2017年3月21日星期二

再談曾健超投降

從今天的報導看, 曾健超放棄了三項定罪的上訴, 即是他並無提出過判刑上訴, 故此, 指責他怕加刑的講法確實不成立, 因為刑罰並非上訴的議題, 法官就算在判刑上訴有權在控方不申請覆核刑期的情況下加刑, 也不適於曾健超這宗案件。而且, 如果控方申請覆核刑期, 案件會排在上訴庭聽而不會在高院單一法官席前聽審, 這一點而言, 曾健超確實說出事實。

另一方面, 曾健超說過他自己計算過這5星期的刑期, 考慮到行為良好的折扣, 他大約會坐監31日, 那是判監1個月以上的最低消費。假設他行為良好, 他這講法也真實不虛。法例第234A章 《監獄規則》 第69條是關於減刑的:

69. 減刑

(1) 服刑中的囚犯如實際刑期超過1個月,可因勤奮及行為良好而按照本條的規定獲得減刑︰
但本條並不准許將實際刑期減至少於31天。

(2) 根據本條給予的減刑,不得超逾實際刑期連同根據《刑事訴訟程序條例》(第221章)第67A條(有關監禁刑期的計算)所須包括的羈押期總計的三分之一。
......

故此, 曾健超的說法也是正確的。就算原本不是判他坐監35天(5星期), 而是45天, 如果行為良好再加假期, 實際上也可以是坐31天。不論他放棄上訴的真正原因是甚麼, 單看原審主任裁判官羅德泉的判決書來評估, 我覺得定罪上訴成功機會渺茫。他這決定也不會影響7警上訴的結果, 就算他不放棄上訴, 提出的理據跟7警可以提出的理據也無關連。

有報導指7警打算申請保釋等候上訴, 我看成功機會也不大。保釋等候上訴的法律原則, 我以前討論過, 基本上依據英國上訴庭在R v Watton(1979)68 Cr App R 293裏所講

"... bail is granted only where it appears prima facie that the appeal is likely to be successful or where there is a risk that the sentence will have been served by the time the appeal is heard."

即是上訴成功的可能性及聽審上訴時會否服刑完畢,另外也會考慮被告一旦獲得保釋,會否棄保潛逃(likelihood of absconding)。

7警當然不會棄保潛逃, 但表面看來上訴成功可能性偏低, 即是unlikely, 而且服刑兩年, 行為良好加假期, 最少也要坐16個月。如無意外, 由申請上訴許可至正審, 也應該在16個月內完成。假設成功申請保釋, 最終上訴失敗, 就會變成斬件式坐監, 煎熬也拖長了。實際上看, 也要考慮上訴成功的機會, 申請保釋等候上訴, 並非一定有美好結果的, 曾健超就是一例。

42 則留言:

  1. 曾生放棄上訴其中一個可能性係佢山窮水盡,而金主見佢冇利用價值就唔再支持佢,在無計可施情況下咪投降。

    各位義士睇住啦。普世價值在某D人心目中是係可否利用而已

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 金主得一個,但救得呢個黎都救唔到其他人,選擇性放棄是必然的

      刪除
  2. 標老大上面寫篇正經的 然後下面倆藍絲毀帖 然後馬鹿罵 然後阿大幫藍絲說話 因為馬鹿罵得太狠毒

    and that seems to be the norm here.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 嚴以律己, 寬以待人喇。

      刪除
    2. 匿名11:28,

      想香港好就先放下成見和政治意識形態之爭, 讓普選和23條等改革先往前走一步, 通過 trial and error 和檢討成效得失, 才不致事事只會 "議而不決"、停滯不前和一事無成。

      標少有容異見之量, 實事求是,以事論事,不重名首,不重起義。

      在 You Tube 可參考:

      1. The Pool of Shared Meaning Greases the Wheels for Constructive Crucial Conversations
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELtyRtxWNws


      2. How to prevent conflict - Build Shared Understanding
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3jzceH1ZZQ


      3. Conflict Resolution
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY5TWVz5ZDU

      4. Video Review for Crucial Conversations by Kerry Patterson
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFaXx3pgaxM

      刪除
    3. 香港需要的是獨立建國和民主自由 香港要脫離支那才能被拯救

      肢解支那 自由香港


      馬鹿

      刪除
    4. 睇個勢好渺茫,香港只佔中國GDP大約3%, 不用幾年深圳可過香港頭。中國唔使靠香港,但香港唔靠中國得咩?香港有乜條件獨立建國?靠陳浩天、鄭錦滿、羅貫聰、鄭松泰、劉小麗呢班人帶領獨立建國,笑咗!

