這兩天花了一些時間幫一位從香港電郵給我的女生, 又是店舖盜竊希望可以撤銷控罪簽保守行為的案。對我來講只是重覆講程序上的事情, 分析獲得這機會的元素及可能性, 及一切準備功夫。這女生事發以來寢食難安, 夜夜難寐, 前途尤關嘛。沒有案底的人面對留下人生污點的風險, 有誰不着緊。別以為這些非關乎我切身的事我會一點也不着緊, 其實我同樣地盼望, 同樣地心情緊張, 充滿期盼和祝福她的成功。今午得到她的喜訊, 我告訴她, 她欠我一個以後都要好好做人的人情, 她作了承諾, 一個由她自己負責的承諾。我也感同身受, 十分快慰。其實也充滿感慨, 這品學兼優的女生, 一念之間幾乎終身蒙污。
早兩三星期有另外兩宗非禮及影裙底案也寫給我, 我沒有理睬。前者已聘請律師, 後者直認不諱, 告訴我被發覺時立即刪了相片, 但還被檢控。我不理睬理由很簡單, 請了律師就應聽律師意見, 還要來問corroboration的事, 後者要我像師爺那樣「度橋」, 我幾乎想講最好釘你入去坐。最後我索性不回覆罷了。
這兩天有點小風波, 是生活圈的事, 朋友憤憤不平受了委屈, 訴說看清楚一些人偽善的面目, 問我是否懂得看相, 像一早就看得通透。無他, 觀人於微, 不要只看表面熱情和善的嘴臉, 況且, 從發生的小事顯露一個人的真面目, 我們賺了, 起碼不會在大事上才吃虧。我今天在等待醫生發落時冥想了3小時, 因為前面的手術overrun, 我在白等, 利用那空檔三省吾身。想那女生的案件, 究竟是我幫了她抑或她給我一個幫人回饋社會的機會, 在充滿戾氣的社會播下助人的種子, 感恩之餘這女子以後也可以發揮助人的正能量, 雖是滄海微塵, 也能集腋成裘, 不能小覷。至於身邊常見的充滿虛偽的人, 是生活的一部份, 唯有共存。最要緊的別動真氣, 守着個人公正原則, 不同流合污。麻藥未清, 頭腦已十分清晰, 寫這篇與那女生共勉, 也為氣餒的朋友打氣: 擇善固執。
早兩三星期有另外兩宗非禮及影裙底案也寫給我, 我沒有理睬。前者已聘請律師, 後者直認不諱, 告訴我被發覺時立即刪了相片, 但還被檢控。我不理睬理由很簡單, 請了律師就應聽律師意見, 還要來問corroboration的事, 後者要我像師爺那樣「度橋」, 我幾乎想講最好釘你入去坐。最後我索性不回覆罷了。
這兩天有點小風波, 是生活圈的事, 朋友憤憤不平受了委屈, 訴說看清楚一些人偽善的面目, 問我是否懂得看相, 像一早就看得通透。無他, 觀人於微, 不要只看表面熱情和善的嘴臉, 況且, 從發生的小事顯露一個人的真面目, 我們賺了, 起碼不會在大事上才吃虧。我今天在等待醫生發落時冥想了3小時, 因為前面的手術overrun, 我在白等, 利用那空檔三省吾身。想那女生的案件, 究竟是我幫了她抑或她給我一個幫人回饋社會的機會, 在充滿戾氣的社會播下助人的種子, 感恩之餘這女子以後也可以發揮助人的正能量, 雖是滄海微塵, 也能集腋成裘, 不能小覷。至於身邊常見的充滿虛偽的人, 是生活的一部份, 唯有共存。最要緊的別動真氣, 守着個人公正原則, 不同流合污。麻藥未清, 頭腦已十分清晰, 寫這篇與那女生共勉, 也為氣餒的朋友打氣: 擇善固執。
看完標少幫助女生的事，想起 80 年代的一宗高買案件。
回覆刪除案件牽涉一名港大女生，在法庭央求法官不要公開其姓名，但姓名還是被傳媒報導。當年還沒有 internet，一位回家午饍的同事，返到辦公室說，電視報導女生當天上庭，姓名被公開，給母親電話後，跳樓自殺。
案件雖過了差不多卅年，但還記憶猶新。如當年女生，有標少幫助的女生那麼幸運，便可救回一條年輕生命。
我無能為力, 當年的「高買」不會撤銷控罪簽保守行為, 之後的發展有誘因, 有未為人知的故事, 現在律政司寬容了。
刪除真改過自新就算是放生, 大多數重蹈覆轍的, 店舖損失那一個賠?
