酒後搣女教師臀 退休警司非禮罪成
【明報專訊】退休警司在太子警察體育遊樂會酒店外「搣」女教師臀部，昨日被裁定非禮罪成。被告早前聲稱自己被撞後，通常會推開對方再搣人一下，但昨被裁判官指說法荒誕，行為令人反感，斥責被告不能肆意侵犯女性。
「被撞後會搣對方」 被斥荒誕
50歲的被告趙蟾雄，昨獲10多名舊同僚到庭支持，他離庭時未有回應提問，其大律師代表李祖詒稱仍未決定會否上訴。
裁判官昨指出，兩名控方證人的證供合情合理，反而被告的證供與他向警方錄取的口供前後矛盾。裁判官不相信被告會習慣在酒後搣撞到他的人，認為此舉令人反感，身為退休資深警司的被告，不可能不加以避免。他深信被告搣女教師臀部並非出於誤會或意外，裁定他罪成。(10/2/2012明報節錄)
趙蟾雄枉為警司，當差30幾年，竟然用這絕對荒誕的抗辯理據，不如打complete denial好了。標少當然並非在扮演師爺的角色，替他捏造事實，創作辯護理據，而是評論他這拙劣的天方夜譚，難以置信。被告聲稱自己被撞後，通常會推開對方再捏一下，這是標少在法庭工作多年以來，第一次聽到最可笑的廢話。這笑話可以媲美多年前遇過一宗非法入境者持假身分證案，II的解釋是有一天在深圳行街，在地上拾到身分證，不知不覺之間行到了香港，他並沒打算來香港的，異曲同工，虧他們說得出口。
趙蟾雄難以用醉酒至不知事發過程作抗辯，非禮的犯案意圖(mens rea)要求specific intent, self induced intoxication作為抗辯的話，被告要醉到連非禮意圖也沒有才行，如果我沒記錯，那是House of Lord在DPP v Majewski 的裁決。反正要捏造抗辯理由，不如以徹底否認、意外碰觸或者事出誤會作抗辯，都比異乎尋常的講法優勝。講法荒謬，原審法官不相信你，聽上訴的法官也不相信你。如果以上列的抗辯講法，原審法官不信，上訴幸運的話，可能獲得lurking doubt而被判得直。
2012年2月8日星期三
不爭為爭
朋友看了再談非禮 blog裏的意見，一早就沉不住氣，叫我不要理會這完全不懂法律的人。這位在法律界一段日子的朋友擁有幾個法律學位，我有甚麼地方講錯了，必定會指正勘誤。不對讀者回應，不是我一貫作風。有時自己寫了膚淺的評論，便躊躇滿志，沾沾自喜。看了別人寫的留言，才茅塞頓開，醒悟天下之大，個人之小。就算遇到意見平凡的留言，或者個別私人的問題，標少也竭盡所能，找尋答案與人分享。標少在blog中，一向強調自幼家貧，讀書成績差，是個一事無成的平凡人，從來都沒有吹噓自己有甚麼專長。然而，平庸的人也可以有自已的blog，作為寫作的園地。除了三數好友，我很少推銷自己的拙文，大部份的讀者都是在偶然的機會下看到拙作。一位當主控的朋友在電郵批評我文辭平淡，不夠潑辣，並不好看。我毫不介意，每個人都因應喜好作選擇。這位美國的匿名君，看了標少在再談非禮文中的回覆，大不以為然，信誓旦旦，不再閱讀。可是又像上了癮一般，一再留言。這情況就好像上館子吃飯，吃過後廚師走出來問你是否滿意，你充滿挑剔的批評人家的菜燒得不好，之後又每晚光顧，繼續挑骨頭。餐館老闆心中嘀咕，老是不滿意，何必再來。
匿名君自稱懂得法律，第一次的評論已露了餡。對刑事法稍有認識的人都不會問這種pure allegation不足定罪的講法。那幾天恰巧在離家幾百公里外，上網十分不便，未能詳盡解答。匿名君進一步質疑我的可信性，又西班牙文又拉丁文，完全偏離課題。如果要罵我，不如說我窮、中英文都差、法律常識貧乏，我會直認不諱。如果說我法律講錯了，就應該找Archbold那類法律權威典籍或上訴案例來講，而並非個人信念。我們並非在談宗教，不是信不信的問題。標少批評法官，都盡量引用原判辭以作論據的佐證。罵孔慶東用論語陽貨篇，引魯迅小說、詩及日記，因為孔教授聲稱是孔子後人及魯迅專家。
昨晚儘管十分疲憊，也花點時間找了終審法院的案例，作了回覆，印證自己的講法。心中絕對同意意見25那位朋友的評論，但是甚麼叫懂甚麼叫不懂，是充滿禪機的問題，自以為懂的人其實可以是甚麼都不懂。標少不學無術，唯有把前終院首席法官的判辭拿出來押陣。走筆至此，希望這課題不再纏擾下去，尤其是不希望再見到那些西班牙文及拉丁文，我連英文也看得吃力，又怎樣抵受得住阿諾舒華辛力加的hasta la vista baby。標少人過半百，已不具展示滿身肌肉的心智，Arnie使人吃不消。有些人應該學一下不爭為爭，無聲勝有聲的含意。不講人家未必知道你不懂，越講得多餡越露得多，借用匿名君的mea maxima culpa作結，以免五十笑百。
