2017年7月1日星期六

求情信

不少寫給我求助的人都會問, 叫家人、朋友、教授之類寫求情信有沒有用, 用於認罪求情或申請撤銷控罪簽保守行為之用, 我說, 絕大部份這類信件都沒有作用, 一大堆張三李四之類的草民, 寫出來的東西有甚麼說服力, 但真的有人寫一兩封, no harm done, 因為法官有時會假借這些東西來輕判, 給人一個自新機會。現實上若果法官索取感化/背景報告, 跟感化官通力合作反而更有好處。

今早看明報報導朱凱迪被跟蹤的遊蕩控罪案, 其中一段:

18歲被告7科肥 校長稱成績佳

辯方求情時稱4名被告因欲觀察選舉方式,故低調跟蹤事主,又謂他們誤以為行動不會構成犯罪是「無知」。辯方呈上3封由黃俊欽中學校長及教師寫的求情信,稱他學業成績優異,惟官着辯方呈上成績表時,發現7科不及格,官詫異反問「咁叫優異?」辯方聞言回應成績一般,重申次被告是「盡力做嘅學生」。


你點做校長架? 要幫個犯了法的學生, 也不能以謊言去幫, 明顯在蒙騙法庭。7科不合格的成績優異生, 笑死人喇。係都隱惡揚善, 話佢成績雖然不理想, 在校內品行良好, 樂於助人, 人品單純, 入世未深, 相信在此案受人唆擺。咁講就無人駁到, 現兜兜攞張成績表出嚟對吓, 成績咁優異, 謊言即時爆破, 學校也蒙羞。除非這間學校作風特殊, 要求極高, 最叻嗰個都有幾科唔合格, 所以7科肥佬也堪稱優異。如果這學生日後大徹大悟, 想起學校為了他講大話, 也會慚愧。學校有責任灌輸正確的價值觀給學生, 而不是協助他們瞞天過海, 用謊言去開脫, 這件事值得校方反思。

有不少人覺得犯了法, 就要搵律師打甩佢, 這種也是扭曲了的價值觀。

36 則留言:

  1. 回覆
    1. 求情也是一門藝術。

      刪除
    2. 好明顯個被告無錢,揾D不好的律師去打。。。
      勁果批律師,相信唔會犯呢D錯(最少佢地手下會了解client背景吧。。。)

      刪除
    3. 律師我不敢胡亂批評, 雖然草率了一點, 校方的信件確失禮死人。

      刪除
  2. 《蘋果》兩名記者2015年平安夜於中區追訪教育局長吳克儉期間,被警方截查,即使記者已當場表明身份,仍被警方以涉遊蕩罪扣查近兩小時,有法律界人士質疑,警方有濫用這條防止罪行而設的法例之嫌,認為當局有必要檢討遊蕩罪。

    http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20160116/19454758

    朱凱迪居然因呢條罪而獲益,唉!

    http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/breaking/20170302/56375251

    回覆刪除
  3. 咁講喇, 朱凱迪的人身安全受到保障, 不是獲益。就算何君堯被跟, 也受同樣保障。

    回覆刪除
  4. 記得以前法官呃綜援單案, 上訴去到高院, 佢搵左d英國大法官幫佢寫求請信, Saunders(好似係)話果d係普通法世界既大人物, 出於憐憫減刑畀佢即刻出返來 (判辭大意咁上下). 我覺得真係豈有此理, 一個被告人搵到咩人幫佢寫求情信, 根本同佢既社會階層身份地位有好大關係, 果單案都冇其他減刑理由, 咁判法根本無異於因為被告既社會身份地位而放人, 我覺得係wrong in principle, 政府又冇再上訴喎.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. This is the case you are talking about:

      ...
      15. At the time of sentencing letters of support from persons, described by the Chief Magistrate as “respectable friends” of the Appellants, were put before him. I have had put before me letters, not available to the Chief Magistrate, from the Rt Hon the Baroness Butler-Sloss GBE, and the Rt Hon Lord Justice Thorpe. Both have known the Appellants for many years, and both speak highly of the Appellants, both recognising the impact that conviction and imprisonment has undoubtedly had on the Appellants. Both comment upon the extent to which the Appellants have fallen, both recognising the influence that Mr Jackson-Lipkin’s, occasionally, somewhat eccentric approach to life is likely to have had in the commission of these offences.

