Oscar Pistorius verdict changed to murder
Olympic athlete Oscar Pistorius has been found guilty of murder after a South African appeals court overturned an earlier manslaughter verdict.
He killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp in February 2013 after shooting her four times through a locked toilet door.
He is currently under house arrest after spending one year of his original five-year sentence in jail.
Pistorius will have to return to court to be re-sentenced, for murder.
Pistorius murder conviction: Live updates
It was earlier incorrectly reported that the court had ruled the manslaughter verdict would remain.
South Africa's Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that the lower court did not correctly apply the rule of dolus eventualis - whether Pistorius knew that a death would be a likely result of his actions.
The minimum sentence for murder is 15 years but judges can apply some discretion.
South African law does not make provision for someone to be placed under house arrest for more than five years, so Pistorius will be going back to prison, reports the BBC's Pumza Fihlani in Johannesburg.
Reading the ruling reached by a panel of five judges, Justice Eric Leach said that having armed himself with a high-calibre weapon, Pistorius must have foreseen that whoever was behind the door might die.
Pistorius always maintained that he believed there was an intruder in the house but the judge said that the identity of the person behind the door was "irrelevant to his guilt".
Justice Leach compared it to someone setting off a bomb in a public place not knowing who the victims might be.
He also rejected the argument that Pistorius had acted in self-defence.
The judge argued that his life was not in danger at the time of the shooting, as Pistorius did not know who was behind the door or if they posed a threat.
He added that Pistorius did "not take that most elementary precaution of firing a warning shot".
Pistorius did not attend the hearing in Bloemfontein.
But Ms Steenkamp's mother, June, was present and afterwards she was seen outside the court being embraced by members of the African National Congress Women's League, who were singing songs of celebration.
The double amputee was released from prison on 19 October. Under South African law, he was eligible for release under "correctional supervision", having served a sixth of his sentence.
Pistorius can challenge the ruling in the constitutional court but only if his lawyers can argue that his constitutional rights have been violated.
Legal expert Mannie Witz told the BBC that there do not appear to be any grounds for such an appeal.
我以前寫過3篇評論本案的文，對於先前判他誤殺罪，我一直都不服氣，現在控方上訴得直，改判謀殺，不管刑期有别於香港的終身監禁，起碼都叫罪有應得，還死者一點公道。
Olympic athlete Oscar Pistorius has been found guilty of murder after a South African appeals court overturned an earlier manslaughter verdict.
He killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp in February 2013 after shooting her four times through a locked toilet door.
He is currently under house arrest after spending one year of his original five-year sentence in jail.
Pistorius will have to return to court to be re-sentenced, for murder.
Pistorius murder conviction: Live updates
It was earlier incorrectly reported that the court had ruled the manslaughter verdict would remain.
South Africa's Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that the lower court did not correctly apply the rule of dolus eventualis - whether Pistorius knew that a death would be a likely result of his actions.
The minimum sentence for murder is 15 years but judges can apply some discretion.
South African law does not make provision for someone to be placed under house arrest for more than five years, so Pistorius will be going back to prison, reports the BBC's Pumza Fihlani in Johannesburg.
Reading the ruling reached by a panel of five judges, Justice Eric Leach said that having armed himself with a high-calibre weapon, Pistorius must have foreseen that whoever was behind the door might die.
Pistorius always maintained that he believed there was an intruder in the house but the judge said that the identity of the person behind the door was "irrelevant to his guilt".
Justice Leach compared it to someone setting off a bomb in a public place not knowing who the victims might be.
He also rejected the argument that Pistorius had acted in self-defence.
The judge argued that his life was not in danger at the time of the shooting, as Pistorius did not know who was behind the door or if they posed a threat.
He added that Pistorius did "not take that most elementary precaution of firing a warning shot".
Pistorius did not attend the hearing in Bloemfontein.
But Ms Steenkamp's mother, June, was present and afterwards she was seen outside the court being embraced by members of the African National Congress Women's League, who were singing songs of celebration.
The double amputee was released from prison on 19 October. Under South African law, he was eligible for release under "correctional supervision", having served a sixth of his sentence.
