2018年12月27日星期四

老夫子八婆

梁振英UGL事件並沒有在律政司不予檢控的決定下平息, 廉政公署貪污問題諮詢委員會的主席及委員出來解畫, 律政司長鄭若驊昨天在機場面對傳媒的答問, 正是越講越犯駁。我看了全程10多分鐘的提問過程, 不知怎的, 鄭司長使我聯想起老夫子漫畫裏的八婆, 每當我看到某些女人的嘴臉, 心中就會說老夫子八婆。另一個使我產生這種感覺的是我腸胃科專科醫生的老婆, 她負責病人排期, 主要功能是收錢, 只收現金。半年前在悉尼機場碰到她, 她跟我打招呼, 一時之間我記不起她是誰, 在芸芸眾多獻金的病人中, 我只是做過例行檢查的稀客, 她竟然稔熟地指着她幾個同伴對我說:「我帶幾條女去打波。」我肅然起敬, 看着她的高球裝備, 禮貌地打兩下哈哈。當她走開之後, 我對老伴說: 「我都幾乎唔記得佢係邊個, 一開口我先記得呢個老夫子八婆。」打這個岔是想那些未看過老夫子漫畫的人, 想像一下老夫子八婆是甚麼模樣的。

鄭司長昨天的記招, 用了幾次無畏無懼來描述不檢控梁振英的決定, 對於不予檢控本身我是沒有異議的, 畢竟案件的證據無論在案情事實及法律觀點方面, 都可謂勝算機會微, 不予檢控是合理決定。另一方面, 有立法會議員咬住不放, 早前還飛赴澳洲越洋報案, 冷水我一早潑了, 一廂情願自我亢奮把案件強化了, 澳洲警方一早就置之不理, 新南威爾斯的ICAC更加不會理, for want of jurisdiction。律政司絕對有能力審視有關證據而作出恰當的判斷, 但不予檢控的決定不單只是證據的分析, 也要考慮公眾的觀感。 梁振英是前行政長官, 為免授人口實, 指責對他偏頗或優待, 實有需要徵詢獨立於律政司的法律意見。這種獨立法律意見並非司長所言當涉及律政司內部人員違法才需要索取, 雖然沒有硬性規定的守則, 但有先例可援, 又何樂而不為自找麻煩呢?

司長對傳媒無畏無懼, 可惜未能取得平息公眾懷疑的效果, 變成越說越糟糕, 強不起來又硬不起來。司長自己涉及物業僭建, 誠信受挫, 自身難保, 一開始我就覺得她應該請辭, 這樣幹下去不斷被人捏着痛腳, 說話也不響亮, 響亮時就儼然一個老夫子八婆, 慘不忍睹。

32 則留言:

  1. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=119230&currpage=T

    This is probably one of the most shameful judgments in 2018. The legal reasoning of some DHCJs are far from satisfactory, in this case it's even doubtful whether he's up to the quality of a magistrate:
    (1) The absence of evidence before the Court on the length of queues for urban and NT taxis is simply neutral, how can the Court make an "inference favourable to D" in assuming the equal lengths of the respective queues which is in effect making up non-existent facts?
    (2) How is it unusual at all that someone takes an urban taxi within NT? It's also cheaper to take an urban taxi at a cross harbour taxi stand but cross harbour passengers still always choose to go for the ordinary taxi stand.
    (3) There is no indication in the judgment that PW was cross-examined on not informing his employer on the delay. There was also no evidence that PW was in a rush. The "inference" of PW being a malicious passenger is plainly a slippery slope based on multiple postulations which are totally unsupported by evidence.
    (4) The ruling on "reasonable excuse" is even more shocking. How can taking a short journey be anything illegitimate, even to state that it is for the purpose of "driving taxis away from the stand and to control the taxis"? And how would a passenger be not "genuine" for not taking a profitable route? How about taking the XHT during peak hours? And even if D held such belief, was there any evidence (other than D's own "doubts") to support the reasonableness of the belief?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 吃驚, 吃驚!
      不過呢單野法理其實十分複雜, 難講難講!!
      BBTW

      刪除
    2. (1) By "inference favourable to D", it means 疑點利益歸D, same as offer no evidence, 不是make up facts.
      而事實上, 林法官心中的確是favourable to D而不必著墨, 因為庭上證人同意3米外"綠的"車龍在等客.
      (2) 林法官認為證人疑點來自「有選擇的情況下(三米外),堅持乘搭較昂貴之『紅的』。身為職業私人司機,卻聲稱誤以為在非賽馬日,新界的士不能前往沙田馬場的士站。約了僱主在目的地會合,卻為了遭『拒載』而大費周章報警,漠視僱主乾等候。」
      (3) 據判詞雖然"not informing his employer on the delay, 與顧主會合(rush)"是由上訴人提出, 不知道cross-exam情況, 但看來控方及證人沒反對.
      (4) Sorry, Pt.4寫的, 是忽略林官寫的.
      BBTW

