在這全球暖化警覺運動中, 瑞典女孩Greta Thunberg是風頭人物, 一時無兩, 儼然成為一個代言人, 一個小領袖。這個患阿氏保加症(Asperger syndrome)的女孩, 由木訥寡言, 變成四處接受採訪, 被廣邀出席各種論壇發言, 確實奇妙。也可能因為她患有阿氏保加症的原因, 使她具備那種倔強和堅持, 鍥而不捨的精神, 每星期都曠課一天, 為全球暖化靜坐抗議。
相對於針對831政改的佔中, 全球暖化是全球關注的大課題, 引起全球關注較容易, 能否帶來實質成果卻未可料, 因為像特朗普那類充滿謊言的騙子, 因為國力強大, 放個屁也影響嚴重, 也涉及商人千絲萬縷的利益, 誰人上台, 誰人改朝換代, 都可把減排協識推倒重來。
不知道是否九子案也產生國際性的影響力, 英國警方也警告Extinction Rebellion的搞手, 會拘捕他們煽惑示威, 英國的The Guadian個多小時前就有此報導:
Police have warned Extinction Rebellion organisers that they face arrest if they incite protesters to block roads around Parliament Square.
The Metropolitan police said it was imposing pre-emptive conditions restricting any demonstration outside the Houses of Parliament on Tuesday to the lawn in the centre of the square, after hearing that activists with the group planned to gather there.
Protesters must clear the area by midnight, police said, and may not gather in Old Palace Yard, a site the group has requested as a permanent protest camp.
老大最喜歡做的事情 千方百計爲個支那狗共胯下的香港屎法 加添點legitimacy......
回覆刪除將來英國佬要是真把支那共產香港對9左膠的判刑作為尺杆 . 那可夠搞笑的啊 而且時間上來得及嘛
甚麼叫legitimacy? 符合法律制度框架內的行為, 不是我訂立的。如果報導你看不順眼, 用貴總統常掛嘴邊的用語囉: fake news!
刪除呢條友成日柯屎, 寫兩句都要全面腔臟器官排泄纏身, 毫無衛生,
刪除如此表達能力, 又表達左乜野, 想點?????
老大生氣了 ^_^ 就是因為所謂的法 老大沒份制訂 所以才沒有legitimacy 兔兔也沒份制訂. in fact no one here does. also 執行這些"法"的 大家也沒份投票 like 689 like 777 解釋這些"法"的 大家也沒有份去揀選 or have a say. like 人大常委 like CFA
刪除HK is nothing more than a sorry ass bitch under CHICOM 支那
there is no legitimacy. is there?
1025: oh shut up you POS.
阿兔哥, 你想我回來做立法會議員? 我的性格做不到政客的。美國法例你有份訂立嗎? 極其量也不過是授權, 香港當然不理想, 但不理想也有本身的制度, 在該制度框架內行事, legitimacy, 仲抝乜?
刪除老大 我們是有公投的 aside from 議員投票 議員也全是直選的 勞駕了好不 你沒有理由在我的TURF來討論的 ....
刪除so whats for dinner?
阿兔哥又展示你的語言修養, what's for dinner, out to lunch喇。
刪除Legitimacy用甚麼作標準? 不一定是美國的一套, 你只能說制度不同、不民主之類, 而不能說illegitimate, 你真的out to lunch, 腦袋有問題。但如果講turf就好清晰, 你在我的turf撒野, 我不計較, 因為我包容。
馬狀呀~ 所謂 a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing
刪除你幾時返去佔領華盛頓~
佔?
刪除Sir, I need you show your hands.... On your knees, interlock your fingers behind your head, on your stomach!
1247 and 115
刪除你倆都死蠢白癡的 我們美國是民主國家 要什麽需以革命來取得嘛
真他 X的活脫脫的支那豬 奴性又卑賤又可笑
又見馬鹿崩潰
刪除真是身心舒暢
二哥
1:15 匿名 形容活現
刪除又見支那賤畜係度 用緊阿Q精神勝利法來自慰 ... 活脫脫的劣等種族成員 ....
刪除每每想到馬鹿又比人篤住個頭叫佢上網洗太平地
刪除就忍唔住掩住半邊嘴笑
加油啊,馬鹿,5美仙唔易賺!
二哥
其實我最想知呢班人佔中前預咗被判甚麼刑罸才不抗辯 !
回覆刪除抗辯包含在定義當中, 公民抗命, 目的本身便是大大聲講 : 我不同意!
