明報即時新聞有這一篇: 高空墜石罪成男子上訴 高院指原審缺案情擱置定罪判刑, 上訴判辭未上載, 我不清楚高院法官杜麗冰的實際理據, 如果明報的報導無誤, 其中一段這樣講:
杜官強調要考慮有關控罪的刑罰，只有控罪詳情是不足夠的，因為這種罪行可在各種情況下發生。杜官舉例稱，情況可包括上訴人維修時不小心令石塊墜下或外牆日久失修等，控方亦有責任向法庭提供案情撮要，說明事件發生的經過、是否上訴人疏忽、石塊大小等資料。
裁判法院 審理的案件, 一定有案情摘要(Brief Facts)的嗎? 當然不是。最典型以落案形式(charge)檢控, 被告要保釋上庭, 認罪而沒有案情的是小販的無牌擺賣及阻街案, 年輕一代有所不知, 以前是一次過叫名, 幾十個被告站出來, 書記問: 「有冇人唔認?」(當然無) , 然後個官話: 「無牌罰$300, 阻街罰$200」, 跟住啲友去數房等叫名, 交完罰款拿拿林走去開檔。楊鐵樑爵士做裁判官那年代(I was told), 他連庭都唔開, 吩咐個書記無牌、阻街罰幾多, 係咁先。後來才越做越開明(九十年代了), 一單一單叫, 仲問埋有乜求情說話講, 無論如何都無案情呈堂, 以簡易手法快捷妥當處理這些案件, 對判罰上訴怎辦? 控罪的詳情(particulars)就是案情。很多以傳票(summons)檢控的也沒有案情的, 譬如一般由定額罰款演變成傳票上庭的或非法過馬路(jaywalking)之類, 又或者一些政府部門的傳票(departmental summons), 譬如稅局檢控沒有交商業登記費之類的控罪。我舉這些例子, 只想說明並非每一件案都有案情的。
以杜官處理這一宗案而言(Allowing Object to Fall from Height), 一般確實會呈上案情, 沒有案情的話, 主控的文件裏多數都會有申請有關傳票的警員的簡單口供或記事簿的影印本, 原審裁判官確實有粗疏之嫌, 原審裁判官至少都應該口頭問主控有關案情然後問被告是否同意, 這樣做才有量刑基礎。沒有這樣做, 當被告對刑罰上訴, 個官撰寫《裁斷陳述書》時可以寫乜? 所以今次衰咗完全無得撐, 我梗唔會去八究竟係邊個, 經一事長一智囉。
那麼杜官case dismissed的做法是否正確? 這控罪有3種檢控的情況, 從報導看是容許碎石墜下(Allowing)而非被告掉下碎石(Dropping), 杜官還舉例說是有可能日久失修, 她自己搞胡塗了, 因為無論是掉下或容許墜下, 都是第228章 《簡易程序治罪條例》第4B(1)條的控罪, 而日久失修卻是第4(7)條的控罪, 兩者不應混為一談。因為缺乏案情而不確定事件的嚴重性而撤銷控罪, with due respect, 並非合理做法, 如果那是杜官唯一的理由, 她應該批准判刑上訴, 輕判被告, 而不應撤銷控罪, 這控罪是具嚴格法律要求的(an offence of strict liability), 被告就算是不小心或疏忽(杜官說不知被告是否不小心或疏忽), 也immaterial。
杜官強調要考慮有關控罪的刑罰，只有控罪詳情是不足夠的，因為這種罪行可在各種情況下發生。杜官舉例稱，情況可包括上訴人維修時不小心令石塊墜下或外牆日久失修等，控方亦有責任向法庭提供案情撮要，說明事件發生的經過、是否上訴人疏忽、石塊大小等資料。
以杜官處理這一宗案而言(Allowing Object to Fall from Height), 一般確實會呈上案情, 沒有案情的話, 主控的文件裏多數都會有申請有關傳票的警員的簡單口供或記事簿的影印本, 原審裁判官確實有粗疏之嫌, 原審裁判官至少都應該口頭問主控有關案情然後問被告是否同意, 這樣做才有量刑基礎。沒有這樣做, 當被告對刑罰上訴, 個官撰寫《裁斷陳述書》時可以寫乜? 所以今次衰咗完全無得撐, 我梗唔會去八究竟係邊個, 經一事長一智囉。
那麼杜官case dismissed的做法是否正確? 這控罪有3種檢控的情況, 從報導看是容許碎石墜下(Allowing)而非被告掉下碎石(Dropping), 杜官還舉例說是有可能日久失修, 她自己搞胡塗了, 因為無論是掉下或容許墜下, 都是第228章 《簡易程序治罪條例》第4B(1)條的控罪, 而日久失修卻是第4(7)條的控罪, 兩者不應混為一談。因為缺乏案情而不確定事件的嚴重性而撤銷控罪, with due respect, 並非合理做法, 如果那是杜官唯一的理由, 她應該批准判刑上訴, 輕判被告, 而不應撤銷控罪, 這控罪是具嚴格法律要求的(an offence of strict liability), 被告就算是不小心或疏忽(杜官說不知被告是否不小心或疏忽), 也immaterial。
如果律政司上訴， 成功機會有幾大呢 ?