匿名君自稱懂得法律，第一次的評論已露了餡。對刑事法稍有認識的人都不會問這種pure allegation不足定罪的講法。那幾天恰巧在離家幾百公里外，上網十分不便，未能詳盡解答。匿名君進一步質疑我的可信性，又西班牙文又拉丁文，完全偏離課題。如果要罵我，不如說我窮、中英文都差、法律常識貧乏，我會直認不諱。如果說我法律講錯了，就應該找Archbold那類法律權威典籍或上訴案例來講，而並非個人信念。我們並非在談宗教，不是信不信的問題。標少批評法官，都盡量引用原判辭以作論據的佐證。罵孔慶東用論語陽貨篇，引魯迅小說、詩及日記，因為孔教授聲稱是孔子後人及魯迅專家。
昨晚儘管十分疲憊，也花點時間找了終審法院的案例，作了回覆，印證自己的講法。心中絕對同意意見25那位朋友的評論，但是甚麼叫懂甚麼叫不懂，是充滿禪機的問題，自以為懂的人其實可以是甚麼都不懂。標少不學無術，唯有把前終院首席法官的判辭拿出來押陣。走筆至此，希望這課題不再纏擾下去，尤其是不希望再見到那些西班牙文及拉丁文，我連英文也看得吃力，又怎樣抵受得住阿諾舒華辛力加的hasta la vista baby。標少人過半百，已不具展示滿身肌肉的心智，Arnie使人吃不消。有些人應該學一下不爭為爭，無聲勝有聲的含意。不講人家未必知道你不懂，越講得多餡越露得多，借用匿名君的mea maxima culpa作結，以免五十笑百。
2012年2月6日星期一
政治之媚
四月起嚴打新界僭建 林鄭高調反擊唐英年
【本報訊】特首參選人唐英年早前狠批市區重建局售樓「貴到無倫」，但忘記自己出任財政司司長時有份審批有關項目。負責市區重建政策的發展局局長林鄭月娥（圖）昨首次開腔反擊，不點名指市建局是根據唐英年訂下的政策釐定樓價。對於唐稱「以和為貴」處理新界僭建，林鄭月娥重申今年四月起嚴打新界僭建物，強調如政策獲市民支持即使換了政府也會執行。
*********
對於唐英年以「所謂違規建築」來形容新界村屋僭建，強調以「以和為貴」手法處理。林鄭月娥重申新界僭建物執法會如期於四月一日展開，不受政府換屆影響：「屋宇署已做緊準備，如執法人員安全受威脅，我會毫不猶豫譴責。」對於盛傳她不會留任下屆政府，她說：「如法律要一視同仁呢啲原則得到支持，我唔擔心工作動搖。」(5/2/2012東方日報節錄)
在特區政府中，像林鄭月娥這樣有種的人不多。她講這番話，擺明了不會希罕在唐班子裏佔一席位，並回敬先前唐英年「所謂違規」的言論。唐英年為了選票，可以把香港的法律當私人禮物送給新界鄉紳土豪，討好陪笑，罔顧後果，信口雌黃，許下承諾，這種人有甚麼檯底交易做不出。林鄭這一招也用得既狠且辣，在罷官而去之前，卻先定了政策，打法律牌也打民意牌。堂而皇之，出師有名，立於不敗。他日唐唐變了唐特，面對新界村屋僭建問題，定必進退維谷，自食其果。向新界霸權折腰，是唐英年一連串失言最差的一例。這件事不禁使我聯想到澳洲Gillard政府內閣，為了維繫弱勢管治，不惜對濫用公款召妓揮霍的議員Craig Thomson置若罔聞，與唐英年實屬一丘之貉，是醜陋的政治交易。可惜他前瞻不足，這取媚交易是虧本買賣，他朝坐上龍椅，討債盈門，吾不欲觀。
2012年2月4日星期六
The Horse Country
I drove from Sydney to Tamworth the third time last week. The distance was 400 odd km. Though tiring for the 5 hours' drive, I could still manage at this age. On my way, I stopped at Scone, the horse country, to find a loo to obey the call of nature. There was a Visitors' Information Centre. I walked past 2 signs apparent to me where the loo was supposed to be. One said "Colts" and the other "Fillies". I was unsure which was