Pistorius can challenge the ruling in the constitutional court but only if his lawyers can argue that his constitutional rights have been violated.
Legal expert Mannie Witz told the BBC that there do not appear to be any grounds for such an appeal.
(BBC news 3/12/2015)
我以前寫過3篇評論本案的文，對於先前判他誤殺罪，我一直都不服氣，現在控方上訴得直，改判謀殺，不管刑期有别於香港的終身監禁，起碼都叫罪有應得，還死者一點公道。
標少：
回覆刪除關注緊版權修訂條例，想向您請教幾個問題：
1、香港法律制度裡面有沒有「告訴乃論」的概念？（No trial without complaint）？
2、如有，「可公訴罪」是否即等同「非告訴乃論」？
3、如果兩者不是等同，具體操作上如何決定什麼罪行是不訴不告？
謝謝！
我不懂，香港也未聼過告訴乃論。可公訴罪只是相對於循簡易程序控罪嚴重。
刪除以我理解，香港的刑事罪全是非告訴乃論 (全部都是要公訴罪，由律政司提告)，但有很多時候也有「告訴乃論」的概念，例如強姦案，就算有一整段影片，政府也不能在婦女沒報案下自行檢控)
刪除感謝標少賜教
回覆刪除那麼香港執法部門以何準則，會在沒有受害者/報發者的情況下主動調查和起訴？
將一個罪名改為可公訴，是否等同政府可以完全繞過受害者，調查，拘捕和起訴？
(想寫有關這次版權條例修訂的文章，但是在網上找不到有關資料)
It always happens that the prosecution proceeds to charge some accused in the absence of any complainant. For example, a police officer is on routine foot patrol on the street. He spots the accused smoking in a non-smoking area. Then summons is issued against him (Summary Offence). If he sees someone selling obscene disc or infringing discs, he will arrest him. In another extreme, when the police sees that the accused sells dangerous drug to the addict, he will arrest and charge him (indictable offence). Otherwise, he is negligent to perform his duty, if not misconduct in public office.
刪除On some occasions, police decoy will actively infiltrate to the trial society to make investigation.
Of course, it is only traditional way of investigation and patrol. In fact, I see no difference between the cyber patrol and the traditional foot-patrol.
If there is anything appeared to be unlawful in the cyber world, the police / C & E is duty-bound to take active role to make investigation. Victim and complainant is not must.
US
If he sees someone selling infringing discs, he will arrest him.
刪除I wounder if the police would really do so.
Most of this case will be handled by the C & E, but the police is also empowered to do that.
刪除You may look at HCMA 202/2001.
US
http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=21487&QS=%28%E8%AD%A6%E5%93%A1%29%7C%28%E7%9B%9C%E7%89%88%29&TP=JU
Dokitooi,
刪除See if this is what you are looking for: the copyright amendment bill 2014
http://www.gld.gov.hk/egazette/pdf/20141824/es32014182421.pdf
You can search the HK Govt Gazette if you want the Chinese version.
I searched for this first thing in the morning. I will address the general concept in the discussion raised when I have time.