回覆刪除不值得上訴, 雖然有些原則性的法律問題。
刪除多謝！
刪除下午10:04
標少,
刪除我相信這種"習慣說＂應該不少,以前那些人可否要求相同待遇.
Bill hk
案件性質不一樣, 別的上訴庭法官未必同杜官看法一樣, 加上逾時, 沒有合理理由接納逾時上訴。 假如有人收到張交通傳票話佢衝紅燈, 佢上庭認罪, 邊有案情?我想指出杜官的處理手法未必啱。
刪除標少,
刪除如我等不是法律界的小市民,杜官是便是官,上訴庭應該是一般事情的最後.不能是只是對一半,錯一半.
BILL HK
我不理上訴庭是否有最後判決權, 只要有理由我就批評。
刪除言論自由應否包容冒犯性言論呢？
回覆刪除https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E8%A8%80%E8%AB%96%E8%87%AA%E7%94%B1%E6%87%89%E5%90%A6%E5%8C%85%E5%AE%B9%E5%86%92%E7%8A%AF%E6%80%A7%E8%A8%80%E8%AB%96%E5%91%A2/
The author said upfront: "簡單答案：應。"
Bill, although this is not related to the topic of your post, I would appreciate it very much if you could enlighten me with your view on the article. Thank you very much.
Old BJ
佢自己都解釋唔到點解歧視就要規管，其他又唔駛。
刪除Old BJ,
刪除The upfront answer by the author may be too brief. Let's look at what the Court of Final Appeal said in Leung Kwok Hung's case (FACC Nos. 1 & 2 of 2005):
********************************************************************
"1. The freedom of peaceful assembly is a fundamental right. It is closely associated with the fundamental right of the freedom of speech. The freedom of speech and the freedom of peaceful assembly are precious and lie at the foundation of a democratic society.
2. These freedoms are of cardinal importance for the stability and progress of society for a number of inter-related reasons. The resolution of conflicts, tensions and problems through open dialogue and debate is of the essence of a democratic society. These freedoms enable such dialogue and debate to take place and ensure their vigour. A democratic society is one where the market place of ideas must thrive. These freedoms enable citizens to voice criticisms, air grievances and seek redress. This is relevant not only to institutions exercising powers of government but also to organizations outside the public sector which in modern times have tremendous influence over the lives of citizens. Minority views may be disagreeable, unpopular, distasteful or even offensive to others. But tolerance is a hallmark of a pluralistic society. Through the exercise of these freedoms minority views can be properly ventilated."
********************************************************************
The last sentence in the second paragraph of the judgment is the gist. I don't want to take the meaning out of context. It does not seem to me the CFA was advocating that you can enjoy freedom of speech by deliberately using offensive language upon other people. We have to look at Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
**********************************************************************
"1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals."
***********************************************************************
Did the Education University students respect the rights or reputations of Madam Choi in accordance with Article 19?
I would invite you to read in conjunction with this article to find the true meaning of freedom of speech.
文中所指"包容",重點放在"應否以公權力限制冒犯性言論".
刪除幾年前係電視睇到一個探討網上冒犯性言論既節目.主持記者本身被人以言論針對攻擊左一段時間,所以佢決定展開研究調查,一邊設局試圖捉攻擊自己既人,一邊探討其他案例,包括有兒童因冒犯性言論而自殺等.當中講到,英國有人係網上以言論bully他人,結果要受牢獄之災.記者發現該人放監後重施故技,於是搵到佢當面質詢.佢面露笑容,並不否認自己仍有在網上攻擊他人,亦唔回答記者提問.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11627180/Five-internet-trolls-a-day-convicted-in-UK-as-figures-show-ten-fold-increase.html
刪除比我搵到呢篇.
Thanks. 香港無類似法例, 否則马鹿坐硬。
刪除馬鹿可能又會話呢D係奴性.
