2017年10月25日星期三

雙學三子案上訴至終審法院會不會批出上訴許可?

雙學三子其中兩子昨天在終審法院首席法官馬道立席前申請保釋獲批, 有任何上訴成功的端倪嗎? 這案的新聞上了國際頻道, 除了非洲和南美洲, 我見到廣泛報導。申請上訴許可會在下月七日聽審, 到時我開始外遊, 未必有時間評論, 現在先評論, 其實是預測結果。預測事情有兩項, 其一, 會不會批出上訴許可;  其二, 若批出上訴許可, 最終能否推翻上訴庭改判的刑期。

終審法院批出保釋, 所持法律原則是甚麼? 由我講不如由法官講。終審法院常設法官霍兆剛在香港特別行政區政府 訴 余藹琪 一案申明原則:
Should bail pending the application for leave to appeal be granted in this case?
8. A single Permanent Judge of this Court has power under section 34 of the Ordinance[8]to grant bail pending an application for leave to appeal but this will generally only be exercised when two pre-conditions are met, namely: (i) there must be at least reasonable prospects of the Appeal Committee granting both leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and bail pending such appeal; and (ii) there must be no real risk of absconding.[9]

沒棄保潛逃的風險這條件容易辦到, 這些被告一定不會跑, 別講他們跑不到那裏去, 自命為政治犯的人, 一定要坐牢才符合資格, 跑了就成鼠輩, 一點政治籌碼都沒有, 到時就沒有吸引力了。第一項條件反而是主要考慮, 即是有合理可能批出上訴許可。所以, 我第一個預測是11月7日上訴委員會3位法官會批出上訴許可。另一個批准保釋的理由是, 批出上訴許可後, 上訴正審排期需時, 到了正審3人的刑期也服完了。到了11月7日, 周永康也會提出保釋申請。

若果我這預測準確, 那麼上訴正審會成功嗎? 現在看不到申請理由, 如果是講「一罪兩審」, 就不應該會成功。但還有一個可能性, 就是若三子提出判刑上訴, 在罕有的情況下, 有可能獲批。為甚麼罕有, 因為終審法院聽審上訴, 主要是考慮「涉及具有重大而廣泛的重要性的法律論點」, 但以本案而言, 我相信提出判刑上訴也有可能成功。終審法院條例第37(2)條也有講:

(2)如終審法院在審理上訴時以某一判刑取代另一判刑...

另外, 在SHER ALI KHAN and HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION FAMC 4/2006 一案, 當時署理首席法官包致金也講過:

8. Before me, the applicant asserted that he had not been working at the time of his arrest. He did however admit before me that he had used the identity card in question to avoid discovery of the fact of his overstaying. Therefore he did in that sense display it, doing so in order to continue and prolong his unlawful stay in Hong Kong. Moreover it can be said with some force that the total of 15 months’ imprisonment could in any event be justified on the basis that the sentence for overstaying could with justification have been made longer than three months. On top of all of that, an appeal against sentence to the Court of Final Appeal is a wholly exceptional course even when not out of time, and the applicant is considerably out of time.

以判刑而言, 我一直都覺得上訴庭改判得太重, 如果終院運用罕有會運用的權力去減刑, 我也覺得合理。

34 則留言:

  1. 即係法律向大炮跪低?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 到時睇下點, 一樣可以藉判決教訓那12枚大炮。

      刪除
    2. 即使上訴庭判刑偏重,但並不涉及重大不公,亦沒違反法律原則,終審庭是否應該不干預?

      刪除
    3. 正解,上訴庭無犯原則錯誤,如運用權力減刑反而是於理不合...
      無合理取勝機會下,應該連上訴許可也不會批...

      刪除
    4. 但准保釋 其實就是會給許可了

      刪除
    5. 給許可也不是會贏...
      許仕仁同郭炳江也是有許可,結果咪又係駁回返去坐....

      刪除
    6. 12:30, 12:39,

      我不是說上訴庭犯了原則錯誤, 但終院權力大, 怎樣看也可以。況且我只是預測, 很多時都像馬評人, 無時準。

      3:24,

      批許可只是向前走了一步, 不保證成功, 洗黑錢的楊家誠案及郭炳江案就是好例子。

      阿兔哥, 就是批出保釋我才改變預測, 之前我說不批許可的。

      刪除
    7. 其實我也是預測(if u care to scroll back) that CFA will not grant leave to appeal.

      但香港現今是統治 不是法治

      在法治社會, 3+13 根本不會出來假抗爭(除招顯聰外 其餘都是假抗爭 真撒嬌); 更不會因此被檢控, 刑期複核更不會有。

      有法治的話, 兔兔也樂得做最離地的中產階級, 騙騙有錢客戶(特別是大公司)的錢, PADDING big time. bullying the other side on a regular basis.

      刪除
  2. 我想請教,如果類似案件係西方國家發生,例如:美國、英國、澳洲以及加拿大等國家。 當地法庭會點判呢?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 這環球問題我答不到你,在澳洲就好有可能簽保守行為不留案底(澳洲無罪犯自新條例, 法官有權不留案底)。

      刪除
  3. 奇就奇在,點解廣泛報導⋯⋯

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 仲唔係外國勢力?如果唔係,點會有國際聯署?

