2018年10月30日星期二

駕駛時使用手機

上一篇安得老這留言引起我的興趣:

安得老臨兮拍四仔2018年10月30日 上午1:51

https://globalnews.ca/news/4249001/ontario-student-apple-watch-distracted-driving/

“Despite the Apple Watch being smaller than a cellular phone, on the evidence it is a communication device capable of receiving and transmitting electronic data,”

“While attached to the defendant’s wrist it is no less a source of distraction than a cell phone taped to someone’s wrist. It requires the driver to change their body position and operate it by touch,”

我把安大略省這案例找了出來看: R. v. Ambrose, 2018 ONCJ 345 (CanLII) (連結)。案例所述的案情這樣講:

Victoria Ambrose was charged with a single count under the Highway Traffic Act, Section 78.1(1), drive hand-held communication device. She was issued a Part I Offence Notice and the matter proceeded to trial on April 24th, 2018.
In this matter the onus is on the prosecution, and the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence is, for the most part, admitted.

Ms. Ambrose was driving her motor vehicle on South Ring Road in the City of Guelph when a University of Guelph police officer noticed the glow of a device she was using from his cruiser stopped directly beside and to her right. Both the defendant and the officer were facing a red light. The officer observed Ms. Ambrose to be looking up and down at the handheld communication device approximately four times over the course of his observations.

The officer testified that he saw the traffic signal turn green and the two cars in front of Ms. Ambrose moved forward but she did not. He activated the ditch light on the cruiser light bar which shone into Ms. Ambrose’s car and she began to drive forward. The officer testified that his observations of the use of the device totaled 20 seconds and I accept this testimony as it is consistent with the description of his observations of the other vehicles in the use of his light.

The officer pulled Ms. Ambrose over a short time later and learned that the device she was using was an Apple watch. Ms. Ambrose confirms this in her testimony. The evidence before me is that an Apple watch is capable of receiving and transmitting electronic data. Ms. Ambrose testified that the watch was not connected to her phone which was in the car with her at the time.

Whether it was actually connected to another device at the time of the offence is not a determining factor. It is the holding, or use of the device that the court must determine.

Ms. Ambrose testified that despite the capabilities of the Apple watch she was merely checking the time which requires touching the screen to activate and deactivate it. It is apparent that she chose this method over the use of the clock in her automobile.

本案除了法律上的闡釋外, 先要作事實裁斷。很明顯, Ambrose用Apple Watch來看時間的解釋屬一派胡言, 我都不會相信。此案驅使我粗略比較安大略省、新南威爾斯省及香港3地的類似法例。3地對駕駛時使用手機或通訊器材都有不同要求, 安省較詳細, 新省最嚴苛, 香港最寬鬆。

法例

Ontario: S. 78.1 Highway Traffic Act

Subsection (1): no person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a handheld wireless communication device or other prescribed device that is capable of receiving of transmitting telephone communications, electronic data, mail or text messages. 

Subsection (2): No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a handheld electronic entertainment device or other prescribed device the primary use of which is unrelated to the safe operation of the motor vehicle, hands-free mode allowed.

Subsection (3): Despite subsections (1) and (2), a person may drive motor vehicle on a highway while using a device prescribed in those subsections in hands-free mode.

只要免提, 便可合法地使用。違例罰款$300至$1000加元。Ambrose案的層次低, 所以參考價值也不大。

New South Wales: S. 300 Road Rules 2008

S.300 Use of mobile phones by drivers (except holders of learner or provisional P1 licences)

(1) The driver of a vehicle must not use a mobile phone while the vehicle is moving, or is stationary but not parked, unless:

(a) the phone is being used to make or receive a phone call (other than a text message, video message, email or similar communication) or to perform an audio playing function and the body of the phone:

(i) is secured in a mounting affixed to the vehicle while being so used, or

(ii) is not secured in a mounting affixed to the vehicle and is not being held by the driver, and the use of the phone does not require the driver, at any time while using it, to press any thing on the body of the phone or to otherwise manipulate any part of the body of the phone, or

