烤鴨

悉尼上星期五起連續3天狂風大雨, 我們週末足不出戶, 海邊房子劫後餘生, 沙灘被海濤吞噬, 低漥地區水淹樓房, 汽車不能水陸兩棲而報銷了。我家在山區, 沒有水淹之危, 房子幸好也沒有漏水, 只是後園溝渠有點淤塞待慢了洪水, 不讓它灑脫地離去, 除此之外一切平安。有朋友因為供電中斷停電三天。悶坐家中兩天後, 昨日總算暴雨初霽, 可以出街逛了。於是偕老伴到河邊漫步。河水高漲, 岸邊充斥着發泡膠碎片和飲品膠樽, 明顯是因大雨引致河水暴漲推上岸的。我們現在的環保意識很強, 膠瓶飲品一年都不會買一瓶, 減少製造垃圾, 車上總是放着冷暖水瓶。

逛完河邊去逛Costco, 平時太多朋友搭單買東西, 總是怱忽忙忙照單執,  昨天輕輕鬆鬆慢慢走, 顧客也較稀疏。Costco一向都是大堆頭bulk buy就便宜。湊巧光鴨一盒四隻出售比單隻便宜百分之二十幾, 四隻共9公斤即15斤, 我買鴨多數買老鴨來煲湯, 這次見到便宜便買了一盒, 腦中在盤算嘗試一下烤鴨, 還可以檸檬冬瓜鴨湯、芋頭炆鴨、鹵水鴨等。朋友要了一隻, 我把兩隻放入冰櫃, 把一隻醃了一日今天晚餐吃烤鴨。我的強項是隨心所欲弄烹調, 憑感覺去煮, 胡亂醃了。

醃了的鴨

烤好了, 下次會烤得更好

和老伴兩人差不多吃了半隻, 加一碟波菜苗, 也不用煑其他東西。明日把吃剩的用陳皮煲湯, 然後做湯飯, 一鴨兩吃。

撤銷控訴的正面效果

這一篇寫給那兩條曾在也是店舖盜竊一文留言的茂里看的, 一個質疑我替犯了店鋪盜竊的人爭取簽保守行為屬不義之舉, 另一個說我泄漏檢控政策的機密, 後者的無知不用討論, 一句講晒, Don't teach your grandma how to suck eggs. 前者可以再議。我今午收到的電郵:

控方願意以bind over既方式去處理案情
真係好多謝你
有機會我可唔可以過黎報答你

當然都會繼續做義工 為社會出分力
呢段期間係令我反思左好多以後亦都唔會因為一時既貪心 知法犯法

這男生是住在公屋的大專半工讀生, 在大百貨公司的食品部偷牛扒而被控盜竊。從他的書寫能力看我相信他的成績不太理想, 而且他告訴我有家庭問題。他第一封電郵寫來問的是希望撤銷控罪究竟用當值律師抑或請私人律師, 我心裏想, 私人律師你請不起, 所以我給他一點意見, 並且叫他寫一封給律政司提出要求的信給我看。我當晚有4個個案要處理, 便快速用英文回覆他, 順便測試他的英文理解力。之後簡單講了法律程序, 其中一篇這樣對他說:

用寫信方式, 寫完我幫你執下。

你知唔知我點解幫你地, 我想你地覺得感恩, 以後不要再犯錯, 有機會去幫下別人, 社會減少戾氣, 可以更和諧。如果你有經濟能力, 我一開始就要你捐錢給香港的社福機構我才會繼續幫。珍惜前途, 別做蠢事。如果焦慮, 就做些使自己忙碌的事或者做下運動, 鬆弛神經。