刪除BBTW
告阻街就不抗辯
刪除標少聰明, 如此, 求仁者便啞口無言, 不能食言矛盾,
刪除不過, 1:44是問判刑罸, 並不是問定甚麼罪, 嘻~
BBTW
阻街判盡也只是3個月監, 我曲綫回應。
刪除傻啦,佢地只會認亂拋垃圾咋。。。
刪除標少預測九子判刑神凖,朱牧果真被判缓刑!
回覆刪除準果陣就準
刪除戴耀廷及陳健民,第一項控罪串謀公眾妨擾罪,判即時入獄16個月;第二項控罪煽惑他人作出公眾妨擾罪,判監8個月。兩條控罪的刑期,同期執行
回覆刪除朱耀明,同樣因串謀作出公眾妨擾罪,判監16個月,但就獲緩刑2年。
張秀賢, 法官接納感化官報告,判處張共200小時無償社會服務令,限在12個月內完成,期間由感化官監督。
邵家臻因兩項煽惑公眾妨擾罪,各被判囚8個月,同期執行。
黃浩銘同樣被判兩項煽惑罪成,各被判監8個月,同期執行。
李永達因煽惑他人作出公眾妨擾罪,判監8個月,獲緩刑2年。
鍾耀華兩項罪各被判監禁8個月,緩刑兩年。
陳淑莊,押後至6月10日早上10時處理
法官在判刑時指出,八名被告無論在陳情或律師求情時,都無展示悔意。
Q1, 八名, 減左邊位?
刪除Q2, 都無展示悔意, 而明顯分出有監無監, 是否等級如下: 帶頭人最重、搞事次之、從眾次之(象徵性)、年輕被人老點可感化....
D1至D3其實是18個月判刑,因為是clean record,所以獲陳官减刑至16個月。
刪除6:33
刪除Q1 陳淑莊未判, 所以未計在內。
Q2 扮演角色有別, 煽惑影響程度也有別
The reasons for sentence was just uploaded: https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=121538&currpage=T
刪除It does not include Chan.
全國人大代表、工聯會會長吳秋北在Facebook發文,批評「罪犯和官老爺在玩弄程序」,質疑疾病跟判決無關,指一個罪犯能否履行判罪,不影響其應判之罪,強調如有人道理由要考慮,應在判決後處理。
回覆刪除吳先生的批評是否合理?
吳秋北行使言論自由, 權利和盲毛均等, 若他有引用案例, 我才會評幾句。
刪除左秋今次有點道理。標少縮骨啲喎,程序問題,時有發生,唔使引用案例,至識處理吖嘛。
刪除Personal circumstances are factors to be considered before sentence. It is a matter of to what extent to take them into account. 如果有人胡亂批評, 我何需評論?
刪除756. layperson comments attach little or no weight here or any where else for that matter.
刪除標少或者我幫佢轉個講法
刪除判決至判刑應該只係關法官事
同被告人有何關係以至要睇佢身體情況?
定係會因為佢既身體情況改變判刑?
我以為會係先判刑
然後被告提出身體情況作理由
延長上訴期
揾個制度來搞。被告有專科醫生報告, 已安排手術。若即時判監, 監房承擔了責任, 轉嫁給政府醫院, 對社會也不公平, 無形中要插隊就醫, 對誰有好處? 她既不會逃, 也不會有能力危害社會, 也避不了判囚, 押後是不錯的安排, 很明顯不會判緩刑, 否則就判了。若果不押後而即時收監, 上去申請保釋都會批, 若先判刑對誰有好處?
刪除同意, 先判刑, 只是不衡量缺靈活的"按本子辦事",
刪除最起碼要從司法立場, 去衡量"上去申請保釋"的可能性, 這其實是本子內容之一, 不考慮便有虧專業, 或新手.
BBTW
轉嫁給政府醫院, 對社會也不公平, 無形中要插隊就醫
刪除學到野
thx
呢啲數計唔掂的, 又唔係好多單需要指引式"認真思考", 只是考慮衡量之一.
刪除計唔掂, 因為..
因(重)病拒收監驚負責, 呢個講法仲大鑊,
插隊與換醫相輔相成, 係, 插隊著數; 咦, 我身體的重要問題, 你技術上唔畀我用好醫生, 有虧人道.
BBTW
http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20190424/bkn-20190424163247780-0424_00822_001.html
回覆刪除美國,英國講到自己無拉佔領咁
真無恥,真無敵
呢啲簡單偏頗回應, 為自己政治立場服務, 的確可恥.
