2016年6月30日星期四

盜竊之城之三

盜竊之城之二, 我提過一名偷唇膏的女生, 今天收到她的來信, 她這樣講:

明白,我會吸取今次教訓,也會心懷感恩,遇到你的幫助,還有法律給我一次改正機會!真是不知如何形容這種''有愛''的感覺!

我此刻的想法是,如果我也懂法律,從事法律方面的工作,公餘時間我也能幫助一些需要法律援助的人就好了。分擔一些工作量,和你一樣網上發表見解,回答他們的諮詢,我也會感到有動力去做,因為幫到他人的同時自己內心也會高興,慢慢傳播正能量,改變社會的不良風氣。我很敬佩你傳揚這種精神,不是表面說話。雖然我個人能力有限,但我以後會在我能力範圍內幫助其他有需要的人!

標少,我不想那些留言者用語言攻擊你,不希望他們不了解真相就詆毀你!因為你無私的幫助他人,給予受惠者的鼓勵很大很大!不明他們的動機為何,但受惠於你幫助的人會清清楚楚,也會認同你的為人處事,行得正企得正。

我在此只能對標少你道以數次感謝、感激!小女子定會記得你的幫助與教誨,努力向前,積極做人!另外,網上諮詢案情的人士也越來越多,希望標少你幫助他人的同時能注意休息,不要太過疲累!願你幸福平安!生活美滿!

9天前她第一次來信, 9天後得到圓滿的結果, 我們之間通了20幾篇電郵。這只是其中一件案, 在這期間, 我起碼收了十個八個求助, I lost count. 單是這兩天已有5、6個。近這幾個月, 求助是店鋪盜竊居多。我有點疲累, 都是千篇一律的問題, 我會寫一篇以店鋪盜竊為題較詳盡的文章, 希望減少重複性的問題。雖然單看文字, 我不知道那些經歷這種被拘捕檢控, 繼而喜出望外獲得撤控的人, 悔悟有多真實和持久, 我都不想瞎猜。我覺得他們曾經活在惶恐不可終日之中, 應該有刻骨銘心的體會。以後再犯錯的機會大減。看到上面那種電郵, 最使我欣慰的是感受這個人的悔過, 當然不是讚我那些說話, 那些話我見慣了, 你幫了人人家道謝客套幾句也很正常。如果這女生按她原先的想法上庭認了罪, 而沒有申請撤銷控罪簽保守行為, 就沒有不知能否成功那種患得患失的心情, 留下的印象只會是等待《罪犯自新條例》賦予3年內不再被定罪而「洗底」的恩惠, 而未必有受律政司寬懷對待而僥倖免留下污斑的感覺了。總有人覺得這些人犯錯要承擔後果, 不值得幫。總有人覺得他們付得起律師費, 都在扮窮來利用我。我不再喋喋不休, 只要有個真正悔悟的人, 社會就會多了一個有強烈奉公守法意識的人。

23 則留言:

  1. 如果第一次獲撤控,第二、三、四次會不會再獲撤控?例如在不同裁判法院,在不同日子上庭,不同人決定。。。CP或DOJ有紀錄甚麼人曾獲撤控嗎?是不是像案底和身分證般紀錄,他們可以用電腦查看?

    PHLI

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. CP/DoJ無記錄, CRB有, stamp on the criminal record form。第二次就幾難。

      刪除
  2. 標少你認為如果店舖門前,有全港盜竊案平均每日多少宗,其中有多少去了法庭...這些數字資料張貼出來, 是否有助減少這類案件再發生?
    當然教育界和家長也要做工夫. KKC

    回覆刪除
  3. 都話要出FAQ啦,點可能次次咁得閒答同一樣既問題。
    反而我有興趣知道香港一年有幾多單撤控,同埋有幾多單係因為標少而撤控

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 你說得對, 至少可以減去preliminary enqiury果啲, 我做完一單就delete一單, 我無計過, 今年以來大概有10單成功, 有的我一看就話無機會, 有的沒有講結果我知。我說五五波而不成功的好似只有兩三單。

      刪除
  4. 你不需要不斷去justify你自己所做的事,一封信幾句話就覺得人係真心?定係你以前釘得人多所以想尋找心靈救贖?咁中意幫人甩罪就去做defence啦,我睇你應該係被逼離開doj所以依家同doj對著幹,睇你經常針對doj就知啦

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 唔怪得知你入來尋求慰藉,原來被我鬧得多,所以入來對着幹。我有救無類,衰咗乜?睇下幫唔幫到你。

      刪除
    2. 笑左.
      何必爭做心理醫生?

