2015年11月17日星期二

拒絕頂證

允頂證獲減刑 收賄警出獄拒履諾

【明報專訊】警員6年前在查案期間,認識被指從事收數業務的汽車商人,並替對方從政府電腦資料庫搜尋5人的個人資料,以協助對方收數,其後他接受1萬元維修車輛費用折扣。據報已停職的警員今年初承認收賄等3罪,並承諾出庭指證汽車商人,獲額外刑期扣減、現已刑滿出獄的警員,昨突以「我想過安靜生活」為由拒絕出庭頂證商人,結果商人全部控罪獲撤銷。

據悉涉案警員鄭智遠(36歲)案發後已被停職,將面臨紀律研訊。本報昨向警察公共關係科查詢鄭智遠是否已被革職,至截稿前未有回覆。

被告控罪全撤銷 當庭釋放

被指從事收數業務的汽車商人鄭啓東(35歲),原被控一項向公職人員提供利益及4項教唆他人不誠實取用電腦,控方昨決定不提證供起訴,即時獲得釋放。控方指出,涉案警員鄭智遠早前已向廉署錄取證人口供,並承諾出庭指證鄭啟東,結果今年3月獲法官連同認罪給予逾40%的刑期扣減,判囚14個月,於今年11月8日出獄。

控方倡收賄警加刑 官﹕應由律政司申請

控方表示,由於鄭智遠違反承諾拒絕出庭作供,建議法庭裁定他藐視法庭,並向法庭申請對鄭智遠加刑,法官杜大衛回應表示,應該由律政司正式申請。

控方早前表示,1998年加入警隊的鄭智遠,6年前調查一宗詐騙案期間,認識車輛維修及貿易公司「國匯汽車有限公司」的董事兼股東鄭啟東,二人成為朋友。鄭智遠其後於2012年11月至2013年1月期間應鄭啟東要求,在未獲授權下自行或指示另一名警員,透過警務處及運輸署的電腦系統,搜尋5人的個人資料及刑事紀錄近30次,供鄭啟東作一收數之用。被泄露資料者其後陸續收到追數字條及收數電話。

控方表示,上述時段中鄭智遠曾致電鄭啟東索取2萬元貸款,但被拒絕。後來鄭啟東為鄭智遠維修車輛,報價1.1萬元,惟鄭啟東只要求鄭智遠付1000元,最終鄭智遠2013年初被捕。

【案件編號:DCCC393/15】

(17/11/2015)

看到這新聞感到有點奇怪,奇怪之處是主控的加刑申請。法官有權這樣做嗎?我們時常見到被告逾時對定罪及刑期上訴的申請,控方可以逾時上訴我好像沒有印象見過。本案的證人在3月判刑,11月8日已刑滿出獄,控方無權叫法官加刑,原審法官也無權再處理這刑期,原審法官的權力隨著判刑及上訴期的過去,已屬functus officio, 叫法官加刑這建議稀奇古怪。這證人當初承諾指證同案被告而獲得額外的判刑折扣,最終討了便宜,現在拿他沒辦法。他當初獲取認罪的30%折扣,再加上承諾指證額外的10%, 也不能盡説是他騙取的,因為他始終提供了證供去指證被告,也應獲得認罪以外的刑罰折扣。不能讓他先頂證後判刑,一則違反上訴庭指引,再者證人可能為了爭取減刑而特别落力,對被告做成不公。先減刑後指證又難保證人反悔,像這件案所見一樣。較穩妥的做法是不予額外折扣,指證後由行政長官寬免刑期。不過,較長的判刑還可,像本案的證人在作供時已刑滿出獄,萬一他真的肯指證,監都坐完了,行政長官寬免刑期會來得太遲,對他也不公平。故此這類刑期較短的案,在判刑時便應考慮額外扣減,算是漏洞。