刪除美英台皆簡單地忽略判刑基本上只是正確回應了事情的「刑事罪行」方面, 一來稱職、法治功能、二來法官HANDS ARE ALSO TIED,
法官、法庭, 皆無權特赦!
不同政治觀點, 而犯法, 自由表達而犯法, 法庭可以點?
如未來參與和平示威, 是增加犯法成份, 應當窒礙其發展.
《中英聯合聲明》保障港人言論自由和集會自由, 但前提是守法, 無這前提嗎?
台陸委要注意, 施以刑罰嚇阻及回應犯罪行為, 副作用不由法庭單面承擔.
BBTW
梗係啦...又唔係佔佢地既地方...
刪除同意BBTW的看法, 政治立場的政治表述。
刪除陳不應因病獲缄刑,除非就快死。
回覆刪除jack
引用星州三司判决
Chew appealed to the High Court, arguing for a greater reduction. The prosecution also appealed, seeking a higher jail term. Both appeals were heard last July before a rare three-judge panel comprising Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin and Judicial Commissioner See Kee Oon.
Yesterday, the court dismissed both appeals, saying the circumstances of Chew's case were not exceptional enough to warrant invoking judicial mercy. However, it also said the discount was justified.
In a 39-page written judgment, Justice Chao drew a distinction between judicial mercy and the consideration of ill health as a mitigating factor.
Judicial mercy, which is borne out of humanitarian concern, is exercised in cases when the offender has a terminal illness or is so ill that a prison term would put his life in danger. The result is a substantial reduction in the sentence, far beyond what a mitigating factor can do.
Judicial mercy falls outside the framework of proportionality as the court is not concerned so much about correlating the length of a prison term with the seriousness of the crime, but alleviating the effects of jail on the ill offender.
In contrast, ill health may be raised as a mitigating factor so that the sentence falls within the ambit of proportionality, as it takes into account the additional hardship suffered by the ill offender..https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/court-rejects-appeal-to-cut-jail-term-due-to-poor-health
新加坡判词,
刪除jack.
Chew Soo Chun v Public Prosecutor and another appeal
[2016] SGHC 06
DECISION DATE: 20 Jan 2016
HC/MA 24/2015/01,
HC/MA 24/2015/02
https://www.supremecourt.gov.sg/search-judgment?q=Chew%20Soo%20Chun&y=All
余大狀,馬主席都有呢D瘤啦,咪一樣正常生活。。。
刪除是否講得太早呢? 還未講到她有病就可減刑。
刪除香港已有案例。奇怪高人们不提及及评论。
刪除jack
引用以上
Chew Soo Chun v Public Prosecutor and another appeal
[2016] SGHC 06
DECISION DATE: 20 Jan 2016
HC/MA 24/2015/01,
HC/MA 24/2015/02判词:
23 What would have to be guarded against, by the same token, is an unprincipled response. Judicial mercy is an exceptional jurisdiction.
,,,,,,
,,,
24 As a general proposition, there are very weighty public interests in ensuring that those who are guilty of an offence be punished appropriately:
(a) First, there is a dimension of retributive justice. The retributive norm is stated in the case of R v Chan Kui Sheung [1996] 3 HKC 279 in these words (at 281): “Any sentence imposed must reflect public abhorrence of the crime committed and redress the grievance suffered by the victim, his friends and relatives.” The more heinous the crime, the greater the public interest in condemning the crime, and the more likely it would be that a court will hold that the sentence for that crime cannot countenance reduction on account of ill-health. So it was that in
香港案例
HKSAR v Tsang Wai Kei [2003] HKCA 141 (“Tsang Wai Kei”) and
HKSAR v Lkhaijav Bayanmunkh [2012] 2 HKC 233 (“Bayanmunkh”), the courts refused to exercise judicial mercy on account, inter alia, of the fact that the crime committed was drug trafficking. In coming to their decisions, the courts considered that public interest must prevail in offences of extreme gravity (Tsang Wai Kei at [18]) and that, specifically, “drug trafficking is a crime where an offender’s personal circumstances are not given the same weight they might be given for other crimes” (Bayanmunkh at [14]).
