2016年4月30日星期六

何君堯法庭拍照之二

【法院內自拍】被質疑律師牌「淘寶淘返嚟」 何君堯:你試下買個番嚟! (13:01)

曾任律師會會長的新界關注組大聯盟發言人何君堯,前日於facebook上載自拍照,背景為高院大樓內公眾等候區,涉嫌違法,引起熱論,有網民批評他公然「知法犯法」、「特事特影 」,更質疑「你(何君堯)個律師牌係唔係淘寶淘返嚟?」何君堯至今未有刪圖,並親身回應網民留言,指「你試下去(淘寶)買個番嚟!」

至於有網民估計他會因這張相「自己搞到一身蟻」,呼籲「堯叔忍耐呀」,何君堯回應「多謝鼓勵!你努力呀!」

何君堯前日凌晨3時許在facebook上載這張自拍照。律政司回應指會了解情况,決定是否有需要跟進。司法機構發言人表示,除非獲得特別許可,任何人士不得在法庭或舉行聆訊的建築物或其範圍內拍攝,而法庭內一般而言不可攝影,只有在獲得特別許可下,例如舉行委任儀式後,才可在法庭外的公眾等候區攝影,事件已轉交警方跟進和處理。

警方早前則說,中區警署接獲法院女職員報案,懷疑有人於高等法院內拍照,案件列作「求警協助」,交中區警區人員跟進。

何君堯之後在社交網站回應事件,指一向樂於與友好分享一些工作或社交花絮,上載相片為抒發感想,絕無任何惡意或對法庭不敬。他又認為,對有指他犯法和藐視法庭是「不必要」,對此深感遺憾。

何君堯續說,每逢新律師或大律師宣誓就職後,都會與家人及友好在庭外拍照留念,所站位置與他無異,認為今次拍照與他以往多次律師會在大樓內所舉辦的講座或頒獎典禮拍照性質相同,任何有正常思維的人,都會認為他沒有不恰當之處,對法庭沒有貶低或藐視成分,強調自己沒有違法。(30/4/2016 明報即時新聞)

我相信何君堯在庭外拍照時沒有刻意貶低或藐視法庭的心, 但沒有刻意違法和會不會構成違法行為是兩回事。那就會變成究竟這不准拍照罪本身是否一項嚴格法律要求的控罪(strict liability), 甚至是絕對法律要求的控罪(absolute liability) 。明報講有法院女職員向警方報案, 而司法機構發言人表示案件已轉交警方跟進, 這就顯示法院女職員可能目擊事件也向上級報告了, 由上級指示報案, 才會出現司法機構發言人這種講法。當然這只是我的推論, 並非內幕消息。上一篇有讀者留言質疑沒有證據, 我相信搜集這證據並不艱難。何君堯把拍照地點跟同地點作講座或典禮的拍照相提並論屬錯誤類比, 若然可以作這比擬, 他就可以在庭內拍攝, 而自我感覺沒有犯法。庭內也試過用來開人數較少的講座, 而並不一定在法庭外的大堂舉行。最重要的是當時他並非出席講座或甚麼頒授儀式, 他只是在做流行的selfie, 這樣做也耍看場地、場合是否恰當。如果他沒有受過法律訓練, 因無知而做出這行為, 真的沒有人會報警。他做了這種行為, 若果純粹是警覺不足的無心之失, 道個歉可能就平息了此事, 現在一撐再撐就流於狡辯了。可能他的名聲不好, 也可能因為樹敵太多, 不過也不能把別人的指責視為不必要的誣告, 歸根究底要先看法律條文, 再看法律元素, 再去研究是否構成罪行, 而不是一句別人的指責屬不必要就把責任推得一乾二淨。作風硬朗不怕批評的人, 也要看客觀事實, 否則就變成死不悔改的死撐, 當律師所受的思考訓練都去了那裏? 律師牌當然不是從淘寶淘回來, 有些律師卻只有淘寶的質素。有錯就承認, 落落大方。一味死撐或者閃縮地躲藏起來, 同樣是鼠輩行為, 只會被唾罵。香港充斥着咄咄逼人的社會氣氛, 對公眾人物尤其嚴苛, 講錯或做錯一些事可能會被鍥而不捨的窮追猛打, 確實使人很沮喪。話雖如此, 也不能罔顧自己犯錯的事實, 抵賴就只會進一步把事情弄僵, 使追擊的人更加亢奮, 越搞越無聊。況且, 作為律師, 在法庭內外不准拍照屬本科的基本常識, 自己放肆了就不要一再大放厥詞。連司法機構都講交了給警方跟進, 即是法庭都覺得這行為不妥當, 否則就會講認同何君堯講法的話了。換了是我, 最起碼都閉嘴, 又怎會一再跟網民鬥嘴呢。這又是一個人的質素和level的明證。

去到莊嚴的地方想拍照, 有禮貌和教養的人就會先搞清楚那地方是否容許拍照, 而不是雀躍得像鄉下仔一樣, 拿手機出來興奮地拍。除了法庭不准拍照外, 香港也有其他法例對拍照訂立限制, 譬如在立法會內就有拍攝限制*, 違反時處罰比法庭拍攝還要重, 除了最高罰款同樣是2000元, 還可判處監禁3個月(法例382章第8(3)及第20條)。普通人ignorant of law可以是求情因素, 律師嘛, 就死撐吧!

