乘上一篇討論。
上一篇講不知三子申請上訴至終審法院的理據, 今天上訴庭又頒佈了判辭, 可清晰看到理據了。這就先要作些解釋才能講下去。
刑事上訴至終審法院, 申請要符合法例484章《終審法院條例》第32條的要求, 先獲上訴許可, 才會正式聽審理據。第32條,
=========================================================
32. 上訴許可
(1) 除非終審法院已給予上訴許可,否則不得受理有關上訴。
(2) 除非上訴法庭或原訟法庭(視屬何情況而定)證明有關案件的決定是涉及具有重大而廣泛的重要性的法律論點,或顯示曾有實質及嚴重的不公平情況,否則終審法院不得給予上訴許可。
(由1997年第120號第4及12條修訂)
(3) 凡上訴法庭或原訟法庭拒絕按第(2)款所述予以證明,則終審法院可給予證明,並給予上訴許可。
(由1997年第120號第4及12條修訂)
(4) 終審法院在根據第(1)款給予許可時,可就上訴的進行對任何一方附加時
2. 有關案件顯示曾有實質及嚴重的不公平情況。
上一篇講不知三子申請上訴至終審法院的理據, 今天上訴庭又頒佈了判辭, 可清晰看到理據了。這就先要作些解釋才能講下去。
刑事上訴至終審法院, 申請要符合法例484章《終審法院條例》第32條的要求, 先獲上訴許可, 才會正式聽審理據。第32條,
=========================================================
32. 上訴許可
(1) 除非終審法院已給予上訴許可,否則不得受理有關上訴。
(2) 除非上訴法庭或原訟法庭(視屬何情況而定)證明有關案件的決定是涉及具有重大而廣泛的重要性的法律論點,或顯示曾有實質及嚴重的不公平情況,否則終審法院不得給予上訴許可。
(由1997年第120號第4及12條修訂)
(3) 凡上訴法庭或原訟法庭拒絕按第(2)款所述予以證明,則終審法院可給予證明,並給予上訴許可。
(由1997年第120號第4及12條修訂)
(4) 終審法院在根據第(1)款給予許可時,可就上訴的進行對任何一方附加時
限規定,並且可應某方的申請或自行更改該時限規定。
=========================================================
即是上訴許可主要考慮
1. 有關案件的決定是涉及具有重大而廣泛的重要性的法律論點,
其次才考慮
1. 有關案件的決定是涉及具有重大而廣泛的重要性的法律論點,
其次才考慮
2. 有關案件顯示曾有實質及嚴重的不公平情況。
以第1理由來申請上訴許可, 如果案件來自上訴庭, 就先要向上訴庭申請證明書, 若上訴庭拒絕頒發證明書, 才可以向終院申請。若以第2理由申請, 就可以跳過上訴庭, 直接向終院申請。今天上訴庭頒佈了SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAW KWUN CHUNG AND ANOTHER CAAR4/2016 (26/10/2017), 只涉及羅冠聰及周永康兩人, 即表示黃之鋒只依賴第2理由作申請, 所以無需申請證明書, 故此不涉本判辭。上訴庭駁回申請, 拒絕發出證明書。 故此, 11月7日終院上訴委員會會聽到申請理據, 羅冠聰的是:
“ (1) Whether on an application by the Secretary for Justice for review of sentence pursuant to section 81A of the CPO, the Court of Appeal has the power to make any factual findings not made at the trial or contrary to findings made by the trial judge, where by reason of or in consideration of the same the sentence is increased? (“R2’s Sub-Question 1”)
(2) If the Court of Appeal has such power, under what circumstances and to what extent should the Court of Appeal exercise such power?”
周永康的是:
“ In a Secretary for Justice’s sentence review application under section 81A of the CPO, is it correct that the Court of Appeal does not have the power to make any factual findings adverse to the defendants different from or in addition to those made by the tribunal of fact at trial?”