(b) Secondly, there are social benefits to be derived from punishment, mainly, the protection of society from the particular offender, and deterrence. These valuable effects will be lost if there is no censure of those who commit offences. In cases involving “extremely grave offences”, it can even be said that “a court would be failing in its duty to the public if it did not impose heavy deterrent sentence”:
香港
Yip Kai Foon v HKSAR [2000] 1 HKC 335 at 338. Conversely, there could be a risk that the offender would likely repeat his wrongdoing if he were at large. If the risks are high enough, this clearly militates against mercy as public interest must be prioritised; the scales will tip towards imprisoning the offender in order to prevent him and deter others from committing similar offences:
英国例案
see R v Gerrard Michael Stark (1992) 13 Cr App R (S) 548 at 550. Indeed, the risk of re-offending was expressly identified as a relevant consideration in Chng Yew Chin v Public Prosecutor [2006] 4 SLR(R) 124 (“Chng Yew Chin”) at [59(d)]: “The court’s assessment of the offender’s proclivity to re-offend is important, and may include, inter alia, an appraisal of the accused’s criminal record and whether the accused is likely to be placed in the same or similar situational or environmental circumstances which engendered the offence in the first place. It may well be that considerations of compassion must yield to those of public interest.”
香港这案例,已不應该宽减陳啦。
刪除数以百万人受佔中運动坏影响。
jack
引用以上
The retributive norm is stated in the case of R v Chan Kui Sheung [1996] 3 HKC 279 in these words (at 281): “Any sentence imposed must reflect public abhorrence of the crime committed and redress the grievance suffered by the victim, his friends and relatives.”
當年係對市民大眾價值觀的衝擊,兩邊陣營相互叫罵,互相批鬥,成個社會怨氣沖天冇希望冇後路。到底為左咩可以咁不顧後果,又可以咁不負責任?總之今日終於判刑,成件事算叫做有個結算。希望受件事困擾的市民可以放底傷痛重新出發。
回覆刪除Gato
壁壘已形成, 叫罵不會斷。
刪除我班老明友早已反咗面,因爲大家都要面,最惨係香港民主原地踏步,以後想再行前一歩機會都微!
刪除一場六四,搞到中港關係開始撕裂...要好長時間去修補...
刪除一場佔中,搞到香港人自己撕裂...也是要好長時間去修補...
兩次事件,對中華民族來說代價真係好大.....
撕裂之說,過於誇張. 回想62,67暴動後,社會很快便回復正軌. (佔中時,問过金鐘、中環返工朋友,都未試過有問題)但是,假使你是在外地,依靠跟著那兩年的報纸,便會有風雨再來的感覺.
刪除“不识庐山真而目,只缘身在此山中。”
所以當時看通的人便成了首富,賤價買了那些看不通的人的樓. 這次當佔中後,市場幾乎沒有平盤出現過,便知香港沒有撕裂.
其實,大衆心水清,只是口頭誇張吹水,其實內心極安定,市場上,不知幾多的大户细户都手執現金等平货,只是看得通的人太多,他們失去做首富的机會.
Bill hk
睇你撕裂兩字點用, 對焦在哪.
刪除如果是指樓價經濟, 似乎你結果正確, 但用字便怪怪.
但如稍同意「壁壘已形成, 叫罵不會斷..... 要好長時間去修補」, 咦~ 用字貼切.
所以, 如要討論, 可集中在兩點 :
1. 不同意「壁壘已形成, 叫罵不會斷..... 要好長時間去修補」, or
2. 不論政治氣候民主步伐, 你發現/估計不影響樓價經濟, 對香港「問題不大」 (?)
BBTW
政治立場壁壘分明, 除非嚴重影響經濟, 否則看不到與樓價的關係。
刪除六四之後,有港人開始對內地係反感,永遠只會覺得內地點發展都唔夠香港好...到依家有部份人都有咁既思維...總之一想到內地就一定係負面,標簽了他們...
刪除佔中之後,有港人開始對反對佔中者係反感,永遠只會覺得他們不是為香港好...到依家有部份人都有咁既思維...總之一想到反佔中就一定係負面,標簽了他們...
兩個例子,都係無左易位思考,互相尊重立場的態度...這就是"撕裂"的意思...
佔中期間,不少家庭,朋友都因不同立場而鬧交甚至反目,unlink隨處可見,結果令朋友同事食飯都不再講政治...
呢種生態,相信無番十年八載都未必改到...
壁壘已形成,叫罵不會斷。 但此消彼長,音量自然愈來愈細。三五年後, 新的"大灣"生態開始取而代之, 易位思考,互相尊重立場的態度真的再重要嗎?
刪除BBTW 兄,
刪除文字不順,請諒. 因我真的是社會大學出身,但又學得不好,令大家見笑了.