which though guessing that the "f" one should be for females. On the side of caution I walked into the centre to grab a map and asked the lady for the loo. She told me to go outside and find the one with "Colts" on the door. "Colts" are male horses. I then told her people like me who were not well conversant with English and the horse language wouldn't know. She said that was why people went in to ask. Next time, when you visit Scone, you will be smarterer than me if you are not already.
再談非禮
2月2日司法機構上載了兩宗風化案的上訴，一宗是茅山師父歐陽國富以虛假藉口騙少女性交轉運的上訴(香港特別行政區 訴 歐 陽國富 CACC41/2010) ，另一宗是案情頗特別的非禮上訴 (HKSAR and Tong Arnold HCMA173/2011)。標少只談這件非禮案。受害人是一名住在東涌公屋的已婚婦人，被告是她的鄰居。2009年6月某日清晨，受害人給被告按門鈴喚醒，被告聲稱開不到門，叫受害人幫助。受害人於是開門用被告的鎖匙試開他的鐵閘，期間被告從後攬著受害人，以下體摩擦受害人臀部。受害人推開被告，走回自己的住所。這是案情十分簡單的非禮案，本來並不值得評論，特別的地方是受害人沒有報案，也沒有告訴任何人，直至一年之後。
2010年6月的一個清晨，受害人的門鈴又響起來。這一次她的丈夫在家，所以他去應門，期間與被告爭執，被告出言恐嚇及猛踢鐵閘，被告的家人把被告帶回住所。受害人才第一次告訴丈夫在一年前遭非禮的經過，翌日報案。被告的抗辯理據是，兩家的積怨引至誣告。
被告被定罪並判監十四日。被告聘請金牙大狀清洪替他上訴，攻擊受害人被非禮後並沒有告訴任何人，及證供前後不一致的地方。聽審上訴的法官Andrew Macrae，駁回上訴。我相信大部份的高院法官都會批准上訴，撤銷定罪，受害人事隔一年才報案實在有使定罪不穩妥之處。我最欣賞Macrae處理裁判法院上訴的態度，他所持理據是
12. At the end of the day, there remained the extraordinary fact that PW1 had not told anybody (not even her husband) about the indecent assault upon her for almost a year after the event. The magistrate heard the evidence and accepted the reasons why PW1 had not told anyone about it until June 2010. I cannot say that he was wrong in accepting such evidence. And I am not prepared to say that the fact of such a late report could by itself vitiate this conviction. That would be too extreme a position and be in danger of usurping the magistrate’s function and duty to evaluate the evidence and, in particular, to consider carefully whether the reasons given for the delay by PW1 were credible and genuine. This it seems to me is exactly what he did.