他的信寫得很爛, 我像功課打回頭那樣叫他重寫了兩次, 還是很爛, 於是便動筆替他改寫。要他重寫, 旨在讓他認真反思, 別人的幫助不是理所當然的。

今天收到他的電郵, 知道律政司接納了要求, 可謂意料中事, 因為他符合《檢控守則》對這類事件酌情處理的準則, 我一開始就對他講多數沒有問題。我今天回覆他要報答父母及報答社會, 而無需報答我。假如這窮小子沒有在網上搜尋過, 不知道可以申請撤銷控罪簽保守行為, 一心以為自己偷了東西, 就上庭認罪, 又或者他的申請信不堪入目, 以致決策者忽視了他的理據, 拒絕他的申請, 結果就是一個輸在起跑綫, 學歷又不麗亮, 經濟條件也差的人, 還要留下案底的污斑。這個人將來的發展便會進一步受限制, 對社會有甚麼好處? 當然一切都不是社會的錯, 但給他這機會於社會有何傷害? 從他的電郵可見, 他經歷了這次教訓, 在生死未卜之際的忐忑心情下, 徹底反思自己的過錯, 具備正面的社會效益。我只是花了丁點時間, 何樂而不為? 這毫無疑問是正義的事, 於社會有益的事, 我會堅持執着地做下去。

我阻不了胡亂批評的人, 可能出於無知而恬不知恥地留言的人, 也可能是常給我唾罵的狐群狗黨, 不怕讀者訕笑就繼續講狗話。我頭頂無需光環, 臉上也不用貼金, 只希望播些正能量的種子, 做點極平凡的事, 希望這社會更美好。在此向律政司刑事檢控科致敬, 酌情的善心一定種出善果。

使法治蒙羞

Judge called out for sitting in jury box ‘eating candy’ during witness testimony

A hat-trick for the judge once reprimanded for going to a Halloween party dressed as a black prisoner

A judge from Louisiana has been slapped on the wrist by his peers for engaging in “bizarre and disturbing” behaviour during a trial.

In one of Legal Cheek’s favourite stories of the year so far, Judge Timothy Ellender was this week slammed by the Supreme Court of Louisiana for sitting in the jury box with jurors “eating candy”, moving around the courtroom, and sitting in various chairs during witness testimony. He also allegedly looked outside of the courtroom windows during examination, and hugged the surgical partner of the defendant’s medical expert in front of the jury.

Given the judge’s actions, the Supreme Court of Louisiana ordered the matter be heard again in a new trial. Though a number of justices did choose to dissent, the majority said it was:

[C]onvinced that the trial judge’s actions resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

This isn’t the first time Ellender has engaged in some pretty questionable behaviour during his 23 years on the bench.

In 2004, the Loyola University graduate was suspended for one year without pay for attending a Halloween party in blackface, a prison jumpsuit and shackles. Ellender — who was admitted to the bar in 1971 — claimed that the costume was a joke, and while the justices agreed the controversial lawyer didn’t mean to insult black people, they ordered him to take a sociology course to help achieve “a greater understanding of racial sensitivity”.

A pretty major cock-up on all accounts, but in 2007 Ellender was suspended yet again, this time for growing impatient during a domestic abuse case involving a complainant seeking a restraining order against her husband. The judge, who retired in 2015, reportedly asked the parties why they didn’t file for divorce instead of “go through this crap”, comments that left him with a 30-day suspension and a $185 fine.

It seems Ellender has well and truly completed the hat-trick with his latest antics.

(June 2 2016 Legal Cheek)

這種新聞看起來像二次大戰後的荒誕劇, 戰後的破壞, 對傳統價值的重定, 人類站在十字街頭充滿迷惘。莊嚴的法庭, 在民主老大哥的國度, 可以縱容兒戲的小丑戲在聆訊期間發生, 而且是由主審法官做小丑。法官變成小丑, 法治還可以有甚麼質素? 他主審的案件只是判令重審, 而他本人並無丟了烏紗, 這泱泱大國, 法治笑話也確鬧出不少來。Legal Cheek完全沒有誇大, 下面一段是直接引自該案上訴的判辭其中一個法官的講法:

In my view, it is undisputed that Judge Ellender engaged in bizarre and disturbing behavior during the jury trial of this matter such that the jury’s verdict cannot be allowed to stand. According to plaintiffs, Judge Ellender failed to preside over the trial from his position on the bench, but rather roamed around the entirety of the courtroom during much of the trial. Judge Ellender would stop and look out of the windows in the courtroom while plaintiffs’ counsel was examining witnesses. Judge Ellender continuously moved around the courtroom, sitting in various chairs, and, inexplicably, sat in the jury box with the jurors while eating candy - all during witnesses’ testimony. The record also contains uncontroverted testimony from the plaintiff that Judge Ellender greeted the defense medical expert, defendant’s medical partner, with a handshake and embrace in front of the jury decision of this court, finding plaintiffs are entitled to a new trial. I write separately to emphasize the unprofessional and inappropriate nature of the trial judge’s behavior in this case.

