明報這則即時新聞, 是暴動加縱火的定罪:
我相信這件案的判刑, 會使那些以後還想「以武抗暴」的人, 上街扔磚的人三思。辯方求情要求兩罪判刑同期執行, 我恐怕這是幻想。上一單沈官判3個暴動的人3年監, 這一宗是郭官審的, 思維未必一樣, 肯定會比對上一宗判得重。縱火不是燒雜物, 不是燒垃圾筒, 而是燒車, 嚴重者可引致油缸爆炸, 危害途人, 損毀私人財物, 一個本質非暴戾的31歲成年人, 有正當職業, 在大學工作, 一個沒有暴戾氣氛的學府做電腦技術員, 怎會做出這種犯罪行為… 別告訴我那是社會的錯, 別告訴我他做人無希望, 所以做出這些不符性格的行為。可能有很多原因結合起來使一個以前沒有暴戾傾向的人暴戾起來, 這恐怕要由搞社會學的學者去研究。我很主觀的看法是, 其中一個重要的原因是, 社會太多人鼓吹怎樣抗命, 甚麼惡法可以不依等的不正確概念, 而較少人強調違法的嚴重後果, 連法律學者也如是。這些人沒有鼓勵示威者去扔磚放火, 卻把抗命神化了, 可能產生的嚴重後果淡化了, 發生嚴重事件後他們就失蹤了。我好像在把遙遠的責任加諸他們身上, 好像不公平地諉過於他們。表面上他們沒有扔磚, 也沒有縱火, 沒有襲警, 更沒有被打一鑊, 所以可以名正言順地置身事外, 搖身變成理性客觀的評論人。他們自我感覺良好, 別人坐牢自己沒有絲毫歉疚, 他們從不覺得自己其實要負上很大責任, 他們「啓動」了那些人不正確的觀念, 卻沒有替他們「關掉」他們的歪思, 由他們自生自滅。
這個暴動加縱火的被告, 下星期一郭官會怎判? 不會是3年, 今次會是5年, 兩項控罪部份分期, 最後的總刑期會是5年。5年可能實際上是40個月, 經監房洗禮, 往後日子怎過?
這個暴動加縱火的被告, 下星期一郭官會怎判? 不會是3年, 今次會是5年, 兩項控罪部份分期, 最後的總刑期會是5年。5年可能實際上是40個月, 經監房洗禮, 往後日子怎過?
Arson真係幫唔落。
回覆刪除「我好像在把遙遠的責任加諸他們身上, 好像不公平地諉過於他們。」
無疑，把鼓吹抗命者和他們相提並論也太remote了。
現在判deterrent sentence已足以撥亂反正了，最少也會收歛一下。
刪除雖然remote, 抗命確實締造了一種氣氛。撥亂反正, 付上很大代價。
刪除除了神化抗命，佔領仲教識左佢地只要夠多人，違法差佬都吹我唔漲嘅，連警車都要俾我檢查，我話封路就封路，呢度我話事！
刪除to be fair, 那些學者是不斷強調非暴力抗命的，旺角一役已完全背離非暴力原則，不能入晒佢地數。
刪除佔領運動第一日已經唔係和平啦。
刪除否則班後生會好混亂。呀教授，爲何只認同我地潑水/扔水樽/用遮柄打，但又唔認同我地放火/扔石/用長竹打？咪一樣係違法達義？
那些學者教授，沒有可能不知道他們開始了頭，自然有諸事份子, 亂黨隨機作亂。
刪除自我糾正：應是「收斂」
刪除匿名 下午7:25
要歸咎他們也就運用了Foresight這個概念。大家認為陳錦成、Jogee兩案哪個決定較為合理？
I'm trying to sidetrack a little bit.