      16. While both Baroness Butler-Sloss and Lord Justice Thorpe fall within the category of respectable friends of the Appellants, they are more than merely that. Both are very eminent persons, whose views demand, by the extensive and wide experience of the law of those who express them, to be taken accorded very great weight. These are letters of support which were not before the Chief Magistrate.

      17. While correctly recognising that the late offer of compensation could not be regarded as remorse on the part of the Appellants, the Chief Magistrate plainly harboured some doubt as to whether or not payment would be made, referring to the fact that at that time it was a mere promise to pay. However, now the Appellants can say that they have honoured that promise, and to the full extent ordered by the court, have made restitution.

      18. I have had placed before me up-to-date medical reports. These confirm that there has been no real improvement in the ill-health of both Appellants. Neither are presently enjoying good health, both require much more than mere regular medical care.

      19. Both Appellants have now served four months in prison since their conviction. That is equivalent to having served a term of imprisonment of six months, after allowing for remission for good behaviour. Even having regard to the amount involved in the Appellants’ offending, for persons in their 9th decade, in poor health, with hitherto impeccable lives and records, and having fallen from grace to the extent that these Appellants have fallen, that is a very significant sentence.

      20. Weighing all of these matters, whilst acknowledging that the sentence passed by the Chief Magistrate was perfectly right, I am satisfied that the interests of justice will be appropriately served, both as regards the community and the Appellants, if, as an act of mercy, I were to order that their sentence be reduced so as to allow their immediate release.

      21. That will be the order of the Court.
      (HCMA 173/2007) http://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=57206&QS=%28jackson%2Blipkin%29&TP=JU

      同意你的結論, 點解Jackson-Lipkin做做下大法官突然無得做? 因為他是騙子, 橋段有啲似作家Jeffrey Archer, 扮二次大戰英雄, 出席官方儀式胸前掛滿荷蘭水蓋。

      刪除
    2. Pp.19,同pp.20果句 "as an act of mercy" 道出上訴法官判案思維…
      BTW Jeffrey Archer (Lord Archer?)有扮過 WWII hero 咩?真係無聽過… 願聞其詳。

      刪除
    3. My bad. I mixed up Jeffrey Archer with somebody else and now I can't remember who. Jeffrey Archer was too young in WWII.

      Patrick Li was then the Chief Magistrate. He tried the Jackson-Lipkin couples. If somebody else heard the appeal, the act of mercy might be very different because the disgrace in this case outweighed the mercy.

      刪除
    4. Archer did provide false academic qualification to get into Oxford.

      刪除
    5. Did he now? How interesting. I only know he was an Oxford Blue...

      刪除
    6. 10+yrs ago. Saunders 聽單民事案 (非正審)聆訊 好像是F&B application 之類的 我代表原告

      結果遲到 理由是要等裝修工人 i was like WTF did they get this MFer?

      馬鹿

      刪除
  5. https://www.hk01.com/%E6%B8%AF%E8%81%9E/101835/-%E7%BF%92%E8%BF%91%E5%B9%B3%E8%A8%AA%E6%B8%AF-%E9%80%A3%E7%92%B0%E5%9C%96-%E5%90%B3%E6%96%87%E9%81%A0%E7%96%91%E9%81%AD%E6%89%AF%E9%AB%AE%E6%92%BC%E8%BB%8A%E7%AA%97-%E5%BE%8B%E5%B8%AB-%E6%B6%89%E6%99%AE%E9%80%9A%E8%A5%B2%E6%93%8A

    朱經緯翻版?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 唔知。Open to interpretation.

      刪除
    2. 是否被捕,起碼要有清晰嘅講法,對嗎?

      Terry

      刪除
    3. 頭先在本土新聞幫手時候見隔壁吳文遠賣小強 我一邊暗笑 活該 低死 死左膠

      馬鹿

      刪除
    4. 影相角度不同就有不同效果...

