2016年9月5日星期一

警總非禮案的上訴

鹹濕的代價有幾大? 我不講立法會換屆選舉, 那個題目太多人講。轉換話題講鹹濕。

警察總部非禮案上訴判辭今天上載了(HKSAR and KONG HO WAN), 定罪及刑期上訴都被駁回。清洪繼續代表被告上訴, 高院暫委法官郭啓安聽審, 不單只駁回, 對資深大律師有點不客氣。上訴的理據, 老老實實, 十分空洞, 郭大人不太客氣也很合理。我對上一次對本案的評論, 寫了這一篇: 警察總部的非禮案之二, 是10個月前寫的, 這被告也快要出獄了。在警察總部非禮干犯盜竊罪的女事主, 判監16個月, 這份工砸了自不待言, 審訊時清洪代表上庭11天, 上訴在今年4月26日聽, 9月2日頒布判辭, 今天才上載。清洪應該共上庭12天, 這條數都幾和味, 七位數無走鷄, 鹹濕得好貴啫! 案情相當簡單, 受害人是大陸醫生, 當時在香港實習半年, 因在崇光盜竊被拘捕, 辦好手續保釋上庭, 離開警署時在路上給被告叫停, 佯稱未對她搜身而帶了她去警察總部的女廁非禮(摸胸及叫受害人脫褲觀看私處)。證據而言可謂鐵證如山, 男警搜女犯的身違反警察通例, 閉路電視也影到進出警察總部的過程。這件案主要靠女事主的誠信來定罪, 被告沒有作供, 但呈上被告被拘捕後的錄影會面紀錄, 當中推諉受到事主色誘。這些廢話怎會有人信? 辯方在審訊時集中火力盤問事主, 希望製造疑點。事主的盜竊案因發生了非禮案而以撤銷控罪簽保守行為方式處理, 於是辯方就以此作重點盤問, 指事主為了爭取撤銷盜竊罪而誣陷被告。事主作供時表示在大陸並無撤銷控罪簽保守行為的做法, 她自己也曾在網上搜尋有關資料, 對於會不會留下案底也搞得很混亂。這也成為辯方攻擊她的誠信的課題, 原審裁判官接納事主的解釋, 覺得事主是大陸人不清楚這些法律解釋也屬合理。唉! 我收過很多這類求助, 很多人對此也分不清。

事主證供前後分歧也是上訴的其中一項理由, 郭官引用(不是第一次)了上訴庭的講法:

13.  Stock J, observed in R v KWONG Wing On and Another HCMA 574/1996 at page 4:-
“12. Pausing at this juncture, I would say this: that microscopic dissection of a transcript will always uncover a discrepancy, a failure to answer a question, some inherent improbability or other, a piece of evidence not included in statements to the police, and a myriad of bits and pieces upon which to build pages of grounds of appeal. In the real world, and even with truthful witnesses, these discrepancies, improbabilities, and omissions will occur. Indeed if they do not, then the evidence is attacked as being artificial or collusive. The magistrate is not expected to deal expressly with every comforting crumb to which the defence may be able to point. A realistic attitude must be encouraged, and the approach to such attacks is to ask whether there have been material and significant discrepancies, improbabilities or omissions, such as would lead or should lead a tribunal to doubt credibility on central facts.
13. In this case, there is a great danger of losing sight of the wood for the trees. ..." (emphasis added)
(嘩! 好使好用。)

不如看下郭官處理上訴其中一項理據的口吻:

35. In this ground, Mr Cheng sought to argue that the Magistrate failed to analyse how (a) the binding offer, (b) the special treatment by the police and (c) the partiality/impartiality of the investigation could have operated on PW2’s mind and affect her credibility and/or reliability.

36. The arguments advanced on this ground lack substance and based only on unfavourable presumptions which were already flatly denied by PW2 under cross-examination. The Magistrate had already properly analyzed that there was no linkage between BO/NCR and her complaint against the appellant as stated in Ground (1) and it is just a last ditched attempt to re-argue the point by the appellant. As for special treatment arranged by the police to PW2, the Magistrate had already given sufficient and proper reasons in paras. 52 to 55 of the Statement of Findings why he considered that the special treatment, such as police transport, offered by the police to PW2 was warranted as this was a highly sensitive case and was extensively reported by the media at that time. Finally what CIP Lam had said in the 13 January meeting PW2 to the effect that “getting rid of bad element of the force to protect the image of the force” was, in my judgment, only proper to reassure a hesitant witness such as PW2 to have the courage to come forward to testify against a serving police officer and not to worry about her personal safety and that the police is handling the complaint very seriously. I failed to see there is any partial investigation as submitted.