刪除(「用好自由」系列之一：香港中文大學社工系教授王卓祺)
刪除當負責任報道成為新聞 - 言論自由普世性及政府言責的思考
http://speakout.hk/index.php/2013-11-04-09-33-03/2013-12-21-08-43-26/7211-2015-02-11-05-12-41
(「用好自由」系列之二：香港中文大學社工系教授王卓祺)
從來沒有絕對的學術自由 - 「陳文敏事件」的思考
http://speakout.hk/index.php/2013-11-04-09-33-03/2013-12-21-07-12-13/7505-2015-03-02-07-03-01
Positive and Negative Liberty (Isaiah Berlin - Two Concepts of Liberty)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfhQhdA-zss
//言論自由應否包容冒犯性言論呢？//
刪除個人認為不應該。自由(包括言論自由)雖然重要，但也不可毫無限制，但應該怎樣為自由劃界？可引用一個簡易的原則為自由劃界，那就是彌爾(John Stuart Mill)的不傷害原則。言論冒犯，嚴重的已受既定的法律規管，不贅。不那麼嚴重的，政府和各大機構可帶頭研究和制定指引作出適當的處分，輕則警告，屢勸不改和嚴重的便革退，如認真執行，相信歪風便會收斂。
typo:也不可毫無限制
刪除謝謝,有空會看連結的文章。
刪除1226： 由民選議員 enacted 的法例 馬鹿如何有膽子亂加評論？
刪除Article 19 ICCPR 所指對freedom of speech 的限制不是指法律上的限制嗎，而不單單是道德方面？
刪除雖然我不認同對蔡兒子的下流言論，但我倒不認為這是言論自由的限制。
https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G94/750/76/PDF/G9475076.pdf?OpenElement
參見第41 至43 段。
Terry
Thank you, Bill. It's worrying that defenders of the Education University poster continue to promulgate that there is no limit to freedom of expression. And more worrying is that a lot of the defenders are so-called "learned persons" or "key opinion leaders". Their views help reinforce troll comments.
刪除Old BJ
Terry,
刪除首先, 去不到你的連結。
我從沒有說涼薄的說話(教大的poster)犯刑事法或民事上構成誹謗之類的後果, 那屬法律上的限制的範疇, 我主要的回應是Old BJ連結那篇文章引用梁國雄案終審法院的講法, 言論自由包容構成冒犯的言論, 我理解的意思是當你要表達自己的立場, 可能會講一些冒犯別人的話, 譬如有些人會講: 啲律師為咗錢, 會幫啲衰人打甩控罪, 無陰公, 因住生仔無xx, 這是冒犯性的言論, 但出自受害人的口或者普通市民對法律制度不了解的看法, 我可以理解有這種憤懑的原因, 受害人因為不能把被告繩之於法而感到不公義, 所以講了冒犯辯方律師的話, 講這些話當然沒有受任何法律規限, 就算倫理道德的規限也很少, 因為社會人士會體諒受害人。這並不表示社會應接納所有冒犯的說話, 只要不犯法就可以了。正正是為了包容別人所以我們要避免無端白事去講冒犯人的話, 所以我們要思考言論自由的真諦而不應簡單講一句言論自己包容冒犯的說話, 然後就肆意、盡情去冒犯。貼教大大字報的人, 他們要展示小眾甚麼立場? 如果對蔡若蓮提倡愛國的講法不滿, 應該真接了當提出批評(包括冒犯蔡若蓮), 而不是講毫不關連的涼薄話語。如果把言論自由看成只要不違法就甚麼都可以講, 講了還要受尊重, 有這種想法的人相當可悲, 根本不配享有民主自由。
標少的見解十分到點，小弟百分百同意
刪除哈哈,民選議員 enacted 的法例又如何?就不能評論?
刪除另類奴性.
標少，個連結如直接copy and paste 到address line 上可以看得到, 係UN commission on human rights, copy and paste 在 google search 內就去不到該文件了。很奇怪。現paste 在下面。
刪除言論自由當然有限制。重點係有哪些限制。這分為道德上及法律上兩方面。
道德方面沒什麼特別好講。人人把尺不同。但總不可以說因某學生說了涼薄的說話, 從而說該學生超越了言論自由的框架，因為這只是道德方面的尺度。儘管說學生說話下流涼薄，這巳是屬他的言論自由。所以談道德方面的言論自由係沒理由講article 18 ICCPR.
法律方面的言論自由可見article 18(3) ICCPR，並受制於法律。即學生説話下流涼薄，這亦並不違反法律上的言論自由。
唔知有冇理解錯標少本意。
41. Article 19 (3) allows for the restriction of the right to freedom of expression and information only under certain conditions. Most importantly, any restriction or limitation must be provided by law, must serve one of the listed purposes mentioned in the article and must be necessary for attaining this purpose.
42. The term "provided by law" implies that restrictions and limitations on the right to freedom of expression must have been formally enacted in law. Such act should specify the permissibility of interference by enforcement organs. The degree of such specification is important. Any interference that is solely based on administrative provisions prima facie violates article 19.
43. Any permissible limitation to the right to freedom of expression must not only be provided by law, it must also be necessary to attain one of the following purposes:
(a) To respect the rights or reputations of others;
(b) To protect national security;
(c) To protect public order;
(d) To protect public health;
(e) To protect public morals.
Terry
打錯，article 19, 而不是article 18.
