2015年9月12日星期六

司法不公

Teacher Robert Emmett avoids jail after filming up students' skirts

A former teacher from Sydney's most distinguished legal family will not go to jail for filming up students' skirts and possessing nearly 10,000 images of child pornography.

Robert Arthur Emmett pleaded guilty in May to filming up the skirts of three teenage girls. He also pleaded guilty to having child abuse material, including three images and seven videos in the most serious classification.

The son of two judges, Emmett is also the grandson of former NSW Chief Justice Sir Laurence Street, who was himself the son and grandson of chief justices. Emmett was working as a mathematics teacher at St Andrew's Cathedral School in the city when he was arrested on August 7, 2013.

In March that year, he had walked from one classroom to another, making two videos of three girls' without their consent, according to a police fact sheet.

Emmett, who was 36 at the time, began talking to the students while manoeuvring his phone at waist height to film their underwear.

One victim said in a statement: "When I think back on his behaviour, he was often looking up the stairs as we walked up and down, and hanging around us too closely at lunch times."

Defence submissions said Emmett had been diagnosed with psychosexual problems best described as "complex paraphilia", with "voyeuristic, paedophile, hebephile and fetishistic features".

The Downing Centre District Court heard on Thursday he was taking medication to suppress his sexual libido.

Judge Ian McClintock, in sentencing, said the child pornography images were "disturbing and depraved". But he also considered Emmett's early guilty plea and his "increasing insight" into the wrongness of his actions.

"He apparently continues on a positive rehabilitative trajectory," Judge McClintock said.

He also considered a report which recommended Emmett serve an Intensive Corrections Order, where he would take part in rehabilitation in the community rather than inside jail. A psychologist, Dr Bruce Westmore, reported sexual therapy programs in jail had long waiting times and Emmett would make more progress on the outside.

Judge McClintock sentenced Emmett to two years' imprisonment but also made an Intensive Corrections Order.

As part of the order, Emmett must continue psychotherapy treatment and be of good behaviour. He was also sentenced to a three-year good behaviour bond for separate offences in which he filmed up women's skirts at railway stations.

The Crown had argued Emmett should serve time in jail rather than receive an Intensive Corrections Order.

(11/9/2015 Sydney Morning Herald)

一個違反誠信的教師,拍攝所教學校女生裙底,無需入獄,我還可以理解,因為司法家庭背景是強而有力的求情因素。若然是單一事件,未必予人強烈的偏坦印象。可是,擁有兒童色情物品,是較為嚴重的罪行,不判即時入獄,完全講不過去。這是明顯司法不公的例子。別忘記,他還犯了在火車站影裙底的罪行。

英國案例R v Mark David Oliver and Others [2003] 2 Cr App R 64把兒童色情物品分成5級(5 Levels):

“(1) images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity;

(2) sexual activity between children or solo masturbation by a child;

(3) non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children;

(4) penetrative sexual activity between children and adults;

(5) sadism or bestiality.”

本案的被告藏有那一級別,報導講"three images and seven videos in the most serious classification",即是第4/5級的,縱使被告認罪,即時判監兩年才恰當,但被告的兩年監,只是Intensive Correction Orders (ICO). 香港沒有ICO這東西,中文可譯作社區服刑(orders of imprisonment served in the community)。不同州有不同規定,新南威爾斯州判囚不超過兩年可以ICO來執行。ICO是從Crimes(Sentencing Procedure) Act裏訂立。因為無需即時入獄,屬於極度仁慈的判法。本案其實在量刑原則上可能犯錯,因為判被名兩年監禁即以3年為判刑起點,給予被告認罪的3份1折扣變為兩年。原則上判刑起點超過兩年就不應考慮ICO.

