tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3459094382106008140.post8601381078340630466..comments2024-03-28T16:48:55.464+11:00Comments on 標少札記: 檢控曾蔭權之後便到梁振英嗎?標少http://www.blogger.com/profile/09140798187543833983noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3459094382106008140.post-60970729418276221182015-10-08T12:33:45.270+11:002015-10-08T12:33:45.270+11:00謝謝。修改了,真的老眼昏花。謝謝。修改了,真的老眼昏花。標少https://www.blogger.com/profile/09140798187543833983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3459094382106008140.post-44745366918874806462015-10-08T12:21:22.501+11:002015-10-08T12:21:22.501+11:00標少,你係咪quote錯左?第八十九條係罷免法官的程序,第七十三條(九)才是彈劾行政長官。標少,你係咪quote錯左?第八十九條係罷免法官的程序,第七十三條(九)才是彈劾行政長官。Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3459094382106008140.post-83540883210397595992015-10-08T10:58:48.625+11:002015-10-08T10:58:48.625+11:00True, Attorney General's Reference No 3 of 200...True, Attorney General's Reference No 3 of 2003 was considered as per para 45 of Sin Kam Wah (FACC 14/2004) which said<br /><br />"45. Since this Court delivered judgment in Shum Kwok Sher v. HKSAR (2002) 5 HKCFAR 381, the English Court of Appeal, in Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 3 of 2003) [2004] 2 Cr App R 23, has considered the elements of the offence of misconduct in public office. In that case, the Court of Appeal took account of the decision in R v. G in considering the relationship between recklessness and wilful misconduct, as well as the judgments in Shum Kwok Sher. In the light of the detailed consideration of the problem in Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 3 of 2003), I would re-formulate the elements of the offence, as stated in Shum Kwok Sher at 409, as follows. ......."標少https://www.blogger.com/profile/09140798187543833983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3459094382106008140.post-58777782084704282892015-10-08T10:18:58.502+11:002015-10-08T10:18:58.502+11:00//在法律上難以證明梁振英干犯公職人員失當行為罪,但他刻意隱瞞收了這筆錢,以身為特區之首的地位,在廉...//在法律上難以證明梁振英干犯公職人員失當行為罪,但他刻意隱瞞收了這筆錢,以身為特區之首的地位,在廉潔和道德上就欠一個合理交待了,也有負市民的合理期望,畢竟這是一個大數目,難免引起利益輸送的聯想。//<br />依這說法,也有可能犯了Misconduct in Public Office,<br /><br />The elements of the offence are summarised in Attorney General's Reference No 3 of 2003 [2004] EWCA Crim 868. The offence is committed when:<br /><br />(1)a public officer acting as such<br />(2)wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself<br />(3)to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder<br />(4)without reasonable excuse or justification<br />http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2004/868.html<br />冼案引的好像就是這份Attorney General's Reference No. 3 of 2003吧?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com