(b) the phone is functioning as a visual display unit that is being used as a driver’s aid and the phone is secured in a mounting affixed to the vehicle, or

(c) the vehicle is an emergency vehicle or a police vehicle, or

(d) the driver is exempt from this rule under another law of this jurisdiction.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

1 penalty unit即A$110, 違此例扣5分。

Hong Kong: S. 42 CAP 374G ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC CONTROL) REGULATIONS

(1)A driver shall not—
...
(g)if a motor vehicle being driven by him is in motion—

(i)use a mobile telephone while holding it in his hand or between his head and shoulder;
(ii)use any other telecommunications equipment while holding it in his hand; or
(iii)use, while holding in his hand, any accessory to—
(A)a mobile telephone; or
(B)any other telecommunications equipment. (L.N. 192 of 2000)

香港法例寬鬆之處是汽車移動時(in motion)才不准使用手機, 安省籠統地限制駕駛時使用(坐在司機位已屬駕駛), 而新省則講明停紅燈及塞車時也有規限。香港違此例最高罰HK$2000, 但不扣分。如果在香港駕駛像Ambrose那樣頻看Apple Watch, 就不受規管了, 因為條例訂得太狹窄, 除了in motion, 還要while holding it in his hand, 可以檢控的情況實在太少, 把電話放在大髀上, 就可以為所欲為了。

2018年10月26日星期五

黃毓民案沒法律基礎再上訴

各大傳媒都報導了律政司不會為黃毓民掟杯案上訴, 明報的相關報導在此;黃毓民掟杯案 律政司:沒法律基礎上訴。這決定乃意料中事。我在黃毓民上訴的藝術一文已評論過, 在該文的末段, 我已作預測:

所以, 各位何必呱呱叫, that is the rule of the game。班太的判詞言之成理, 寫相反理據也言之成理, 最重要的是法官寫出甚麼道理你能否挑出錯處, 我就挑不出。上級法院可以挑下級錯處, 上級的上級也挑下級錯處, 唯獨吾等汝等良士刁民只能互挑錯處, 天生烝民, 有物有則, 民之秉彝, 好是懿德, 互相攻訐, 情何以堪! 別學那些不學無術的法律教授, 如梁美芬之流, 大聲疾呼叫律政司上訴至終審法院, 懂個屁, 不涉法律觀點, 上訴證明書怎會批出, 會批出也不獲終院上訴許可, end of story 。連我這一關都過不到, 別浪費時間再討論。

班太(張慧玲法官)批准黃毓民的上訴, 主論據是質疑梁振英在黃毓民擲出水杯時的反應, 此屬事實的裁斷, 高院法官在一般情況下, 沒有原審裁判官衡量證人言談舉止(demeanour)來判斷可信性的優勢, 是不應輕易干擾原審法官事實裁斷的決定, 但本案控方呈上立法會的閉路電視, 班太可以從而仔細看梁振英氣定神閒的反應, 繼而裁定梁振英根本沒有受驚, 故此未符合普通襲擊的法律元素, 才批准上訴, 撤銷定罪。除非班太的裁決理據悖於常理, 或搞錯案情事實, 或搞錯法律的元素, 否則毫無上訴空間。所以律政司不再上訴的決定正確, 所以我批評梁美芬教授不懂刑事法而在胡說八道。

Jack wts在我黃毓民上訴的藝術一文洗版式留言, 我不介意, 我只是偶爾回覆一兩句, 包括我以下這個回覆:

標少2018年9月30日 下午9:46

Jack wts,

普通襲擊的法律很清晰, 法官的事實裁斷控方是極難上訴的, 所以別再花時討論好嗎? 這些在事實上推翻原裁決的情況是經常發生的, 見怪不怪。「凡事都有定期,天下萬務都有定時。生有時,死有時;栽種有時,拔出所栽種的也有時;殺戮有時,醫治有時;拆毀有時,建造有時;哭有時,笑有時...」, 訴訟也有finality, 收筆喇。