13. In relation to the inconsistencies in PW1’s evidence, which the magistrate found were material, he examined the evidence surrounding them and determined they all arose out of the witness’s inexact or confused way of expressing herself rather deliberate untruth. Having examined the evidence in its full context, I would not dissent from his conclusion. Indeed, it seems to me that the inconsistencies are more apparent than real. (para 12 and 13 HKSAR and Tong Arnold HCMA173/2011)
很多上訴法院的法官都覺得比下級法院法官優勝，輕易從案情事實中挑幾塊骨頭出來，肆意批評，推翻定罪，所展示的是優越感多於實質的法律理據。難怪標少會對潘敏琦及一些較新任命的暫委法官較有好感。要肯定或撤銷定罪，都可以講一番大道理，分別在於聽審上訴的法官能否以正確宏觀的態度來處理上訴。Macrae是聽審Nancy Kissel(Milk Shake Murder)案重審的法官，駁回Kissel終止聆訊申請的判辭寫得無懈可擊，使標少拜服。
有時公義向金錢妥協，花得起錢的人請了資深的律師，增加了贏面。這件案被告卻枉花了幾十萬，金牙大狀也不能扭轉乾坤。何謂公義，值得深思。
2010年6月的一個清晨，受害人的門鈴又響起來。這一次她的丈夫在家，所以他去應門，期間與被告爭執，被告出言恐嚇及猛踢鐵閘，被告的家人把被告帶回住所。受害人才第一次告訴丈夫在一年前遭非禮的經過，翌日報案。被告的抗辯理據是，兩家的積怨引至誣告。
被告被定罪並判監十四日。被告聘請金牙大狀清洪替他上訴，攻擊受害人被非禮後並沒有告訴任何人，及證供前後不一致的地方。聽審上訴的法官Andrew Macrae，駁回上訴。我相信大部份的高院法官都會批准上訴，撤銷定罪，受害人事隔一年才報案實在有使定罪不穩妥之處。我最欣賞Macrae處理裁判法院上訴的態度，他所持理據是
12. At the end of the day, there remained the extraordinary fact that PW1 had not told anybody (not even her husband) about the indecent assault upon her for almost a year after the event. The magistrate heard the evidence and accepted the reasons why PW1 had not told anyone about it until June 2010. I cannot say that he was wrong in accepting such evidence. And I am not prepared to say that the fact of such a late report could by itself vitiate this conviction. That would be too extreme a position and be in danger of usurping the magistrate’s function and duty to evaluate the evidence and, in particular, to consider carefully whether the reasons given for the delay by PW1 were credible and genuine. This it seems to me is exactly what he did.
13. In relation to the inconsistencies in PW1’s evidence, which the magistrate found were material, he examined the evidence surrounding them and determined they all arose out of the witness’s inexact or confused way of expressing herself rather deliberate untruth. Having examined the evidence in its full context, I would not dissent from his conclusion. Indeed, it seems to me that the inconsistencies are more apparent than real. (para 12 and 13 HKSAR and Tong Arnold HCMA173/2011)
很多上訴法院的法官都覺得比下級法院法官優勝，輕易從案情事實中挑幾塊骨頭出來，肆意批評，推翻定罪，所展示的是優越感多於實質的法律理據。難怪標少會對潘敏琦及一些較新任命的暫委法官較有好感。要肯定或撤銷定罪，都可以講一番大道理，分別在於聽審上訴的法官能否以正確宏觀的態度來處理上訴。Macrae是聽審Nancy Kissel(Milk Shake Murder)案重審的法官，駁回Kissel終止聆訊申請的判辭寫得無懈可擊，使標少拜服。
有時公義向金錢妥協，花得起錢的人請了資深的律師，增加了贏面。這件案被告卻枉花了幾十萬，金牙大狀也不能扭轉乾坤。何謂公義，值得深思。
2012年2月2日星期四
情何以堪
相依老夫婦 男失救女餓死
倒斃多天 領取綜援 子駕平治認屍
【明報專訊】旺角新填地街昨日揭發相依為命老夫婦倒斃家中失救慘案，七旬翁疑早前在家中大廳暈迷倒地，失救斃命，其行動不便老妻亦因為無人照料，疑在寒冷天氣下餓死房間上，至昨晚死者兒子到上址探望，才赫然發現父母倒臥家中，身體腐爛發出惡臭，救護員到場證實兩人死去多時。
案發後，死者兒子駕駛平治房車到殮房認屍，調查期間披露兩老有向社署領取綜援金，亦擁有上址單位。有資深社福界人士指出，若死者兒子資產超出限額，亦可以簽俗稱「衰仔紙」文件，讓在自住物業的長者也可符合申請綜援資格。社署發言人證實，死者夫婦有領取該署經濟援助。 (2/2/2012明報節錄)
看了這則新聞，有說不出的感觸。離港經年，留下母親與妹妺同住。母親已93歲，還可以自行照顧起居生活，身體尚算相當健康。話雖如此，心中總有愧疚。讀書寄宿時，我已習慣每天給母親打電話，移民後也最少每星期3次。有些人總覺得沒有話題，所以疏於噓寒問暖。我打這種電話打了幾十年，話題也不外是吃過了沒有之類，幾十年如一。對年老父母置若罔聞，於心何忍。死者領綜援，兒子開平治，情何以堪？
