2015年12月19日星期六

黃毓民擲杯預審

黃毓民擲杯案 梁振英將出庭

【明報專訊】立法會議員黃毓民於去年7月在立法會行政長官答問大會期間,以玻璃杯擲向梁振英方向,但沒擲中梁。黃今年8月被控普通襲擊罪,案件昨進行第二次預審。控方確認控方第一證人、即特首梁振英將出庭作供,黃表示將會對梁進行頗長時間的盤問,預計要3至4天。

裁判官將審訊定於明年4月11日開審,預計審期為15天。

黃:對梁頗長時間盤問

被告黃毓民(63歲)昨向裁判官指出,將以得不到公平審訊為理由, 申請永久終止聆訊。黃指特首梁振英「權傾朝野」,以致沒有律師願意幫自己打官司,黃又提及屆時會以特首的憲制權力等法律理據申請。

黃的辯方證人列表上多達70人,其中有14人為政府官員,另外56人則大多為當日在場的立法會議員。黃指他曾去信其他立法會議員,着他們出庭作證,惟沒有收到回覆,部分人則要求向其發出證人傳票, 立法會主席曾鈺成及秘書處則回覆指出,根據《權力及特權法》,黃須先申請證人傳票,秘書處代表才可出庭作證。裁判官亦提醒黃,其立法會議員的同僚出庭作證前,亦要先得到立法會許可。

稱無律師幫為由申終止聆訊

黃又笑稱,有立法會議員曾答應為他作證,但對方其後表示案發時「去咗廁所」,不在現場。黃庭外透露,辯方證人名單上包括政務司長林鄭月娥及律政司長袁國強。

黃又指出,控方證人中有一名負責報警的「梁粉」立法會議員,黃最終預計己方會傳召20人出庭作證,控方則預計會傳召16名證人。

【案件編號:ESCC2615/15】

(19/12/2015)

我為了這件案寫過幾篇,對上一篇是4星期前寫的:再評黃毓民擲杯案。黃毓民說因為梁振英權傾朝野,以致沒有律師願意幫他打官司,所以將申請永久終止聆訊。哈哈!廢話。在香港司法史上,從沒有港督/特首以證人身分出庭作供,也沒有律師盤問過這種品秩的人,如果有這種千載難逢的機會,我極之相信有很多律師會躍躍欲試,何況憎恨梁振英的律師為數不少,有機會盤問他,何樂而不為?就算他權傾朝野又如何,何況上得證人台他不外是證人一個,把他問倒便可揚名立萬,怎會找不到律師。泛民律師也不少,免費義助接案的大有人在,別小覷這些為公義不為銅臭的人。不過,不肯接黃毓民這件案我相信是事實,原因卻不是怕了梁振英,而是怕了黃毓民。

為麽怕黃毓民?不單是他使人厭惡,試想下連陳振聰都很多人會代表他,只要出得起合適的價錢,你乞人憎是你的事。黃毓民自以為口才了得,任憑你是經驗豐富的刑事案資深律師,都比不上他,你代表他就自討苦吃,不應問不應講的話,黃毓民自辯就會問會講,律師就不敢離題胡謅,黃毓民卻可自恃不是律師而亂來。真的有人不怕自討苦吃肯代表他,我相信第一天就給炒魷魚。為甚麼會是第一天呢?因為黃毓民在預審時估計要盤問第一證人梁振英3至4天,如果是律師,問半天就可將所有切題的問題問完,其實這件案的案情事實(actus reus)根本沒有爭議,對題的問題只是要搞清楚在擲杯時梁振英的state of mind, 究竟他有沒有感受到威嚇。點問3、4日?除非問離題萬丈的問題。

另一方面,黃毓民原先列出70名辯方證人,最後減至20人。我仲以為全港700萬人會傳召350萬出庭,睇怕睇電視、睇youtube,睇到過程的都會傳召。話時話你傳召我就要上庭嗎?我4星期前那篇都講過傳召證人的條件,黃毓民有替這些人錄取口供嗎?他沒有的話就不知他們會講甚麽,傳召他們上庭他們講對他不利的證供的話,我問你點死?不要以為向法庭申請證人傳票證人就一定要出庭,這些辯方證人有權向法庭要求撤銷傳票,理由是自己沒有可能(unlikely)為黃毓民作出具關鍵性的證供(material evidence)。我相信在審訊前會有要求剔除證人傳票的申請。

這件案預算審15天,比一般高院審訊的案件還要長,一個robust的Judiciary就不會容許這種濫用法庭時間的案件,不受制衡地發生。如果把這件案移師去英國審,連那龍獅旗飄飄的國度,也不會容忍這種腦殘政客放肆,90年代以前的香港,洋裁判官會叫黃毓民shut up, only ask relevant questions or sit down.