ICO的判刑同時附加18項強制性的條款,包括:
  • the offender is to be of good behaviour and not commit any offence
  • the offender is to reside only at premises approved by a supervisor
  • the offender is to submit to breath testing, urinalysis or other medically approved test procedures for detecting alcohol or drug use, as directed by a supervisor
  • the offender is to undertake a minimum of 32 hours of community service work per month, as directed by a supervisor from time to time
  • the offender is to engage in activities to address the factors associated with his or her offending as identified in the offender’s assessment report
  • the offender is to submit to a medical examination by a specified medical practitioner, in relation to the offender’s capacity to undertake community service work (inserted by Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Regulation 2013).
違反者可以改判即時入獄。對本案被告輕判,我覺得最主要的原因是他司法世家的背景。我在春光乍"攝"所干犯的罪行一文也講過,悉尼巴士司機在車上偷拍,即時入獄1年。巴士司機涉及的案情比教師輕微得多,卻要即時入獄,理由好簡單,他不是來自司法世家。人家的老爸是Arthur Emmert(NSW Court of Appeal judge), 老媽是Sylvia Emmert(Federal Circuit Court judge)。窮光蛋學人犯法,活該他鋃鐺入獄。

7 則留言:

  1. 不喜歡澳洲司法不公, 可以返香港居住

    回覆刪除
  2. What do you think about this?

    http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20150912/54197828

    【特首最大?】李柱銘批張曉明說法冇根據得人驚

    中聯辦主任張曉明形容特首地位在中央以下,超然三權以上。民主黨創黨主席、基本法起草委員會成員李柱銘認為其言論「莫名其妙」,不明其理據,而且說法象徵特首權力高於法庭「好得人驚」,變相特首貪污犯法都不可檢控,要求對方澄清是否代表中央立場。

    李柱銘直言看不到基本法哪項條文可理解為「特首擁有超然於三權的地位」,相反基本法關於香港政治體制的條文,特區政府、立法會及各級法院分別在第59、66及80條寫上,反映行政、立法、司法三權分立,並非「政府大哂」,否則基本法會列明特首高於三權。

    他指終審法院過往多次判決中,都體現香港三權分立的制度,市民亦可就政府的政策向法庭提出司法覆核,批評張曉明說法完全無根據,呼籲中央官員研究基本法的細節。

    http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20150912/54198155

    【特首最大?】民主黨批評言論令人以為特首可干涉司法機關運作

    中聯辦主任張曉明今早出席基本法頒佈25週年研討會致辭時指,回歸前後香港都不是實行三權分立,特首有超然於三權之上的特殊法律地位,言論引起各界嘩然,民主黨發聲明批評,指有關言論曲解及僭建基本法,令人以為行政長官可干涉立法機關及司法機關運作,亦有違 「一國兩制,高度自治」的原則,要求張曉明立即撤回有關言論。

    民主黨指出,基本法清楚訂明行政長官、立法會及司法機構的權力,第73條訂明立法會負責稅收及公共開支,亦訂明如獲三分二議員支持彈劾行政長官議案,立法會可報請中央政府決定是否罷免。另外,基本法第80條及82條訂明香港各級法院行駛審判權及終審權屬香港終審法院。基本法並沒有任何條文指行政長官可凌駕立法機關及司法機關。

    此外,第64條規定香港的行政機關須向立法會問責,行政長官作為行政機關之首,亦無可能無須問責。而行政長官若犯法,也要受法律制裁,由此可見地位並非超然。特首也不可凌架於法庭或影響法庭判決。如張之言論成立,是否代表行政長官日後如涉及刑事案件,執法機關亦無權對其進行調查?

    民主黨認為張曉明的言論是曲解基本法,並違反了基本法第22條,中央政府各部門不得干預香港根據基本法自行管理的事務的規定,民主黨要求張曉明立即撤回有關言論及遵守基本法的相關規定,以免破壞「一國兩制,高度自治」。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 條友擺明撩交嗌,寫篇博士論文,都冇可能說服到佢。條友預咗你班友會慶到彈起,反應越大,佢越高興,唔好中條友計,最佳反應是當條友透明。

      刪除
  3. 走到天崖海角去也不會找到完美地方居住的。先做好自己本份,再幫助身邊的人。從自己出發創造更好的居所。不要總是要別人做好了等自己去。

    回覆刪除
  4. How do you think about this:
    http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20150126/00176_035.html
    http://topick.hket.com/article/646092/聲稱「免費」貸款轉戶服務%20涉收高昂服務費

    no law can help the people ?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. I am ignorant about this. I never encountered it before.

      刪除