明報即時新聞有這一則: 【女生遊台遇害．短片】台要求遣送疑犯到台, 台灣地檢處多次要求香港政府遣返在台灣殺死女友潘曉穎的香港學生陳同佳。為了本案, 台灣今年4月修改法例, 提供了與香港司法互助的依據, 但不包括引渡罪犯。我真不明白, 台灣都不肯引渡罪犯, 又怎會覺得香港會遣返陳同佳。最重要的還不是這個, 而是不論司法互助或引渡罪犯, 都不可以單方面立法的, 而是要雙方簽署協議。引渡也不是押送上機把罪犯飛過去這樣簡單, 要按既定的法律程序進行。香港和台灣、澳門、大陸都沒有司法互助和引渡協議。如果陳同佳是台灣人反而好辦, 簽證期滿就可以送走, 但陳同佳是香港人, 不能夠強逼他去台灣投案, 強逼遣送他去台灣本身是非法行為。香港過往已有不少罪犯逃了去台灣而客死他鄉, 年輕的只有旺角暴動棄保潛逃的李倩怡。台灣都不會遣送她回來, 其實只要取消她的入境簽證就可以送她上機, 像石棺案的被告那樣, 但台灣卻不會這樣做, 為何要三番四次要求香港在無法理依據下交人?
陳同佳將會為盜竊死者銀行戶口的錢受審, 我都不明白怎會上高院, 不論怎判都不能加入謀殺的因素來重判。事實上陳同佳逃得一時也逃不了一世, 將來香港不用與台灣簽任何協議, 一國兩制變成一國一制, 到其時國家天威浩瀚, 在中國大憲法籠罩下的小香港, 一個小小的罪犯, 國家自然會把他料理了。台灣是中國領土的一部份, 陳同佳又身為中國人, 有晒jurisdiction喇, 仲唔死得。如果任何人想質疑我所講的法理, 去問下愛國愛到發燒的中國法專家梁美芬教授囉。梁教授會話國家想DQ邊個罪犯生存嘅權利, 點解唔得!
如果佢可以遣送台灣,台養哥同18歲肯定又要著草去第二度了...
回覆刪除支那共狗賤畜 台仰又不在台灣 and you or CHICOM cant touch him not now not ever.
刪除阿兔哥, 心平氣和, 事理通達。你不是11時就寢聞鷄起舞的嗎? 12點幾(香港時間)還留言動氣, 傷肝傷脾, 健康入不敷支, 儲蓄一下元氣喇。
刪除我可能可以答到標少的主要疑問.
回覆刪除其實並不是「台灣地檢處『多次要求』香港政府『遣返』在台灣殺死女友潘曉穎的香港學生陳同佳」.
相關報導出來的事實里程是,
2月，案發
3月，向港府提出司法『互助請求』，未獲回音
4月，向港府提出司法『互助請求』，未獲回音
7月，說掌握證據或情報，若香港提出司法互助請求，台灣將予協助，沒有回應
12月，地檢發通緝令，並同步轉請陸委會，向香港政府請求遣送陳同佳回台灣
可以當台灣心急了一點, 破格要求了一次!
以時序為基礎轉個角度睇, 地檢用上「考量人命關天，不應放棄任何追訴機會，又有潘父多次移送請求... 保障人權、維護公義均是人類普世價值，同時是檢察官天職，一條年輕珍貴生命遭受殘酷冷血殺害，導致受害人家屬心痛，實在不願見到真兇因跨境藩籬的隔閡而逍遙法外，盼台港能克服法制差異，找尋合作辦案的出路，因此...」
對應了港方的「接近一年、多次沒有回音」的破格反應, 盡人事試問了一次咁多而已!!!
BBTW
Thanks BBTW for ur supplement and chronology.
刪除'盼台港能克服法制差異，找尋合作辦案的出路...'. I m never familiar with public international law and have one (perhaps elementary) Q.
