2015年12月8日星期二

通風報訊

明報今天的頭條新聞報導興建中的灣仔繞道,涉嫌非法傾倒建築廢料入維港,使人更氣憤的不是政府部門巡查沒有發現,而是地盤預先得悉巡查時間,消息不合理地靈通。連明報寫給環保署諮詢情況,地盤也預知明報在暗中偵查,這真的相當離譜。工程監察部門通風報訊,不一定涉及貪污,為何會走漏消息呢?先看下明報這則報導:

工程參與者﹕政府巡查日 管理層早悉

【明報專訊】本報偵查發現中環灣仔繞道部分地盤的工序疑涉違規,但政府部門及監管機構多次巡查都未有發現;有參與工程的消息人士透露,涉事地盤每逢有環保署、消防處、勞工處等人員巡查,管理層早在3日前已知悉,並提示前線人員應對,「高層知道政府哪日來巡查,便會叫我們收起疑違規設施、停止疑違法工序,試過風聲緊,一個工序停了兩星期」。但路政署、環保署及地盤負責人否認有上述情况。另外,本報偵查地盤疑涉傾倒建築廢料事件,地盤同樣消息靈通。

問環保署兩日後 地盤悉本報正查

本報上月8日發出電郵向環保署查詢正確棄置膨潤土的方法,及有關過去違例個案數字,當中內容未有提及針對任何地盤或投訴。但兩日後,消息人士向記者通報,中環灣仔繞道多個工程地盤已知悉「明報」正在調查,內容有關「海上傾倒膨潤土」,並着工人要小心處理。但記者於偵查過程中從未表露身分。

環署稱突擊巡查 黎廣德促查泄風聲

環保署回應本報查詢時表示,由於提問涉及廢料處理,故轉交土木工程拓展署答覆,並強調署方執法人員巡查工作都是突擊方式,不會事先通報任何人。土木工程署則表示,收到查詢後已直接處理,除環保署及發展局外,沒就此與其他部門聯絡。

公共專業聯盟政策召集人黎廣德直斥問題十分嚴重,稱環保署、路政署都是工程監察部門,若突擊巡查前有人通報,已失去監察功能,促政府展開獨立調查。


撇開貪污或者涉及其他甜頭不講,巡查到違規情況,政府人員工作量會大增,以非法傾倒建築廢料為例,要偵察監視,晚間也要出動,要找到觀察點用望遠鏡監視,離遠拍攝,搜集水質樣本,填寫報告,繼而錄取口供,上庭作證。有的偵查還會由跟蹤盛載建築廢料的泥頭車開始,紀錄泥頭數量,計算地盤填報填海物料的數量等。如果地盤奉公守法,政府人員巡查不到任何違規事項,雙方便皆大歡喜,於是大家會一起炮製,這就是通風報訊的誘因。有恩於你,便會知恩圖報,大家識做,就一切好辦,勾結從此而起。我不是危言聳聽,這是長久以來的現象。

明報這次偵查所得,應交由警方或廉署調查,這件是公職人員行為失當的案件。

13 則留言:

  1. https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E4%B8%83%E8%AD%A6%E5%86%8D%E6%8F%90%E5%A0%82-%E6%8E%A7%E6%96%B9%E7%94%A8%E7%B6%B2%E4%B8%8A%E7%89%87%E4%BD%9C%E8%AD%89%E6%93%9A-%E6%9C%AA%E7%8D%B2%E7%84%A1%E7%B6%AB%E5%8D%94%E5%8A%A9%E8%AD%89%E7%9C%9F%E5%81%BD-%E6%B3%95%E5%AE%98%E9%97%9C%E6%B3%A8%E6%8E%A7%E6%96%B9%E6%9C%89%E5%90%A6%E5%81%9A%E8%B6%B3%E5%8A%9F%E5%A4%AB/

    【七警再提堂】控方用網上片作證據 未獲無綫協助證真偽 法官關注控方有否做足功夫

    法官郭啟安今特意提醒,社會高度關注此案,不希望因控方做少了事,而達不到公義,要求控方小心處理辯方或會提出的爭議,又提醒控方可於預審前找專家處理片段的爭議。

    郭官提到,留意到控方案情中提及無綫電視的新聞片段,但控方並沒證據證明片段的準確性和未曾受干擾,認為控方大可發出傳票要求相關人士提供資料。惟控方稱,控方將有10至12段來自無綫電視和其他新聞媒體的片段,內容相同,可以互相證明,又指片段屬公開資料(open source),從互聯網下載,控方曾嘗試接觸無綫的攝影師協助,但被拒絕,後指出無綫拒絕提供攝影師的身分;辯方表示會爭議片段的真確性,以及被告身份.

    ~~~ I think the judge's remark is correct. Is the prosecutor a complete idiot? Just download some clips from the Internet and expect them to pass the test of admissibility just because they support each other? How did he pass his exams on criminal procedure? It's hearsay evidence and he does not call the maker. Is he mad? Or is he trying to have all defendants acquitted on this technicality? What do you think?