*
章:382A PDF標題:《規限獲准進入立法會大樓的人士及其行為的行政指令》憲報編號:71 of 2000
條:15條文標題:拍攝的限制版本日期:01/07/1997

附註:
具追溯力的適應化修訂─見2000年第71號第3
立法會或任何委員會舉行會議時─ (2000年第71號第3)
      (a) 任何人不得拍攝會議程序,但如經秘書許可並從其指定的位置進行拍攝,則屬例外;
      (b) 不准在會議廳或委員會會議室內使用閃光燈進行拍攝。

21 則留言:

  1. 我也向律师会投诉鸟...............

    just so he will be kept busy.... heh

    icing on the cake, so to speak

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. You think Law Society will discipline him? Stephen Hung will not take this matter seriously.

      刪除
    2. 佔中果批律師嚴重得多啦,班黃絲天真如此,真係以為個律師會係佢地既

      刪除
    3. LS的程序會要他書面解釋啊

      就是去煩煩他。 哈哈哈

      刪除
    4. I really hope the Law Society of Hong Kong would not just write a short letter to Solicitor Junius Ho, but bring disciplinary proceedings against him forthwith. In my view, Solicitor Junius Ho really did bring the profession of solicitors into disrepute by being an ignorant and arrogant prick.

      刪除
    5. You guys really take it so personal. I do not side with him but objectively, I do not think disciplinary proceeding should be instituted. Well, I don't give a damn if there is one.

      刪除
    6. 何君堯律師呢啲自大白痴真係一個都嫌多啦! I am in favour of bringing disciplinary proceedings against him.

      刪除
    7. http://www.ejinsight.com/20160429-police-investigate-solicitor-taking-selfie-high-court/

      Solicitor Junius Ho Kwan-yiu is being investigated for allegedly breaking the law, after he posted a selfie of himself in front of Court No. 28 at the High Court on his Facebook account, the Hong Kong Economic Journal reported Friday.To allegations that he had violated the Summary Offences Ordinance, the former Law Society president made several responses Thursday, insisting that he was only sharing his feelings on social media and that no offense had been committed. After learning that a police have begun an investigation, Junius Ho said he would remain silent. However, he insisted he will not delete or withdraw the photo. Under the Summary Offences Ordinance, any person who takes or attempts to take any picture in a courtroom or in a court building, or in the precincts of the building in which the court is held, shall be liable to a fine between HK$250 (US$32.20) and HK$2,000.

      A Department of Justice representative said no photography is allowed inside courts under normal circumstances.

      LSD vice chairman Raphael Wong Ho-ming said he plans to file a complaint to the Law Society.Thomas So Shiu-tsung, vice chairman of the society, refused to comment on individual cases but said the commission of an offense by a solicitor doesn’t necessarily put his professional status at risk.The society’s disciplinary committee could decide to launch an investigation on its own or in response to a complaint.

      Kevin Yam Kin-fung of the Progressive Lawyers Group said that, while the nature of Ho’s act was not serious, given several controversial remarks he made in the past, he is not a fit and proper person to be a council member of the Law Society.

      ==> Kevin Yam has a point. I agree Junius Ho is quite simply not a fit and proper person to be a counsel member of the Law Society.

      刪除
    8. I suppose he was elected into the Council.

      刪除
  2. 何君堯呢D小事,到最後真係罰$250,我相信佢都會俾,因為佢要負責任...

    相反,果班佔中律師"非法集結",到依家都未肯去承認責任,究竟誰才是不負責任?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 最高罰款是$2000,不是$250.

      刪除
    2. 話之佢25000啦,總之不會比非法集結嚴重吧

      刪除
    3. That is irrelevant and not comparable.

      刪除
    4. Annonymous 10:05, making uninformed comments would just make a fool of oneself. On what basis you say Junius Ho have accepted/ will accept responsibility? He argued there's nothing wrong in taking the selfie and rejected any liability.

      And go read about the right against self-incrimination. There is no (general) obligation / responsibility to assist in investigation or incriminate oneself.

      刪除
  3. 何君堯律師唔識法律,明顯地犯咗刑事罪行又不知廉恥不知悔改,又自大又白痴,嚴重影響香港事務律師嘅形象,香港律師會應該要釘佢牌!I think Lawyer Solicitor Junius Ho had by his stupid, reckless and ignorant act brought the entire profession of solicitors into disrepute and as such, Lawyer Solicitor Junius Ho should be prosecuted and penalized for professional misconduct immediately.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Have you gone too far contemplating of suspending his license? It is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence committed. His attitude may have brought the profession into disrepute not the offence itself. This offence does not warrant a disciplinary hearing.

      刪除
    2. 咁其實何君堯律師嘅行為又同爆粗大狀馬恩國大律師嘅行為差唔多,都係態度問題影響律師形,我自己就覺得都應該停牌一個月或以上。

      刪除
    3. 我覺得何君堯律師嘅言行會令好多人以為香港事務律師一律都係無知自大嘅擦鞋仔,嚴重損害香港事務律師嘅形象。

      刪除
  4. 小丑—個,擦鞋仔—名,佢做律師有辱家門!

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 香港的法制,香港的前途就係毁在呢班人手中,無計!無奈!

      刪除