為甚麼我時常在罵狗黨? 為何我不斷為公平、公正執着? 當社會裏掌權的人的權力不受制衡就一定有濫權的事發生, 對我們週遭不公濫權的事沉默的人, 日後當為無知付出代價, 為朋黨作倀的人, 還會為這些人開脫的人, 恬不知恥, 造就了濫權肆虐, 成為幫兇。矯扭造作, 虛偽狡猾, 充滿語言偽術的人, 一眼就看得出來, 只是很多人刻意視若無睹。如果我身旁有這種人, 我一定會羞與為伍。有時你確奈何他們不得, 只能夠徹底的鄙視這些人, 你可以俯視他們, 他們卻不能仰望你, 這就是正與邪的分別。以譚耀宗在公院插隊割瘜肉為例, 他除了躹躬致歉, 根本不能堂堂正正解釋整件事的過程, 木訥出於言拙。雖然這都看似小事, 行李風波言猶在耳, 諷刺地有揭之不盡的秘密, 所以有道之不盡的歉語。這就是我不斷講防微杜漸, 姑息養奸的因由。不過, 社會總是充斥着充滿油腔的人, 油腔舐得人甜蜜蜜, 像一條走狗在舐主人的腿, 狗尾巴拚命的擺動, 忠言卻一向都逆耳。

香港不會有像美國那位法官的小丑行徑出現, 有濫權瀆職的法官也會烏紗不保。酗酒的不計算, 在法庭內公然的unprofessional and inappropriate behaviours, 以我所知最後的一宗是20多年前的 O'Dea事件。此君當年是火箭人, 40多歲就坐上高院, 在審理「案中案」時公然拿小說出來看, 那「案中案」涉及被告的警誡口供(cautioned statement)可否呈堂的爭論。最後, 他審的案trial de novo, O'Dea表面上是辭官歸故里, 實在是炒了魷魚。

也許我陳腔濫調和長氣, 我再次奉勸那些肆意以政治攻擊法治的香港人, 別身在福中不知福。

七警案中案

老伴問我, 七警案搞乜案中案? 想拖延呀?

有好多人有所不知, 當然我也純屬猜測, 只靠睇報紙來估下發生乜事。案中案即voire dire, 未審案情事實之前, 先爭論影片能否呈堂, 所以叫案中案。這些影片是本案的致命因素, 所以連警署內的CCTV, 被告也爭論其真確性。聽落有點匪夷所思, 明明影到發生乜事, 都有得拗? 法律嘛, 有時不是普通人懂得的, 講你都唔明, 所以律師就值錢。如果影片不能呈堂, 有幾個警察就好難被定罪。影片主要是建立身份( establish ID)方面的證據。除了影片之外, 被告的身分要靠幾方面來建立。一, 警察方面。軍裝警員制服曾健超後交給CID, 但交了人之後這些軍裝警員再有沒有目睹之後發生的事呢? 原先接收曾健超的CID有沒有再把他交給其他人呢? 第二, 曾健超本人的證供。他認得這些人嗎? 就算認得, 辯方也會強烈爭論他這方面的可靠性, 當然對他的可信性會有vigorous cross-examination. 最簡單講辯方會指出他受到影片影響才認到人, 而並非真的憑自己記憶而認出誰有份打他。第三, 被告自己的承認。你以為七警會承認他們涉案的身分嗎?

要打甩啲片, 談何容易? 不是一家媒體, 是幾家喎, 有無可能幾家有聯合行動去干擾這些影片使其內容不真確? 這是一場 uphill battle. 如果影片不能呈堂, 就難以證明是joint enterprise, 被告的個別角色就很重要了。誰在暗角打曾健超呢? 控罪是GBH with intent, 這傷勢是甚麼時候造成的? 辯方會把成因歸咎於之前的拒捕所致, 這也是必然的爭論點。反而在警署內發生的只涉一個警員, 單靠曾健超一人的證供已足夠, 這一條要脫罪較難。

撇開審訊在證據上的要求, 也撇開政治立場, 也不講撐警仇警, 以普通人客觀的看法來判斷, 不論曾健超或七警, 哪個無罪?