可惜Jack兄堅毅不屈, 在上一篇還繼續為此留言, 我只能奉勸一句, 這件案的裁決是沒有指導性的, 類似的案情, 只要受害人合理地受驚, 無論在案情事實及法律元素方面, 都足以定罪的。故此, 無需把黃毓民案過份解讀, facts sensitive的裁決, 以案例而言, 參考價值不高。

法律評論是apolitical的, 儘管釘了黃毓民我會更心涼, 放了他我也不會喋喋不休鍥而不捨地怒嚎, observe the rules of the game with a tranquil heart, 由它去吧。

2018年10月23日星期二

成龍上榜

最近姨甥結婚, 老伴的姊弟從香港飛來參加婚禮, 都住在我們家中, 標少廚房忙得不可開交, 攀談往事, 官場秘辛, 像鐵軌那樣長的話題, 綿綿不絕, 互補記憶中的空隙。香港人到澳洲, 其中最雀躍的活動是摘水果, 後園那棵桑樹, 滿結的桑葚開始成熟, 他們可以戴上手套高興的採擷。有談不盡的往事, 看不夠的山水, 天長地久, 話題只好待續, 他們都飛走了。兩星期沒有開筆了, 可能有人以為我封了筆, 可是那些求助信卻源源不絕地滾來。

DQ劉小麗, 政府實在有點過份, 不能展示程序公義。雖然劉小麗給我的印象只是個智力不高的師奶仔, 但也不是甚麼激進人士, 智力也不比容海恩大律師低, 參加西九補選也不是勝券在握, 政府實在太小器了, 連給她一個讓選民投票決定的機會也不能夠。

今早在網上閱讀Sydney Morning Herald, 成龍竟然上了頭條: NSW government uses unclaimed gambling winnings to fund Jackie Chan film
...

The 2017 sci-fi thriller Bleeding Steel, which featured Chan duelling with an evil villain atop the sails of the Sydney Opera House, was funded in part by a one-off direct grant of $850,000 from the NSW government.

The money came from the Community Development Fund, which is administered by the Office of Responsible Gambling and financed through unclaimed poker machine jackpot prizes and unclaimed gaming machine tickets.

《機器之血》是怎樣的爛片, 我一概不知, 因為我很少看電映的。 但一套以部份本地地標取景的電影獲得五百多萬(港幣)資助拍攝, 確有點說不過去。悉尼歌劇院並非新建築物, 中國遊客到悉尼觀光也不用靠一套講普通話的電影來宣傳, 中國遊客是到澳洲旅遊眾多國家中排首位的, 消費力也最強。不過, 澳洲的政治氣氛跟香港很不一樣, 傳媒揭露了這件事, 議員頂多在議會跟進問一句, 然後就不了了之, 沒有人會關心的。

本地最關注的不是成龍, 而是中國人狂購奶粉, 時常都有在超市搶購奶粉的負面新聞報導。為了BB吃奶去買奶粉, 誰可怪你? 可是, 幾十人連群結隊人手一箱地搶購, 不是為了自家BB, 不是為了家鄉親友的BB, 而是為了圖利。任憑你共產黨怎樣極權, 任憑你怎樣判處人民極刑, 自家擠不出安全的奶, 已經是天大的笑話, 掩蓋了港珠澳大橋的啓用。中國去年從澳洲進口的奶粉已43,000噸, 如果把全世界的進口奶粉在港珠澳大橋排成直綫, 不知是橋長抑或奶粉罐長?

