裁判官,依然由暫委裁判官陳碧橋判刑,相關審訊案件表網頁亦已被更新。"

    另外亦可以睇下當日吳小姐段片, 我就真係點睇都睇唔出大概幾分幾秒有疑似用胸襲警。可能係之前或之後啦......
    http://www.facebook.com/90sphoto/videos/742506529193016/

    HEI

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 我知道更正了,但大律師所講的依然是廢話。

      刪除
  2. 不認罪經審訊後定罪的被告,裁判官對事實作出裁斷,那是他個人的判決,另一裁判官面對相同的案情,可能會有不同判決,又怎可以替他判刑呢?如果你不同意定罪,你怎判得落手。
    如果法官審完未判刑已患病或者仙遊,怎辦?Trial de novo,由另一位法官重審囉!
    -> 同意,這些是關鍵。無人擔保兩個官同一睇法,而定罪同判刑係相關的,如果換另一官不同意定罪,但又已定左罪,好embarrassing,唯有夾硬判象徵性懲罰(罰一蚊之類)?但又有量刑指引嘛,就好似要硬食一樣

    回覆刪除
  3. Bill,

    But is what you said logically contradictory? On one hand you said "另一裁判官面對相同的案情,可能會有不同判決,又怎可以替他判刑呢?如果你不同意定罪,你怎判得落手"; but on the other, you said "裁判官之間屬coordinate jurisdiction,無權推翻同等級的法官看法".

    It seems that when a magistrate is facing with this situation, he would be bound by the conviction and sentence as if he himself has found the defendant guilty as charged.

    Your view must be correct to the extent that it is not very desirable for a magistrate to 'delegate' the sentence to another, but according to what you said, it may not be something against the law.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. I don't see any contradiction. Magistrates are of coordinate jurisdiction.One cannot overturn the other's decision. Hence, the trial magistrate in a PNG case may have decided on law and facts should proceed to decide the sentence. There is no allowance for delegation. Another magistrate should not be put in a position to face such a decision. What if he reads the charge and the transcripts of the trial, he disagrees with the determination reached? He cannot usurp the function of the appellate court. That is why he should not be placed in such a position. In the statue, I cannot find such delegation stipulated or otherwise. You may say such delegation is not forbidden by law. I cannot argue with you because I cannot find the law saying it is unlawful. Yet, I can envisage a lot of aberrant results if such delegation exists in daily practice. If it is a post sentence matter like breach of probation, supervision order or recall order, I can see the wisdom in such delegation because it has already exceeded the time of appeal.

      Pragmatically it is not feasible to change magistrate after trial. What if the deft appeals against conviction and sentence? Do you expect both trial and sentence magistrates to write statement of findings? How do they reconcile their difference or justify their unisons?

      Even though the media report misconceived the situation when the daily court list suggested there was a change of magistrate, the barristers should not have expressed their views in a misleading manner. They should have doubted and challenged the validity of such a rumour instead of spelling out their expertise views to flare up the sentiment and dampen the rule of law.

      刪除
    2. Thanks Bill. You certainly have a valid point.

      刪除