上一篇有留言引用了「巴士的報」的文章:
匿名2017年6月16日 下午4:08
法律界人士話，CY與周浩鼎並無涉及金錢利益，只是政治互動，是否合乎政治道德可以商榷，但如果講到公職人員行為失當罪，在較早前許仕仁案中，許收受巨額金錢利益，法庭判案時提到，如果公職人員收受金錢等「甜頭」，就可能會觸犯公職人員行為失當罪名。問題是在調查委員會這件事裡面，完全看不到CY或周浩鼎有任何金錢利益，看不到犯罪元素在哪裡。
金錢利益是公職人員行為失當罪的元素嗎? 蟻民界的標少當然不能跟法律界爭論, 尤其是我花不起這種時間和精神。有報導講廉政公署要立案調查梁振英與周浩鼎私通事件, 引發了上面這些評論。雖然公職人員行為失當罪很多時會跟貪污行賄有關連, 可是, 我粗淺的法律常識記憶所及, 金錢利益從來都不是該罪行的其中一項元素。「冼錦華」案已清晰列出五大元素, 許仕仁案只是釐清及進一步闡釋這些元素的涵蓋性。「冼錦華」案所列的元素:
(1) a public official;
(2) in the course of or in relation to his public office;
(3) wilfully misconducts himself; by act or omission, for example, by wilfully neglecting or failing to perform his duty;
(4) without reasonable excuse or justification; and
(5) where such misconduct is serious, not trivial, having regard to the responsibilities of the office and the officeholder, the importance of the public objects which they serve and the nature and extent of the departure from those responsibilities.”
哪一點講金錢利益?
終審法院在許仕仁案的判辭第84段, 把以前幾宗上訴至終院不同型式的公職人員行為失當案的犯案模式羅列出來:
84. Thus, the following acts and omissions have been held to constitute the offence: failing to disclose a relationship with a company and showing preferential treatment to that company by permitting it to tender for Government contracts despite lacking the requisite experience;[73] accepting free sexual favours provided by prostitutes controlled by the owner of a nightclub;[74] obtaining and using the personal particulars of patients of a public hospital to advertise the commencement of a private medical practice.[75] But these are merely specific instances of the offence and they are illustrative rather than definitive of the ways in which it can be committed. As Sir Anthony Mason NPJ said in Shum Kwok Sher v HKSAR, the offence “is necessarily cast in general terms because it is designed to cover many forms of misconduct on the part of public officers.”[76]
法律界人士話，CY與周浩鼎並無涉及金錢利益，只是政治互動，是否合乎政治道德可以商榷，但如果講到公職人員行為失當罪，在較早前許仕仁案中，許收受巨額金錢利益，法庭判案時提到，如果公職人員收受金錢等「甜頭」，就可能會觸犯公職人員行為失當罪名。問題是在調查委員會這件事裡面，完全看不到CY或周浩鼎有任何金錢利益，看不到犯罪元素在哪裡。
......
(1) a public official;
(2) in the course of or in relation to his public office;
(3) wilfully misconducts himself; by act or omission, for example, by wilfully neglecting or failing to perform his duty;
(4) without reasonable excuse or justification; and
(5) where such misconduct is serious, not trivial, having regard to the responsibilities of the office and the officeholder, the importance of the public objects which they serve and the nature and extent of the departure from those responsibilities.”
哪一點講金錢利益?