刪除Terry
Terry,
刪除我正正是講法律規限以外的言論自, 涉及倫理道德的。
Back to basics：
刪除Definition of Morals
Morals are the social, cultural and religious beliefs or values of an individual or group which tells us what is right or wrong. They are the rules and standards made by the society or culture which is to be followed by us while deciding what is right. Some moral principles are:
1. Do not cheat
2. Be loyal
3. Be patient
4. Always tell the truth
5. Be generous
Morals refer to the beliefs what is not objectively right, but what is considered right for any situation, so it can be said that what is morally correct may not be objectively correct.
Definition of Ethics
Ethics is a branch of philosophy that deals with the principles of conduct of an individual or group. It works as a guiding principle as to decide what is good or bad. They are the standards which govern the life of a person. Ethics is also known as moral philosophy. Some ethical principles are:
1. Truthfulness
2. Honesty
3. Loyalty
4. Respect
5. Fairness
6. Integrity
In simple terms, the law may be understood as the systematic set of universally accepted rules and regulation created by an appropriate authority such as government, which may be regional, national, international, etc. It is used to govern the action and behavior of the members and can be enforced, by imposing penalties.
Many times the term law is juxtaposed with the term ethics, but there is a difference, as ethics are the principles that guide a person or society, created to decide what is good or bad, right or wrong, in a given situation. It regulates a person’s behavior or conduct and helps an individual in living a good life, by applying the moral rules and guidelines.
Ethics and Values together lay the foundation for sustainability. While they are sometimes used synonymously, they are different, wherein ethics are the set of rules that govern the behaviour of a person, established by a group or culture. Values refer to the beliefs for which a person has an enduring preference.
Ethics and values are important in every aspect of life, when we have to make a choice between two things, wherein ethics determine what is right, values determine what is important.
In the world of intense competition, organisations work on certain principles and beliefs which are nothing but the values. Likewise, ethics is implemented in the organisation to ensure the protection of the interest of stakeholders like customers, suppliers, employees, society and government.
Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct are the standards that a group must adhere to, so as to remain the member of the organisation. The primary difference between code of ethics and code of conduct is that code of ethics is a set of principles which influence the judgement while the code of conduct is a set of guidelines that influence employee’s actions.
The private/public boundary issue：
刪除There is a natural tendency to consider some aspects of our lives as of purely private concern and others of legitimate public interest. In the case of the Education University poster, where should we draw the boundary?
The distinction we make between our private and public lives is not quite as clear-cut as we sometimes like to think it is. Most of what we put under the category of 'private' does directly affect other people outside the private circle. For example, if I take drugs and then drive, I am risking the lives of others as well as my own.
The idea of 'moral legalism'：
刪除Do we really want all wrongdoing to be illegal?
Imagine if you could be arrested for telling lies, being unfaithful to your partner, making people miserable by your inconsiderate manner, and so on. We do lots of wrong things every day, but to suppose that all such wrongdoings should be illegal is surely to grant too much to the law. Few would want to argue for this kind of extreme moral legalism. Most of us would accept that the law should only apply to certain kinds of wrongdoing.
Is society justified in punishing individuals for their own good, even when they have not harmed others? In the case we are considering, this seems to be a red herring, because no one claims that the student leaders should be impeached for their own good. So the 'for their own good' argument in this case doesn't get off the ground.
刪除In any case, the idea that the law should protect us from ourselves, or 'legal paternalism' as it is termed, is not one which enjoys more than qualified support. There is an example of what seems to be legal paternalism ---- compulsory wearing of seat belts. But law only gain support because the harms they are preventing are very serious indeed and the restrictions it places upon us not onerous.
typo：But it only gains support because the harms they are preventing...
刪除John Stuart Mill's principle：
刪除"The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."
The harm principle rules out legal paternalism. Mill helps us to consider the EU issue by distinguishing between harm and offence. Mill thought that one is not justified in preventing someone from doing something or punishing them for doing it merely because we are offended by it. The reason for this should be pretty obvious：too many people are offended by too many different things to make this practical. Some people may be offended by the fact that others eat meat; some by the fact that others pray to Jesus rather than Allah, or vice versa. We just can't include such offence in our concept of harm.
correction：
刪除There is an example of what seems to be legal paternalism ----compulsory wearing of seat belts. But such law only gains support because the harms it is preventing are very serious indeed and the restrictions it places upon us not onerous.
唔會做案例!
回覆刪除杜官的判決很少被引用的。
刪除strict liability! 難怪總覺得奇奇怪怪。多謝指教。
回覆刪除Be careful, strict liability implies "是否不小心或疏忽" is immaterial only to conviction, not sentence.
刪除Have to say Bill Shiu's analysis is actually inappropriate.
B'J
My focus in the last paragraph was about the dismissal of the summons.
刪除Thank you for your clarification on your focus. Then your focus/immateriality is correct.
刪除But the material extracted from J.Toh is inappropriate, since that material she's using was about her sentence analysis.