As Bill siu said, since HK and Taiwan has not signed any Surrender of Fugitive Offenders Agreement, there seems no legal basis for HK to transfer Chan to Taipei for trial. Yet, I wonder if the reason for the absence of Surrender agreement to be a political one (a matter of political sovereignty, despite that the 3 places across the straits are de facto separate jurisdictions), or out of humanitarian ground (becoz Taiwan still practise capital punishment)?
Sam
Hi, Sam
刪除時序是3+1, 最尾的1是9個月之後轉請陸委會作出請求, 我叫盡人事「試」問, 根本唔應該係討論重點.
應該問, 3係乜..... 係「互助請求」! 雖然我唔知係乜, 但明顯唔係「引渡罪犯」,
應該問, 港府咩事, (據報導)一直唔應人, 是否暗示「無出路架啦」?
搞到人地十分「盡力而為」.
BBTW
Capital punishment is enforced in Taiwan despite some moments of moratorium. What puzzles me is that there is mutual legal assistance between China and Taiwan. That means sovereignty is no longer an issue for combating crime. Yet, this does not extend to HK.
刪除Just briefly Google the mutual legal assistance btw Taiwan and HK, it seems to be kinda an umbrella type agreement embracing different cooperative terms like exchange of evidence and info, enforcement of judgment, etc.
刪除Yet, Surrender of Fugitive Offenders is not included (reason being unknown). I wonder what kind of "legal assistance" HK can provide to Taiwan authorities to help prosecuting Mr. Chan then...
Sam
Reason being untold, 唔會係unknown, 標少都重複強調左N次.
刪除Umbrella及對等, 可能係MLA version one.
//說掌握證據或情報，若香港提出司法互助請求，台灣將予協助// 後來, 台灣已經係「送晒啲料畀你丫, 等您開聲」,
「不如你送個人過來都得」是最後的「都唔知你香港想點, I'm open & desperate」.
都話咯, 港府乜事唔應人, 才是unknown. MLA寫得點唔好, 都應下人丫.
BBTW
Indeed I am thinking that the problem is on Taiwan side, not on HK side, as per Bill siu said, "為何要三番四次要求香港在無法理依據下交人?"
刪除As far as I know, the main difficulty is that there's no bilateral surrender agreement signed between, and both sides do realise so (Otherwise Taiwan authority would not said we have to overcome "institutional discrepancy". So whatever kind of "legal assistance" HK or Taiwan can offer to each other, the most crucial step cannot be taken. Then what's the purpose for Taiwan to insist on MLA or even transferring Chan to Taiwan?
Sam
As per 下午3:52 chronology, 幾時有「三番四次要求交人」?
刪除咪咁悶啦
三番四次當中若含交人, 極其量你是估, 標少應該係速讀無為意(以明報作資料計)
你一切描述, 都是估完之後的發揮, 回頭支持你的估計
Re 匿名2018年12月6日 上午3:47
刪除Perhaps quoting "三番四次要求交人" is a mistake but it is just to show that what Taiwan was doing would perhaps be futile after all. The focus to me is not whether Taiwan repeatedly request "交人" or not. The problem is that when both sides realise it's impossible to 交人 (while 交人 is at the same time the most important step to be taken), what kind of response did Taiwan expect HK to give out when they demanded MLA or transfer of the accused to Taiwan?
My wild guess (without evidence to support) is that both Govt don't dare to say a "NO" due to the potential public outcry and Taiwan kept on pressing HK while HK kept silent despite repeated demands from HK. If true, then it's really miserable. To me the "just and legally valid outcome" can only be achieved when a surrender of fugitive offenders agreement are concluded btw both sides.
Sam
TYPO: both Govt don't dare to say a "NO" due to the potential public outcry and that's why Taiwan kept on pressing HK while HK kept silent despite demands from Taiwan.
刪除Sam
Hi, Sam
刪除我根據報導, 見到交人只佔少數內容, 所以認為交人唔應該係討論重點.