37. The evidence against the appellant was overwhelming and Mr Cheng could only resort to the incidental offer of BO/NCR in her theft case by the Department of Justice as an incentive for her to falsely accuse the appellant in this case. The appellant’s explanation to the police that he was approached and seduced by her in the manner as he described was frankly ridiculous and devoid of logic and reality. It is inherently improbable for PW2 to just randomly spot the appellant on the street after her release and purposely seduced him to have some bodily contact with her so that she could make use of it and file a complaint against a serving police officer with a view to secure a BO for her in the theft case. The risks involved just far exceeded the benefit of NCR. The explanations proffered by the appellant are just so far-fetched and cannot be true.

(BO, 即bind over簽保守行為。NCR, no conviction recorded不留案底)

現役警員濫用職權非禮女被告, 是極其嚴重的罪行, 也是加重刑罰的因素。香港有些人以為律師是魔術師, 像這件案的被告, 便要付出比認罪沉重很多的代價。

22 則留言:

  1. 鹹濕的代價有幾大? See what happened to Barrister Sky Cheng (鄭紀天大律師)

    http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20120505/16309429

    女警經審訊後,被裁定刑事恐嚇和毆打同居女友罪名成立。她不服被定罪向高院提出上訴,質疑代表大律師失職,令她得不到公平審訊。她的胞姊更現身高院,大爆曾在的士內遭該大律師捉着她的手觸摸陽具。面對嚴重指控的大律師,將於下周一出庭解畫。案中關鍵人物大律師鄭紀天,05年成為大律師,曾參與前划艇女將陳學殷勒索富商案的辯護團隊。他於去年5月23日代表25歲女警,即今次的上訴人李淑妍,就刑事恐嚇和毆打罪抗辯。李被指於前年7月及11月兩度毆打24歲的同居女友。報稱兼職教師的女事主曾受僱於夜總會,指李曾扯爛她的吊帶睡衣導致赤裸上身,無法求救,兼持刀恐嚇殺人。李最後被定罪及判囚28日。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. I wrote several blogs about this case but still did not see any development. At least I have not seen any disciplinary proceeding instituted by the HK Bar.

      刪除
    2. Barrister Sky Cheng (鄭紀天大律師) was (as found by the judge) wholly incompetent and had brought the profession of barrister into disrepute. The Bar Council should prosecute this chap!

      刪除
    3. http://news.singtao.ca/toronto/2012-05-26/hongkong1338017133d3885556.html

      法官嚴厲批評 面臨紀律聆訊 大狀失職前女警判得直

      前女警被指刑恐及毆打同居女友,被判罪成監禁二十八天,她提出上訴,聲稱代表她的大律師鄭紀天失職令她入罪,女警的女親人更在庭上大爆曾遭鄭非禮。法庭二十五日判決鄭及其律師行師爺「嚴重不稱職」,令女警未獲公平審訊,判她得直,毋須重審...

      對於大律師遭法官批評嚴重失職,法律界人士認為情況罕見,鄭紀天很大機會須接受大律師公會紀律聆訊,亦可能被上訴人民事索償,甚至因涉非禮而遭刑事調查...

      Has Barrister Sky Cheng been arrested for the indecent assault allegation yet?

      刪除
    4. I wonder if there was any complaint against him. If not, there should not be arrest and prosecution.

      刪除
    5. 聽講非禮女人嘅男大律師落到地獄要俾火燒春袋㗎!死人唔受人權法保護㗎嘛(好似係)。

      刪除
    6. Barrister Sky Cheng (鄭紀天大律師) is useless and disgusting.

      刪除
  2. 鐵証如山的案件,搵清洪打,相信只係想博輕判而已...

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 搵清洪當然想打甩。

      刪除
    2. 普通人求判少啲
      警察/公務員求打甩
      因為成罪被炒,大糧長俸係講緊幾百萬

      刪除
  3. Did the HK Police Force make any public statement regarding this case ? HK police officer committed indecent assault in police headquarters. This is outrageous and make the whole HK Police extremely shameful.

    GW

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Only a general statement that the police would not tolerate bad elements in the police force.

      刪除
  4. 看來的確 "好使好用",眾小拜謝郭大人!

    p.s.支持警方嚴打害羣之馬!