終審法院在許仕仁案的判辭第84段, 把以前幾宗上訴至終院不同型式的公職人員行為失當案的犯案模式羅列出來:
84. Thus, the following acts and omissions have been held to constitute the offence: failing to disclose a relationship with a company and showing preferential treatment to that company by permitting it to tender for Government contracts despite lacking the requisite experience;[73] accepting free sexual favours provided by prostitutes controlled by the owner of a nightclub;[74] obtaining and using the personal particulars of patients of a public hospital to advertise the commencement of a private medical practice.[75] But these are merely specific instances of the offence and they are illustrative rather than definitive of the ways in which it can be committed. As Sir Anthony Mason NPJ said in Shum Kwok Sher v HKSAR, the offence “is necessarily cast in general terms because it is designed to cover many forms of misconduct on the part of public officers.”[76]
其中包括公院醫生下海, 把病人資料帶走以招徠生意, 那種犯罪模式, 誰用金錢利益去賄賂誰? 終院(在上面這段)也說明了所舉的犯案模式只是一些例子, 而並非在窮盡犯案的手法。講到底這是一條涵蓋極廣的控罪。在另一案例, 漁護署司機黃連基在停牌期間繼續駕駛政府車輛而沒有上報, 也被控公職人員行為失當罪, 終院是因為他地位太低, 職權不符罪行第五元素的要求, 才駁回政府的上訴。政府司機為了逃避紀律處分而隱瞞定罪, 完全不涉一般金錢利益輸送那類公職人員行為失當罪。所以, 涉及金錢利益的公職人員行為失當罪, 只是該罪行的其中一種犯案模式。該罪行的涵蓋面可以有幾闊, 許案的判辭第82段也重申了:
82. The decided cases show that a broad range of different acts and omissions can constitute the relevant conduct element of the offence. In Shum Kwok Sher v HKSAR, Sir Anthony Mason NPJ observed (at [69]):
82. The decided cases show that a broad range of different acts and omissions can constitute the relevant conduct element of the offence. In Shum Kwok Sher v HKSAR, Sir Anthony Mason NPJ observed (at [69]):
坊間有人對廉署立案調查梁周私通事件不以為然, 要談法律, 恐怕要在案例中找答案; 要展示政治立場, 就應乾脆講清楚。當然也許是我對案例理解錯誤而胡謅了。“The difficulty which has been experienced in defining with precision the elements of the offence stem not so much from the various ways in which they have been expressed as from the range of misconduct by officials which may fall within the reach of the offence. This is because, to quote the words of PD Finn, ‘Public Officers: Some Personal Liabilities’ (1977) 51 ALJ 313 at p.315:The kernel of the offence is that an officer, having been entrusted with powers and duties for the public benefit, has in some way abused them, or has abused his official position.It follows that what constitutes misconduct in a particular case will depend upon the nature of the relevant power or duty of the officer or of the office which is held and the nature of the conduct said to constitute the commission of the offence.”
So what are the chances of CY Leung getting convicted of misconduct in public office and sent to jail like the way Rafael Hui and Donald Tsang got locked up in Stanley Prison?
回覆刪除If prosecuted, he would plead that he was only reckless. He thought he had the right to lobby under the table. He would candidly admit it had been his way of doing things before being appointed as CE. He just got carried away and applied the old tactics. It was his state of mind. It would at most be a District Court case despite his being the CE. Once again, the kind of "unless you are blue/yellow" nonsensical remarks will be haunting people's head. I tend to believe him "reckless" wise. This is the core value of the commercial sector. By hook or by crook, cover the shit and just don't get found out. Objectively, it is the practice and subjectively, his consistent mindset. Bingo. Acquitted on benefit of doubt. Sorry mate, your question does not come to play.
刪除By the way, does Long Hair also try to run such a defence (being reckless)? He thought he did not need to declare receiving the donation because the money was for the party and not for him personally. Subjectively he genuinely did not appreciate and foresee the risk.
刪除"44. Because these criticisms are soundly based, it is appropriate that this Court should take this opportunity of overruling R v. Chau Ming Cheong and R v. Dung Shue Wah. Henceforth juries should be directed in terms of the subjective interpretation of recklessness upheld in R v. G. So juries should be instructed that, in order to convict for an offence under s.118(3)(a) of the Crimes Ordinance, it has to be shown that the defendant’s state of mind was culpable in that he acted recklessly in respect of a circumstance if he was aware of a risk which did or would exist, or in respect of a result if he was aware of a risk that it would occur, and it was, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk. Conversely, a defendant could not be regarded as culpable so as to be convicted of the offence if, due to his age or personal characteristics, he genuinely did not appreciate or foresee the risks involved in his actions. "
SIN KAM WAH LAM CHUEN IP AND ANOTHER v. HKSAR FACC14/2004
非禮罪犯永遠唔可以做大律師咁佔中罪犯陳淑莊大律師係咪應該要被大律師公會釘牌?
