2016年3月23日星期三

終審法院對何來案的判決

終審法院今天頒布了何來案的判辭, 以前我寫過好幾篇來罵何來這刁民, 先看下下面這兩張圖, 究竟你明不明白法例的要求。





一切問題皆由此起。何來騎單車經過155這圖後沒有下車, 警長把她截停控告她, 她抗辯的理由是這交通標誌圖像意思不清楚, 不知是要求騎單車的人下車, 原審裁判官不接納她這抗辯理由, 也不相信她所稱誠實地相信標誌含糊, 認為她是有心違例, 於是把她定罪。她上訴到高院時, 高院原訟庭裁定上訴得直, 因為標誌含糊不清, 該圖形違反法律必須明確的原則(legal certainty)。終院推翻高院的判決, 認為有關罪行並非“沒有遵守交通標誌”,而是“沒有遵守有關標誌所顯示的規定”。簡單講即係唔係淨睇公仔, 要睇埋啲字點講。如果個個都用自己既辦法去理解呢啲交通標誌, 咁就世界大亂(It would be a recipe for traffic chaos if an honest belief that those signs had different meanings to those set out in the relevant Schedule of the Regulations could constitute a reasonable excuse for not complying with their requirements.)

(para 56 HKSAR v HO LOY FACC7/2015)

我在刁民何來一文批評過資深大律師舉壞燈的例子荒謬, 因壞燈而衝燈只是求情因素, 並非合理辯解, 看下終院也講同樣的話:

(........In any event, it is not for the court to determine the reasonableness of the placement of the traffic sign, which might be a matter for a judicial review (if proper grounds existed for such a challenge, which was not suggested to be the case here), and the absence of risk to other road users by the commission of the offence is a matter in mitigation of penalty rather than a reasonable excuse for non-compliance. The traffic light stuck on red at 3am is simply an example of a malfunctioning light, which simply provides another example of a type of circumstance which might constitute a reasonable excuse for non-compliance.)
(para 58)

6 則留言:

  1. http://news.mingpao.com/ins/instantnews/web_tc/article/20160323/s00001/1458707375729

    律政司獲准重告17佔旺者藐視法庭 被告要求剔除許可 (12:15)

    律政司早前控告「四眼哥哥」鄭錦滿等17人刑事藐視法庭,指他們於前年11月佔旺期間涉違反禁制令,惟律政司「甩轆」無法繼續檢控各人。律政司其後再入稟高院並獲許可起訴該17 人。被告方今要求剔除法庭重頒的許可,並透露另一批被控刑事蔑視法庭的人士已就本月初法庭頒下的裁決提出上訴。
    代表部分被告的資深大律師麥高義今指,律政司重新入稟控告刑事蔑視法庭一事已超過6個月的限期,故要求剔除。代表部分被告的資深大律師潘熙則認為律政司不可重新入稟,亦提要求剔除。
    法官現把案件押後至下月29日,就剔除許可一事聽取雙方陳詞。

    @:標少會否講下呢單.

    八叔公字

    回覆刪除
  2. 圖一是帶有禁止命令的意思,如圖像改為一個騎車者再加一斜粗紋可能更易明白.

    回覆刪除
  3. Bill siu,
    http://paper.wenweipo.com/2016/03/19/WW1603190001.htm
    There are voices in the society supporting and arguing for independence of HK. Critics claimed that this may violate the law. What is you view? Thanks

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. This wenweipo article is good for a laugh. I would write a blog when I have time to address what I feel about its fallacy.

      刪除