      刪除
    3. 簡單地說,証人以「合法的」方法玩嘢,而被告以「非法的」方法反抗。
      法官話係「自救」,是脫罪的辯解,但我就覺得是求情,減刑的因素。
      不過佢係法官,我係蟻民。

      刪除
    4. I basically agree with anon 3:08 am's observation. The facts of the case were not disputed. No law prescribes that if there is a cross tunnel taxi stand in the vicinity, you have to choose that specific stand to cross the harbour. The DHCJ has placed the wrong focus in analysing the case. If there are 2 adjacent shops selling the same product with a huge difference in price, why can't I pay more to buy? I agree with the analysis of the Deputy Magistrate. I don't know why in this case Chou Shih Bina and Ip Chin Kei had to be considered.

      刪除
    5. 林法官先判斷證人玩野(not a genuine passenger), para 15-18, 呢一點我暫撇開不評論, 以接受作前提再談判決.
      其實上面兩位也將呢一點撇開, 不過係唔接受, 沒有直接討論.

      判決隨即入直路, 根據阮雲道三步曲, para 19-21, 合理辯解成立, 上訴得直.
      BBTW

      刪除
    6. https://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20180515/bkn-20180515094844588-0515_00822_001.html
      其實不少邊境管制站的士站(例如深圳灣/落馬州站)都有黑勢力操控,如果不交陀地費,會有專人刻意坐你車乘搭短途車程 (例如深圳灣坐紅的去良景或者落馬州站去新田) 。當然,如果有證據顯示涉及黑社會收入線費,應從有關法例處理,但本案並沒有直接證據顯示有關情況。

      刪除
  2. opal tower..歸期遥遥!

    jack

    https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/trust-is-low-opal-tower-developer-admits-evacuation-indefinite-20181228-p50oj5.html

    回覆刪除
  3. 唔好话我作大!
    jack
    引用

    Mr Doyle couldn't reassure residents about exactly when they would be able to go home as the company needed to investigate what went wrong.

    'No, I can't guarantee the residents will be back in 10 days,' he admitted.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6531837/All-residents-Sydney-apartment-tower-24-hours-move.html

    回覆刪除
  4. 專科醫生的老婆用語好像"大佬"在夜總會說話語境。現在有的女大學生講粗口,習慣了不莊重和心情煩躁,又要不想示弱,將來可能更多女人的談吐是這樣了。多些欣賞精緻的音樂對情緒穏定有助。
    鄭若驊在機場的語氣只聽不看,已感到她煩躁和不想示弱。律政中人有心理訓導嗎?
    KKC

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 心情煩悶的可多聽像Air on the G String的音樂
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrVDATvUitA
      Youtube 不用化錢,有高買習慣的借此轉移注意力。
      J.S.Bach 是個寶藏,不是百貨公司。
      KKC

      刪除
    2. 心理訓導可能有, the other way round.

      刪除
    3. 唔慣見傳媒啫, 對症下藥找導師訓練吓就得喇

      How to speak effectively to live audiences and to the news media

      https://www.mediatrainingworldwide.com/media-training-for-government-officials.html

      刪除
  5. 批准opal tower 入伙的私人 certifier有前科。


    jack


    Sydney Opal Tower: Previous failures of certifier revealed | Daily Telegraph
    https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au › ...
    12 hours ago · The directors of the company that signed off on the structural integrity of the defective Opal building have previously been reprimanded by the building watchdog. The Daily Telegraph can reveal that McKenzie Group director Mark Cogo, whose company was the independent certifier for ..


    https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/previous-failures-of-sydney-opal-towers-certifier-revealed/news-story/7e73b6e10390548036837246fab97ed3

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 这个opal tower certifier以前被罚!
      jack

      google search MARK COGO,reprimanded.

      引用
      ORDERS:(1) The Respondent is guilty of Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct.
      (2) The Respondent is reprimanded. (3) The Respondent is fined $11,000.


      Building Professionals Board v Cogo [2009] NSWADT 10 ,
      Held in Administrative Decision Tribunal,NSW.

      FILE NUMBER:083012.
      HEARING DATES:14 and 15 August 2008.
      SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:15 August 2008 .
      DATE OF DECISION: 16 January 2009.

