2017年10月5日星期四

三文治惹的官非

看了今天明報報導, 才知道吳文遠在掟臭魚三文治案開審前, 曾經要求前行政長官梁振英錄取口供被拒, 而且, 在昨天審訊時曾經申請列梁振英為敵對證人被拒。一句講晒: 自己攞嚟衰。

吳文遠要用三文治掟梁振英, 卻誤中副車擊中保鏢, 保鏢成為受害者, 既然梁振英不是受害者, 控方就沒有像上一次掟水杯案一定要傳召他了。不傳召他, 吳文遠就缺乏羞辱梁振英的機會。這種機會千載難逢, 成功傳召的政治宣傳效果大, 論刑事案的證據價值, 吳文遠傳召梁振英等同自殺, 試問有誰會傳召一個你根本不知道會怎樣作供的證人,  而且這證人表面上是敵對的。吳文遠投訴梁振英拒絕會面讓他錄取口供, 這投訴應該怎樣看待呢?

明報的報導這樣講:

吳文遠遂稱,其代表律師曾至少3次約見梁振英會面,但梁只表示「有咩要講,庭上先講」,即使會面只需一小時也拒絕。吳聲稱,梁曾親自致電其律師,並於通話中稱會控告吳的一名義務律師;惟吳在庭上未有提及原因。吳續稱,梁亦曾在通話中向其律師表示「(吳文遠)為咗補選押後(本案),佢玩嘢」,又稱會「投訴所有人」。

雖然梁振英在立場上一定站在控方那一邊, 假設在本案發生後, 警方已為他錄取口供, 辯方同樣可以要求他錄口供, 法律原則可參考此案: Harmony Shipping Co SA v Saudi Europe Line Ltd [1979], 終審法院也曾經引用過:

23. A lawyer approaching a witness or potential witness who may be called by the other party in a court proceeding, be it civil or criminal, sometimes runs the risk of being accused of improperly influencing the witness and attempting to pervert the course of justice. Perverting the course of justice consists of “the doing of some act which has a tendency and is intended to pervert the administration of justice”. (R v Vreones [1891] 1 QB 360, Pollock B at 369. See also R v Rogerson 107 ALR 225; and R v Meissner [1994-95] 184 CLR 132.) Two matters often arise for consideration: the means employed and the intended purpose for such exercise. (See R v Kellett [1976] 1 QB 372.) Where an act (i.e. the means employed) by its nature has a manifest tendency to pervert the course of justice, the intention to commit the offence (i.e. the intended purpose) can readily be inferred; but where the tendency is not manifest, a specific intent to pervert the course of justice has to be proved (Brennan and Toohey JJ in Rogerson at 232.)

24. As Lord Denning MR said in Harmony Shipping Co SA v Saudi Europe Line Ltd [1979] 1 WLR 1380, 1384, “There is no property in a witness. The reason is because the court has a right to every man’s evidence. Its primary duty is to ascertain the truth.” There is no general prohibition against approaching a witness or potential witness “from getting the facts from him and from calling him to give evidence” (Lord Denning, at 1384). But the cardinal principle which must always be borne in mind before attempting to approach a witness or potential witness is that such an approach must not be for an unlawful purpose and unlawful means must not be employed. Improper or unlawful means include bribes, the use of force, improper pressure or threat. (See e.g. R v Kellett [1976] 1 QB 372, Connolly v Dale [1996] QB 120.) Such acts would have the tendency and effect of improperly influencing the administration of justice and this is so even if it is done for a lawful purpose. Seeking to persuade a witness to give false evidence, or to dissuade a witness from telling the truth would be an unlawful purpose.