至於不肯作供能否構成藐視法庭罪,可參考林義均案,我在2012年6月13日寫證人失憶怎麽辦時也提及過。證人不肯作供可以構成藐視罪,無需審訊便可判刑,但是一定要給予證人聘請律師代表作陳述的機會。新聞報導的這件案似乎沒有做足功夫,否則就應該先申請押後,讓證人請律師上庭為他陳述,而不是先撤銷被告所有控罪。撤銷了被告的控罪,就算證人之後改變主意肯作供,也毫無作用了。假設證人在控方撤銷被告這件案後真的改變主意肯指證被告,證人便不會干犯藐視法庭罪,但被告的控罪卻撤銷了,肯指證也來得太遲。這件案如果沒有報導錯誤,那麽就處理得不明所以了。

11 則留言:

  1. 控方逾期上訴/申請刑期複核 與法不和, 這是不可能的, 控方大概是氣昏了頭。

    回覆刪除
  2. Is it a case 誹謗? and this truth told us that there is no such thing as a faithful man.

    http://hkm.appledaily.com/detail.php?guid=54442677&category_guid=7018882&category=instant&issue=20151118

    http://hkm.appledaily.com/detail.php?guid=54442770&category_guid=7018882&category=instant&issue=20151118

    http://hkm.appledaily.com/detail.php?guid=54443632&category_guid=7018882&category=instant&issue=20151119

    回覆刪除
  3. a faithful man is being complain about unfaithful is that no commit in this world?

    http://hkm.appledaily.com/detail.php?guid=54442700&category_guid=7018882&category=instant&issue=20151118

    http://hkm.appledaily.com/detail.php?guid=54443632&category_guid=7018882&category=instant&issue=20151119

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. I don't give damn whether this man is faithful or not.

      刪除
    2. I mean: Is it a case 誹謗? Really want to know how you can take your time read a little bit and make your comment.

      Thx

      刪除
  4. Dear Bill,

    I have just read this newspaper article, on a case where the prosecution is requested by a judge to select one of the two charges arising from same incident to proceed.

    https://hk.news.yahoo.com/%E6%9D%B1%E4%BA%9E%E5%89%8D%E9%AB%98%E5%B1%A4%E6%B6%89%E8%B3%84-%E5%AE%98%E8%A3%81%E6%8E%A7%E7%BD%AA-%E4%BA%8C%E6%8F%80-205037790.html

    As a layman I don't understand the rationale behind. I all along think that prosecution can lay more than one charges over one incident. Otherwise why in sentencing, very often we see judges to order the sentences of two (or more) charges to be serve wholly concurrent, as they arise from the same incident?

    Grateful for your advice please.

    PLK

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. You are kidding me, mate, layman does not ask such questions. For the sake of discussion, I refer you to the Judiciary's Practice Directions
      http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/pd/pdcontent.jsp?pdn=PD9.1.htm&lang=EN

      "PRACTICE DIRECTION – 9.1

      CONSPIRACY

      1. Where an indictment contains substantive counts and a related conspiracy count, the judge should require the prosecution to justify the joinder, or, failing justification, to elect whether to proceed on the substantive or on the conspiracy counts.

      2. A joinder is justified for this purpose if the judge considers that the interests of justice demand it.

      3. This Practice Direction also applies to proceedings in the District Courts."

      Apparently, the judge was right to ask the prosecution to choose the charge.

      刪除
    2. Dear Bill,

      Many thanks for your reply. However I am still a bit puzzle. In the practice direction, is it that "a related conspiracy count" can include a count which is of a different nature with the substantive count? I can understand that if the substantive count is bribery, then a count of "conspire to offer bribe" is a "related conspiracy count". However, in the article, the bribery count and the "conspire to falsify an account" count is of different nature, with different elements of offence. Why is it a "related conspiracy count"?

      BTW, I am happy with your remark about me don't look like a layman - I will take it as a compliment, as I really am one. I have never studied law, and my past and present jobs by no means relate to legal profession. I am just an ordinary person who like reading judgments. And I must say I very much enjoy and benefit a lot from your blog too.

      PLK

      刪除
    3. PLK,

      My inadvertently negligence, I did not read the news carefully. I think it is arguable technically from the prosecution's point of view but in all fairness, it is overcharging. There are always a lot of things I don't know or understand too.

      刪除