有關1. 我意思是正常社會都有兩派,大家不用奇怪.. 現在電視出現示威或是言論的,來去都是那班人. 如同舊時報紙的市民政治意見報導,其實都是那幾個人主筆.. 有關"壁壘已形成",只是身處陣營中人的自我良好的感覺,你去問問兩邊負責做動員大眾工作的人(包括向口頭極支持的人動員),他們受到的冷漠反應,慘過賣保險..
有關2. 特生和習生的小小貿易言論,香港最小有100萬人留意..但香港任何一個天王政治家或是中聯辦的偉論,未必有100人看完全文,明天有1000人會記得..既然沒人在意,何來影響經濟樓價?所以對香港問題不大.
bill hk
巴生,
刪除政見不同,日常見面便不談政治。這已經是文明社會共識,香港現況有何不妥?
bill hk
較理智朋友適用
刪除Bill hk師兄客氣, 原來真係對1,2兩點都有不同意見,
刪除即到頭來「反對撕裂」用字正確, 只是當時簡化了兩點綜合寫在一起而引起誤會.
BBTW
所以當時看通的人便成了首富,賤價買了那些看不通的人的樓. 這次當佔中後,市場幾乎沒有平盤出現過,便知香港沒有撕裂
刪除你呢樣叫乜鬼野撕裂
果班人直接逃出香港
撕咩裂呢?
二哥
原来朱陳被戴抬上佔中轎!
回覆刪除戴自己承認确实没先询问朱耀明和陈健民。
戴應該公开他与任何政党的关系。例如人他年青时做过李柱鉻的助手。
Jack
。。。。
引用
朱耀明牧师笑说,他是无辜的,当戴耀廷跟记者说,占领中环最好由他朱耀明和陈健民发起,他从报上得知吓了一跳,打电话给陈健民,陈健民人在巴黎,回他说,你先答应,等他回香港再详谈。
的后续火炬,就非常值得。
https://www.rfa.org/mandarin/yataibaodao/gangtai/hx1-01292019093324.html
'抬'唔知有無強硬武力意思呢? 若無, 是請上轎.
刪除笑说无辜是飾非, 被動=/=无辜
戴耀廷提名, 陈健民和議, 朱耀明當選!
當選是无辜? 乜「道理」? ...... 咦, 我也笑說: 朱牧师好像是成人、是「佈道」人.
BBTW
斷章取義
刪除.....不过朱耀明说,他感到无辜,但甘心无悔。
樓上又唔算得上斷章取義, 是「析讀、判斷、評語」O者...
刪除「朱耀明牧师说他是 [[无辜]] 的.. 他从报上得知 [[吓了一跳]],陈健民叫他先答应」------ 對得住「上轎」
與你補充沒衝突.
再補充篇章吧, 看看有沒有斷章.
BBTW
戴向記者提议朱陳领佔中前,未得二人同意,,点解戴自己不领导?jack
刪除因为戴必须找無政党人士领导,以掩盖戴的陰谋!
刪除Jack
引用以上亞州自由电台,
身为第一被告的香港大学法律系副教授戴耀廷笑说,他确实没先询问朱耀明和陈健民,当时记者问的很急,他没有领导社会运动的经验,当然推荐非政党人士,在公民社会又有威望的陈健民、朱耀明。如果陈健民没有答应,今天就没有占领中环运动。
//因为戴必须找無政党人士领导,以掩盖戴的陰谋!//
刪除小弟就唔信
陳健民和朱耀明都是有豐富的社運經驗的搞手, 怎會三言两語就被戴輕易"抬"上橋
據聞朱耀明曾積極參與89.64後之"黃雀行動", 這背景已不簡單
89.64真相有誰知? 小弟看過澳洲前外交官Gregory Clark的評論,對支聯會的説法有保留
延伸閱讀
當黃雀被捕-朱耀明(眾新聞)
https://www.hkcnews.com/article/12513/%E6%9C%B1%E8%80%80%E6%98%8E-%E5%85%AD%E5%9B%9B29%E5%91%A8%E5%B9%B4-%E9%BB%83%E9%9B%80%E8%A1%8C%E5%8B%95-12513/%E7%95%B6%E9%BB%83%E9%9B%80%E8%A2%AB%E6%8D%95-%EF%BC%8D-%E6%9C%B1%E8%80%80%E6%98%8E
Birth of a massacre myth
BY GREGORY CLARK
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2008/07/21/commentary/birth-of-a-massacre-myth/#.XJmmKhgRU0M
10分鐘看懂六四真相
https://youtu.be/azP_gTPEL_Q
維基解密:美國早知六四沒有天安門廣場屠殺
https://youtu.be/YrhK1vMjx4s
從六四到佔中反思今日的傳媒真確性
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXmtnNs_lTY
關於社會服務令的先决條件,我一直的理解是:認罪+有悔意+感化官報告適合社服,以上是必須三項要求,而並不是是但一様,那張秀賢怎可被判社服?請問我的認知是錯嗎?