37 則留言:

  1. 為什麼憎恨梁振英的律師不少?憎恨主因是否佔中事件?

    回覆刪除
  2. 憎恨黃毓民的市民不少...

    回覆刪除
  3. 標少憎恨黃毓民 所以其言不值一哂

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 那麽你指出我在法律及程序上講錯的地方囉!

      刪除
    2. 很多很多, 都是主觀意識主使一切的評語。

      你這人氣量狹窄,言行不一。。。。。 難怪仕途不暢

      刪除
    3. 多到不勝枚舉?抑或是詞窮理屈,看來你以前給我臭駡過,所以含恨。人不濟所以仕途也不順,可以是能力學識的問題,跟氣量未必有關,你講這種話肯定斷估。還是省點氣,踏實一點,花點時間去看法律,找出我講錯的地方,不要阿Q.

      刪除
    4. 比如第一段,黃毓民請不到律師? 你是發瘋亂咬啊? 黃毓民是自己選擇不聘請律師的好吧。你就胡亂臆測.......... 這還不是主觀意識主使一切。

      請壓抑下你的自虐傾向,不要自找煩惱。

      我是不會憎恨個仕途不順的失敗者,有時候看你self righteous得過了綫 會來欺辱教訓你幾下倒有可能 請不要把你自己投影在我身上, 謝謝。

      刪除
    5. 你不如睁大眼看清楚明報報導黄毓民打算申請永久終止聆訊的原因,不要除下口罩就狺狺而吠。他不是説「以致沒有律師願意幫自己打官司」嗎?

      刪除
    6. 我13年和今次都向過黄毓民表示可以幫他辯護。

      刪除
    7. Haha! Do you try to rebut what he alleged that he is unable to find legal representation or you actually rebut what I said that lawyers loathe him and are disinclined to represent him. Or, he is so self conceited and feels that no lawyers are better than him and it is his choice to defend himself? Either reason, he cannot use as ground for permanent stay of proceeding then. I could only see that he tries to employ a sham to filibuster the proceeding with shonky reasons.

      and

      Anon 5.30 pm

      I have no sympathy for a pathetic running dog of a mad dog. You are welcome to insult me or call whatever name you like. It is called freedom of shit. Though I only love to see comments with substance, what can I say when I could only see profuse comments devoid of substance.

      刪除
    8. 很明顯我刺痛了你那脆弱不堪的自尊心

      刪除
    9. 喲!真的很痛,阿Q扮了刺蝟,一不留神中了招。你可以沾沾自喜過聖誕了,Q仔。

      刪除
    10. heh here we go again going ballastic once more. I must have said sth right.

      刪除
    11. Oh yes. You have, Mr M. You are Mr Pitiful Moron. You are sicker than before. Don't be addicted to this blog. It will worsen your illness, poor thing. I should consider stop writing in order not to flare up your lunatic sentiment. Please seek professional advice Mr Counselor. Yeah, Uncle Sam calls it this way. You really need a magic wand to make what you imagine come true.

      刪除
    12. 我和你的分別乃 i've got a career and life while u've got NIL / nothing. indeed your life has pretty much ended some 12 yrs ago sadly you just didnt realize until now. *chuckle*

      刪除
    13. True. I have no career and I have got nothing according to your value. You have got quite a lot of things I don't want especially your agony and stupidity. As long as you do not use your pseudo name "Maro" and do not use foul language, I will let your comment survive. My blog may be a panacea to some people suffering from psychiatric problem or psychosis. From time to time, there are babbling gibberish comments not only irrelevant to the subject matter but also difficult to comprehend. Cling on if you wish.

