2016年9月23日星期五

社運惡棍

攜長棍搭港鐵 社運人士罪成判罰款 庭外指港鐵應花錢改善服務而非告小市民 (19:54)

社運人士去年9月被指帶同3支長約1.6米的伸縮直幡棍乘搭港鐵,被職員指伸縮棍超出長度限制的1.3米,要求她出示身分證遭拒。她今被裁定兩張傳票罪名成立,裁判官指被告全無悔意,惟考慮案件至今已近一年,對被告構成憂慮,共罰款2000元。

被告「社會主義行動」主席鄧美晶(26歲)在庭外直指裁決荒謬,又指港鐵應把錢花在改善服務上,而非請律師告小市民。

裁判官裁決時指,3支膠棍高1.6米,當被提起時會更高,而車門和站內升降機分別是1.8米和2米,膠棍有機會損壞港鐵設施,再者車廂移動時,膠棍亦有機會觸及他人造成滋擾或傷害。

裁判官又指,當日嘗試截停被告的兩個港鐵職員身穿黃色制服,胸前掛有職員證和名牌,綜合各項環境證供,認為被告沒可能不知道兩人為港鐵職員。法例亦列明港鐵職員在有權要求乘客出示身分證,而非在警察在場下才出示,裁判官認為被告對法例有誤解,反問「是否警察每次都要出席?」

被告求情時重申自己無罪,認為是在不民主和不公平的情況下被定罪。被告指至今仍堅信「港鐵可恥,欺負小市民」,認為法律不是為保障小市民,而是保護少數權貴的利益,但體諒法庭要維護法律制度。被告又強調,港鐵為私營機構,職員有權取市民的個人資料並不合理。
(23/9/2016 明報即時新聞)

看到這種新聞有時覺得好無奈。大眾運輸系統每天要應付大量人流, 訂立使用規則, 以保障乘客不受滋擾及乘搭安全, 也可以被指責為惡法? 

這被告只要說自己受惡法逼害, 再指責是政治檢控, 就可以大聲疾呼, 儼然變成苦主, 再加點煽情用詞, 甚麼不民主不公義云云, 就可以橫行無忌, 成為被欺壓的小市民? 有趣。

香港法例第556B章《香港鐵路附例》是根據第556章《香港鐵路條例》第64(3)條訂立出來的, 港鐵有權訂立使用鐵路的規則及限制, 亦有權拒絕違反的人乘搭。不同意港鐵的附例或使用限制的人有權不搭港鐵, 如果認為港鐵所訂定的規則不合理, 使用者有權向港鐵爭取, 或透過立法會議員在立法會提出修例, 否則, 除非抗辯時提出這些附例及告示違憲, 在案情事實不具爭議下, 我又看不到怎能抗辯成功。

港鐵本身並非政府機構, 一切檢控工作都聘請律師進行。遇到違反法例的情況, 除非置之不理, 否則總有人會被檢控, 檢控就涉及違例者身分的問題, 法例賦予港鐵職員索取這方面的資料又有甚麼不合理的地方呢? 就算傳召警察到場, 個人資料也會交給港鐵職員, 除非違例的情況是鐵路巡警遇到的, 才會由警方提出檢控, 否則一般違反附例的檢控責任都屬港鐵的, 有何需要召警到場? 如果被告覺得附例是惡法, 叫警察來處理惡法就會變成良法嗎? 這些人除了懂得叫口號, 真的不懂使用腦袋去思考。只要胸前別上社運人士的襟章, 受到檢控都屬政治檢控, 你班友發夢都夢見受到逼害, 上晒腦喇, 我呸!

30 則留言:

  1. 有名叫 “社會主義行動”, 所有資產階級法律都系惡法啦~

    其實呢個組織咪同港獨黨一樣違反基本法~ 爲何不見胡SC出來話要拉人封艇o既~

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 只要承認香港是中國不能分割的地方, 黑社會都符合《基本法》, 可以繼續以陀地。

      刪除
  2. 我學識淺薄, 不看這篇文章真的不會知道法律會賦予私營機構查身份證的權力。劍

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 劍文, 這一條:

      Chapter:

      556B PDF Title: MASS TRANSIT RAILWAY BY-LAWS Gazette Number: L.N. 136 of 2000; G.N. 3903 of 2000
      Bylaw: 42 Heading: Removal of persons from railway premises Version Date: 30/06/2000
      (1) Any person who is reasonably suspected by an official of committing or attempting to commit any breach of these by-laws, while in or upon any part of the railway premises shall, when required to do so by such official-

      (a) give to that official true and correct particulars of his name and address and of his telephone number, if any, and produce proof to that effect for inspection; and
      (b) produce to that official proof of his identity for inspection. (L.N. 8 of 1998)

      刪除
    2. 不僅如此,禁止吸煙區(及公共交通工具)的管理人可要求沒有弄熄煙的人出示身分證明文件。 (第 371 章《吸煙(公眾衞生)條例》第3條及第4條)

      未知娛樂場所(戲院丶演奏廳丶的士高丶夜總會丶酒吧丶遊樂場丶迪士尼) 有否這些權力?

      PHLI

      刪除
    3. 當然有權: Part 1 Schedule 2 Cap 371. They are designated no smoking areas.