Joint enterprise too remote 喇~ 現在不是要他們爲旺角襲擊行爲負刑責，甚至不是爲佔中襲擊行爲負刑責。但總不能無視道德上的責任。我印象中三子當時只有譴責敵對派系熱血公民，卻從來不批評由雙學領導或其他無明顯領導的暴力行爲。我特別記得朱耀明在“雙學升級”行動潰散後說“和平佔中已經不再和平，因爲警察打人，呼籲退場”；而戴耀庭則整天强調佔中帶來的覺醒效果，所有暴力都是源於催淚彈，完全沒有道德勇氣拒絕暴力行爲。
刪除佔中暴力行爲是unintended 卻肯定不是unforeseeable consequences. 當年劉曉波公開砸爛學生私藏的槍支，保住廣場内的群衆平安撤離。三子那一代人歷歷在目，卻未學到一點半分。
It was meant to be an analogy. Over-extending criminal liability/moral obligation is not appropriate. Prof Tai may be a respectable professor, but he should have thought twice before he became a politician.
刪除//領運動第一日已經唔係和平啦。
刪除否則班後生會好混亂。呀教授，爲何只認同我地潑水/扔水樽/用遮柄打，但又唔認同我地放火/扔石/用長竹打？咪一樣係違法達義？//
佔中最錯就係明明要扮非暴力, 又忍唔住/管唔住班細既用暴力
而當管唔住既時候, 又唔嘗試撥亂反正
只係做鴕鳥 - 《我地好和平,只係警察暴力》 x10000
一班唔肯負責任既渣男
佔領長達79日，佔領者參與咗乜嘢暴力事件？我印象中就係得撞爛立法會玻璃門同埋燒立法會門外垃圾桶。你有無補充？
刪除Stephen：看來足下有關暴力的定義只涵蓋破壞死物，非常特別。
刪除我印象中係咁咁咁，問有無人補充例如佔領期間黃絲傷人等事件。何來「（Stephen)有關暴力的定義只涵蓋破壞死物」？
刪除由於判詞還未上載，我想問七警案同這單案同樣存在的問題。就係法官認人的問題。
回覆刪除我個人認為起認人的手續中，應由檢控提供證人去認人。法官不應介入競技場
法官只可接納或不接納檢控證人認人的證據。
在證人認人中，通常被辯方起法庭被盤問幾小時
如果法官只需幾秒可以認出被告，我認為是沒有問題的。
但如果法官需要仔細研究事發的片段，被告的照片等。
我感覺法官像證人一樣，已失去公正性。
我才疏學淺，想謙慮接受標少的指教。
有何案例容許法官可以這樣仔細認人而上訴庭法官認這不失公正性
看看上訴庭案例 HKSAR v Wilson Alberto Corredor Medina [2010] HKCU 101
刪除證人和錄影片段都是證據；證據是用於協助 fact-finder 的；
法官以fact-finder 身份作事實裁斷，就如陪審員仔細看錄影片段作事實裁斷，不是介入競技場。前提是法官有向fact-finder作適當的指引。
足下的建議幾乎等於放棄以錄影片段作爲證據，似乎行不通吧。
with respect, this case was not relevant and you use the word "fact finder' is inappropriate because under victoria criminal charge book:
刪除The role of the jury is to determine the facts, apply relevant principles of law to those facts, and return a verdict (R v Dao (2005) 156 A Crim R 459; R v Nguyen [2006] VSCA 158; Azzopardi v R (2001) 205 CLR 50).
also in the crown court bench book
(3)Attorney-General’s Reference No 2 of 2002 [2002] EWCA Crim 2373, [2003] 1 Cr App R 21
it was legitimate to invite the jury to make a comparison between a photographic image of the suspect and the defendant sitting in the dock provided that the image is “sufficiently clear” (at paragraph 19(i) Rose LJ). In the court’s view the images were insufficiently clear to permit the jury to make the comparison and the court, making the comparison itself, concluded that no jury could properly be sure that the images were of the appellant.
also in this case
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2373.html&query=(Attorney-General%92s)+AND+(Reference)+AND+(No)+AND+(2)+AND+(of)+AND+(2002)
In Dodson & Williams 79 Cr App R 220, two men were involved in an attempted armed robbery at a building society. There were no available witnesses who knew the defendant. There were photographs available to be placed before the jury taken from security cameras. The case demonstrates that it is permissible for the Crown to place before a jury photographs taken by a security camera and then to invite the jury to conclude that the offender shown in the photograph is the man in the dock. Watkins LJ, at page 228 of the report, said that a jury, in performing such task, were not acting as experts, but were doing no more than the average person "in domestic social and other situations" does from time to time, "namely to say whether he is sure that a person shown in a photograph is the person he is then looking at or who he has seen recently."