(HKSAR and KEVIN EGAN FACC 3/2009)

與訟雙方對證人沒有擁有權, 在上庭前都有權要求會面錄取證供, 律師會也有通告這樣講。二十多年前就有警察幫辦打電話給我, 說辯方律師給他看律師會通告, 要求與受害人會面錄取口供, 問我怎麼辦。我說十分簡單, 告訴受害人, 律師有權提出要求, 那是符合法規的, 但受害人有權拒絕會面,  受害人可以留待上庭作供時才被盤問。梁振英就是採取這態度, 但換轉是我, 我就廢話少講, 不會像他那樣致電辯方律師。

當梁振英不肯錄口供時, 吳文遠根本不應傳召他為辯方證人, 傳召一個你預先不知會怎樣作供的證人是極愚蠢的事, 證人講對你不利的說話, 你根本就不能申請把他列作敵對證人, 除非證人預先錄取了口供, 上庭作供時嚴重偏離了原本口供的講法, 否則就沒有申請列作敵對證人的基礎。

如果吳文遠想仿效黃毓民盤問梁振英, 他就搞錯了。在掟杯案, 梁振英是受害人, 是控方傳召的證人, 黃毓民身為被告, 當然有權盤問他。在吳文遠案, 梁振英是辯方證人, 吳文遠根本不能盤問他。官大人看來是任由他去盤問, 無他, 到時咪釘到冚囉。吳文遠可能想, 反正都釘硬, 玩盡啲囉, 攞番啲彩, 日後講掌故, 起碼都可以吹噓一下, 如何如何羞辱過梁振英, 問到佢口啞啞。這種把法庭變作政治舞台的伎倆, 上大人有機會又要發聲, 去糾正這股歪風了。

33 則留言:

  1. 呢D只為響法庭做騷而浪費公帑的無賴,中央點會睇得上眼?
    佢同黃老毓相比,佢真係連一成功力都無...
    佢連辯護律師都炒,即係擺明同個官講"你判我坐囉,我到時話自己係政治犯",下次(相信2024年)立會選舉時又有個光環出現...(留意:呢條友四屆立選已經去了四個大區,但全部都係輸)
    佢質素好過黃浩銘,絕對有潛力做政客,但可惜都係跟錯老闆...

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 我不清楚這些人的政治光譜。

      刪除
    2. 5區去晒都輸,呢個紀錄正啊........

      刪除
    3. 832: 都是垃圾 左膠 和理非

      刪除
    4. 標少,三文治係無辜嫁!
      佢輸埋就變相五區公投,唔支持佢地^_^

      刪除
    5. 其實會唔會到closing submissions時又話請返律師

      刪除
    6. 就算係都唔會trial de novo.

      刪除
  2. 敢做,唔敢認罪,並非光明磊落之輩,真係冇 guts!

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 基本上堆黃黨全部都係~

      刪除
    2. 何君堯在高院法庭大堂自拍咪一樣死撐, 還有那些見制派假學歷人士, 咪一樣, 所以我不會用顏色分類。

      刪除
    3. 對何君堯完全無好感!有朋友揾佢幫助民生問題,聽完不了了之不跟進,佢可能覺得無soundbite!

      刪除
    4. 有機會出風頭議員才會投入。

      刪除
    5. 好懷念杜葉錫恩果種愛民如子心態,她比受傷痛的弱勢社群更痛!現在的?爛橙v爛萍果!:

      刪除
    6. https://www.hk01.com/sns/article/123431?utm_content=buffer011ad&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=facebook+hk01&utm_campaign=buffer
      何君堯涉立會選舉失實聲明 消息:廉署正式立案調查
      係咪衰呢!玩出禍來,今次應該不是一場政治show喇

      刪除
  3. 港足友賽老撾 部分球迷奏國歌期間喝倒采
    http://news.tvb.com/local/59d6427de603830e2e420ad8

    睇下班人幾咁廢,咁搞落去遲早出事,亞洲足協唔做嘢就奇,累足總罰款兼港隊閉門作賽有乜益?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 支蛆你才是废 舔个支那的屎眼当宝 上网都这么奴性 卑贱

      刪除
    2. 小弟今早乘火車時,一名國內遊客不斷地偷看我上facebook,我乾脆的問他,你在偷看什麼?
      他也有禮貌地回答,在國內是不能開的,我在想 為什麼一個人民連這權利也沒有?
      他跟我說總是要偷偷摸摸不能光明正大,小弟霎時間心裏真的有點酸,在香港的我們真是十分幸運了,所以我也明白你為什麼這麼憤慨!!