兩者有一條問題性質一樣。黃之鋒提出甚麼理據就到時才知道。
律政司反對申請的講法就跟本博以前與網友的討論相若, 即是在覆核上訴時, 控方並無引進新證據, 上訴庭只重新審視在原審裁判官席前的證據。
上訴庭拒絕申請時歸納了以下幾點看法:
49. To summarize, in our view, the authorities discussed above firmly establish the following propositions :
我就越來越糊塗了, 我完全同意上訴庭在處理本案的判刑覆核時並無超越權力。可是終審法院又為何批准其中兩人的保釋申請呢? 我真參不透。不過, 從本判辭看, 上訴人一句double jeopardy的話都沒講過, 那12枚國際大炮可謂風頭出了, 名譽損了, 坊間潮語所云: 柒咗, 或者我等老一脫的講法: 瘀咗。但這還未完, 終院屆時的裁決那耳光才響亮, 希望不是我一廂情願的看法。(1) On an application for review of sentence, the Secretary for Justice is not entitled to change the factual basis for sentence that it had relied on at trial and ask the Court of Appeal to inquire into facts which had not been pursued below. Even if the sentencing court had proceeded on a wrong factual basis for sentence, it is not open to the Secretary for Justice to make such an assertion before the Court of Appeal if the prosecution had the opportunity to have it corrected at trial but they had not sought to do so. The Court of Appeal will adopt the same factual basis as it was before the sentencing court.(2) Subject to (1), where the ground for review is that the sentencing court acted on an erroneous factual basis, the Court of Appeal is entitled to examine the evidence adduced below to consider if, based on the facts proved, admitted or not in dispute, the sentencing court did make the error as asserted by the Secretary for Justice. If so, the Court of Appeal is entitled to correct the factual error and to consider if, based on the factual basis as corrected, the sentence imposed is wrong in principle or manifestly inadequate. If so, the Court of Appeal is entitled to interfere.(3) As a corollary of the proposition in (2) and according to first principle, where it is shown that, based on the facts proved, admitted or not in dispute, the sentencing court has failed to take into account certain matters which are relevant to sentence, the sentencing court has proceeded on an incomplete factual basis, rendering the sentence imposed wrong as a matter of law and principle. In such circumstances, the Court of Appeal is not bound by the findings made by the sentencing court for the purpose of sentence because those findings are incomplete for such purpose. The Court of Appeal is entitled to consider all the relevant matters including those wrongly ignored by the sentencing court to determine if in the overall circumstances of the case, the sentence imposed is wrong in principle or manifestly inadequate. If so, the Court of Appeal is entitled to interfere.
標少, 第32條的1st limb / 2nd limb, 真的「其次才考慮(先1後2)」嗎?
回覆刪除是的, 有CFA案例講過, 我試下找不找到。大佬, 老眼昏花呀。
刪除Mr Justice Bokhary PJ:
刪除...
7. This Court's primary role in the administration of criminal justice is to resolve real controversy on points of law of great and general importance. For this Court does not function as a court of criminal appeal in the ordinary way. However the "substantial and grave injustice" limb of s.32(2) exists as a residual safeguard to cater for those rare and exceptional cases in which there is a real danger of something so seriously wrong that justice demands an enquiry by way of a final criminal appeal despite the absence of any real controversy on any point of law of great and general importance. To obtain leave to appeal under this limb, an appellant has to show - as this appellant had shown - that it is reasonably arguable that substantial and grave injustice has been done.
So Yiu Fung and HKSAR FACC No. 5 of 1999
I see, 這分出了重要性, 是份量主次,
刪除並不是程序主次.
靠2nd limb需要很強的arguement ("rare and exceptional cases in which there is a real danger of something so seriously wrong"),
今天廢了二子動議, 三子只依賴2nd limb.
即是上訴終審跛硬了!
但咁講, 有時我覺得終院好以上訴庭咁, 如果這次終院重新審視案情, 咁又未必跛硬、
刪除老大別搞笑好不。。。。 終審班X樣都是向過五屎經血布宣誓效忠的共狗。。。恐怖組織的正式成員哪裡有什麽reputation的。 。。。。耳光? 呵呵 u've gotta be kidding !!!!
刪除不過咁呢, 我跛硬留言係即時跟Mr Justice Bokhary PJ尾, 而佢直接了當說明終審角色不是純粹上訴庭高一級.
刪除前BLOG我的devil' advocate, 表示了有故講.