i did not study it detailly and deeply ,but i thought both judges are ultra vires
The instant case is not a jury trial. The judge is a judge and jury. You cannot say he is usurping the function of the jury simply because he makes factual findings. What factual matters can be placed before the jury to decide, they can also be placed before the judge (or magistrate) to decide as long as the judge should abstain from acting as an expert on factual matters. It is quite apparent (from media report) that the defence did not take issue of the production of the photos at the outset. I suppose apart the authenticity issue (per Li Chi Fai and others), what is left is whether the photos are clear enough to identify the deft and whether the judge should exclude them. We don't have such information yet since the Reason for Verdict has not been uploaded. I read from Mingpao this morning and learned that the employer of the deft's was supposed to testify to the effect that the person in the photos was the deft. Without this piece of evidence, has it become a missing leg and detrimental to the prosecution case? I would see it this way. If the employer had the liberty to avail himself to testify to the effect that they were the same person, did the judge need to look at the photos and make a comparison himself in order to evaluate the veracity of this witness. By doing so, did the judge enter the arena? I believe this is part of the function of the judge who can decide the facts and make his findings. I think your objection to Andrew's use of the phrase fact-finder should only limit to the inquisitorial sense of the phrase. With no disrespect, when the phrase is used in its adversarial sense, then I do not see why we can conclude the judges are acting outside their power. The crux of the matter clings on the quality of the photos.
刪除http://hklii.hk/cgi-bin/sinodisp/eng/hk/cases/hkca/2003/233.html?stem=&synonyms=&query=title(HKSAR%20and%20.%20LEE%20CHI%20FAi)
刪除HKSAR v. LEE CHI FAI AND OTHERS [2003] HKCA 233; [2003] 3 HKLRD 751; [2003] 3 HKC 486; CACC 99/2002 (21 July 2003)
this case is not much reference . I can't find any identification case trial by judge alone. it is for the judge to determine the fact, he should not discover the fact. especially after the summing-up.the judge can completely ignore both parties submission related to the law, he can do this own research.but he only can find or discover the evidence in the courtroom.
if the judge or the jury can do the identification. why we need a expert witness,a judge act neither witness nor advocate. there are many riot and occupy central cases coming up, under modern Facial recognition system,the prosecution can prove the identification of the defendant. why we need the judge doing the extra work? i think the judge should be careful to handle this problem.if the judge in the arena, i have no doubt to allow the appeal and order a retrial.
in the judge trial alone case, i think the judge do the same thing as jury, they were doing no more than the average person "in domestic social and other situations" does from time to time, "namely to say whether he is sure that a person shown in a photograph is the person he is then looking at or who he has seen recently.
Domican requirement (Domican (1992) 173 CLR 555.)is still the strongest authority in australia and uk case , i only found this case mentioned in 2003 in hk court of appeal. Domican case did not ask the jury to scrutinize the identification evidence . if possible, the judge should avoid this type of problem
While avoiding the extra work that scrutinizes the photo like an expert, can the average person have their underlying reasons to support their conclusion made "in domestic social and other situations"?
刪除有關應否同期執行的問題，如果暴動罪定罪的基礎純粹是被告人在現場參與非法集結時做出燒的士的行為，暴動和縱火本身就係part and parcel。假設5年是合理，也可以是暴動罪5年然後和縱火同期執行。
回覆刪除同意, 我也不清楚他暴動方面的參與程度。
刪除控罪(一)暴動应该3年
刪除控罪(二)縱火18个月
控罪（二）8个月跟控罪(一)同期
控罪(二)如下10月应该分期
我觉得这比较公道。
縱火是嚴重罪行，起點很高;
刪除暴動䅁情很廣、定義可以很鬆。
B'J
縱火有多類
刪除由一張纸皮去到人煙稠密
要視乎案情,一般都喺2年起
如果當晚縱火在的士尾部量刑就高好多
幸好现在是的士門引至爆炸潛在風險及造成傷亡機會較低
所以小弟覺得不會高那里0
補充:被告身上搜不到助燃剂
刪除如果有死梗,如果法官想判重些
不會提及車尾和車中间分别
等郭官判刑時看他怎講。
刪除http://hkm.appledaily.com/detail.php?guid=19979466&category_guid=4104&category=daily&issue=20170404
回覆刪除「辯方求情指被告擁大專程度，當日只是多手將起火紙皮放在的士旁邊以宣洩情緒。」
想請教標少，defence 一路都唔認相中人係自己，打ID, 呢句mitigation 咪即係認相中人係自己？？ 握殺左Appeal for conviction 嘅grounds??
