朱經緯案以索取法律意見為由的拖延是一個騙局，當初監警會不同意警察投訴課對本案的定性而發展至尋求法律意見，給人的印象是尋求法律意見涉及刑事方面，即是究竟有没有證據及應不應檢控朱經緯，結果竟然是天大的笑話，尋求民事方面的意見，即是只限於朱經緯在執勤期間涉嫌打人，政府在民事索償時要負起的責任。這真是廢話，現在連民事訴訟都未展開，毫無逼切性要先考慮這方面的法律後果，是否檢控朱經緯, 根本與民事案毫無關係。為何要用這藉口來拖延和騙市民？
以前警察在執勤期間弄傷市民引起民事索償的例子並不罕見，這次處理朱經緯案的手法連我這個一向同情警察的人都極度不滿。不論從公正、公義及公關的角度看，處理手法都可算相當拙劣。
事發時朱經緯未退休，假設拖延到他退休後才檢控他，若然定罪，他無需面對在職時的紀律處分，但有可能影響退休金的發放，定罪的話是個難噎的污點，有誰會争論。可是，一時失控的行為，結合佔中釀成的警民對立，朱經緯揮動警棍沒有對市民造成嚴重傷害，give him all the credits, 唔告佢囉。拖延可以冲淡一切，使人失憶嗎？這件案的刑事檢控的考慮十分顯淺，實質考慮是政治方面，一方面是要面對社會的輿論壓力，另一方面是警方的士氣。這件案要在兩者之間取得平衡並不容易，因為兩者難以共存。不能共存便要以社會公義為依歸，而不是採用現在共亡的方法。明確決定以公眾利益的考慮而不予檢控，只予警告，我可以接受，以欺詐方法來拖延蒙騙怎能提升警察在市民心目中的形象，修補嫌隙？
以前警察在執勤期間弄傷市民引起民事索償的例子並不罕見，這次處理朱經緯案的手法連我這個一向同情警察的人都極度不滿。不論從公正、公義及公關的角度看，處理手法都可算相當拙劣。
事發時朱經緯未退休，假設拖延到他退休後才檢控他，若然定罪，他無需面對在職時的紀律處分，但有可能影響退休金的發放，定罪的話是個難噎的污點，有誰會争論。可是，一時失控的行為，結合佔中釀成的警民對立，朱經緯揮動警棍沒有對市民造成嚴重傷害，give him all the credits, 唔告佢囉。拖延可以冲淡一切，使人失憶嗎？這件案的刑事檢控的考慮十分顯淺，實質考慮是政治方面，一方面是要面對社會的輿論壓力，另一方面是警方的士氣。這件案要在兩者之間取得平衡並不容易，因為兩者難以共存。不能共存便要以社會公義為依歸，而不是採用現在共亡的方法。明確決定以公眾利益的考慮而不予檢控，只予警告，我可以接受，以欺詐方法來拖延蒙騙怎能提升警察在市民心目中的形象，修補嫌隙？
這種手段真的很下三流。打算騙誰呢？
回覆刪除極贊同標少的宗旨。是其是，非其非。
回覆刪除這也是香港法律的精神。
Bill Hk
While I think the much more sensible and responsible step to take is to seek advice directly from PD, I think at this stage one cannot safely conclude that CAPO is only seeking advice on tortious liability just because they are seeking advice from CD not PD. One of the duties of the Police Legal Advisor under CD is to advise CAPO on police complaint cases, so for example if CAPO's focus now is only on whether the complaint should be classified as substantiated as IPCC resolved, and if not, how to reconcile the difference, then PD won't be engaged. That is because under the police complaint system the question of whether to initiate prosecution comes after whether the CAPO complaint is substantiated.
回覆刪除And I think that reveals the fundamental flaw in our police complaints system - it imposes a different regime of prosecution for police officers in default of the law from other citizens. For police officers, the complainant has to establish on a balance of probabilities that the complaint is substantiated, and CAPO's usual position is that whenever the complainee disputes the complainant's version, and there is no independent evidence, they find the burden not satisfied. And of course they don't always prosecute even if the complaint is substantiated. Whereas for other citizens, they'll be arrested just with a prima facie case, and prosecuted when there's reasonable prospect of conviction. The objective effect is that it's much more difficult for police officers to be prosecuted than ordinary citizens, which is manifestly unfair to me.
I think almost everyone was misled to believe that when the police said the case was referred to DoJ for legal advice, it meant to consider whether to prosecute ex-Superintendent Chu. It is prima facie a fraudulent approach and a delaying tactic.
刪除The issue raised in your second para was discussed in my first two blogs on the subject.
Hi Bill Siu, thanks for writing this blog and I really learnt a lot from this.
回覆刪除For this news, I cant understand the rationale behind. Do you have time to elaborate this? or you can give me some reference for me to read myself.
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20151210/19406151
》》》據知控方曾以基於公平及免除複雜性為由，提出先審曾案後審七警案
I have posted a new blog to address what you have raised.
刪除Do you see Guy Turcotte case?
回覆刪除Guy Turcotte found guilty of 2nd-degree murder in deaths of two young children more than six years ago.2009, his ex-wife had an affair, he killed his children. Guy Turcotte has pleaded not guilty to the two murder charges, but has admitted to hospital.
He was found not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder at his first trial.
After six years, he has admitted to jail.
he
Forget to remind that he was a doctor. Before he killed his children, his wife made him so angry, just like : bring her lover living in his house, living as a family.
回覆刪除======================================================================
Another case: Sonia Blanchette, she has been divorce and lost the custody.
She killed her children and dead on a hunger strike.
Radio-Canada is reporting that a Quebec woman charged with murdering her three young children has starved herself to death. The CBC's French-language network says Sonia Blanchette died in a Montreal hospital early this morning, the same day she was to appear in court to have a date set for her first-degree murder trial. Blanchette was charged in the December 2012 deaths of Lorelie, 5, Loic, 4, and Anais, 2.
She lost all hope and bring her life in death.