我對終審了解有限, 兩邊都估晒, 大打矛波..... 遲下會有波贏, 哈~
阿免仔你打我耳光囉, 你都想打我好耐喇。
刪除BBTW, 英國賭搏公司可以開盤, 賭下三子上訴結果, 香港一定有人買。
兔兔咋會要打老大, 老大打兔兔, 兔兔都不會還手的。 長幼次序我們美國人也遵守的protocol。
刪除但兔兔對著CFA CA CFI DC當然不會同樣對待了
兩度門打開做生意,若有先後應該扣門者自己揀。
刪除B'J
今日上訴庭正式否決上訴終審,其判刑理由跟上訴庭十分一致,我真係好難睇得出終院會將佢推翻...
刪除更正:今日上訴庭正式否決佢地的上訴終審申請,其拒絕理由跟之前上訴十分一致,我真係好難睇得出終院會將佢推翻...
刪除都話11月7日, 何來上訴庭正式否決佢地的上訴終審申請?
刪除11月7日是終院上訴委員會考慮是否批出證明書及上訴許可, 以第1理來(first limb)來申請, 就按法例要求(終院條例第32(3)), 要先向上訴庭申請(本案來自上訴庭的判決, 如果來自原訟庭就向原訟庭申請)。黃之鋒以第2理由(second limb)申請, 所以不用先向上訴庭申請。當然, 因為本判辭不涉黃之鋒, 所以我估計他是以第2理由申請。
刪除BBTW兄,你都見到許仕仁同郭炳江,就算向CFA保釋成功,到最後都係上訴失敗...
刪除原則上,我也同意今次上訴庭的判刑理由同拒絕頒上訴訴可的理由原則上係幾乎滴水不漏:
"上訴庭表示,本港及英國多年的案例已清楚列明,律政司不能要求上訴庭考慮原審法庭沒有依賴的事實基礎。但只要律政司提出覆核的理由是原審法庭以錯誤的事實基礎考慮裁決或判刑,上訴庭便有權審查下級法院呈堂的證據,以考慮原審法庭是否有犯錯。若原審判刑是犯了原則錯誤或明顯過輕,上訴庭便有權干預。
上訴庭早前已裁定本案是涉及暴力、大規模及嚴重的非法集結,並裁定原審裁判官未有考慮相關因素,及犯了原則錯誤,判刑是明顯過輕,因此上訴庭有權干預。上訴庭亦同意律政司一方所稱,若原審判刑是根據完全錯誤的事實基礎作出,而上訴庭無權更正的話,便會造成荒謬的情况。"
https://news.mingpao.com/pns/dailynews/web_tc/article/20171027/s00002/1509040896079
終審庭要減刑既話,就要大力解釋單案"如何不是涉及暴力、大規模及嚴重的非法集結",甚至真係利用特權去減,咁搞法只會令CFA形象受影響...
為了呢幾個就黎服刑完畢既人去搞到自己一身蟻,我真係睇唔到原因三位常任法官會肯咁做...
上午11:23, 我會認為只要排期上訴, 便要考慮批准保釋, 與上訴結果沒直接關係.
刪除所以我不會從保釋去估計上訴結果, 似乎邏輯啣接不上.
終審庭要減刑既話, 十分尷尬, 違反了標少兩篇引文, 以 "high hurdle, rare, exceptional case, so seriously wrong" 之名刮了上訴庭一巴掌, 無論如何犯不著.
粗俗些講(但唔可以講出口, 只可以做), 三審並不按比例拾級而上, 設計上終審庭的確是門高狗大, 是有效率司法的需要, 絕對公道的計算下差額是三幾個月的話, 依這大家已接受的制度:「三幾個月, 屈你唔起嗎?」
三幾個月不切合 "high hurdle, rare, exceptional case, so seriously wrong".
部份大砲有此一役,或順理成章做反对黨,繼續評弹唱咏,以激進包裝盖掩錯誤。
回覆刪除B'J
變成"走火入魔"...
刪除既然早知结果,何必浪费父母金钱上诉?
回覆刪除好憎上诉人被駁回,就话早知!
引用
羅冠聰表示對判決不驚訝同失望,係預料之內,佢同黃之鋒都有心理準備,下月7日不獲終審法院批准,兩人將會繼續服刑。
https://hkgpao.com/articles/159446
印象中泛民有成立基金支援佢地,可能唔洗靠父母呢。
刪除Gato
Jack wts, 因為上訴申請涉第1理由(first limb), 必定要先向上訴庭申請證明書, 這一步不能不走。
刪除另外, 3人都同時以第2理由上訴。
刪除佢地真係要"三步走"(上訴庭上訴,申請CFA上訴許可,直接向CFA申請上訴)...