再看上面的留言，我相信Dokitooi所提出的問題局限於版權的問題。我這回覆只局限於侵權行為的討論。沒有版權持有人的證供，有關當局要提出檢控便有證實控罪法律元素的困難。我不是說要有人作出投訴，警方或海關才會作出調查，有人投訴是其中一種導致調查和檢控的理由，也有情況是警方或海關先搗破翻版工埸，或拘捕在街上或店鋪出售翻版或仿製的物品，繼而向版權持有人確認真偽，在後者的情況，你可以講是沒有投訴人的檢控，但版權持有人的證供卻不可少。在審訊時版權持有人未必需要作供，因為控辯雙方有時會同意這方面的證供，有爭議時這些版權持有人就要作供，供詞包括怎樣分辨真假及有沒有允許被告侵權，不論刑事、民事都需要這些證據。一般處理侵權、翻版都歸海關，有時警察拉人後也會交海關處理。
刪除嚴格講，就算是後者的情況，不是版權持有人主動舉報，他們也是受到侵權的受害人，政府不可能繞過他們提出檢控，繞過他們，控方未必能夠證明物品的真偽或是否未獲許可的侵權。那麼，有沒有可能控方不向版權持有人核實真偽或有否許可呢？
當然也有，譬如被告招供。一般都是有其他強而有力的證據才會這樣做，譬如容易識別真偽，翻版不同類型不同的光碟，被告不能提供獲授權生產的證明。對於文字、圖片的cap圖那些就較多括免的情況，我不熟識，不敢亂講。至於要立法保證不檢控不誠實使用電腦罪，想法荒謬。根本有太多變數有可能干犯不同控罪，根本不應寫下不予檢控的包單，因為可涉及多種情況的法律爭駁。法律只能講做那些行為違法，怎能講怎様不違法，怎可能列出各種情況？
刪除應為法律爭論。
刪除近日經常抱恙的律政司司長袁國強本周二因腸部不適而入院，需留院休養數天。袁國強的新聞秘書強調，袁國強病情不嚴重，毋須動手術，但無法出席今天立法會鐵路事宜小組委員會會議，交代高鐵一地兩檢安排。律政司發言人今日中午表示，袁國強今日已出院，下星期一會恢復上班。
回覆刪除【相關新聞】
袁國強入院 缺席會議
Checking which restaurant he always eats out, I suspect who cook for him?
http://www.metrohk.com.hk/pda/pda_detail.php?section=daily&id=297137
回覆刪除or just avoid not to attending ?
报住纽约布鲁克林的郑女士4日表示，其亲属黄先生去年5月在马里兰州一间中餐馆内做工，因与同餐馆的工友发生矛盾，疑被其长期预谋下老鼠药谋害，导致黄先生慢性中毒，病情危急，入院一周无法查明病因。餐馆老板因担心影响生意将相关人士解雇。
回覆刪除這是不是一個精心佈置好準備殺害人的預謀？ 殺害人的命，有人利用身邊的同事熟人來下藥謀害，借刀殺人。
刪除以色列破獲一起食物下毒未遂案
回覆刪除以色列《國土報》稱：以色列警方最近破獲了一起食物下毒未遂案，抓捕了3名居住在東耶路撒冷的巴勒斯坦嫌疑犯。警方指控說，這3名東耶居民通過電子郵件和因特網同哈馬斯聯系，獲得配毒處方并接受了在耶路撒冷鬧市區一家餐館下毒的任務。目前有數千名居住在東耶的巴勒斯坦人在以色列餐飲業就業，人們擔心這起事件會對其他巴勒斯坦餐飲業就業者產生不利影響。
《耶路撒冷郵報》：巴勒斯坦民族權利機構主席阿拉法特9日在約旦河西岸城市拉姆安拉向巴立法委員會發表講話指出，如果立法委員們要求他交權，他會交出行政權力。他還以半開玩笑的口吻說：希望你們能夠這樣做，這樣我可以獲得休息。在一個小時的講話中，阿拉法特還對恐怖行動進行了譴責，但他并未要求立法禁止自殺性爆炸。
美情報指阿蓋達策劃落毒
回覆刪除美國哥倫比亞廣播公司報道，美國獲得情報消息指阿蓋達組織正策劃在美國的餐館及酒店的食物中落毒，國土安全部已經通知全國餐飲業注意，加強防範。 美國掌握的情報指，恐怖分子會選擇某個週末在食物中混入蓖麻毒和山埃，情報人員相信消息很可靠，已全面提高警覺。
王老吉遭落毒
回覆刪除http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20150530/bkn-20150530035056140-0530_00822_001.html
曝喬丹97年總決賽曾被"下毒" 外賣披薩被下藥
回覆刪除http://sports.big5.enorth.com.cn/system/2013/04/19/010874005.shtml
好萊塢女星橫死家中 驚傳遭美國政府下毒暗殺(圖
回覆刪除http://big5.backchina.com/news/2013/11/21/271699.html
允浩中毒案嫌疑犯自首 投毒女子已有悔过之意
回覆刪除http://ent.sina.com.cn/s/j/2006-10-17/10091287452.html