回覆刪除https://m.mingpao.com/ins/instantnews/web_tc/article/20170616/s00001/1497612604107
有非禮案底見習大律師申成執業大律師被拒 高院：罪行嚴重無悔意
化名「A」的見習大律師數年前被指非禮14歲女生，經審訊後被裁定罪成，判囚14天，他不服提上訴但被駁回。他完成實習後申請成為執業大律師，大律師公會得悉A有案底後，沒反對其申請，惟律政司持相反意見。高院今頒下判辭，指公眾對大律師的誠信有期望，惟A干犯的罪行嚴重，加上他並無悔意，決定拒絕批准A的申請。
法官在判辭提到，A於2010年正在大學修讀放射治療學，同年他被指在一行人隧道內，摸一名14歲女生的胸及抓其臀部，經審訊後被裁定非禮罪成，判囚14天。他其後就定罪提上訴但失敗，終院亦拒絕批出上訴許可。
A其後轉為攻讀法律，畢業後他完成實習，他的3位師傅皆知悉其案底，3人對他的評價正面，指A已改過自新，認為對方適合成為執業大律師。其中一名師傅更在信件中表示，他閱畢原審時的謄本後，認為A是被錯誤定罪，上訴庭亦不能掌握上訴重點，又指對於A成為不完善的刑事法律制度下的受害人而感到可惜。
法官指出，雖然該案並不屬於最嚴重的非禮案，惟A的行為是針對弱小的人，不能不被視為嚴重罪行，若A將來須負責檢控，或在案件中代表弱小的當事人，質疑這是否適合，甚至會削弱公眾對大律師的信心，遂決定拒絕批准有關申請。
新聞我睇到, 判辭未上載。你條問題我答唔到。
刪除我唔明白大律師公會得悉A有案底同坐過監而沒反對其申請？ 一般情況下，會 reject 申請。
刪除我無本事評論。
刪除網誌管理員已經移除這則留言。
刪除對不起, 我刪除了留言, 我不想披露A君身分。我看了非禮判辭, 正在寫評論。
刪除A君其實都幾慘。
刪除A君其實都幾慘 x2
刪除行差踏錯代價好大。
刪除負責調查梁振英收受澳洲公司UGL共5000萬港元事件的立法會專委會，自成立以來一直未能就具體調查範圍達成共識，期間一份由專委會副主席周浩鼎提交、建議對調查範圍作出大幅修訂的文件，被揭曾經遭到特首辦修改。梁振英其後承認曾向周提出修改建議，目的是令專委會的調查更全面，強調有關做法沒有問題。
回覆刪除如梁振英所言屬實，即修改建議的目的是令專委會的調查更全面，有什麼犯罪元素？如何構成公職人員行為不當罪?
你的「如果」很關鍵, 如果一早接納梁振英的解釋, 這件事還會纏擾下去嗎? 如果私通的目的是令專委會的調查更全面, 那就應該正正當當寫給委員會, 由委員會定奪, 而不應暗中進行。身有屎才會這樣, 身無屎就不會把屎抹在自己面上, 如果真的清白而用了屎一般的行徑, 那就證明這人是個信不過的人。無愧於心就應坦蘯。他這樣做嚴重違反程序公義。「被告」可以約其中一個「陪審員」會面, 向他陳述自己的案情嗎? 搏乜? 搏懵囉。
刪除另外, 本文並非在審判裁決梁振英是否guilty of anything, 而是針對「金錢利益」是否罪行元素這一點來回應留言, 我文中對梁振英一句批判也沒有, 篇文也不是回應「巴士的報」, 要回應我會到那平台去回應, 我從不做這種事。
咁講法,泛民同建制交換條件去做幾個委員會的主席也算公職人員行為失當了...
回覆刪除「咁講法」並非正確閱讀判辭的態度, 判辭審判控辯雙方提出的理據, 而並不是數學教科書列出程式。因應個別案情, 雙方可以套用法律案例游說法庭接納自己看法。許仕仁一案擴闊了公職人員行為不當的涵義, 並不表示議會裏商討/協調/交換條件的做法屬於犯法, 你忘了「不當」(misconduct)這兩個字, 他們有不少做法根本是議會中的conduct, 又何來misconduct呢?
刪除標少,
回覆刪除贊成你說的有關 "正確閱讀判辭的態度" , 現在太多人懶於用心去思考,不管處事和評論, 只想簡單的用一個態度. 非友即敵,非對即錯. 我覺得普通法應該不是這樣,請各位指正.
BILL ＨＫ