      刪除
  4. Did you handle this case?
    疑被點錯相 預科生變強姦犯判監
    上世紀九十年代尾,發生一宗強姦案。當年新界出現連環色魔「專搞細蚊女」,先扮成執法人員,在街上指女童亂丟垃圾或亂過馬路,再帶女童入廁所等地方性侵犯。警方事後拘捕一名中六男生,他堅稱無辜是被認錯。

    現任港大法律學院首席講師張達明,當年協助他聘請資深大律師向終審法院上訴。張指案中沒指紋等科學證據,主要靠兩名約十一、二歲女受害人認出被告。

    但兩女童形容色魔年約二十五至三十歲,但被告當時十七歲。被告於其中一次案發時,更有「一定嘅不在場證據」。被告的同學指記得案發時左右,被告在自修室「睇緊書」。

    張當時「計過條數」,若被告犯案後急步跑回自修室,「其實唔係冇可能」。但張指被告非奸險之人,「坦白講佢係完全唔醒目,唔識為自己爭取嘢嘅人。」不在場證據亦由同學提出,家人沒發現他有沉溺色情惡習,故張傾向相信他無辜。

    但最終上訴失敗,未能翻案,成為張達明律師生涯中一大遺憾。他說:「始終我唔係上帝,永遠唔會知真相係點。」

    http://hkm.appledaily.com/detail.php?guid=54554728&category_guid=10890993&category=instant&issue=20151219

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. You must be kidding. I was only a humble minor staff. Why don't you read the first hand material and see how the Court of Final Appeal analysed the evidence and dismissed the appeal. The case is So Yiu Fung and HKSAR FACC 5/1999. The judgment was delivered by the most liberal judge Bokhary PJ and the Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. Gary Plowman SC represented the appellant but there was no mentioning who the junior was.

      刪除
    2. The case involved two cases of rape. Two unrelated victims identified the defendant in the ID parade. Unless the two cases were severed for trial, I see no prospect to get an acquittal.

      U.S.

      刪除
    3. May be some cheap trick inside,

      the defendant is released from jail, he will change to be.....if he did, he Addicted rape and sex, he will do this again, but can't find any news related with his name.

      see another news: 11年前肆虐深水埗旺角的「西九龍色魔」萬健文,07年出獄後接連到深圳市犯案,專挑年輕女學生下手,短短一年內至少犯下9宗強姦女童案(其中3宗未遂)。

      http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20100731/14296793

      刪除
    4. Maybe he turns a new leaf. Maybe he strikes again without being caught.

      US,

      If the two charges were severed, the deft stood a better chance of acquittal. Yet, what was reported in the Next Magazine was a bit misleading. If you read the Court of Appeal judgment (CACC546/1997), you can see a detailed factual analysis of the case. In both charges, it was not a fleeting glance situation. The deft swindled the victim by different pretexts and before the rape, they spent a considerable period of time chatting. The ID was safe and convincing. The prosecution did not challenge the alibi evidence. The alibi aspect did not create a reasonable doubt. What 張達明 said gave readers a false impression of the case.

      刪除
    5. Here more was reported in the Next Magazine for your ref. If you think all was misleading.

      【冤案】警老屈藏白粉 小販無辜囚四月
      http://hkm.appledaily.com/detail.php?guid=19417268&category_guid=16632792&category=daily&issue=20151220

      【假案?】稱被屈非禮判監 失婚漢含冤十年曾自殺
      http://hkm.appledaily.com/detail.php?guid=19417269&category_guid=16632792&category=daily&issue=20151220

      【錯案?】疑被點錯相 預科生變強姦犯判監
      http://hkm.appledaily.com/detail.php?guid=19417270&category_guid=16632792&category=daily&issue=20151220

      刪除
    6. Sorry. I don't understand your logic. Have you hastily generalised what I said. When I said the Next Magazine misleadingly reported what happened in the So Yiu Fung case, I read the CFA and then CA judgments. I specifically pinpointed on that particular report. I did not read the other articles you just mentioned and I did not give any value judgment on them.