Mitigation was done in line with the findings of the court. It does not prevent the defendant from arguing in the Court of Appeal by disputing the ID.
刪除Thanks bill siu :)
刪除事實裁斷，恐怕冇得上訴? 除非有其他理據....
回覆刪除事實裁斷只限制控方無得上訴, 被告怎樣上訴都可以。
刪除之前果個都話係港大生,可憐佢讀左十幾年屎片.
回覆刪除今次呢個係31歲成年人,唔值得可憐.
係度真係要再一次恭喜馬鹿,求仁得仁.
黎緊仲有近百人要處理,開心死馬鹿啦.
幾天前我和4眼哥哥鄭錦滿的家人傾計， 他說社運（獨立革命）異常困難，是不是應該放棄了，我回答這是世間最艱鉅的事情，本該如此。 他想想也是。
刪除馬鹿
有些人是搞社運抑或社混, 請問怎分?
刪除香港爭取獨立根本無著數,不過唔應該放棄爭取民主.
刪除獨立又好,民主又好,重要既係同13億人取得共識.否則你係香港搞公投,人地當你720萬人係漢奸,殺之而後快,到時你去同邊個投訴?
馬鹿自稱美國人,應該聽過咩叫essential elements of democracy.一個港大生用3年時間,本來應該可以做到好多野.花時間係香港坐監,不如花時間教識大陸既朋友,咩叫民主.
马生可能喺壞人?
刪除马生:你哋去做民主戰士啦
有事我幫你哋打官司
迎果败訴我盡力幫你求情haha..
匿名 7:16
刪除最弊係大陸既朋友比香港人更清楚咩叫民主, 特別係劣質民主
Why democracy is failing | Paddy Ashdown | TEDxBrussels
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TABVtTnBQA8
Eric X. Li: A tale of two political systems
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0YjL9rZyR0
China and Democracy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-YSiWJ9WP0
李世默对话弗朗西斯福山- 现代治理体系中的民主, 国家和法律
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeAdZoCPys8
匿名7:16
刪除The China Model:
Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy
Daniel A. Bell
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10418.html
劣質民主自然唔需要學,要學就學好既.
刪除其實香港一早已正式玩完，網主一直所討論的英式法治都只是過眼雲煙，由二十年前開始續漸消逝。
刪除西方民主大國英,美,法都唔掂，選民對政府和政客的表現愈來愈失望，有些選民對政治冷淡唔投票，有些認為無用便隨便投，所謂理性選民變成神話，要學都等歐美等搞掂民主政制證明係好嘢至學都未遲
刪除ng yin
刪除香港法治就可以賴受大陸影響，咁英國的法治又賴乜？
西方政客為了個人表現普遍狂熱追求繁瑣的管制，成文法變得複雜和散亂，法律費用高昂，你唔知咩？
馬鹿君:
回覆刪除獨立革命?咁點解四眼超音鼠要遺棄革命戰友認罪先? 剩返果15人又搞緊咩?