回覆刪除有一律師事務所解說如下:
刪除上述條例並沒有列明法庭在決定判處社會服務令前,應考慮哪些因素。但根據案例,法庭一般會考慮被告是否符合以下6項條件
1.首次犯案或只有輕微刑事紀錄;
2.有穩定家庭背景;
3.工作紀錄良好,非遊手好閒者;
4.現正受僱;
5.有悔改之心;及
6.重犯機會不高。
以上(1)-(4)多為客觀事實,(5)及(6)則相對上須要法庭作較多的分析評估。藉得注意的是以上6項考慮並非詳盡無遺,亦非缺一不可。
同意1~6.
刪除所以 悔意+感化報告 不同於 認罪,
認罪在法庭上是一個程序行為, 有技術性成份, 雖然「不認罪+有悔意」交集嚴重縮減, 但空間存在.
BBTW
今日張達明响電台的偉論,同愛港力之流真係同一水平,枉為教授,令人失望。。。
刪除係咪呢件事?
刪除//張達明形容佔中案法官忘記自己在法律上角色
//https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/ch/component/k2/1454446-20190425.htm
分半鐘好短, 內容是批評, 表面邏輯原理「可以」成立.
幾個理據, 都是批評法官, 如果佢講實, 法官犯錯喎, 我便查證法官行事;
但佢又唔講實, 依依哦哦, 可能是禮貌關係、可能是summation關係.
無論如何, 線索已斷, 我不會查證, 不會結論.
Got a saying, 只留印象存案:「張達明批評過」, 係咁多.
BBTW
身為教授,竟然連法官判決都唔識得尊重,仲要好似怨婦罵街(無錯係怨婦,不是潑婦)咁響度指桑罵槐...真係令人覺得佢不配教人...
刪除另外,毛姨姨竟然話因為判刑所以要林鄭下台,這又是甚麼邏輯?依家不是司法獨立於行政的嗎?唔通林鄭做了檢控官而我地唔知??
我會一定程度同意巴兄, 因為始終法官身份不同, 最重要係法官唔會開咪反駁.
刪除發言時應該更保守(對應身份不同), 分半鐘唔夠就唔好講;
發言要自重, 即是寫議論文一樣, 立場可以歸邊, 但論點要平衡, 替不發言者提出論點, (對應唔會反駁)
開咪不夠議論, 便唔好用咪或小心處理, 勿被傳媒有機會編輯、斷章取義, 要提供獨立文章COLLABORATE.
捉佢去被法官審, 會裁決佢係出於善意;
但唔會審, 鬼知, 同樣行為, 阿助理教授/首席講師, 我點知你唔講實, 依依哦哦咁有技巧, 係咪散播謠言的高明手段.
BBTW
又見樓上倆支那豬在叫囂着 俺是中國人 俺歡迎主子肏俺屁眼
刪除得一隻蓄生叫之嘛,she cant even hold her rectum,
刪除又周圍賴屎
支那賤畜 連個畜字都寫錯 真係劣等生物
刪除Well, at least she knew her name correctly!
刪除公義嚟講,應該先判陳淑壯,畀佢做手術,但係這會增加監獄署的工作。jack
回覆刪除李x達服務社會30年!?
回覆刪除He is well paid for it!
老實說他們這個年紀的,大學畢業就出來做社區工作(不是那些名成利就的律師黨),我是很佩服的,因為他們如果不作這些收入可以更好(以機會率而論)。
刪除唔係話偏幫
刪除當警察,
有好嘅工作表現,
難道唔係服務社會?
犯法求情就俾老爺批評we are well paid.
其他工作難道係義工,唔出糧?
更正,you are well paifd for it
刪除此留言已被作者移除。
刪除我英文係唔好,
刪除咁又點?