      BEFORE:
      O'Connor K - DCJ (President); Friedmann P - Non-Judicial Member.

      DIVISION:General Division

      PARTIES:APPLICANTBuilding Professionals Board,

      RESPONDENT
      Mark Cogo.

      刪除
  6. 度身定做解决方法!原来甘叻!

    jack,re mark cogo

    引用

    and has gained a diverse range of experience working large scale complex projects requiring specifically tailored compliance solutions. 

    https://www.mckenzie-group.com.au/about-us/our-people/

    回覆刪除
  7. 律政司檢控官咩料? 虛假聲明以早領強積金案:
    https://hk.news.appledaily.com/local/realtime/article/20180508/58166323
    控罪「永久離開香港往中國居住」, 官: 香港唔係中國嘅咩?
    後修改控罪為「永久離開香港往廣東樟木頭居住」, 官再質疑被告的聲明中沒有提及廣東樟木頭, 不過我反而存疑, 張FORM明明有「獲准在[移居國家或地區]居住」一欄要填!
    BBTW

    回覆刪除
  8. 不幸地被我估中,越講越衰...
    我覺得佢係果D唔識應付傳媒之人...
    其實由梁卓偉負責解釋應該係最好...

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Sorry...應該是"梁卓然SC"

      刪除
    2. SJ should agree to attend Legco and bring along the DPP to explain to the public. It happened before in胡仙's case, the then SJ Elsie Leung and the then DPP Grenville Cross attended the Legco hand in hand.

      刪除
    3. 好似躊躇滿志咁, 其實輸人又輸陣。

      刪除
  9. The Secretary for Justice clearly should have prosecuted Mr C Y Leung over the UGL incident. She should at least get an opinion from an independent criminal silk.

    回覆刪除
  10. 覺得潘師奶都預咗 JR .

    回覆刪除
  11. 律政司長並非公務員出身,可能唔明白為官之道,缺乏危機感。 唔知佢下屬有冇提醒佢尋求獨立法律意見,或者有提醒,但係佢認為唔需要獨立意見。

    回覆刪除
  12. 其實告唔告由廉記廿人組成之獨立委員會監督和最後決定, 這委員會有律師,大律師和會計等各界的專業人士, 廉記同律政署只有代表出席報告工作進度

    問題是鄭若驊怎回應

    我同意鄭的做法, 有理便企硬, 不須找第三意見, 否則整個政府威信全無, 事事要找中介外援, 由調查, 檢控至審判官也要獨立從英美加澳纽請人, 没完沒了

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 可以說是好清楚這個案件不用第三者法律意见了。

      如想話塞着班友個口,請獨立法律顧問攞意見,班友又會話浪費政府公帑,律政署養班廢柴...俗語謂要挑剔乜都有嘢講

      刪除
    2. Hi 2018年12月29日 下午2:48

      It seems that the right to prosecute solely vests on DOJ instead of Operations Review Committee (see https://www.icac.org.hk/en/check/advisory/orc/index.html and also https://www.icac.org.hk/en/check/balance/index.html)

      The problem here is about political sensitivity and contravention of established prosecution policy.

      Sam

      刪除
    3. //It seems that the right to prosecute solely vests on DOJ instead of Operations Review Committee//


      Hi Sam

      I don't think so. Please see the short videos:

      貪污案件調查程序(re: from 1:50 ~ 2:15)
      https://youtu.be/LDQ3D1C_ASE


      廉署如何處理涉及高官的貧污投訴(re: from 0:38 ~ 1:25)
      https://youtu.be/XnQOwlfKjXQ


      前副廉政專員拆解UGL事件
      https://youtu.be/E2aAq4cIgVw


      前副廉政專員解釋為何查了4年https://youtu.be/yQzYpSOvGsk


      前副廉政專員説, 廉署和律政師不能自把自為
      https://youtu.be/inz42rHdA-A


      2:48

      刪除
  13. Hi,

    Tks for ur info. For the videos you provided, I think they don't contradict that right to prosecute is vested in the hands of doj. What the review committee can do is about continuance or termination investigation, and in an extreme case ask DOJ to reconsider the decision to prosecute (as former D. Comm mentioned in the last video). However, they have no legal authority to compel DOJ to prosecute nor does it become the final decision making body in relation to prosecution.

    Sam

    回覆刪除

  14. 奥州condo,这十年產量,比前十年多一倍!
    houses也多了不少!
    jack
    https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/the-farreaching-consequences-of-opal-tower/news-story/2326a65696330c04ac03747b82e83187

    回覆刪除