      刪除
    4. oh, sorry. I mean the power to inspect identity document, e.g. for security purposes, age limit for entrance, & sale of alcohol/cigarettes (irrespective of no smoking areas).

      PHLI

      刪除
    5. No, not in the statue. But as a condition of entry into these entertainment parlours, the staff can request to see the ID to confirm the age. If refused, the customers can be turned away. After all, it is an offence of strict liability permitting, for instance, person under 18 to consumer alcohol in the premises. The MTR by-law or the Smoking regulations are different. When there is contravention, the official/manager has the right to ask for ID. No such situation would arise in the case of entertainment parlours. The licensee of the entertainment parlour would break the law instead of detecting customers breaking the law.

      刪除
  3. 最發既係律師, 愈來愈糾紛, 愈來愈需要佢地

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 本案被告無請律師, 其實也無需請, 案情極簡單, no point of law involved. 有人好發, 也有人好霉。

      刪除
  4. 繼續公民抗命系列報道

    拒示學生證 保安報警 中大出位六子 百萬大道打麻將
    http://hd.stheadline.com/news/daily/hk/496032/

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 有關學生並沒有觸犯任何法例或中大的規則,算甚麼公民抗命?

      刪除
    2. http://www5.cuhk.edu.hk/culink/index.php/gb/about-cu-link/terms-and-conditions

      刪除
    3. I am still searching the Uni rules.

      刪除
  5. http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20160923/mobile/bkn-20160923160806888-0923_00822_001.html

    Bill siu, do you have any comment on this prosecution?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. I think from the news report ONE/BO was canvassed and refused by the prosecution. It was reported that the deft is over 16 and that is why this course of action was rejected. If that is the reason, then I do not agree. I think the nature of the offence is not normally suitable for ONE/BO. Nothing wrong with the prosecution. There is still a chance for the magistrate to bind over her if the PO report is very favourable.

      刪除
    2. Even if she gets a fine in the end, the Rehabilitation Of Offenders Ordinance still applies.

      刪除
    3. If she's under 16, she would have been in J Court!

      刪除
  6. http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20160923/mobile/bkn-20160923160806888-0923_00822_001.html

    標少有冇睇到呢單新聞?
    係咪個學生就要留案底?
    好慘

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 上面講咗囉。一經定罪就有案底, 三年後洗底, 律師都可以做。有個大律師在坪洲偷女人底衫褲被定罪, 上訴駁回, 現在又重新執業。

      刪除
    2. 但也要看案底的性質吧。例如不小心駕駛同賣翻版對誠信的影響不是有分別麼

      刪除
    3. 做律師不小心駕駛那類根本不用申報, 講影響的是指刑事案底(刑事紀錄課保留那些)。

      刪除
    4. http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20130323/00176_061.html

      案發時家住愉景灣的前執業大律師馬浩輝 (Lawyer Counsel Barrister Stanley Kilian H F Ma),在坪洲偷取一名女街坊的胸圍罪成,二○一○年十一月遭法庭判罰款了事。大律師公會轄下大律師紀律審裁組上月中裁定馬浩輝行為失當,本月九日起暫時吊銷他的大律師執業資格三十個月,有關命令並於昨日刊憲。馬浩輝同時需分六期支付六萬元事務費。

      憲報昨公布,高等法院司法常務官龍劍雲按照《法律執業者條例》的規定公布,大律師紀律審裁組上月十五日裁定對馬浩輝一項行為失當指控證明屬實,審裁組命令按例暫時吊銷馬浩輝執業資格三十個月。

      需支付六萬元事務費

      至於馬浩輝需支付的六萬元事務費,以分期付款方式分六期支付,每期一萬港元,本月十五日支付第一期款項,餘下五期則在之後每月的十五日支付,審裁組的有關命令已在本月十五日送交司法常務官存檔。

      ~~~ I think Lawyer Counsel Barrister Stanley Kilian H F Ma is disgusting.

      刪除
    5. http://www.scmp.com/article/732028/barrister-found-guilty-stealing-hk350-bra

      ATV reporter-turned-barrister Stanley Ma Ho-fai could not keep his fingers off a bra, an Eastern Court magistrate decided yesterday. Ma, 44, was found guilty of theft for stealing a HK$350 white bra with red lace from a Peng Chau resident's drying rack in May. He was convicted after trial and fined HK$3,000.

      ~~~ Seriously. Why did he steal a woman's bra? To smell it? To wear it? To sell it? To fondle it? I think Lawyer Counsel Barrister Stanley Kilian H F Ma is not just disgusting - he must be mentally ill.

      刪除
    6. I would spare him and let him rehabilitate.

      刪除
    7. Lawyer Counsel Barrister Stanley Kilian H F Ma needs to go see a clinical psychiatrist to get rid of his sick and disgusting fixation with used women's bras!

      刪除
  7. 加油~黃絲們~

    繼續破壞法治啦~

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 香港有法治? u actually said that with a straight face? wow i am impressed.

      馬鹿

      刪除
  8. "我的價值觀跟不上部份香港人了"

    Same here, for a long while already. Sigh.

    BJ

    回覆刪除