好過有人唔做人,
做走狗
謝謝修改留言, 我不想在此平台罵粗。
刪除蟻民兄,有位流美軍有時未記得食藥,所以才作出一些唔知佢講乜的粗口去鬧人。。。
刪除唔駛理會呢D精神行為偶有失常既人,我們的寶貴時間不是用於佢地身上。。。
我都道行唔夠,
刪除仲會起火,
但回頭一想,
標少地方,
我是尊重標少而已。
另外,
回覆刪除判警察知法犯法擲地有聲,
隻字不提,法律系副教授知法犯法!?
你指陳官?
刪除不敢,
刪除只是教授,律師也是知法之流
容我說一聲,知法犯法足爾,
說實話,判期方面,我不懂,
但判詞方面,卻有一點失望,
與預期狠批副教授宣揚違法達義大相逕庭
我想這層面不同, 教授著書立說講違法達義, 並不爭論違法, 而強調公民抗命, 陳官也無需狠批, 只需駁斥這抗辯理據。有人喜歡以此與七警案比較, 除了橙不能與蘋果比外, 七警是否認打人的, 所以被狠批。
刪除當然你可以說, 公民抗命的違法是因為某法例是不公義的惡法, 所以我刻意違反以作挑戰該惡法, 可是831是政改, 不是一條法例, 公民抗命的想法也不成立。再作一次公民抗命, 可以挑戰煽惑他人作公眾妨擾罪, 做法就是去煽惑他人上街堵路, 那就是exactly civil disobedience。
標少,如果言論來自一個唔識法律的阿毛,佢点講都可以,問題係言論來自一位教法律既人去教人犯法,等於一位警察去教人犯罪,一位醫生去教殺人一樣,完全係破壞專業形象。。。
刪除標少的看法值得社運人士認真探究, 由點至面, 由下而上, 沒有犠牲, 難有改變
刪除其實,說到底,
刪除政棍,撈油水,
違法達義,乾脆一點認罪嘛,
於否認控罪上與7警何異?
標少,
回覆刪除請教片中,張達明說法官應該等如社會一般人组成的倍審團的看法去判. 我感覺有点不对,但我又不懂如標少在法律專業角度看,此說法是否成立.
Bill hk
Bill hk兄, Sorry but你感覺錯誤, 答案係"對".
刪除BBTW
你感覺是一種誤會, 原因是, 法官整體來說, 一定不等於陪審員, 因為法官絕對專業, 陪審員是Mr.Average. 尤其上訴庭法官, 需要回應社會及帶領進步方向, 陪審員反而是代表當時社會.
刪除"對", 法官=陪審員, 是指「事實裁定」, 這一個狹義行為、程序, 法官轉MODE, 成為陪審員.
BBTW.
即係有人暗示如果呢單野擺響有陪審團既庭去審,自然會好似琦琦單暴動案咁,夠晒料入卻釘唔死...分分鐘甚至全部無事...(無他既...到時辯狀有權選擇一D一睇就知係自己人既市民入去團度幫自己嘛)
刪除一個輸打贏要的思維...
不過,DOJ會俾佢地上高院?明知就算釘也不會坐超過5年,何必浪費資源?
Bill HK
刪除判詞慣常用語, 審案的法官是judge and jury, 身兼案情事實及法律的裁決者。
多謝BBTW,標少,巴山兄的指導.
回覆刪除Bill hk
Hi Bill and other readers of the blog,
回覆刪除I would like to ask one irrelevant matter.
I just read the brief introduction of the Lands Tribunal in the Judiciary website (https://www.judiciary.hk/zh/court_services_facilities/lands.html#1). It says, in the paragraph "Constitution of the Tribunal", that
"The Lands Tribunal ... has four professional judges: a President ... and three Presiding Officers, who are District Judges."
However, when I checked the Lands Tribunal Ordinance, Cap. 17, in Section 4 (https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap17!en-zh-Hant-HK?INDEX_CS=N&xpid=ID_1438402773318_001), it says
"4. Constitution of Tribunal
(1)The Tribunal shall consist of the following members—
(a)the President, ...;
(b)the presiding officers referred to in subsection (2);
...
(2) Every District Judge and deputy District Judge shall by virtue of his office be a presiding officer."
So does the paragraph in Judiciary website regarding 3 District Judges as Presiding Officers of Lands Tribunal wrong?
Thanks.
PLK
The Judiciary website talks about the actual deployment. The Ordinance talks about eligibility.
刪除Thanks Bill for your reply.
刪除However, I think the Section 4(1)(b) and 4(2) of the ordinance are not on eligibility, but about the actual constitution. See also the chinese version of the ordinance:
"4.審裁處的組成
(1) 審裁處由以下的成員組成 ——
...