你由要三番四次交人, 修正為「交人係重點, 既然底線不能交人, 引出其他其實免談, 港府選擇沉默, 台灣選擇單方面唱獨腳戲」
係? 點解你認為交人咁重要? 任何MLA, 真係需要交人?
正如標少話齋或眾所周知, 港台之間從來不交人.
你講到台灣明知卻三番四次insist some MLA (that inherently include交人), 港府唔好意思出聲, 台灣喋喋不休而隱去重點, 最後先講一次要求交人.
情節太複雜, 違反Occam's Razor.
究竟在你邏輯裡面, 交人係前提、定係結論?
BBTW
Hi BBTW,
刪除According to my limited understanding (as I said, I am amateur @ public int'l law), MLA doesn't necessarily entail any form of SFOA. Yet, in this particular case, the surrender itself is the most essential step to ensure that Chan can be charged and convicted (This explains why HK can only charge him of money laundering despite that he alleged confessed his killing to the police). It hence comes to my Q on "What Taiwan authorities was expecting when it requests HK to enforce MLA", when they know that it is impossible to transfer Chan back to Taiwan under existing legal regime (as illustrated by the earlier cement coffin murder case)?
你講到台灣明知卻三番四次insist some MLA (that inherently include交人), 港府唔好意思出聲, 台灣喋喋不休而隱去重點, 最後先講一次要求交人.
情節太複雜, 違反Occam's Razor.
It's just my mere speculation as I feel the whole situation quite awkward to explain. One may say it's mere conspiracy or 誅心論. That's why I said if it was correct it'd be really miserable.
Hope this clarifies my thought, and also hope that relevant experts on int'l law can enlighten us with detailed knowledge about MLA / SFOA.
Sam
我不爭論BBTW對我的疑問提供的答案, 從報導看, 港府應該沒有正面回覆台灣, 可能沒有這種機制來處理, 兩地官方來往太敏感吧。至於「三番四次」, 據博文的明報的連結講是三次, 無論如何兩地沒有簽署協議, 港方毫無法律基礎可以處理遣返要求, 已無需再討論了。
刪除各位睡到半夜就別討論這些並非十萬以急的事, 請注意健康。
我都有啲奇怪, 兩位..
刪除遣返要求作為主要議題, 其實得不到任何[已呈示]的討論材料支持.
不過臨尾標少仍然出呢4個字,
不單已無需再討論了, 係由頭至尾我一直建議不要著重於討論遣返要求.
BBTW
Hi BBTW and Bill siu,
刪除Agree that there's no need to stress on issues about SFOA becoz there's nothing HK can do indeed. Also, thanks to BBTW becoz through the discussion it broadens my knowledge a bit about international law.
Bill siu thanks for your friendly remainder. It just happens that I am not in HK now and so it's not mid-night indeed during my discussion with BBTW haha...
Sam
BBTW, Sam & Bill Siu,
刪除一幅圖畫....
香港法制尤其是對外事務, 兩岸四地以香港最為成熟。相反, 因為台灣長期國際孤立, 儲有的雙邊協議, 根本是小朋友與大人比!
圖二, 香港刑事司法互助包括30個國家有互簽；移交逃犯的協定22個。由成文條例 Cap525 & 503 resp支撐。
圖三, 香港方面這幅圖很清楚: 一句到底, 香港處理陳同佳盜竊罪成殺人罪無從談起, 送人台灣沒可能, 一來立法做唔切, 二來可判死刑罪行屬不能移交, 22個協定不例外。
圖四,「考量人命關天，普世價值，一條年輕珍貴生命遭受殘酷冷血殺害」，兩地人民可能有普遍期望。
圖五, 香港有齊上圖所有矛盾, 最終都知道殺人罪只可以不了了之, 意見卻不能張揚；台灣不成熟沒框架便有彈性, 配合積極外交, 殺人在台灣, 順理成章喋喋不休!