2018年10月8日星期一

花叢

昨天階老友夫婦同遊坎培拉花展(Floriade), 悉逢坎培拉大興土木興建輕鐵, 回程在市內塞車, 開車超過4小時才回到家裏。








上圖這水中滾球也蠻好玩的, 人爬入氣球, 然後充氣, 拉上防水拉練後, 就在水池中蹦跳3分鐘, 盛惠A$12。

每次去坎培拉, 我都光顧茗趣居, 而且一定預訂蒸水蛋, 其他食物也很美味, 價錢比悉尼便宜。可惜當我早一天打電話去訂枱, 老板說挨了廿幾年每週開足七天, 現已星期日不開鋪了。老伴頗失落。蒸水蛋都要訂? 當然, 不是即叫即蒸的, 所以要預訂, 做法是比較花時間, 所以售完即止。這蒸水蛋用大湯碗來蒸, 由面滑到底。去坎培拉的朋友問我到那裏吃飯, 我都推薦此店。

2018年10月6日星期六

On the Bench的神威

昨天Sydney Morning Herald這一則新聞, 我看了也沒時間評論:

A veteran NSW judge says she fears her colleagues will be driven to suicide if pressure isn’t lifted on the state’s overwhelmed court system.

In an extraordinary attack on the under-resourced sector, District Court judge Robyn Tupman warned it could come to someone taking his or her life before action was taken to ease the workload of members of the NSW judiciary.

“Let’s not muck around, we don’t want judges committing suicide like what happened in Victoria,” Judge Tupman said, referring to two high-profile deaths in state's judiciary in the past year.

“I fear for the wellbeing of many of my colleagues on this bench who have far less experience, are much younger and perhaps aren’t quite the bastard that I am.

"I hope we don't have the tragic outcome in NSW that has occurred in Melbourne because of the extraordinary workload required to be undertaken by the District Court."

......

最近法官新聞太多, 花多眼亂, 評論正是無從下箸。做工都是這樣, 有人做死, 有人舒服死。法官工作比較孤獨, 精神健康方面一向都是談論的禁區。工作量只是其中一個問題, 處理得太多兇殘暴戾的案件, 誰會知道在精神健康方面有甚麼影響, 因為他們是公眾人物, 卻不能隨便公眾發言。香港這方面尤其保守。法官也會諱疾忌醫, 精神出問題尤其不想給人知, 因為會被質疑斷案的能力。所以, 有時你只能憑直覺感覺或懷疑某法官是否有精神問題, 況且有些人坐了上去(on the bench)(任命為法官)就會癲, 未必與工作壓力有關。

上一篇昨天有此留言: 假車保案主腦重判 大狀罵法官以權謀私, 問我的看法。

(星島日報報道)犯罪集團在網上訛稱能低價代理購買汽車保險,並在網上大賣廣告及透過facebook提供「筍工」,以月賺四千元作招徠,誘使多人借出戶口以接收犯罪得益,一年內騙取多達三百五十七名車主合共一百三十二萬元保金。身為職業拳手的主腦劉兆濤承認兩項欺詐及一項拒捕罪,昨於區域法院被判入獄四十五個月。辯方大律師陳銚明昨在庭上大鬧主審法官李慶年,直指李官在案中「以權謀私」,處處針對他代表的被告林俊傑,陳大狀終決定退出辯護,李官則表示,「庭內已有錄音記錄在案,陳大狀的言論足以構成藐視法庭」。

一早就有人把這新聞傳給我, 看完整篇新聞, 對「以權謀私」這幾個字摸不著頭腦, 大概是slip of the tongue吧, 陳大狀是指控李官「濫用職權」? 更準確的描述應該是「不公正」。陳銚明一向給我的印象是個平和謙厚, 甚少得罪人的人, 公然罵法官我算是第一次聽到。可惜除了星島的報導外, 其他媒體不見報導, 未能確定內容的準確性。李慶年的官聲我不能批評, 因為我不能靠風聞。李官從總裁判官一職平調區院是今年一月一日的事, 似乎惹了不少火。

李官在另一件案的審理過程狠批了另一位十分資深的大狀王寶榮, 用了:

48. 「...黃大律師明知自已準備不足,有所疏忽和延誤,並忽然提出新議題,法庭要讓他為被告有充足時間解釋及陳述,及讓控方回應等等,仍然佯裝不知,不檢討自已過錯,還指責別人,更甚的是他於7月31日下午4時半仍未弄清己方提出的應有數字。本席對他處理本案的能力,手法,操守及誠信表示高度關注。本案的結果亦與黃大律師的表現無關,反而因黃大律師的表現幾乎影響辯方案情。本席彰顯司法風度,不會因黃大律師的表現影響被告享有公平審訊的權利。