    回覆刪除
  2. http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20151208/-2-4501005/1.html

    七名警員涉嫌毆打曾健超案再在區域法院提堂,案件排期明年六月開審。控方將以無綫電視的新聞片段呈堂,法官質疑控方只從網上下載,而辯方亦表明質疑片段真偽。至於為何控方不傳召無綫的攝影師作證明,控方承認無綫拒絕合作。法官認為案件備受關注,不能因為控方疏忽處理證據,影響聆訊公正。七名警員到區域法院應訊,由第一被告有組織罪案及三合會調查科總督察黃祖成帶領步入法院。他們繫上一樣的領帶,部分人戴上口罩及太陽眼鏡。七人皆通過代表律師向法官表示預計不會認罪。法官郭啟安表示本案涉及多名警員,要求控辯雙方在正式開審前,將案情爭議收窄。當天在現場拍到的片段,控方所知有十至十二段,包括有不同電視台及傳媒。而控方選擇以無綫電視的新聞片段呈堂,法官指,該條新聞片段是案件的關鍵證據。控方只是從網上下載,問控方曾否驗證片段的真偽,或片段曾否受干擾及尋求攝影師作供。代表律政司的副刑事檢控專員梁卓然認為片段屬開放資訊,下載後,毋需驗證。他又指曾比較其他傳媒所拍攝的片段,內容類似,表證證明片段真實。不過,法官質疑控方為何不發出傳票直接傳召攝影師,以證明當天拍過相關片段,又問是否無綫電視拒絕透露當天拍攝片段的攝影師身分,控方回應「是」。法官表示本案案情高調,備受公眾關注,裁決依賴證據的可信度。他表示不希望因為控方處理證據疏忽,影響聆訊的公正性,希望控方考慮是否要於審理前覆核前,尋求鑑證專家鑑證。代表被告的資深大律師清洪及駱應淦表明會質疑該新聞片段,但認為有關爭議應在明年三月審前覆核處理。

    ~~~ 副刑事檢控專員梁卓然係咪弱智㗎!唔叫製片人作證佢點將條片呈堂呀? Does David Leung SC have a law degree?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. To be fair to David Leung, I think the uncooperative aspect of TVB must have been considered by the London Silk. I am not sure if the maker of the film is not called, the film will plainly be inadmissible? If it is not, then can it provides some corroborative value to support what the victim says? I have not touched these things for too long. What is the governing principle?

      刪除
    2. A film is the narrative of its maker. If its maker does not give evidence inside the court room under oath, it becomes something like a police statement which does not contain admission - it cannot be adduced as evidence. End of story. If David Leung SC thought he could just download something from Youtube and use it as evidence, I would be questioning whether he had ever studied criminal evidence - ever. I would also be very worried about the poor quality of people in the employ of the Department of Justice. If a prosecutor can just adduce a film downloaded from Youtube and prosecute people with it, why doesn't David Leung SC use a clip from Iron Man and use it to prosecute Jeff Bridges for his attempt to murder Robert Downey Jr? Do you see the problem of using clips from the Internet as evidence?

      刪除
  3. 我都覺得副刑事檢控專員梁卓然資深大律師完全唔識法律. 網上下載嘅片段就咁就呈堂?佢黐線㗎?用寒戰片段刑事檢控郭富誠好無?傻㗎佢?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Without disrespect, I wonder if you guys read HKSAR v. LEE CHI FAI AND OTHERS CACC 99/2002. I believe the prosecution will adopt the ratio in this case when films were downloaded from the internet or from ATV website and to be produced at the trial of both of the 7 policemen and Tsang Kin Chiu.

      刪除
    2. A Kwok knew the case because he was the trial judge in that case as well. D Leung knew the case because he was the advocate for that case as well. Difference: There were experts.

      刪除
    3. I think expert is not of much assistance here. The case cited precedence relating to dealing with video tape. In the present instance, it should be digital matters. In no way any expert can tell if there has been edition digitally. I just wish to point out there is room for argument whether these films are admissible instead of criticising David Leung SC being plainly in error.

      刪除
  4. Wife caught her husband and his girlfriend in a bed,

    The first video

    http://video.weibo.com/show?fid=1034:07d31611a60ed4a7fe8f12b7246f8737

    Second video

    http://video.weibo.com/show?fid=1034:ae77323940c5bb1901602681441b7d6b

    They can not be separated

    It looks like the lady is his wife girlfriends. . .

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. There are many things happening worldwide. I cannot read and watch everything.

      刪除
  5. Is this true love? The man protected mistress in front of his wife, the wife was so angry and hit them, even made a video post in a weibo.

    Sure their marry will end very soon....

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Did you leave the comment at the wrong place? I do not provide love or marriage counselling.

      刪除
    2. No, just give you some view of family affairs.

      You must interest provide this: 共同撫養權/共同監護權 instead of 只判處一方的撫養權/監護權

      If the woman show this video in the court....
      What will happen?

      If in HK, sure she will be arrest.

      刪除