最後一幅小圖, BBTW指出的台灣主菜『互助請求』含有「送晒啲料畀你丫, 等您開聲」, 表面好正, 可根據Cap525, 由律政司開聲拎走不用太多雙邊行為。但基於圖三, 盜竊罪夠做, 殺人罪啲料畀都唔要, 無用。
台灣的纏住, 香港不能作出有聲量的反應, 我認為是各圖重疊在一起的綜合結果。
謝謝,這是十分準確的總結。
刪除其實,可唔可以 ex po facto 謀殺令佢有域外效力, 英國有 war crimes act 1991 可以retrospective
刪除澳洲都有 https://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/Human-rights-scrutiny/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx
雖然以上係指戰爭罪，不過我覺得呢個case 應該可以參考下.
又一單, 個個犯都去台灣
刪除男子被棄屍華富邨對開海面 警拘死者兒子疑涉金錢糾紛
警方昨晚在機場拘捕死者26歲的兒子
警方昨日早上大約8時接獲晨運客報案，在岸邊發現可疑紅白藍袋，消防到場將他救起，送往瑪麗醫院後證實死亡。經調查後證實死者身分，再聯絡其家人，包括被捕男子。
台灣唔係破格因為本身無框架(格), 唔係心急一點, 果然是公私原因, 香港細細聲say no仲要來. (可能有呃like成份)
刪除香港「多次沒有回音」, 應該係細聲又不滿意, 當聽唔到. (「會認真按香港法律框架考慮」, 暗示「我地從來無兩句, 呢單無出路架啦」)
Sam兄猜中, 背後複雜, 有問題既應該係台灣.
多謝1仔廣闊見識, 看圖全解.
BBTW
匿名午12:05,
刪除Ex po facto, "追溯法令，相對於不溯及既往原則.."
唔岩用. 這是關於一地兩時差異, 想辦法特殊解決.
現在係每地都無足夠司法管轄權, 台灣我唔理, 但香港絕對不宜更動.
與時間追溯無關.
BBTW
我嘅意思係指，修改cap 212 令謀殺有域外效力, 生效日期追溯至案發當日. 好似咁
刪除https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/9
我認為唔影響人權，見此條
”任何人之行為或不行為，於發生當時依各國公認之一般法律原則為有罪者，其審判與刑罰不受本條規定之影響“
Thanks for ur summation 1仔 兄.
刪除However I agree with BBTW and have some reservation on the proposal of retrospective legislation against extraterritorial murder due to the potential violation of iccpr art. 15. The courts will likely strike the statue down.
Sam
Excuse me Sam? I suppose your "however" was not addressed to me,
刪除..and art.15 was meant to be art.2.
If it's art.2, I don't think there would be a direct violation.
And I'm sure the "proposal" would not be adopted.
1仔，
刪除Sorry typo. However part is referred to the anonymous writer匿名2018年12月7日 下午7:32. Seems I failed to paste it when I was typing in my phone and didn't notice.
I M indeed referring to Art 15. 1 ICCPR about retrospective criminality, where it covenants: 'No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed. If, subsequent to the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of the lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby.'
Sam
追溯比較上是小事、域外是大事, 兩關.
刪除大事過唔到, 太大修改動作無足夠支持.
BBTW
Dear Sam, indeed...
刪除Article 2 : Right to life (Sentence of death related, thus Taiwan related)
Article 15 : Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Article 12 : No retrospective criminal offences or penalties
Just clarify
刪除Hi 1仔,
刪除I am referring to Art. 15 "ICCPR" and the articles you mentioned is indeed the corresponding Articles in HKBORO (Art 12 HKBORO is implementing Art 15 ICCPR). And the reason for quoting this article is becoz the proposal of ex post facto law can possibly be a violation of Art 15 ICCPR / Art 12 HKBORO.