      刪除
    5. 台獨派投統
      https://youtu.be/LVzkluF7hI0

      刪除
    6. 兩岸薪資比較,台灣嘩然
      https://youtu.be/ZmAS8VUFnPc

      刪除
    7. 2017年3月22日 下午8:46

      所以識時務的俊傑如你 認定支那會千秋萬載 決定舔蘇聯共產黨支那的屁眼 舔個恐怖組織的屁眼 以中國人自居 倒也不嫌骯髒嘛 呵呵

      馬鹿

      刪除
    8. 馬老大,

      你也知我一向自詡為中國人, 你倒罵得痛快, 而我又不刪你的留言, 這一點你可會反省一下?

      刪除
    9. 我這就去坐墻壁角反省下

      馬鹿

      刪除
  3. Dear Bill,

    May I ask something totally irrelevant to the topic here?

    I suppose most barristers have focused themselves on either civil cases or criminal cases. Magistrates are for criminal cases only. But I am not sure whether high court judges and district court judges will specialize in either civil or criminal cases, or they have to handle both types of cases? (I do notice that in high court, there are company court list, or administrative court list etc).
    And I think in the Court of Appeal there is surely no such division of labour. I notice that the 13 JAs appear in all type of cases. But is it possible that they are equally good and familiar with both civil and criminal matters? (no offence here, but say for example can we expect McWalters JA, who undoubtedly is excellent in criminal issue, be able to handle the civil cases with equal competence? Or for Tang PJ, who according to the CV provided by the JORC to LegCo, specialize in civil cases for his whole career of private practice, to be that excellent in handling criminal case appeal?)

    PLK

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Magistrates are not really appointed to deal with criminal cases only. You have forgotten about the ones in various tribunals, OAT, Coroner's Court, Family Court(acting position). At that level, no one can be all-rounder. You can see given time, they are basically deployed into different streams of work. A criminal person will work all his way from mag to high court on the criminal side. For instance, Joseph Yau, Albert Wong. They were previously working in the Prosecution Division of DoJ before they were appointed as magistrates (Joseph was in private practice after leaving DoJ). Then, their career all along has been on the criminal side. Andrew Chung was previously in the Prosecution Division too. He then went on private practice. He started as a District Judge, then works his way up and stays on the civil side. Frankly, people staying on the criminal side seldom shift to try civil cases or vice versa.

      You cannot expect a civil judge to do jury criminal trials in the high court.

      For CA, there is basically a division of labour too. Have you ever seen Yeung VP writing a judical review appeal judgement? I suppose when one is elevated to CFA, given there are not many PJs, a PJ seems to be an expert in all matters. whether the PJ's ability is up to your expectation, you are your own judge.

      刪除
    2. Dear Bill,

      Many thanks for your reply explaining the situation in high court and district which I feel puzzled for some time.

      However, I am not so sure about the division of labour in CA. I have just glanced through the CA cases uploaded in the past 6 days in the "newly added judgements" in the Judiciary website.
      McWalters JA heard both CACV63/2016 (civil) and CACC419/2015 (criminal);
      Macrae JA heard CACV114/2016 (civil) as well as CACC246/2016 (criminal);
      Cheung JA heard CACV20/2016 (civil) and CACC48/2015 (criminal); and
      Poon JA heard CACV245/2015 (civil) as well as CACC48/2015 (criminal).

      It seems to me that CA is like what you describe in CFA - you have to trust the JJA learn fast in the area in which they are not that experienced.

      (BTW, may I ask why the plural form of JA is JJA? What does "JJA" stand for?)

      Thanks,
      PLK

      刪除
    3. Dear Mate,

      Without disrespect, I feel that some people just sit there as dummies for the number. You can judge by seeing who delivers the judgement of the court. JJA for plural simply because it is a habit. JJA simply means more than one JA. They either say Macrae JA and Poon JA or Macrae and Poon JJA.

      刪除
    4. I think the issues raised by PLK are interesting ones. What I find interesting (and perhaps puzzled) is that in recent years, perhaps due to the shortage of judges at CFI level, "cross-breeding" of DC judges are done when they become Deputy Judges at CFI. E.g. Wilson Chan who was a predominantly civil judge presided over jury trials and magistracy appeals at CFI. Alex Lee as a long-time prosecutor started hearing civil cases upon joining DC and is now DJ at CFI hearing civil cases.