      Since you mention警老屈藏白粉 小販無辜囚四月, I read the news article and then found the judgement. Have you read the appeal judgment before you concluded whether the Next Magazine report was misleading or not? Do you know why the conviction was overturned? Here it is:
      http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=22159&QS=%2B&TP=JU. It is on the ground of procedural technicality instead of credibility. Innocence or guilt was not canvassed in the appeal. In that sense, this report is also misleading.

      Please don't judge me before you have any foundation to draw conclusion.

      刪除
    7. Pls forgive my bad English may made misunderstanding.

      I don't judge your professional, just want to discuss and learn something here.

      刪除
    8. Sorry to have misunderstood you.

      刪除
  5. 真相難明 新界色魔「專搞細路女」
    http://nextplus.nextmedia.com/news/spot/20151218/316464

    張達明斥警:好不幸 有啲壞嘅手法仍存在
    http://nextplus.nextmedia.com/news/spot/20151218/316458

    假案?】稱被屈非禮判監 失婚漢含冤十年曾自殺
    http://nextplus.nextmedia.com/news/spot/20151218/318223

    10年唔敢裝修 失婚漢怕破壞現場證據
    http://nextplus.nextmedia.com/news/spot/20151218/316461

    I do wonder what happen inside?

    回覆刪除
  6. 錦上路車禍貨車司機提堂 被告警誡下否認控罪
    上周五於元朗錦上路發生的4死14傷車禍,肇事的貨車司機被控危險駕駛導致他人死亡罪,案件今在裁判法院提堂。據控方指貨車當日沿錦上路行駛,駛到東匯路交界的十字路口,被告衝紅燈,導致貨車與沿東匯路駛出的小巴相撞。客滿的17座小巴捱撞後翻側。被告在警誡下否認控罪。

    控方申請將案押後以待警方作進一步調查、死者驗屍報告及DNA較對,又指警方將進行交通意外重組,案件押後至明年2月16日再訊。

    被告申請保釋,他透過代表律師指本案屬不幸,對事件感到難過,願意以1萬元現金及1萬元人事擔保外出,但裁判官則指本案涉及多名死傷者,案情嚴重,拒絕其保釋申請。被告將於12月29日再申請保釋。

    被告張文良(70歲),被控危險駕駛引致他人死亡罪。控罪指被告於本月18日在八鄉上路與東匯路交界危險駕駛中型貨車,引致鄧東喜、陳桂珍、陳桂英及張淽喬死亡。
    _________________________________________

    印象中危駕致死案甚少會扣留48小時直接落holding charge再不准保釋,如果今次不是有車cam影著,司機又沒有在警誡下招認,應該好少會要還押?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. True. What the police normally do is to grant bail to the driver pending MVE and forensic reports before laying charge(s). Refusing bail in court for DD Causing Death is rare too. Applying Cooksley, this driver might have committed a momentary error of judgment, what sentence would he get in the end? There are too many unknown factors. In the worst scenario, he would probably get slightly more than 5 years.

      刪除
    2. 裁判官會不會因見被告情緒低落又年老, 恐防他保釋期間自殺,不說出這原因,而推說案情嚴重不准保釋?
      聽電台新聞說被告多病. KKC

      刪除
    3. 以本案而言,自殺不是考慮因素,法官沒有任何根據。被告日後一定可獲得保釋。

      刪除
    4. The lorry driver who caused 21 deaths in the Tuen Mun Road bus crash in 2003 was jailed for 6 months only after appeal...5 years seems quite unlikely?

      刪除
    5. The length of sentence is not directly proportional to death tolls. The driver in Tuen Mun Highway accident was only guilty of careless driving (max sentence 6 months at that time) instead of dangerous driving causing death.

      刪除
    6. That's why I think the court would use Cooksley as a yardstick.

      刪除
  7. 香港保安局和截取通訊及監察事務專員包庇警員偷窺良家婦女

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 那麼這些警員甚至是警司淨係識得蝦女人, 蝦女人的男人,真是不要臉哪!一個人最重要的是人格, 品德, 操守, 見微知著, 他們不知會幹什麼

      刪除
  8. 請問如何申請"將胡亂批准截取通訊及監察的小組法官和警司"捉入精神病院並要求將他們長期監禁呢?

    回覆刪除