Sorry for causing the confusion to you. Anyway that means we are talking about the same article indeed =)
Sam
Reference: http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/legis/ord/383/s8.html (see [cf Art 15 ICCPR] at the end of Art 12 s.8 HKBORO)
刪除Sam
香港時間中午12時多, 澳洲兩點方位對開發生黎克特制7.6級強烈地震,
回覆刪除標少有無感覺到?
New Caledonia地震, 離開悉尼太遠, 毫無感覺。
刪除如果死者至親係街到見到凶手... 憤而毒打凶手一番...甚至錯手殺了凶手....
回覆刪除當死者至親被告上法庭時...
法庭會否考慮凶手係台灣既作為而給予輕判?? 定係法庭沒有任何輕判既餘地???
法庭對好大機會發生過而又未審過既罪案會如何看待???
謝謝....
Mere sharing only, not exact legal opinion at all
刪除If merely beaten up the accused murderer then it probably would afford no defence
If the deceased parents killed the accused murderer, provided that there was any immediate incitement or words from the murderer towards the defendant parents (like saying that their daughter deserved to be killed) the defendants might plead provacation as a partial defence to murder to reduce the liability to manslaughter. Otherwise intentional killing solely for retaliation is no defence to murder.
Whether the accused murder has been convicted or went through a trial was not the main concern, I suppose.
Correct me if I m wrong.
Sam
To 6:55匿名
刪除案件是毆打誤殺系列罪名, (假設法官都跟你"錯手"講法)
法庭辦事, 先裁定罪名、再量刑、再問求情。
依你講, 罪名會成立。
量刑方面, 會不遺漏地考慮過"凶手台灣作為"。 不過因為是審至親, 不是審凶手, "凶手作為"不是理由, 故此不佔比重, 會用上標準量刑。
然後是求情階段, 因為是至親的求情, 凶手行為有影響被告心理, 但因為罪名嚴重, 減刑十分有限。
// 給予輕判=NO,
// 輕判餘地=>有限減刑餘地,
// 如何看待不明罪案 => 與今次定罪完全無關； 求情時是一個原因之一, 會考慮對被告的影響, 故此不明罪案的實情, 其實沒有關係。
For criminal liability, indeed I doubt whether it can be a case of involuntary manslaughter, assuming the fact is 毒打兇手一番, becoz it is likely that the requisite malice aforethought for murder will be found.
刪除For mitigation, assuming it is manslaughter, I agree that the sentence may be discounted a bit but probably not very much.
Sam
香港陪審團唔使俾理由
刪除一致判佢無罪咪得
何醫生果件事,見識到原來美國司法制度真係...靠幾封email果幾粒字+証人講野就罪成...所謂"陪審員",未審都知佢地立場啦...
回覆刪除不過我咁講,兔兔可能又發癲了...
華為集團創辦人任正非的女兒孟晚舟在加拿大被捕。
回覆刪除孟晚舟是華為副董事長兼首席財務官。加拿大司法部門發言人表示，她上周六在溫哥華被捕，星期五在加拿大的法院提堂。
她涉嫌違反美國對伊朗的貿易制裁，面臨被引渡到美國接受審訊。由於孟晚舟申請禁止報道令，當局不能披露更多資料。美國懷疑華為自2016年起，違法運送美國貨物到伊朗。
this has proven to be a BAD YEAR for 支那
這我無興趣知, 我等睇Donald Trump的impeachment.
刪除Freedom of expression? What a joke!
刪除Federal Employees Are Warned Not to Discuss Trump ‘Resistance’ at Work
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/29/us/politics/federal-employees-hatch-act-trump-impeachment.html
Oh, mind you, it is called Free-Dump of Expression.
刪除政治, 遊戲啫! 認真你就輸硬了
刪除D. Templeman singing in Parliament
https://youtu.be/uoqvSzIm-RU
Thanks, I watched that before.