八叔公字
在我來看，四眼是第一及唯一一個敢做敢認的人。
回覆刪除難道現今的大學是無王管地帶，大學生可任意妄為，講粗話、進行性暴力欺凌。。。連法律都管唔到？誰之過？
回覆刪除http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20170405/mobile/bkn-20170405114143060-0405_00822_001.html
純粹講粗話可能真係管唔到(除非涉及恐嚇或性騷擾)，性暴力欺凌視乎情節可構成Common assault/AOABH/indecent assault
刪除刑事方面要受害人去報案才可以。時代不同, 我這老餅無資格批評這一代的大學生, 我不知他們的道德標準。以前的迎新或宿生活動, 只是「玩吓」, 現在是欺凌及性侵犯。
刪除睇吓班太呢單case:
刪除http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20090814/13097129
被揭發的經過類近，疑問是究竟警方能(會)否主動調查。若是，事主的應對可能會非常不同。求教。
「警方隨即在去年9月10日採取行動，邀請 X(受害人)到警署問話……」
刪除唔可以怪佢地...港大舍堂要服從皇帝詔令。子曰：「食君之祿，擔君之州；率土之賓，莫非王臣。」 一齊聽下權威人士分析：
刪除--------------------------------------------------------------
https://theinitium.com/article/20160301-hongkong-leungtinkei/
梁天琦...當選利瑪竇的宿生會主席...梁天琦說，「那時候我叫人做什麼，別人都要做，沒人反駁我，好像皇帝一樣。」梁天琦興奮地回憶帶領一整支年輕軍隊的感受，教他們「如何訓練，怎樣做人」，也在他們犯錯時「屌他們」。
梁天琦說，自己是從這幾年的「舍堂皇帝」經驗中學會怎樣動員，「不惜一切，甚至犧牲個人利益，一起去達成目標，一起去贏。」。
我想港大這件事跟吉野家的強姦案性質很不相同。學生可能是沒有道德規範玩過火, 「玩」的界線含糊, 如果校方報警, 事主也可能說大家在玩而不追究。如果吉野家那受害人說她是同意性交或者被告誤以為她同意, 也可以罪名不成立。就算港大事主實牙實齒去錄口供指證侵犯者, 到了審訊很可能三幾句盤問就翻供。
刪除同意標少說法
刪除吉野家案中受害人跟被告是男女朋友关系
而一直亦有性关系
影片被流傳使受害人因而说该次是不自願情况下
而構成强奸罪元素
案中3名被告跟受害人关系十分K型
其實這就是FRAT INDUCTION嘛 forging bond 你情我願 諸位又何必大驚小怪
刪除馬鹿
我認同吉野家案與本案性質不一，但我的疑問在於究竟警方可否或會否主動調查案件。毫無疑問，吉野家案的女事主若在任何時候表示她同意性交，那案中被告應被判無罪。但案發後女事主並無打算報案，只是警方主動調查後事主才表示當時不同意性交。這時候，我或會有這樣的一個假設：出於輿論考量，任何女性都不會傾向說自己同意性交的，而她是否同意就只有自己方知，只要跟片段內容沒相違背便可。該案中，若非警方主動調查、事主未見有報案的打算，該案本應上不到高院的。
刪除本案的細節我不欲多談，而事主的取態亦不作推敲。我只關注警方可否或會否主動調查，並像吉野家案般邀請事主作供。換句話說，若事主不報案，是否任何人均不會被起訴？至於事主的取態如何，及後續的可能均不在我本來的考慮之列。
話說回來，這種舍堂文化本來就有問題、甚麼「仙制」。但這類越線行為其實在近年十分普遍，只是有多少被揭發而已，學生們早已見慣不怪。
馬老兄：俗啲講，係咪同意其實任佢up，吉野家案同理，不過吉野家個女仔係講明「唔好」，啲高登仔點幫被告兜都無用。
馬鹿
刪除True but fraternity initiation is not necessary to be (always) sexually overtoned. It is quite primitive and crude to exhibit the male potency as a symbol of superiority.
Happy Zenith,
刪除我想警方的刑事調查權不容置疑, 但港大「欺凌」案我相信警方不會主動查, 因為行為看似嬉戲, 校方查就有道理, 違反校規機會大。
其實也是，不用過份聚焦這種行為，不過大家早已吃了大半天花生。
刪除這應不是Fraternity induction。(Hall life由「開sem」到「完sem」都一樣有咁多嘢「玩」)
寄语马老大
回覆刪除咸濕下称(濕）
一濕促成千古根呀!
果三隻妖怪當日講到明唔俾佢地既仔女去參與佔中就知乜野事啦。。。
回覆刪除所以，法律間接叫人移民
回覆刪除和平方式冇用都唔可以升級行動
一係等死一係移民
行動升級？法律會先毀滅你
Your prediction of the sentence is very accurate. 拜服
回覆刪除It is only coincidental.
刪除