      刪除
    2. 1:01, 顏色革命的力量?
      B'J

      刪除
    3. 1:01 英美等列強培植香港漢奸不遺餘力。 年輕嘅佔領行動同暴動領袖可以去英美的名校攻讀。 佢地有機會進入大家 夢寐以求嘅牛津,劍橋,耶魯,哈佛等大學。 另外河童可以做 時代雜誌封面,仲被選為世界上百大最具影響力嘅領袖之ㄧ。如果無外國勢力介入,根本唔可能發生。。

      刪除
    4. 又見支蛆918發揮創造力量同幻想了

      支那, 卑賤奴性的劣等族群

      刪除
    5. 兔兔,你自己流著中國人的血。 唔可以侮辱自己的祖宗。

      9:18

      刪除
    6. 918: 中國人是什麽東西? 吃屎吃地溝油 吸毒霧霾 喝三鹿奶 上網被屏蔽的劣等生物嘛?

      刪除
  4. //除了非洲和南美洲, 我見到廣泛報導//
    無理由南極洲有既? 我都見唔到! *速逃*

    回覆刪除
  5. 另一個批准保釋的理由是, 批出上訴許可後, 上訴正審排期需時, 到了正審3人的刑期也服完了。到了11月7日, 周永康也會提出保釋申請。

    they are currently out on bail. they still have 3+ months to go. therefore in the eventuality their appeal fail they would be remanded back to custody and serve remainder of their respective sentences.

    alex chow has lodged an application for leave to appeal but decided against applying for bail.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Alex Chow may change his mind. It very much depends on the attitude of the Appeal Committee when considering the leave application.

      刪除
    2. I concur. indeed Alex main concern is to get the whole thing over with asap so he can go to Berkeley to continue his studies (PHD Candidate in Geography). its a sensible move I'd say.

      刪除
  6. 兔兔正經時真心有料到^_^

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 都是普通料, 不叫囂時就見到普通料, 叫囂時連普通料都無, 所以用叫囂掩蓋。如果作為一個律師討論法律, 第一本能反應就講法律上的看法, 而不是講其他。你細心驗證一下, 觀微細處, 別給掩眼法愚弄。如果對論題無爭議, 講其他就不出奇。

      刪除
    2. 442: 其實是老大欺壓兔兔, 你看前一篇兔兔好好地建議抗癌方法。 結果确給老大罵荷爾蒙失調。 我那個委屈啊。 5555555555. 最后只能嘲笑馬道立來發洩了。。。。

      刪除
    3. 909: 其實執葉越久, 越感到這行不是exact science. more often than not , the players and the referees are driven by emotions and their own childhood experiences. the most senior ones are no exception.

      只不過兔兔這幾年 因為FOCUS on 抵抗運動, 對工作上輸贏反而看得比過去輕,也少有emotional outburst. 最多也就大義凜然地說句 “complete waste of courts time and resources"

      刪除
    4. 9:16 阿兔哥, 叫眾街坊來評理, 都不會有人話我欺壓你。你宇宙最強, 貴國世界最惡, 標少只是個蟄居鄉曲的鄉巴佬, 從未罵過你一句「支」甚麼、甚麼「蛆」的, 我只是你俎上肉。做畜牲也是你自己選擇的, 不是馬、鹿, 就是兔兔, 很可愛啊, yet也是畜牲。物類自選, 與人無尤, 為何叫屈? 我只是說過你是自秤的鼠輩, 見你是徹頭徹尾的洋籍, 也急急用沙翁名著Taming of the Shrew來的shrew來凸顯你的籍貫, 仁至義盡。

      9:21 阿免哥的感悟, 有點人氣了。

      刪除
  7. 標少,我都搞到糊塗,今日剛剛新鮮出爐的結果。


    衝政總案 上訴庭拒批羅冠聰周永康終審許可

    http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20171026/bkn-20171026143951130-1026_00822_001.html

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 等一陣, 我會登一篇作解釋, 差不多寫好。

      刪除
    2. Reject兩個motions姐~
      11月7日見, 到時只討論2nd limb (刑期會唔會不公), 羅冠聰周永康的「喂~ 到時傾傾1st limb (有重大法律觀點)好喎」要求被reject.

      刪除
    3. 甘暴力!!

      终審大老爺点改判?


      引用

      Applying the above principles, we held in the Judgment that according to the facts proved, admitted or not in dispute based on the evidence adduced before the Magistrate :
      (1) the unlawful assembly was a serious and large-scale unlawful assembly, involving violence;
      (2) the Magistrate had failed to take into account those relevant factors as identified by the Court;
      (3) the Magistrate had made the errors as identified by the Court; and
      (4) the sentences imposed by the Magistrate were wrong in principle and were manifestly inadequate.
      We then set aside the sentences imposed by the Magistrate and substituted them with immediate custodial sentences as stated. Neither the 2nd nor the 3rd respondent has been able to demonstrate an arguable case that we had erred in allowing the application for review as we did in the manner as described above.

      http://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=111907&currpage=T

      刪除
  8. Devil's Advocate: Sorry but, your "甘暴力"需要連降兩級,
    第一級降至"有暴力成份, involving violence", 並不「甘暴力」or 十分暴力, etc.
    之後再拗, 三被告的「個人暴力參與」不等同上訴庭判詞的violence, 又降一級,
    Final appeal 從新審視personal violence, among other consideration, amount to over 6 month imprisonment?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 同意。暴力程度open to interpretation.

      刪除
    2. 我買FA:「係呀係呀,呢隻暴力配事件身分,係呢個價,冇呃秤!」
      B'J

      刪除