      何況今次響車上,可以用制服疑犯為由...

      刪除
    5. Terry,

      這次處理手法有點失敗, 應該交給馬鹿去處置(笑), 不是處決。

      馬老大,

      下次叫警察交啲左膠畀你, 多謝教識我「賣小強」這詞, 有趣。不過, 比賣笑好。

      7:37

      我想警方目的是分隔兩幫人, 郁手就不能講制服/拒捕/襲警, 除非是拘捕「行為不檢」。

      刪除
    6. 我覺得相中人表情十足。 即使係受襲,一般人沒有那麼大反應。 有時候,政客的另一個身份就是演員。

      刪除
    7. 從新聞中看到,警員要相中人坐下,但相中人堅持站立,沒有服從警員指示,所以警員強行將相中人按下。

      刪除
  6. 啊!原來賣小強係博可憐。明明小強=曱由,又點演變到博可憐嘅意思。Terry

    回覆刪除
  7. 標少,

    作為一個教左廿年書既小學雞,我分析係:一、個老校/老師好憎呢條友,但又唔可以唔寫,咪亂寫一通送佢一程囉. 二、好多學校(特別是band3)年年都收到柳記/J.court/swd查詢舊生資料,呢封可能係template ^0^ 就好似來緊中一叩門信咁,封封都係一鬼樣.

    八叔公字

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 學校從善如流喎, 可以選擇唔寫架, 都送咗出校門, 仲係刑事案添。

      刪除
  8. 想問個比較複雜問題,刑事案控辯雙方已完成舉證,正在等待判決被告卻發覺控方有隱瞞重大有利與辯方脫罪的證據.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 有律師就應該由律師處理, 沒有律師就向法官投訴。律師不懂得處理就炒佢魷魚。

      刪除
    2. 炒魷魚未便宜咗佢

      刪除
  9. http://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=110153&currpage=T
    難以相信一個本身係律師的法律界選委落選人可以__到咁, 睇到講costs嗰part時真心想勸佢自己唔熟court proceedings就唔好懶醒走去in person啦...

    而家攞唔到leave去file out of time, 應該好快輪到ICAC拉佢?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 佢單嘢叫開始時闊佬懶理, 知衰時想補鑊, 要慳錢終於變蝕錢, 輸埋costs. 應該用傳票告啩, 唔使拉嘅, 到時PG囉。

      刪除
  10. 可以入個校長使用『虛假文書』嗎 XD

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 回十科唔合格進步到七科唔合格都可以算係成績優異嘅…

      刪除
    2. 真係要用優異嚟形容就叫優異的進步, 嬌人的個人成績提升。

      刪除
  11. 標少,是不是這樣:校長不是使用『虛假文書』,也不是是偽造,而是製造虛假文書。
    辯方律師才是使用虛假文書。
    20140904 -明報新聞網 教局主任脫虛假文書罪-
    2014年9月3日 - 她原被控偽造、使用虛假文書和製造虛假文書副本3項控罪,裁判官昨裁決指出,由於未能證明被告偽造虛假文件的意圖,判她罪名不成立。
    是否難證明意圖,所以.....
    KKC

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 這控罪不適用, 信件未符法律上這控罪的元素。

      刪除
  12. 哈哈,標少, 清看以下節錄:
    "香港回歸20年,「一國兩制」的實踐結出了碩果,多項指標都比回歸前大幅提升.......習近平今日出席香港特區政府歡迎晚宴,在宴會上致辭。他指出,特別行政區制度有效運作,香港民主政制依法推進,政府效能、法治水平等多項指標均比回歸前大幅提升"
    習主席算唔算瞞天過海, 用謊言去開脫?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 政沿宣傳口脗一向都不能認真看待, 不過, 相對於殖民也時代, 有的東西無得比, 因為不存在, 譬如政府架構絕不相同, 有些可以比較, 但是重大課題, 非三言兩語可作結論。習主席的話, 不能說是用謊言開脫, 有些是有表面事實根據。

      刪除