倒斃多天 領取綜援 子駕平治認屍
【明報專訊】旺角新填地街昨日揭發相依為命老夫婦倒斃家中失救慘案，七旬翁疑早前在家中大廳暈迷倒地，失救斃命，其行動不便老妻亦因為無人照料，疑在寒冷天氣下餓死房間上，至昨晚死者兒子到上址探望，才赫然發現父母倒臥家中，身體腐爛發出惡臭，救護員到場證實兩人死去多時。
案發後，死者兒子駕駛平治房車到殮房認屍，調查期間披露兩老有向社署領取綜援金，亦擁有上址單位。有資深社福界人士指出，若死者兒子資產超出限額，亦可以簽俗稱「衰仔紙」文件，讓在自住物業的長者也可符合申請綜援資格。社署發言人證實，死者夫婦有領取該署經濟援助。 (2/2/2012明報節錄)
看了這則新聞，有說不出的感觸。離港經年，留下母親與妹妺同住。母親已93歲，還可以自行照顧起居生活，身體尚算相當健康。話雖如此，心中總有愧疚。讀書寄宿時，我已習慣每天給母親打電話，移民後也最少每星期3次。有些人總覺得沒有話題，所以疏於噓寒問暖。我打這種電話打了幾十年，話題也不外是吃過了沒有之類，幾十年如一。對年老父母置若罔聞，於心何忍。死者領綜援，兒子開平治，情何以堪？
2012年2月1日星期三
As If The Judge Was Not There One More Time
I wrote about the arrogant attitude of Mr Choy Bing Wing in 法官與刁民As If The Judge Was Not There Again, in another judgment (HKSAR and Kit Choy Development Limited HCMP 2357/2010)today, he demonstrated his indoctrinated dismissive attitude once again. He appeared before Deputy High Court Judge Burrell (who has retired and been re-appointed as Deputy High Court Judge) in relation to his appeal against the decision on cost and interest. In the course of the appeal hearing, he walked out again before Justice Burrell fully explored the grounds of his unmeritorous appeal.
Mr Choy's case derived from an infringement of the fire regulation case in 2003. His company was fined $2,800 and costs of $1,000. His unflinching habit of appeals which were dismissed incurred costs and interests. This case alone, he has to pay a total sum of $246,713.63, 65 times of the original penalty. It is an amount inproportionate to the nature of the case originally dealt with. He even attempted, at one stage, to seek leave to appeal to CFA. Though the face value of his accumulated penalty appears to be huge, the actual judiciary resources he has wasted are costing the tax payers far more than what he pays for his stupidity. Only people who have the obsession of enjoying going to court for a case devoid of merits like to venture this kind of proceeding. These people have gone bananas. The court should adopt a tougher stance towards them, a punitive damage should be handed out as deterrent instead of the nominal penalty.
Mr Choy's case derived from an infringement of the fire regulation case in 2003. His company was fined $2,800 and costs of $1,000. His unflinching habit of appeals which were dismissed incurred costs and interests. This case alone, he has to pay a total sum of $246,713.63, 65 times of the original penalty. It is an amount inproportionate to the nature of the case originally dealt with. He even attempted, at one stage, to seek leave to appeal to CFA. Though the face value of his accumulated penalty appears to be huge, the actual judiciary resources he has wasted are costing the tax payers far more than what he pays for his stupidity. Only people who have the obsession of enjoying going to court for a case devoid of merits like to venture this kind of proceeding. These people have gone bananas. The court should adopt a tougher stance towards them, a punitive damage should be handed out as deterrent instead of the nominal penalty.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)