刪除中東歷史問題錯綜複雜,要判斷誰是誰非真係審死官。
刪除大国為了自身利益控制買賣石油和天然氣, 挑動中東地區戰爭來大賣軍火謀取暴利,講乜嘢人權,自由和民主都係假,總之唔聽大國話就唔得,話之你搞獨裁定民主,睇吓最近民主大國怎樣對待沙特在土耳其領事館內肢解異見記者便知玩政治的虛偽
送多一首好歌給標少:
This land is mine
https://youtu.be/-evIyrrjTTY
Thanks for this one. Just watched.
刪除支那 what ya gonna do when we come for u？！
刪除大陸拉番幾個美國佬容乜易吖
刪除咁你咪拉咯 哈哈哈
刪除哈哈!兔兄夠坦白
刪除借用「張衛健在大帥哥的對白」:
"誰大、誰惡、誰正確！"
還有下聯：（大家可以發揮創意）
409 你唔知同支那講耶穌係晒氣咪？
刪除Bill少 你好，
回覆刪除「事實上陳同佳逃得一時也逃不了一世, 將來香港不用與台灣簽任何協議, 一國兩制變成一國一制, 到其時國家天威浩瀚, 在中國大憲法籠罩下的小香港, 一個小小的罪犯, 國家自然會把他料理了。台灣是中國領土的一部份, 陳同佳又身為中國人, 有晒jurisdiction喇, 仲唔死得。」
想請教一下，假如我現在於台灣犯下謀殺罪，然後潛逃到中國大陸，中國會否拘捕我進行審判？有沒有相關例子？
By 好奇者
不知道, 理論上可以, 只要大陸認為有刑事司法管轄權就可以了。
刪除https://www.hk01.com/01偵查/266371/01獨家-華為副董事長孟晚舟-在加拿大溫哥華被捕?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=fbpost_link&utm_campaign=mama
刪除今次真係美國直接大戰解放軍，會否引起經濟巨浪？
台灣"省"...
刪除拘捕審判, 視乎需要喇.
不過唔係因為「在台灣犯下謀殺罪」, 而係因為行為觸犯中國刑法 ------ 政治正確!
BBTW
我想問一問，各級法院的司法常務官或聆案官的地位，比一般法官低?
回覆刪除Go to the Judiciary website and look at the order of judges. You will see the hierarchy.
刪除只要有ㄧ個感人肺腑嘅故事，殺人都唔使坐監? 大家點睇呢？
回覆刪除========
八旬漢認勒死中風妻 官指法律不外乎人情 或判感化
https://www.hk01.com/社會新聞/267759/八旬漢認勒死中風妻-官指法律不外乎人情-或判感化
社會新聞
撰文：李慧娜
2018-12-06 16:27
最後更新日期：2018-12-06 16:27
八旬老翁和妻子自兒子11年前自殺後，相依為命。惟妻子近年中風，無法活動，又先後失去味覺和視力。老翁不忍妻子遭病魔折磨，加上擔心自已健康亦轉差，日後恐無人照顧妻子，在去年以俗稱「不求人」的竹條壓在她頸上30分鐘，勒死對方後再報警自首。老翁今（6日）於高等法院承認誤殺罪，辯方求情直指本案是悲劇，而法官則指直法律不外乎人情，考慮判感化。法官把案件押後至明年1月判刑，期間索取被告的感化報告。
事發時受抑鬱症影響
辯方求情時指，被告一直十分愛錫妻子，盡其所能照顧對方，但3名精神科醫生均指被告事發時受抑鬱症影響，且不忍看到妻子受病魔折磨，才以身試法。
辯方續指，被告未獲兄弟姊妹和社署的適當的支援。若有雙方支援，被告其實可獨自生活，辯方望感化官及社署可介入被告的個案，令被告獲持續的監管及支援。辯方望法官考慮，被告的兄弟姊妹願意幫助他，同時被告亦已被還押一年半。
而法官則指法律不外乎人情，考慮判處感化，因此先為被告索感化報告，案件押後至明年1月8日判刑。
警方在住所檢獲遺書
案情指，被告和妻子林美琴(終年76歲)育有一名兒子，但兒子在2007年自殺身亡。而妻子在2015年中風，亦有高血壓、風濕及甲狀腺機能低下症。
去年6月6日，被告致電緊急救援服務稱勒死妻子，救護員及消防員到場時已發現事主不省人事。被告在被捕警誡下說：「係我殺死我老婆，因為佢有長期病，我願意承擔法律責任。」警方在被告的寓所中發現3封遺書，其中1封著房署處理他們在單位內的物品，另外2封授權警方處理其遺體。