49. 「...可惜黃大律師不但沒有先溫習後上庭...」(「黃」大律師後來勘誤改回「王」大律師)
(para 48&49  DCCC 1093/2017)

李官說自己彰顯司法風度, 似乎在自稱自讚, 在判決理由這樣講就像在說「本席英明神武」, 不禁使人莞爾。

官要罵你, 雖然不能與娘要嫁人比, 司法機構也有些「補習班」, 教導法官在庭上的司法風度(judicial temperament),  也有中文判詞寫作坊等, 坐了上去, 這張bench是很神奇的, temperament原本好的有的會變壞, 有的永恆不變。工作量會是其中一個原因。幸好尋死的so far只有一個, 都是很多年前的事, 精神有問題的, 唉! 不說了。

美國大法官Kavanuagh的任命, 就更加不用說了, 糾纏不清的政治任命, 我不說三道四。

2018年10月3日星期三

一處人權一處例

紐西蘭在10月1日起創新猶, 應該是全球首創, 訂立了要求入境入士, 提供電子器材的開機密碼, 供海關查閱, 違例者可處罰款NZ$5,000, 不用坐監。這條例會否面對侵犯人權的爭議, 恐怕要拭目以待。香港慣於引用人權法來爭議的人就要小心了。紐西蘭也有人權法, 但在今年3月之前應用受很大限制, 該國的人權法對其他法例沒有凌駕性, 不會像香港那樣, 法庭可以廢除與人權法相悖的法例。但今年3月之後, 紐西蘭國會賦予法庭裁定法例違反人權法的權力, 雖然不能廢除有關條例, 但可以下令國會審視和修改。有趣的是, 在這種環境下, 紐西蘭卻訂立披露開啓電子儀器密碼、指模或樣貌(biometric)資料的法例。是否人權倒退呢? 正是一處人權一處例, 入境紐西蘭, 海關人員叫你開手機和電腦, 就不要聲大夾惡拒絕, 若不就範, 只可留下來上庭以人權法抗辯。我明年去紐西蘭, 一定會純如羔羊遵從命令的。