B'J
B'J,
刪除Read the comment made by BBTW. The case was handled in a confusing manner. There were a lot of mistakes in the judgment.
Agreed. J.Toh was confusing, not good.
刪除What I meant in 5:19 was you were actually mixing (maybe based on her confusing), still not good.
I suppose we are in a position to do better than her.
"4:59 Be careful", the theme stands.
B'J
咁都過到骨。
回覆刪除Very educational
回覆刪除Thxxx
Right! Conviction & sentence 真係兩回事。
刪除B'J
//以前是一次過叫名, 幾十個被告站出來,「有冇人唔認?」(當然無) , 無牌罰$300, 阻街罰$200//
回覆刪除//後來才越做越開明(九十年代了), 一單一單叫, 仲問埋有乜求情說話講, 無論如何都無案情呈堂//
標少, 你兩種例子我百份之一百理解.
我唔知你的例子「以前、後來」成點, 我舉下例卻是幾個月前一幕, 是介乎你兩者之間, 而有我要求的案情摘要, 不知是否普遍....
書記一次過叫名, 對象都是(會判)簽保守行為人士, 即不留案底, 十幾人一字排開, 官講一堆common(即apply to all)的說話.
然後逐個招呼, 書記問被告是否陳大文, 宣讀幾個W(When where what..), 問同意不同意案情(Yes), 宣讀簽保守行為, 問有無野講, 下一位.
我既重點係, 無論我既例子, 以至牛肉干、你既「departmental summons, 沒有交商業登記費」, 都有幾個W(s)!
你的"以前"我會不接受(要改善)因為水準低於牛肉干, 你的"後來"我不知道有沒有幾個W的宣佈.
我既重點係,「幾個essential W, 加被告同意(而無補充)」, 便是qualified (but minimal)「案情摘要」
首先我不知杜麗冰法官、標少、控方、律政司是否同意我的描述.
萬一不同意, 我對事件的分析立場是, 只問裁判時有沒有宣讀「幾個W並要求同意案情」.
有, 我覺得杜官挑剔, 我不認同;
沒有, 保持我上blog的態度, 不明這烏龍如何擺成, 程序漏左, 上訴庭仲駁咀.
現在的情況我真的不知, 已經很久很久沒有踏足法院。有趣的是, 你講十幾人一字排開做ONE/BO, 咁講律政司好仁慈, 肯撤銷這麼多案件。
刪除鄰居大力拍門踢閘(刑毀)、阿伯捉棋推撞膊頭(襲擊)、阿髦就地開瓶超市職員制止兩人鬧的不可開交(我唔記得唔識咩罪)、最輕微超市無付款(盜竊).... 標少你點判?
刪除守行為至罰款。
刪除"至罰款"far end有沒有案底先? 若有, 太重.
刪除若無, 其實回歸簽保守行為.
上面的ONE/BO, 差不多都有賠償當事人$500/堂費$500之類, 聊表罰款. (守行為$2000不用付)
我意思是唔算"律政司好仁慈", 屬合理.
我講仁慈並非無因, 因為在以前(around year 2000 or before), 店舖盜竊無論幾輕微, 都不會ONE/BO. 《檢控守則》變化不大, 但決策者比以前手鬆很多, 這裏面又有一些故事。
刪除或者, 但不是並非無因的原因.
刪除你講「律政司好仁慈」的context是「有趣的是, 你講十幾人一字排開做ONE/BO, 咁講律政司好仁慈, 肯撤銷這麼多案件」, 純統計感覺, 不是案情.
講番杜官, 中英判詞出左, 尾段竟然唔同:
5. 本席批准*判刑*的上訴..
5. I allowed the appellant to appeal against his *conviction*..
與及小弟一直的疑問, 英文版, 上訴人幾時有上訴conviction即???
你眼利, 我只看了上面貼出的中文判辭, 這件案處理得很糊塗。
刪除無論如何, 我不同意杜麗冰法的撤銷定罪.
回覆刪除首先這上訴只要求覆核判刑即嫌判刑過重、而不是覆核判罪, 連被告自己都已經認罪!
我估計杜官是有權「多事」, 不用有人申請可自行決定作出定罪的覆核.
不過以「公平」論, 估計被告是有犯事的, 只不過控方有技術問題, 此技術問題屬程序遺漏卻見不到對被告有損害或不公的實際結果.
然而無罪釋放, 是否對社會公平? 被告喜出望外其實於法律而言是甚麼意義、法庭發放了甚麼訊息?
我認為上訴庭適當做法如下..
1. 按程序只覆核刑期, 輕判. 並提醒被告程序既然有遺漏, 會批準被告的覆核定罪要求(如有); 或
2. 刑期擱置, 發還重審.