(b) 第(2)款提述的各法官;
...
(2) 各區域法院法官及區域法院暫委法官,均憑藉其所任職位出任法官。"
I understand that in practice the Judiciary only deploys three District Judges to deal with Lands Tribunal matter. But am I correct in thinking that the other district judges MUST, as a matter of law, also be presiding officers of the tribunal, regardless of whether they actually do the work or not?
PLK
BTW, I think the Competition Tribunal also has similar provision, but in this case the Judiciary website is consistent with the wordings of the ordinance:
刪除Judiciary website (https://www.judiciary.hk/zh/court_services_facilities/ct.html#2)
"競爭事務審裁處的組成
審裁處以一名主任法官及一名副主任法官為首 ...。所有其他原訟庭法官都是審裁處的成員。"
Section 135 of 《競爭條例》
(https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap619!zh-Hant-HKxpid=ID_1438403537154_002)
"135.審裁處的組成
(1)審裁處由按照《高等法院條例》(第4章) 第6條委任的原訟法庭法官組成,他們憑藉獲委任為原訟法庭法官而成為審裁處成員。"
PLK
PLK@9:06 I still think that it is an eligibility description. The presiding officer of the Lands Tribunal, on the legal side is a District Judge, on the technical side, a surveyor. In the judiciary, the civil and criminal career paths are quite clear cut. Magistrates in the beginning of their career may be deployed on both sides. Then they will be either posted to the magistrate court or tribunal. They are elevated in their own stream. A District Judge all along doing criminal matters are not familiar with the tribunal matters and vice versa. The Ordinance gives a very general description of the constitution of the tribunal. Even though a District is eligible to preside in the tribunal, the criminal judges will not know how to deal with the cases. I know one magistrate who has been acting in the Family Court, when deployed to the Lands Tribunal, has to learn everything from scratch. The cross path deployment is uncommon.
刪除近來香港網站熱炒佔中刑期, 一方說根本無罪, 就算有, 都係阻街之類 summary offence, 罸錢了事. 判囚是政治迫害。
回覆刪除另一方就話判刑過輕. 藍絲寫手 Ms屈 貼文話佔領華爾街發起人 Jeff Olson 都判囚十三年,以作比較. Fake news 黎架, Olson was acquitted by jury。 有說 Ms屈 身為資深傳媒人, 應該懂得事先求證, 顯然有心刻意誤導。
想尋找涉及華爾街被起訴人士數字及一般刑期資料, 找不到. 只揾到有學生被定罪, 並即時收監, 但不知刑期幾多?
Cecily McMillan was on Monday afternoon found guilty of deliberately elbowing Officer Grantley Bovell in the face in March 2012. After a trial lasting more than four weeks, the jury of eight women and four men reached their verdict in about three hours.
Judge Ronald Zweibel ordered that McMillan, 25, a graduate student at the New School, be detained. He rejected a request from her lawyers for bail.
似乎 Olson 係精人出口笨人出手, 在牆上寫標語口號
“13 counts of vandalism for writing anti-bank slogans on sidewalks with water-salable chalk”
年青學生 McMillan 似被煽動, 就慘囉!
Yes, Jeff Olson was acquitted. His prosecution shows how deplorable the legal system in the United States could be. It is far worse than HK.
刪除Cecily McMillan was convicted of Assaulting the police and was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment and probation for 5 years. She was released after serving 58 days.
Thanks
刪除多唔多人被起訴?
My impression is there were not many.
刪除美國制度有人判哂重罪都未必知,建制派無提是那一單,有這樣的判刑都不出奇
回覆刪除https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/mar/07/occupy-wall-street-judicial-double-standards
但美國警察即使法官去參觀都照打,麻煩你帶出這樣的國際標準
https://chrgj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/suppressingprotest.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3cnTfk8lsHNOZL9w3hQ8hedM14Yf6A8xnlON2fQZv2F5bcZtV4LHVy34o
"During the protests, which began in September 2011 and lasted three months, the district attorney obtained indictments against seven protesters on charges of assaulting a police officer. Two pleaded guilty, one woman was acquitted at trial and three were allowed to plead guilty to misdemeanor charges.
刪除The majority of the 2,644 protesters arrested never faced serious charges. The district attorney declined to prosecute or dismissed 679 of the cases. An additional 1,355 cases were placed in the category “adjourned contemplating dismissal,” which means those people will not have police records."
New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/10/nyregion/last-criminal-trial-stemming-from-occupy-wall-street-is-underway.html)