    回覆刪除
  5. 原來是香港的專業界別人士最為“無王管”。本人亦曾遭醫療人員一些嚴重疏忽行為,但亦不曾追究,因為結果早已落定。可惜社會大眾無大力就這些不公義情況抗爭過。其實這部分由政府交在私人部門執行之公權力最為失效、不公義。其中尤以醫護、法律界別為甚。醫委會改革過程中,有人以影響醫療專業為由加以反對,那何以有監警會當中全無警務人員參與,在審理重大案件中,陪審團中亦全無法律界人士但又不影響專業表現呢!越專業的人士就越是大話連篇,就越懂指鹿為馬。香港人不是要追求公平公義嗎?其實一樣只懂拜金,奉承一類的幹活,有誰真心關心社會民生發展嗎。

    oo

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 哈哈, 我同樣遭醫療人員一些嚴重疏忽行為,但盡力追究後果,就是被警方逼害纏繞!!!到底世界有公義嗎?

      刪除
  6. http://static.apple.nextmedia.com/images/apple-photos/apple/20160803/large/03la2p15.jpg

    so interesting 正義聯盟李偲嫣與熱血公民鄭錦滿齊齊站在椅上近距離互視,惹來在場人士起哄,其間熱血公民黃洋達更叫鄭錦滿「咀佢(李)」

    回覆刪除
  7. Hi Bill,

    Was reading this news
    http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20160907/19762829

    The max hours of CSO is 240 hours?
    if the dentist PG in court, so there would be 1/3 discount and max 160 hours needs to be served? So it cant be 240 hours?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. The max for CSO is 240 hours. Your mindset is not entirely correct. This dentist was on the verge of going to jail. The magistrate let her off and imposed the max of 240 hours in lieu of immediate custodial sentence. You cannot take CSO as a starting point. 240 hours CSO just reflects the gravity of the offence.

      刪除
  8. 標少:

    1.) 想請教司法覆核同上訴有甚麼分別?

    2.) 被告人如果輸掉官司,可否同時申請司法覆核及上訴?

    3.) Cap. 4A 的 S.53 列出:司法覆核申請”(application for judicial review) 包括按照本命令提出的、要求覆核下述事項的合法性的申請—
    (a) 某成文法則;或
    (b) 關乎行使公共職能的決定、行動或沒有作出作為;

    那是否表示高院有權覆核立法會通過的成文法不具合法性?
    除了政府部門,司法覆核是否適用於覆核下級法院的裁決?
    什麼才是公共職能?行政、立法、司法亦包括其中嗎?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. JR我不懂, 不敢亂講。

      刪除
    2. 抱歉之前無留意到留言,希望留言者有機會看到
      籠統地講:跟上訴不同的是,司法覆核不針對決定的merit,而是針對該決定的legality和procedural propriety,例如該機構有沒有權限做出這個決定,是否依足程序作出決定等等。
      一般來説,除非“有明文規定某下級法院/審裁處某類案件的所作的決定是最終決定”,下級法院的決定是可以被司法覆核挑戰。例如申請人認爲某下級法院沒有司法管轄權作出該決定,即挑戰其決定的合法性。
      高院有權覆核立法會通過的成文法,例如違憲審查:港英時期訂立的有關監控通訊的成文法就被裁定違反基本法,結果政府需急急忙忙的設計新法例交立法會審議。但是法院亦奉行不干預議會的普通法原則,如果某條法案在立法程序中有瑕疵或爭議,此爲立法會内部事務,法院不會越俎代庖。(兩宗案件均與新界東梁議員有關)
      以上可見,司法覆核涵蓋部分立法和司法機關的決定,自然也涵蓋部分行政機關的決定。爲何有部分不涵蓋?因爲某些決定不屬於其公共職能。這裏不好涉及理論層面,只宜舉例:食環署對街市的管理決定例如有商販申請更改售賣貨品種類,屬於公共職能;但食環署決定向某供應商購買鉛筆,則不屬於公共職能。以上例子或嫌低能,然而,部分在公衆眼中覺得肯定是公共職能的行政機關決定,卻大體上免受司法覆核挑戰,例如律政司的檢控決定。
      此外,不少公共機構例如大學(例如有中大教授不滿校方增加學生分數;也有城大學生不滿校方不增加學生分數,申請司法覆核)都受涵蓋;但根據普通法傳統,壟斷本地博彩的賽馬會卻不在此列。
      詳情都係咨詢法律意見啦~

      刪除