發還重審未免對被告太不公平, 走嚟走去咁多次, 輕判最適宜。
刪除老大： 馬鹿在前面個BLOG 對應BILL HK的詢問寫左篇野 到哪裡去了啊 *哭*
刪除Spam裏沒有你的墨寶, 你再講過囉。
刪除同意BBTW, 杜官嘅做法從高院嘅高度睇實在太兒嬉。
刪除唉 還挺長篇的吶 是教唆laymen 如何濫用民事程序.......唉
刪除https://news.mingpao.com/pns/dailynews/web_tc/article/20170912/s00002/1505152937499
回覆刪除千億新袍今次真係要多謝陳志雲
BBTW兄,標少
回覆刪除支持你们的說法.法律不可不清不楚表現出來,判刑可輕可重,市民接受.,但應有罪卻可無罪是不滿.
Bill hk
主審法官： 高等法院原訟法庭法官杜麗冰
回覆刪除聆訊日期： 2017年7月5日
頒下判案理由書日期： 2017年9月11日
判 案 理 由 書
1. 上訴人被控一項傳票控罪，控罪指他在2016 年11 月4 日下午5 時30 分，自位於葵涌和宜合道宜發大廈A 座2 字樓1 號室的建築物容許墜下碎石，以致對在公衆地方，即葵涌和宜合道宜發大廈A 座後巷之内或附近的人造成危險。他承認控罪，被罰款港幣3,000 元，他不服判刑上訴。
2. 答辯人的代表律師及本席得知此宗傳票案件並無案情，更重要的是，原審裁判官並無獲得任何案情或案情撮要以衡量罪行的嚴重性，從而考慮對上訴人處以什麼刑罰。案件主管對答辯人的代表律師陳律師表示，據她所知，這是裁判法院慣常做法。本席質疑爲何裁判法院容許這種做法，其後陳律師以書面向本席確認事實並非如此。
3. 本案控罪只建基於控罪詳情，並不足以讓裁判官作出適當的量刑，因爲這個罪行可以在多種多樣的情況下發生。舉例說，其中一個情況可以是上訴人在居所外進行維修，不小心令石塊墜下；亦可以是外牆日久失修而致石塊墜下。故此控方有責任向法庭提供案情撮要，述明石塊從何處墜下，在什麽情況下墜下，是否由於上訴人疏忽或因缺乏監督而導致事件發生。石塊的大小；以及石塊是從上訴人的居所的露臺、窗戶或外牆墜下等資料更尤爲重要。
4. 故此，最重要的是欠缺案情撮要只是個別情況，希望控方、警方及法庭會嚴肅處理，不會讓這種情況再次出現。
5. 在此情況下，本席批准上訴人在期限過後就判刑提出的上訴許可申請，擱置上訴人的定罪，理由是其定罪欠缺案情基礎。同時擱置上訴人的判刑。
多謝Bill hk兄的支持.
刪除//2.原審裁判官並無獲得任何案情或案情撮要以衡量罪行的嚴重性，從而考慮對上訴人處以什麼刑罰//
//3.本案控罪只建基於控罪詳情，並不足以讓裁判官作出適當的量刑，因爲這個罪行可以在多種多樣的情況下發生。舉例說...//
我很同意杜官兩段說法, 卻是more or less一個意思, 她十分強調此事, 對量刑的影響.
判詞卻顯示出杜官犯了1至2個法律程序原則性錯誤 : 1.沒有對定罪作出分析, 然後執行(申請人訴求以外的)關於定罪裁決.
2.裁決違反事情本質, 即被告明明是有犯事的.
杜官沒分析定罪是否穩妥. 如果杜官借相同文字轉討論對象為定罪而非量刑, 既有程序邏輯, 我唯有接受: 定罪不穩妥.
杜官強調了事情嚴重影響量刑, 甚至不能量刑, 那麼疑點利益及程序錯誤得益同歸被告下, 可判零懲罰, 當庭省釋. 與定罪無關.
https://thestandnews.com/politics/何君堯施壓港大促辭退戴耀廷-大專學界聯署譴責/
回覆刪除何君堯施壓港大促辭退戴耀廷 大專學界聯署譴責
何生好似搞得真係有聲有色喎！
聯署仲差過何
刪除BBTW
https://thestandnews.com/politics/民主牆風波-39位建制議員聯署促教育局嚴肅跟進-hkg報-懸賞三萬起底貼標語者/
回覆刪除建制派真無聊小學雞玩意
在政治舞台上打擂台。
刪除馬時亨都求班建制唔好攪嘢。
刪除http://www.metrodaily.hk/metro_news/馬時亨「求」建制-勿令教大政治化/
Terry
點解唔求班港毒唔搞野?