      刪除
  5. 標少,
    你對這些人的幫助,是否恰當?真是各有見解。我由上次留言到現在,考慮了這麼多天,都下不了決定説是贊成或反對。
    但是,標少繼續你做法時,可否叫那些人對被害者親身道歉。你幫他(她)用解決了法律上的囷境,他(她)多謝你。但是他(她)更應該要對受害人表示歉意,這事才是完滿處理自己所犯的錯。否則他(她)只是用標少的善意解決自己的困難,但其實沒有悔意,被害者對他(她)來説,只是路人甲!
    Bill hk

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Bill hk,

      這種做法是存在已久的制度, 不是我創的, 我只是鼓勵他們去爭取, 決策者是刑事檢控科的人。我沒有鼓勵任何一個去抵賴, 有個別人士的講法構成抗辯理由的, 我叫他們跟律師商討。寫給我的絕大多數(近乎全部)都承認盜竊的貪念。對受害人表示歉意有技術困難, 因為這些事多數發生在大型超市/百貨公司, 受害人是誰? 是一間有限公司, 不是一時氣憤打人一拳那種案, 後者就容易在庭上對受害人道歉。還有其他問題, 他們不能貿貿然去找受害人, 因為可能會有妨礙司法公正之嫌。你可能不理解技術層面的事。我很清楚自己在做甚麼及背後的理念。你去搜尋一下店鋪盜竊的成因, 貪婪不是唯一的原因。

      刪除
    2. 有時D野,福禍難料.希特勒都係一粒子彈打佢唔死先變左個納粹德國出黎,當年開槍果個人又點估到打中一個人既蛋蛋可以有咁嚴重既後果?

      有無悔意,抵唔抵放生,只有時間可以證明,得個天知道.Bill幫人自然有對社會有益既時候,亦有可能放虎歸山,但既然無人知道世事如何,再深究落去其實好無謂.

      刪除
  6. 標少,
    多謝提醒。因我只是普通市民,非法律中人。 今次學到知識了。
    Bill hk

    回覆刪除
  7. 江洋大盜不是一天變成的,而是當初犯小錯未受到應有懲罰,膽子愈來愈大,一步一步走向不歸路。之後成日偷.. 佢地會做.... 今日就偷針第時就偷金。

    因此,坊間傳誦的一句話──少時偷針,大時偷金──未必無因。

    回覆刪除
  8. Are you in favour of greater discretion by the Police to deal with these low value shoplifting first offenders by way of fixed penalty? This has already been in place in England for some time already. It seems to be a more proportionate response while freeing up valuable court and CP's time (and ensure fair treatment of Ds who were previously unaware of ONE bindover).

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/403812/penalty-notice-disorder-police-guidance.pdf

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Thanks, mate. I went through the document. I am not in favour of "decriminalizing" shop theft by way of fixed penalty. Is it revamping the entire concept of criminal law or just regressing given the rampancy of the crime? What can be done is for the Law Society and Bar Association to remind members to take more active role to canvass the possibility of ONE/BO when they act for such clients. The Court Liaison Officers should also be more zealous to bargain for the defendants to take this course. After all, theft is a criminal offence best dealt with in a court proceeding.

      刪除
    2. The availability of penalty notice is restricted to first offenders. It seems to me a more cost effective and proportionate alternative, but I accept that its deterrence is much lower (even than discretionary ONE/BO). Anyway, I'm sure that your contributions would have a positive effect on the number of law abiding citizens. Just don't overburden yourself with what is caused by the wider systematic inadequacies that you have quite rightly identified.

      刪除
    3. Thanks. I learn from the document you sent to me that the UK penalty notice works with a number of restrictions and for the first offenders only. Maybe discretionary decision cannot be formulated as a policy and that is why there are inadequacies in the system and "deprived" a lot of qualified defendants the right to apply for the course of ONE/BO. Thank you once again for broadening my horizon.

      刪除
  9. Hi Bill,

    I just have had the chance to go through your 律政風暴 again. We are lucky to have someone like you who documented what really happened. Very soon no one would remember these important moments of HK's legal history and what is left would be the footnote remark on the ICAC website.

    Your account reminds me of various interesting stories of the Hong Kong criminal bar in that era. I am sure you would have more to share. But there is one I particularly wish to know more about. Do you recall the story of a Hong Kong QC being kidnapped and shot dead in Russia?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Thank you for reading the old stories and the otherwise untold ones. The QC was not kidnapped. At least it was not what I heard. It had to do with a Russian prostitute who worked in Macau and befriended the QC. Since it was only hearsay, I cannot say more. You must be referring to G. A.

      刪除
  10. 我來凑凑熱鬧 - 這個網站有很多幾年前的文章同樣好看,我還有很多還未看。

    回覆刪除