擔心妻子日後無人照顧而餓死
被告在錄影會面中指，中風的妻子右邊身癱瘓，失去活動能力。因妻子不喜歡住在老人院，被告遂帶她回家中照顧。惟妻子每況愈下，不但失去味覺和患有痛症。同時，她亦失去視覺，二人無法再一起看電視。
被告續指，若自已比事主先離世，妻子會因無人照顧而餓死。而妻子雖沒有提及想了結生命，但不時稱對人生已感到疲憊。
事發前一晚，被告煮飯給妻子吃，但妻子自言已失去味覺，反問為何還要進食。而事發當日，被告認為時候已到，故以「不求人」壓1在妻子頸上30分鐘，直至不再感到對方的心跳，而被告吃完早餐後，自行報警。他又透露曾有輕生念頭，但因為要承擔法律責任故沒有實行。
案件編號：HCCC94/2018
誤殺判感化有先例。
刪除不竟係一條人命，如此輕判
刪除1:04
畢竟很值得同情, 我支持安樂死。
刪除Judging from what's reported on the news it can even be a case of murder. I speculate that the acceptance of the defendants plea of manslaughter reveals the sympathy from even DOJ and intent to 放佢一馬.
刪除As far as I rmb there're also cases of probationary sentence for manslaughter. Correct me if I m wrong.
Sam
https://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20181206/bkn-20181206135304396-1206_00822_001.html?refer=hn
回覆刪除一單官司打足十年都未完,司法機構乜行政失當到咁?
未有判詞。
刪除依on.cc報導, 無行政失當、無表面行政失當.
刪除要知道, 香港法庭, 係第三方擂台裁判角色, 不查案, 且先邀雙方律師任講, 提出法律觀點.
刑事案, 仲有控方可以行政失當, 民事案, 程序lay晒出來, 雙方無人有本事KO, 又肯加時加料泥漿摔角, 法官無權拒絕審理, (除審法院, 可以「我唔講呢d」我信下級法院定案)
你見, 連律師都有責任, 即係遠離KO好遠.
刑事比較容易no cause of action, 民事係咪cause, 一方話係好難否定, 始終舊錢係度就係cause.
報導好大篇幅講,「你地」和解喇, 而司法機構的部分責任, 只係「工作量大的拖延」.
沒一分犯錯, 只有資源責任.
BBTW
http://www.hklii.hk/cgi-bin/sinodisp/eng/hk/cases/hkdc/2018/1150.html
刪除Indeed DDCJ J. Chow has already admitted that she has made several mistakes in her judgment, and also admitted that "the length of time for handing down judgment from conclusion of trial, which is 12 months, was more than reasonable" in her reason for granting leave to appeal.
多謝2:25附上資訊.
刪除有另一個資訊係, 行政失當並不包括法律程序或檢控任何人的決定.
BBTW
https://www.hkreform.gov.hk/en/news/newsXML.htm?newsDate=20181206a&selectedSubSection=10&jumpToDetails=y#newsDetails
回覆刪除Two consultation papers.
Terry
Will digest during the Christmas when I have nothing to write.
刪除no worries, as I do intend to keep you busy during the holiday. *chuckle*
刪除