刪除兩邊都幫唔落⋯⋯
刪除
回覆刪除標少你好！
可否開另一個題目討論東北13子的判詞？
另外上訴庭在上訴期完畢前一天，
才頒下判詞！
是否和律師和被告玩嘢呢？
上訴庭在最後一天才頒下判詞，
法律上是說得過去。
但 道德上，
又好似有點涼薄啊！
哈哈哈
https://www.hk01.com/港聞/118384/反東北案改判監-上訴庭-公民抗命應有節制-遭檢控要認罪受罰
jwts
11-9-2017公布的判决。
刪除http://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=111276&currpage=T
高等法院上訴法庭
刑事司法管轄權
覆核申請
覆核申請案件2016年第3號
(原東區裁判法院刑事案件2014年第3658號)
__________________
申請人 律政司司長
與
第一答辯人 梁曉暘 (D1)
第二答辯人 黃浩銘 (D2)
第三答辯人 劉國樑 (D3)
第四答辯人 梁穎禮 (D4)
第五答辯人 林朗彥 (D5)
第六答辯人 朱偉聰 (D6)
第七答辯人 何潔泓 (D7)
第八答辯人 周豁然 (D8)
第九答辯人 嚴敏華 (D10)
第十答辯人 招顯聰 (D11)
第十一答辯人 郭耀昌 (D12)
第十二答辯人 黃根源 (D14)
第十三答辯人 陳白山 (D15)
我昨天看了, 其實可以評論的地方很少。
刪除表面看，上訴法官沒錯。上訴判決書和新聞都只提及「容許墜下碎石」，怎樣墜下的詳細沒有，連被告身分，為什麼由他承擔刑事罪責也沒有。標少所謂"第4B(1)條...第4(7)條"也是估。
回覆刪除如果裁判官定罪只靠「容許墜下碎石」和被告認罪，法庭(裁判官和上訴法官)如何肯定(毫無疑點)被告認罪不是只因誤解法律或被警員誤導，甚至誤解事實，誤以為碎石由所謂單位墜下？如何肯定控方沒告錯條例，告錯人?
其實你有無睇人寫乜? 寫左咁多, 包括中英文唔夾竟然「表面沒錯」?
刪除我冇比較中英文，怎樣唔夾?
刪除咁快些比較啦, 冇睇, 竟然你有結論, 奇怪.
刪除怎唔夾上面BBTW有講.
你下面下午6:32, 始於「如果..可能」的假設, 而終於「所以正確」作結, 「可能」兩字白寫? 你懂不懂基本邏輯?
你後來者寫文一個打九個, 點解你咁有自信?
大家討論啫, 唔好勞氣。
刪除比較左中英文, 案情方面冇唔夾。
刪除舉證責任在控方，上訴法官怎樣估，我怎樣估，標少怎樣估全不重要。
表面資料(判決書和新聞)，控方沒足夠證據達致毫無疑點。
如果你有資料，指出控罪詳細不限於「容許墜下碎石」，其實控罪詳細有被告身分，為什麼由他承擔刑事罪責..等等，請公開。
唔係勞氣, 係晒氣, 對牛彈琴.
刪除如果控方提供詳情，詳情可能出現內在不可能性，令人質疑碎石來源。所以擱置上訴人的定罪正確。
回覆刪除可惜杜官整篇判辭都沒有如你這樣推論, 她講來講去都是講沒有案情就刑罰判得不準。她的重點:
刪除3. This charge based upon only the particulars in the charge would not have allowed the magistrate to give a proper assessment as to sentence.
剛解釋給另一朋友，舉證責任在控方，上訴法官怎樣估，我怎樣估，標少怎樣估全不重要。convince上訴法官是控方責任，我估控方上訴代表自知控罪詳細太簡單。
刪除我博文都舉了很多例子, 其實也有些不滿意判罰上訴的, 沒有案情未必有問題, 但我不纏擾下去, 有的法官我不會去convince的, 看法不同你怎也convince不到, 杜官判決了, 我批評了, that is the end.
刪除「如果佢講多幾句, 可能會有矛盾」此論述方式如果成立, 呢一招萬能, 天下無敵.
刪除邏輯太簡化, 法庭程序, 並非如此.
7:00reject三個估, 自己propose一個估, 又是無敵一式, 如何討論?
無敵招式, 請小心使用、公平使用, 否則沒有說服力.
上訴不是刑事初審, 不是由主控"convince法官"作第一唯一程序, 其實主控是「答辯人」!
B'J
https://www.thestandnews.com/politics/遇襲致植物人案-要求覆核刑期理據成疑/
回覆刪除標少點睇
不知道實際講那件案, 只看作者分析, 我認他的同講法。
刪除但植物人也有動手 甚至是先動手 according to video recording taken at the scene.
刪除http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20170711/bkn-20170711161928868-0711_00822_001.html
刪除泊位爭執誤傷人 貨車司機稱感愧疚
呢單
此留言已被作者移除。
刪除有意圖告17，冇意圖告19
刪除在此處睇標少文章的現學現賣
有冇意圖是事實裁決，不能上訴
不過此案顯示出19刑罰過輕，不能合理反映受害者的傷勢
改例加刑先係政府應作之事
現判二十二個月，要求加刑，最盡只加多個零月，已是最高刑罰。
回覆刪除哈~ 呢個point真係秒殺!
