2016年3月16日星期三

覆核判刑

【反新界東北撥款】衝擊立會13人判社會服務令 律政司指刑期過輕將申覆核

立法會前年6月13日審議新界東北前期發展工程撥款,多名示威者以竹枝強行撬開大樓玻璃門及拉扯鐵馬等,涉案12人經審訊後,被裁定參與非法集結罪成立,另一人則已認罪,13人昨被判80至150小時社會服務令不等。律政司發表聲明,認為刑期過輕,將就有關判刑申請覆核。

13名被告分別為梁曉暘、黃浩銘、劉國樑、梁穎禮、林朗彥、朱偉聰、何潔泓、周豁然、嚴敏華、招顯聰、郭耀昌、黃根源及陳白山。眾被告均被裁定參與非法集結罪成立,企圖強行進入罪不成立。梁曉暘另被裁定妨礙正在執行職務的立法會人員罪成,另外黃根源在本案開審前已承認參與非法集結罪及企圖強行進入罪,黃被判80小時社會服務令,招顯聰及陳白山則被判150小時社會服務令,另外10人被判120小時社會服務令。


這是明報昨晚的即時新聞, 我要寫點評論, 不得不先把《聽楊絳談往事》擱下, 這本書讓我重溫一些三、四十年代至文革期間的文壇事蹟, 差不多400頁, 我只看了4份3。
 
3星期前, 我寫了法官閣下, 你哋搞乜?, 其中一項批評是, 裁判官溫紹明對「反新界東北撥款」被定罪的被告判刑不恰當, 嚴重偏低。我在另一篇罵那些在高院門口上演馬騮戲的愛字頭小丑, 他們批評「狗官」包庇縱容輕判暴徒, 我叫他們應該去律政司抗議, 要求律政司提出判刑覆核, 這些跳樑小丑肯定沒有去, 但律政司不用他們抗議也會採取行動。判刑偏低有時難以提出覆核, 因為栽判官不肯覆核, 律政司向上訴庭申請, 到頭來多數都不加刑, 除非是判刑嚴重不足的情況(manifestly inadequate), 否則你郁佢唔到, 因為判刑不足的案件, 就算上訴庭認同也未必加刑, 原因是上訴庭就算認為判刑偏低, 但是控方判刑上訴, 法庭對被告的刑罰也會打折, 七折八扣之下, 便打回原形。故此, 不是極度偏低的判刑, 控方不會向上訴庭申請覆核刑期, 以免嘥聲壞氣, 徒勞無功。譬如一件案判了4個月監, 上訴庭也認為偏輕, 應判6個月, 被告原本的判刑與上訴庭的差距不太大, 上訴庭會為了公平起見, 不加這兩個月監。

我相信律政司另一個向裁判官申請覆核的原因是見到上星期高院法官張慧玲對另一宗衝擊立法會案的判決, 3名被告的控罪是刑事毀壞及非法集結: HKSAR and TAI CHI SHING (戴志誠) And Others HCMA 579/2015. 他們在主任裁判官席前認罪, 被判社會服務令, 律政司向裁判官申請覆核後, 改判被告監禁3個半月。被告不服, 提出判刑上訴(其中一人放棄上訴), 長話短說, 上訴細節我不講, 只講明確訊息, 張慧玲在判辭講了這些說話:

41. Whilst the case of Cheung Chun Chin concerns the offence of riot, and the present case involves the offence of unlawful assembly, the same sentencing principles are applicable. The defendants’ acts were certainly “riotous” in nature, if not a “riot” by legal definition. Bearing in mind the violence used, in particular the way mills barriers and other objects were deployed to charge violently at the glass doors of the complex, causing extensive damage; the number of persons involved; the intimidating nature and duration of the assembly; the fact that such riotous behaviour took place despite the legislative councillor Mr Cheung telling those present that there would not be a debate on the so-called “Internet Article 23” the next day; and the corporate nature of the offence, CSO was not a viable sentencing option and an immediate custodial sentence was appropriate, even for a first offender.

42. In my view, a clear message must be sent to the public that whilst one has the constitutional right of freedom of expression and freedom to take part in an assembly, one must respect the law and order and cannot behave in such a destructive way, causing damage to properties (or causing injuries to others, which fortunately did not happen in the present case). The courts will not condone such irresponsible and unlawful behaviour and a deterrence, immediate custodial sentence will be imposed, even for a first offender.

反新界東北撥款案所涉的暴力雖然不及戴志誠案, 但這些被告除一人認罪外, 全部否認控罪, 其中有幾個看名字已知是有案底的人, 故此大部份被告應該判監, 他們屬張慧玲所講的暴亂行為。我相信控方要求溫紹明覆核刑期會呈上戴志誠案, 如果溫官拒絕, 本案很有機會在上訴庭覆核刑期, 乘機要求上訴庭訂出判刑指引。

唯一使我對這新聞有保留的是, 反新界東北撥款案在2月19日判決, 律政司申請覆核要在判決後14整天(clear days)內提出, 若然提出申請, 一定是已去信要求定出聽審覆核申請的日期, 除非律政司臨時縮沙。其中有幾個被告, 理應判監, 不能姑息。

7 則留言:

  1. 邊幾個應該判監?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 如果我有權判我就講你知。

      刪除
  2. It's the CA review, leave already granted. I doubt if any guideline can be given, since the circumstances of unlawful assembly can be very different.
    http://www.doj.gov.hk/eng/public/pr/20160315_pr2.html

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. I am puzzled by the announcement from DOJ.

      Is it a review under section 104 of CAP 227 ?

      I always think that review of sentence under section 81A of CAP 221 only applies to District Court and CFI.

      VL

      刪除
    2. CF

      I agree with your observation but the intention of DoJ is obvious.

      VL

      From DoJ's press release, the review is in pursuance of S.81A(1) CPO. The only way the prosecution could apply for a review of sentence in the appellate court. It applies to magistracy review if application is not made before he magistrate. The MTR Indecent Assault sentencing guideline is a good example. That is, AG and Wai Yan Shun CAAR 17/1990. Though in the judgment, it mis-quoted or mis-typed the section as 61A.

      刪除
  3. 我反而想講香港好像走入非常壞的惡性循環,邊個大聲邊個夠惡就聽邊個。
    起佔中後,旺角暴亂前,激進派的判刑偏低。通常都係社會服務令援刑。
    好難講裁判官或刑事檢控人員是否因為暴亂後對呢班激進化態度有所轉變,加重刑罰,嚴正執法。
    但如果一樣有睇開示威直播,起佔中或其他立法會外清場行動,示威者一樣咁激,只不過無掟磚,無縱火,對警察敵對態度一樣無變。我對旺角暴暴一啲都唔覺得奇怪。
    但同一時間,建制派的激進派開始示威,寫信比律政司要求加重激進派的刑罰。又批評警察拉人,法官放人等。
    現在裁判官的刑罰及律政司的態度轉變係因為旺角暴亂定係因為建制派起度嘈。
    如果泛民之後又嘈,裁判官或律政司態度又會否轉變,判刑轉為輕。
    我睇到現在司法界的處境係邊個鬧狗官鬧得大聲,法官就會加重或減輕激進派的刑罰。
    只想司法界及律政司保持一貫性。避免被政治化

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 司法很難有一貫性, 一向都因人而異, 也難以量度鬧得大聲有甚麼實質影響, 兩邊都有人罵「狗官」。

      刪除