刪除給犯錯的人機會也可以有正面效果。
刪除標少又做了—件善事，拯救了—位年輕人，获標少幫助的人即有長者又有年輕人，每個你都那么上心－，不問回報，如此功利社會，很雞得
回覆刪除不敢當。其實關鍵在於決策者, 我只提供一點支援。
刪除標少，有單去年的法庭趣聞 我看不明白，望不吝賜教~
回覆刪除有關陪審員自己 “做實驗” 而被解任
https://hk.news.yahoo.com/%E9%8A%80%E8%A1%8C%E5%AE%B6%E5%A7%A6%E5%A6%BB%E6%A1%88-%E9%A8%8E%E5%91%A2-%E9%99%AA%E5%AF%A9%E5%9C%98%E8%A7%A3%E6%95%A3-215514091.html
雖然陪審團只可以參考庭上證供；但某些事情屬於“常識”；
陪審員做簡單測試 confirm his own knowledge，從而協助自己判斷庭上的證供，可以說是objective test 的一種體現？
*I mean reasonable person
刪除I think the problem is not how accurate the experiment done and the whether the methodology is controversial. It is a matter of not being able to examine or cross examine by both parties. How it operates on the jury's mind is uncontrollable. It may produce aberrant result. It is not something one can take judicial notice.
刪除hm...what troubles me is this...
刪除Jury are expected to draw inference (but not speculation) from the evidence presented at court.
If a juror, based on his common sense, finds flaws/doubts on a piece of evidence, which are not raised by the litigating parties, then on what basis should he draw his conclusion? Simply rely on his common sense again?
It seems to me that a 'common sense conclusion' of the jury in the absence of some sort of proof (e.g. experiment of that overly serious juror) is more of speculation than proper inference.
Maybe the juror should simply raise his doubt to the judge (without his 'experiment') so that the judge might raise the issue to the litigating parties. But the judge may simply tell the jury 'either accept or reject that piece of evidence'.
It is quite natural for the juror to confirm his finding on his own way (用自己的方法^.^）before he dare raise his enquiry to the judge; it is also quite natural for the juror to use extraneous info (e.g. his finding) to prove his assertion to be worth debating at trial.
just my 2 cents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way, according to SCMP that juror also 'consulted his friend'; this was not reported by Chinese newspapers. I guess this might be a more important factor.
There were previous occasions juror surfed the internet, site visit by himself and discussed with friends. All of these were reasons to discharge a jury. It is always difficult. Guidance for jury is brief and cannot be exhausted. It was only when this kind of matter came to light when the jury retired for discussion, then the judge was alerted. If the juror did not disclose his private investigation, you would never know how his mind was affected.
刪除Indeed.
刪除Talking about site visit, I remember a 1980s HK land law case (whether AC is chattel or fixture) where the judge (as fact-finder) went on a site visit.
I just google it and ran into an EW family law case, where an
impromptu home-visit led by a DC judge was disapproved by the appellate court. The short judgment is available in Westlaw
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed111644
Site visit by judges may be an interesting topic for your blog.
I guess Judge MAY do site visit when necessary but not the jury, since the former will make his reasoning public while the latter always operates in secrecy
刪除Dear Andrew,
刪除Thank you for your input. I think the example you quoted is different from the discussion you raised here. There is a difference between a site visit trying to investigate and a site visit trying to understand the terrain, the locality or the possibility or probability of what can occur.
If the judge makes site visit for the purpose of investigation, like the example you quoted, it is an inquisitorial one. The he is usurping the function of an investigator. He has compromised his impartiality.
It is permissible for a criminal trial to conduct some site visits though it is not so uncommon. In such site visit, the judge, prosecutor, defence lawyer, defendant, the witness involved for that purpose and jurors (if applicable) will also be arranged to go. It is just part of the trial but held outside the court room. The judge will then make a record and read out in open court to read into the record of trial.
If a juror, out of his overzealousness, ventures on a site visit as an investigator, then his mind will be tainted by his perception and finding. That is why the jury has to be discharged.
couldn't agree more, I should have spot the differences
刪除I should revise some of your old post like 法官進入競技場三部曲
Oh dear mate. Sometimes questions like what you posted trigger my thinking. I learn too.
刪除囉嗦都要再講句 好欣賞標標既善心 時時提醒要貢獻社會 等劍文比個「叻」你
回覆刪除劍文你又扯貓尾, 笑死人喎。
刪除