刪除另外,泛民成立了基金幫佢地出埋錢(D錢來自遊行的非法籌款(的確,71果陣有好多攤位未向警方申請)),所以大狀錢跟本唔擔心...
I'm puzzled and I don't understand... Where/what exactly did the appellants considered CA to have made factual findings (let alone impermissible ones)?
回覆刪除PH
When there is no room for appeal, you have to create one (I jokingly shed some light for you).
刪除All 3 but used 2nd limb.
回覆刪除True, but R2 and R3 also invoke 1st limb, that is why they sought the certificate from CA.
刪除1st limb, was an incidental motion for 2.
刪除2nd limb, was always the main cause for 3.
I entirely agree.
刪除I see u poor bastards (老大include) trying hard to make sense of this CHICOM kangaroo court fiasco
刪除I sure am. That is why I whack you from time to time.
刪除541: 你喜歡咯 被你打咪打咯 使死咪。。。。
刪除//以第1理由來申請上訴許可, 如果案件來自上訴庭, 就先要向上訴庭申請證明書, 若上訴庭拒絕頒發證明書, 才可以向終院申請。若以第2理由申請, 就可以跳過上訴庭, 直接向終院申請。//
回覆刪除請問標少,你上述所寫的要求,是出自何處? 我看了你登出來的《終審法院條例》第32條,但看不到這要求?
可否教教我,謝謝!
34. It may assist if we set out the position resulting from this construction:
刪除(1) Where an applicant relies on only the "point of law" limb, he should apply to the lower court for the certificate. If granted by the lower court, he should then apply to the Court of Final Appeal for leave. If declined by the lower court, he then applies to the Court of Final Appeal for the certificate and for leave.
(2) Where an applicant relies on only the "substantial and grave injustice" limb, he must apply straight to the Court of Final Appeal for leave. The application is not one for any certificate.
(3) Where an applicant wishes to rely on both limbs:
(a) He should apply to the lower court for the certificate for the "point of law" limb.
(b) If granted, he should then apply to the Court of Final Appeal for leave (i) on the basis of the certificate and (ii) raising the "substantial and grave injustice" limb. The Appeal Committee will then decide whether to grant leave and, if so, whether on both limbs or one of them.
(c) If the lower court refuses to grant the certificate, then the applicant should apply to the Court of Final Appeal (i) for a certificate for the "point of law" limb and (ii) for leave on the basis of firstly the certificate (if granted) and secondly, the "substantial and grave injustice" limb. The Court can then decide on whether to grant leave and, if leave is granted, whether on both limbs or one of them.
Criteria for leave to appeal
35. Mr Cross invited us to give guidance on the criteria for the grant of leave by the Court on both limbs and he cites a number of English authorities to assist us.
36. The two limbs are set out in the statute. We consider that we should not lay down general criteria for dealing with applications for leave, at least at this early stage of the Court's history.
37. However, we would like to make two observations on the "substantial and grave injustice" limb. First, it cannot be the role of the Court to function as a second Court of Appeal. Secondly, in our view, this limb imposes a high hurdle and we believe instances would be rare where this limb for the grant of leave would be satisfied, bearing in mind that the decision of the lower court is already a decision on appeal. But there could of course be exceptional cases where leave is justified on this limb.
ZENG LIANG XIN AND HKSAR FAMC No. 1 of 1997
出自終院本身, 非我杜撰。
Obiter dictum
刪除跟, 大家有條理, 專業.
又學到嘢,thanks very much
刪除VL
謝謝!
刪除*譏笑* 一班港豬傻X自作多情地為共狗kangaroo court 製造些legitimacy。
刪除到時終審維持上訴庭判決會比人話香港法治死得徹底, 連大馬爺都係藍絲/五毛/親中, 震驚全球, 可能幾百個律師出黎寫情信喎。其實衣幾年香港做法官好難, 不過學紐爺話jai, 英國脫歐最高法院都比人鬧死啦。
回覆刪除(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIRUAGDiIVA&t=1684s)
劍