B'J
想請教標少: 捐錢給人去打官司, 算不算助訟呢?
回覆刪除有冇附帶條款?
刪除如果沒有的話...
刪除其實現在如果要打官司, 沒錢, 沒資格申請法援或法援不獲批, 除了由當事人向銀行/財務機構借錢外, 其他人有沒有方法可以幫他呢?
沒有附加條款, 純粹捐助性質去幫他, 並不違法。
刪除https://www.thestandnews.com/politics/何君堯搞-呐喊大會-狙擊-戴耀廷-香港文化大革命來勢洶洶/
回覆刪除香港文化大革命來勢洶洶,真的來了！
马鹿拯救我們香港人吧!!
業主夠狠: 本月一日有欠租，12日入稟高院要求收樓!
回覆刪除合共本月租金、兩個月原本免租的租金、律師信費用、及潛在的「承擔原告因提前解除租約所蒙受的損失。」
http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20170913/00176_081.html
䅁情不支持控罪，辯方代表律師清醒盡責，唔知係咪當值律師呢?
回覆刪除http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20170913/00176_083.html
案情: 被告先複製商場女保安員更衣室鎖匙, 後潛入自瀆。被控及承認遊蕩和外出時備有偷竊用的物品兩罪。
辯方申請推翻, 一蓋不認:
1. 遊蕩罪元素是建築物的共用部分, 女保安員更衣室不是!
2. 鎖匙是與自瀆行為這目的有關, 完全沒有偷竊動機及行為。
申請推翻獲准, 重新不認罪, 排期待審.
刪除BBTW
attempted theft mens rea
回覆刪除標少,
回覆刪除"1. 遊蕩罪元素是建築物的共用部分, 女保安員更衣室不是!". 那會否成為偷偷進入私人地方,更大罪?
BILL ＨＫ
偷偷進入私人地方基本是民事。
刪除你需要另加案情使其成為刑事，固此不一定「更大罪」。
自瀆是自圓其說
刪除為何有計劃地複製女更衣室鎖匙?
證物：胸圍及絲襪 盜竊得來
其實係告緊被告遊蕩去到果個地方自瀆, 定係告佢響果個地方自瀆係遊蕩?
刪除5:44 表面看來, 你在描述另一件案. 若是此案, 需要增加難度去證明你的估計.
刪除6:57 兩者都不接受還是都有疑點? 則否其一又有何不可? Anyway, 後者較妥.
共用部分 (common parts)指
刪除(b) 建築物佔用人共用的地窖、洗手間、水廁、房、浴室或廚房；
「房」字面意思沒有排除更衣室喎, 有啲商場厠所只限商戶或有商戶借出鎖匙 (如顧客, 總之唔係街外人) 使用
7:47 先問你, 管理處寫字樓是否共用部分、清潔工人離物房是否共用部分.
刪除一般而言不是, 前者有事受邀, 後者入左當你賊去審你都得.
睇圖則, 尤其後者, 係共用部分喎!
"女保安員更衣室"同類.
所以我認為此類地方, 是受特殊管理的公用部分.... 即係點?
平時住客活動界限無問題: 被管理處估用的公用部分, 暫時(其實永久)你唔入得.
業主大會維修、份數、管理費、使用(咪講左囉, 同意由管理處分配)都沒問題.
法律角度而言, 我唔知, 的確有可議之處.
除了共用部份有問題, Going Equipped For Stealing is a future offence, isn't it?
刪除http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20171108/00176_087.html
刪除重審只報導了「外出時備有偷竊用的物品罪則獲脫罪」, 不知道有無分析future offence, 有亦歸零了.
Btw, as expected, "女保安員更衣室"是共用部份.
關鍵在有沒有被同意合法地取得複製鎖匙
回覆刪除作為侵入者進入任何建築物或其部分，意圖犯第(2)款所述的任何罪行；
(2)a偷竊在該建築物或其部分內的任何東西
各位,
回覆刪除又是程序問題,"青年販毒案發還重審 上訴庭斥原審官未傳藏毒警出庭程序不當","上訴庭上月開庭處理案件後，法官裁定青年上訴得直，其定罪及判刑被撤銷，案件發還由另一位法官重審。"
BILL ＨＫ
呢單, 因為有呢句「原审法官在控方拒绝传召谢华的情况下，裁定警诫供辞能呈堂」我唯有「嘩~」一聲!
刪除除非供辞沒爭議, 歸入雙方同意的案情, 否則, 供辭呈堂卻不受CROSS EXAMINATION, 豈非特權, 超級證供?
已出判詞
刪除http://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=111317&currpage=T
B'J