      Bill I know your view is a little critical of the CFA, and I do agree that they should have a criminal PJ given that half of their cases are criminal (unlike the Supreme Court in UK). It is unrealistic to expect that they automatically become experts just by virtue of being on that seat. That said, experience itself is no guarantee. Some JJAs are very experienced, but get their law wrong from time to time.

      Btw, Wally Yeung heard JRs when he was at CFI, including one of those right of abode challenges. Indeed, nowadays all CFI criminal judges are expected to decide on JR cases because of the influx of torture claim JR cases.

      刪除
    5. and I am here to present something quite unique. for some timeI have observed Equal Opportunities cases are rotated amongst District Ct Judges irrespective to their nominal "specialities".

      馬鹿

      刪除
    6. Frankly, I am rather ignorant about the cross breeding and rotation aspect. I did not give any thought too it beforehand.

      刪除
    7. Judges眾數寫JJ, Pages眾數寫PP之類, 好似係拉丁文集慣 (重有LL.B. LL係laws眾數嘅拉丁文)

      刪除
  4. 港獨組織罵法官,標少點睇?

    http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20170321/bkn-20170321190029829-0321_00822_001.html

    回覆刪除
  5. http://www.easyproperty.com.hk
    標老爺勁喎!=)

    回覆刪除
  6. http://www.easyproperty.com.hk
    標老爺勁喎!

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 有乜咁勁? 兩年前這地產要求轉載, 最近《線報》要求轉載, 我話隨便, 就咁簡單。免費架。

      刪除
    2. 王文彥世之梟雄。看他的官司也很過癮。

      刪除
    3. 不是他寫給我要求轉載, 是一位自稱讀法律的Mr Ng。

      刪除
    4. 我沒有拒絕任何人的要, 不少人要求轉載個別文章, 我從不托手踭。

      刪除
  7. 唔怪知得你叫讀者唔好講粗口
    费事影响個blog質數

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 非也。言論有自由, 人哋講粗口可以去別處講, 我不想把自己地盤變粗口天地, 與轉載無關。未有人轉載之前我已講明不准粗口留言。

      刪除
  8. 佢連2011年 法官進入競技場都有轉載
    所以話你勁 有料即是有料haha一

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 笑料同口水就有, 其他料就無。

      刪除
    2. 標老爺又是謙虚啦
      马老大学吓你呀大啦⬅️(標老爺)

      刪除
    3. 知道 知道 聽到 聽到

      馬鹿

      刪除
    4. 我一啲都唔謙虛, 在此討論學到好多嘢就真。法律呢家嘢, 無人識晒, 亦無人啱晒。討論一下可以開眼界, 所以我學到嘢。

      刪除
    5. 嘩!马大爺歷史性一刻
      小弟要用截圖記下
      马鹿好嘢!

      刪除
  9. http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20170324/bkn-20170324033003912-0324_00822_001.html
    之前有司法年報時我曾提及這案件,估唔到等左咁久後才成為a1

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 你想我爆料? 我今晚會寫評論。

      刪除
    2. 因為裁判官經常去不同的法庭,很難估計是誰做的,我起初還估計是仕途不得意已退休裁判官院阮偉明,但現在要估計都唔難,屯門裁判法院大多數係暫委法官,只有周燕珠和水佳麗起上年仍是裁判官,估錯了嗎?

      刪除
  10. 標少請教一下,
    小弟去年涉嫌違反商船(本地船隻)規例幾條罪, 月初初庭否認控罪, 案件掛期下月中審訊。但未收到案件資料, 到律政司刑事檢控科查問幾次都不得要領。想問, 傳票由海事處職員告發, 我是船長, 被控包括滅火筒過期等事項, 控方會是律政司還是海事處? (即我追問誰?)
    檢控守則指控罪材料適時披露, 是寄信還是甚麼? 我沒有律師。
    多謝解答。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 今天稍後有空才答你, 最好發電郵給我私下講。

      刪除
  11. 法庭為「秘撈」開綠燈? --- 湯家驊
    https://www.facebook.com/pg/Tong-Ka-Wah-Ronny-%E6%B9%AF%E5%AE%B6%E9%A9%8A-211789612184052/notes/?ref=page_internal

    湯SC 所説民事方面的agent's fiduciary duty, 當無異議。但是否足以支持將此等行爲刑事化呢...

    回覆刪除