刁民何來

何來違交通例高院脫罪 律政司終院反勝

【明報專訊】保育人士何來2013年在東涌踏單車時，被指沒有遵從單車徑交通標誌下車推車而行，被警員截停票控罰款500元。何來不服上訴，獲高院裁定得直，撤銷定罪及罰款。敗訴的律政司不服，昨終院上訴，反敗為勝獲終院判處得直，但毋須將案重審或再定罪。

毋須重審或再定罪

終院法官押後解釋判決理由。終院首席法官馬道立昨在聆訊期間，毋須上訴的律政司一方陳辭，表示只需聽取答辯人何來一方的回應。代表何來的資深大律師祁志表示，涉案標誌的意思含糊不清，加上事發時即使何來沒有按標誌下車推單車，亦沒有構成即時危險。

辯方﹕沒即時危險 馬道立舉例反駁

祁志又指出，事實上並非只有何來誤解標誌，運輸署文件亦顯示，要再教育市民理解有關標誌，可見何來可以真誠誤解標誌意思作為抗辯理由。惟馬道立問道，假如是交通燈是紅色，當時沒有其他車輛，若駕駛者「衝燈」，也可以沒有即時危險作為合理的抗辯理由？祁志沒有正面回應，只表示要視乎當時情况而決定，例如交通燈是否壞了等。

本案的法律觀點爭議包括，在涉案《道路交通條例》下，法律上應如何應用，以及其規管至什麼程度；另外，若對交通標誌有誤解，可否成為合法的抗辯理由。

未遵標誌落單車

事發於2013年5月13日，何來踩單車駛經裕東路往港鐵站，行經北大嶼山警署後門時被警員截停，指她未有遵從交通標誌的規定下車推單車。何當時指居住東涌數年，從未見過有車輛由該後門出入，亦從無騎單車人士會在該處下車，以為該標誌指單車可繼續前行。何後來被罰款500元。

何後來向高院上訴獲判得直，高院認為專家於其交通標誌的報告中指出，單車徑的部分標誌具誤導性， 但有關報告在原審時，控方並沒有應辯方的要求向法庭披露。高院認為交通標誌需要向道路使用者帶出簡單明確的意思，但公眾對涉案標誌可以有不同理解。

【案件編號：FACC7/15】

(5/3/2016)

我以前為了何來這件小案寫過兩篇(何來？何苦？何必？ 及 何來也非何來), 寫的原因並非案件本身有甚麼吸引力, 我講過是因為對何來看不順眼才寫。終審法院批准控方上訴的判辭還未上載, 故此暫時不知道具體理由, 2015年8月18日終院批出上訴許可, 下面就是當時判辭的內容:

Chief Justice Ma:

1. Leave to appeal is granted to the Applicant on the questions set out in paragraph 1(1) and 1(2) of the Amended Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal:-

“ In the context of the regulatory regime under the Road Traffic Ordinance Cap. 374 and its regulations governing road traffic offences and, in particular, in relation to the offence of failing to comply with a requirement indicated by a traffic sign contrary to Regulations 50(2) and 61(2) of the Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Regulations Cap. 374G ( “the Regulations”):-

(1) How does the principle of legal certainty operate and what is the extent of its requirements?

(2) Whether or not misunderstanding or ignorance of the legal requirement as indicated by a traffic sign - when such requirement is expressly set out in the Regulations and the Road Users’ Code - can give rise to a reasonable excuse under Regulation 61(2) of the Regulations?”

2. The appeal will be heard on 4 March 2016.


(Geoffrey Ma)
Chief Justice (R A V Ribeiro)
Permanent Judge (Robert Tang)
Permanent Judge

Mr William Tam SC, DDPP and Mr Ivan Cheung, PP, of the Department of Justice, for the Applicant

Mr Nigel Kat SC and Mr Azan Marwah, instructed by Vidler & Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Respondent

大馬爺無需控方陳辭, 代表何來的資深大律師祁志(Nigel Kat), 據明報的報導看, 可謂給大馬爺問到口啞啞, 有點語無倫次。首先他講何來就算違反交通標誌, 也無做成即時危險, 這講法混淆了抗辯理由和求情理由, 怪不得大馬爺要追殺他, 問他沒做成即時危險可以是衝燈的抗辯理由嗎? 他避了問題不直接答, 竟然很荒謬地舉了壞燈為例。停一停, 想一想。問的是衝燈(jump the red light), 在法律上可以有抗辯理由? 當然有, 衝燈違反《道路交通(交通管制)規例》第18條, 講罰則的第61(1)條開頭第一句已講「任可人無合理辯解…」, 即是只要有合理辯解就是抗辯理由, 沒有即時危險, 只是求情理由。而且舉壞燈為例也是廢話, 交通燈有任何問題, 在設計上最安全的做法就是black out, 而不會出現不同方向的燈號都是紅燈的情況。故此, 真的壞燈, 就沒有燈號了, 沒有燈號又怎會有衝燈的情況出現呢? 是不是廢話?

何來是典型的刁民, 連違反交通標誌都聲大大講公民抗命, 給警察截停還可以大義凜然講阿Sir, 我今日唔得閒, 否則有排同你玩。我也希望終院頒佈判辭的時候會罵這潑婦幾句。她在高院上訴得直之餘, 法官對這潑婦的態度也訓斥過:

80. It is clear to me that the two police officers were performing their duties, monitoring and policing the area for the general safety of road users. Disrespect is like any other insidious behaviour, it can escalate to a level and degree where it can have a grave effect. The rule of law is the lifeblood of the community in Hong Kong. The persons entrusted to enforce the laws should be given due respect and understanding from members of the community, and at least the same due respect and understanding that members of the community expect them to give to persons upon whom they seek to enforce the law. Mutual trust and respect may not have the force of law but it is the driving force that upholds the rule of law. The obdurate and disrespectful behaviour by the appellant to the police sergeant was unwarranted and totally inappropriate. It is clear to me that the police sergeant was doing no more than his duty in seeking to control an area that may pose as a safety risk to road users. This sort of behaviour is not conducive to the maintenance of a civil society based on mutual trust and respect.

(HKSAR and HO LOY HCMA 280/2014)

香港的社會氣氛就是這樣, 動不動就講公民抗命, 動不動就「玩嘢」, 昨天東區法庭那9個詐病要求睇醫生的囚犯就是要玩弄制度, 有人不獲保釋就煽動其他人增添麻煩, 他們說要看醫生, 法庭不能阻止, 對付方法也很簡單, 你「玩嘢」, 咪繼續扣押囉。可是, 何來「玩嘢」, 納稅人要一齊畀錢佢玩喎!