Customs and Excise Act 2018

228Data in electronic devices that are subject to control of Customs
(1)
This section applies to any electronic device—
(a)
that is subject to the control of Customs; or
(b)
that a Customs officer has reasonable cause to suspect is subject to the control of Customs.
(2)
Data in the device may be searched in accordance with the following powers:
Powers if threshold met
(a)
the power to make an initial search if a Customs officer has reasonable cause to suspect that—
(i)
a person in possession of the device has been, is, or is about to be involved in the commission of relevant offending:
(ii)
an importer or exporter of a device (other than a person to whom subparagraph (i) applies) has been, is, or is about to be involved in the commission of relevant offending:
(iii)
an unaccompanied device has been, is, or is about to be used in the commission of relevant offending and the importer or exporter cannot be reasonably identified or located:
(b)
the power to make a full search if a Customs officer has reasonable cause to believe that evidential material relating to relevant offending is in the device:
(c)
the power to require a user of the device to provide access information and other information or assistance that is reasonable and necessary to allow a person exercising a power under paragraph (a) or (b) to access the device:
Powers with no threshold
(d)
the power to make a full search of a stored value instrument (including power to require a user of the instrument to provide access information and other information or assistance that is reasonable and necessary to allow a person to access the instrument):
(e)
the power to make a full search of unaccompanied electronic storage media that is an optical disc imported other than for personal use for the purpose of determining whether it contains any pirated copy within the meaning ofPart 7 of the Copyright Act 1994.
(3)
However, there is no power under subsection (2) to search material (of any kind) that is accessible from the device but is not stored in the device (see section 225, which relates to search warrants).
(4)
The powers in subsection (2)(a) and (b) may be used for the purpose of determining whether evidential material relating to relevant offending is in the device.
(5)
In this section and section 227,—
access information includes codes, passwords, and encryption keys, and any related information that enables access to an electronic device
data means information in digital format and other intangible material in an electronic device
electronic device or device means anything that contains data (including an electronic communication device or any other data storage device)
full search means that—
(a)
the device may be accessed and searched using any technology aids; and
(b)
the device or data may be copied, reviewed, or evaluated (including by means of previewing, cloning, or other forensic methods); and
(c)
the device may be removed or detained for the time reasonably necessary to conduct the search; and
(d)
the search must not damage the device or damage or interfere with the operation of the device; and
(e)
any transmitting functions on the device must be disabled, wherever possible, before the search of data in the device; and
(f)
the device must be returned to the person entitled to its possession at the conclusion of the search (unless evidence of relevant offending is found)
initial search means that—
(a)
the device may be accessed, searched, reviewed, or evaluated either manually or by using a technology aid that has completed a privacy impact assessment in consultation with the Privacy Commissioner; and
(b)
any temporary files created by a technology aid must be immediately deleted when the search is complete (unless the device is detained for a full search); and
(c)
the search must not damage the device or damage or interfere with the operation of the device; and
(d)
any transmitting functions on the device must be disabled, wherever possible, before the search of data in the device; and
(e)
if the person in possession of the device is in a Customs-controlled area (or an unaccompanied device is in a Customs-controlled area), the device must not be removed from that area; and
(f)
the search must take no longer than reasonably necessary; and
(g)
the device must be returned to the person entitled to its possession at the conclusion of the search (unless the device is detained for a full search)
relevant offending means—
(a)
the importation or exportation of any prohibited goods; or
(b)
an offence under this Act; or
(c)
the unlawful importation or exportation of any goods
stored value instrument
(a)
means a portable device (for example, a debit card) that contains monetary value that is not physical currency but that can be reloaded or redeemed for cash; and
(b)
includes an instrument that is prescribed as a bearer-negotiable instrument under section 153(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009
user means a person who owns, leases, possesses, or controls a device (or an employee of such a person) and who has relevant knowledge of the device.
Duty to assist access to device
(6)
Section 130(2) and (3) of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (which relates to incrimination) applies, with any necessary modifications, to a requirement of a Customs officer under subsection (2)(c) or (d) (except that section 130(2) and (3) is subject to subpart 5 of Part 4 of that Act if that subpart applies under subsection (14)).
(7)
Subsections (8) to (11) apply if a person fails to comply with a requirement of a Customs officer under subsection (2)(c) or (d).
(8)
If the person has no reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the requirement, the person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000.
(9)
A Customs officer may retain the device for the purpose of arranging access to, and searching, the device.
(10)
After the prescribed period, a Customs officer who retains a device may treat it as forfeited, in which case subpart 9 of Part 3 applies.
(11)
If a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (8), a court may order the device to be condemned to the Crown, destroyed, or returned subject to any conditions that the court thinks fit.
Procedures applying to seized or produced material
(12)
Subpart 6 of Part 4 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 applies in respect of devices detained for a full search under this section.
Privilege and confidentiality
(13)
If any information or document on a device that is subject to an initial search under subsection (2)(a) is privileged from disclosure within the meaning of section 254, that section applies to the information or document but otherwise the search of the device may continue.
(14)
Subpart 5 of Part 4 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (which relates to privilege and confidentiality) applies, with any necessary modifications, in respect of a power to make a full search under subsection (2)(b).
Other powers, protections, and safeguards apply
(15)
To avoid doubt, this section does not limit—
(a)
the provisions of subpart 4 of Part 4 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 that are otherwise applied by this Act:
(b)
the powers in section 201 if evidence of identity and entitlement to travel is on a device:
(c)
sections 257 and 258 (copying and retention of documents and goods), which apply, with any necessary modifications, to material and information under this section.