      刪除
    3. 馬鹿兄:我看匿名9:16只是擔心香港足球代表隊受罰。畢竟這是香港的「國家隊」。

      刪除
    4. 上面書有什麼大不了,大多數是妄言妄語,廢話連篇,真知灼見可謂少之又之,多看面書對增長知識無助且有害

      刪除
    5. YB, your idol (Trump) yelled to those NFL players who refused to stand for the National Anthem...

      'Get that son of a b***h off the field!': Trump calls for BOYCOTTS of NFL teams whose players refuse to stand for the National Anthem

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4912036/Trump-BOYCOTT-NFL-teams-players-won-t-stand-Anthem.html

      刪除
    6. C (137) 說得對,班人咁搞只會害香港隊,對中國影響輕微

      刪除
    7. C: so? 那麽小的代價都不能付? 為何要給個恐怖政權任何recognition? CHICOM has been fucXing with HK for the past 20 yrs. 苟且不能偷生 my friend.

      217: 支蛆 奴性 可笑 卑賤

      400: are you an American even? biatch. get out of here.

      刪除
    8. 總好過扮鬼佬兼妄想症的狗奴才!

      刪除
  4. 面書什麼來的?
    香港人沒有用這詞。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 少見多怪

      http://inews.fbs.one/post354072/584

      刪除
    2. 我最不喜歡的國家就是日本
      表面上有秩序有禮貌,內容實質是垃圾一堆。

      刪除
    3. //面書什麼來的?香港人沒有用這詞。//

      更正:

      少見多怪!

      "我對青少年使用社交網站的意見"[董家豪/長洲官立中學(中六),廉政公署德育期刊9.2011]
      http://www.me.icac.hk/icac/topsee/64.pdf

      2:59

      刪除
    4. 判詞都有用~ 是否代表法治已死?

      刪除
  5. Have you ever come across rude counsel like this one in your days? Were things better or worse back then?

    http://www.hkba.org/content/barristers-disciplinary-tribunal

    Mr. Robert John Hugh Tibbo (also known as Robert Tibbo)

    By Statement of Findings dated 27 July 2017, the Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal found three (3) complaints of professional misconduct against Mr. Robert John Hugh Tibbo (“Mr Tibbo”) to have been proved. Further, by Reasons for Sentence on the same date, the Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal ordered, inter alia. that Mr Tibbo be censured, and be advised as to conduct by the Chairman of the Bar Association, or his nominee.

    Agreed Statement of Facts - Complaint 3 - the Respondent did on 19 April 2012, when receiving from the Prosecutor a list of documents that had been prepared at the Respondent’s request and/or at the behest of the trial judge rudely addressed the Prosecutor at a conference room outside the courtroom by saying that:

    “you shall assist me to locate those documents. You have no idea at all how many bundles I have. I don’t want to talk to you. Get out of here.”

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Of course, I came across different very truculent people. Then they learned there were some people they had to pay for being rude.

      刪除
    2. I laughed when I read this. What was Barrister Robert Tibbo thinking?

      On 18 April 2012, the Respondent (Mr Tibbo), when appearing as Counsel for the Defendant in the District Court in case number DCCC 967/2011, in the course of making submissions to the Court in open court, made a number of disparaging remarks in respect of Senior Public Prosecutor Mr. Nicholas Wong for the Prosecution (“the Prosecutor”) by accusing him that:

      (a) “this man is clueless … yesterday I enlightened this man”
      (b) “I have no idea what he’s talking about. He’s making this up.”
      (c) “well your Honour what I’m not appreciating as well is my learned colleague’s liberties with the truth, to depart from the truth. I don’t appreciate it”
      (d) “My learned colleague is really encroaching on what I consider quite sharp practices”

      On the same day, in a period when the trial judge had left the courtroom and the case had been stood down for a short while, the Respondent at the bar table made rude remarks to the Prosecutor, including “I assure you I would ask to adjourn this case. Who do you think you are? Nicholas Wong.”

      刪除
  6. Barrister Robert Tibbo was just being very stupid. Being rude to other people won't help him. It's professional misconduct.

    回覆刪除