也是店舖盜竊

較早前有位經理級的專業人士被控店鋪盜竊寫給我求助, 他坦白告訴我基於一時貪念偷了東西, 也明知一經定罪這專業前途就會畫上休止符, 他問我以他的情況撤銷控罪簽保守行為的可能性。我當初有點猶疑, 因為他有足夠能力聘請私人律師來處理, 在一念之間, 我答應幫他。我首先要求他捐錢給香港的社福機構, 他二話不說傳來了收條, 就這樣開始了我們的對話。我也比較罕有地替他起草了呈給律政司的申請信, 期間有點波折, 今日收到下面這則電郵, 是第42篇了。

Dear Bill

I was granted bind over with charges dropped.

Thanks a lot for your help. I will not go astray again. Really grateful for that. Lesson learned.

I will make periodic donations from now onwards, if that is your way to repay the society and to remind myself to be an honest person. Also, as my brother resides in Aus, i may visit Aus in future and if its possible, can i meet you in person to say thank you?

我不是想在自己臉上貼金, 要貼的話恐怕我臉上已沒空位, 只有那些充滿自卑的人才需要為自己臉上貼金和在胸前別上勳章。我貼這電郵出來, 原因是前些時有些人提出, 開鋪頭做生意的人貨物被竊, 損失不菲, 質疑我為何要幫店鋪盜竊的人, 他們貪婪, 應受懲罰。我的想法是盜竊是嚴重罪行, 但店舖盜竊是那種罪行裏較輕的, 而且所涉是小額貨價的, 我覺得應該給予一次機會。未被拘捕檢控過的人當然不會明白, 由拘捕至上庭整個過程的煎熬, 那種懲罰本身已刻骨銘心, 會再犯的人一定是心理有問題, 或者賊性難改。我當然不能披露詳細的對話, 我絕對相信此君今後可成為一個更好的人, 更加珍惜自己的前途。我告訴他我無償的做法只是在回饋社會, 香港社會不單只戾氣重, 很多人只會埋怨, 覺得自己是社會的債主, 而不懂得為幸福感恩。

這位先生的專業資格得來不易, 也經過幾年努力才爬上經理級, 一旦被定罪可謂前途盡毀, 那種影響我覺得與干犯的罪行和懲罰不相稱。我也不是任何人都幫的, 毫無悔意的我一定不幫。悔意當然可以裝扮出來, 但他三番四次都表明打算認罪, 但面對後果會帶來的影響而沮喪, 充滿矛盾。況且對我裝扮也沒有用, 我無權無勢, 只是免費, 騙到我也看不到有何利益。今天這電郵使我舒了一口氣, 我不管他以後能否履行承諾作出捐獻, 經歷了這次教訓而還會再以身試法會是極少數的人。我叫他不要多謝我, 他應該多謝律政司的檢控官, 沒有他們發善心, 在適當時行使不予檢控的酌情權, 這位先生的一生可能會改寫。時常聽到人指責律政司怎樣不公正, 甚麼政治檢控, 我希望這些人清楚了解律政司有很多予人改過自新的決定只是傳媒疏於報導。我也希望這位先生以後會感激這次被寬容處理的機會而回饋社會。

最後, 我不好交友, 網上結緣的我從不賞面交往下去, 事情未完結我真誠關切, 事情完結了就兩不相欠, 回復作陌路人。

再與教授隔空談

再寫一篇因為有些事情值得再談, 也順便回應一些留言。

留言有點一面倒, 對陳文敏教授不獲任命為港大副校長之後的表現頗有微言, 有人講從他現在的表現看他不獲任命的決定是正確的, 他一再重提此事, 表現得有點像個怨婦。我一直對於他是否為適合人選都不發表意見, 因為大學或者任何公營機構的人事任命並非社會人士應該參與發表意見的, 除非這種任命的崗位會影響社會大多數, 而被委任的人的公信力及誠信出現問題, 我們應該尊重公營機構人事方面的決策權。對於陳教授的任命受阻撓, 我們要吭聲的並非他是否是適合人選, 而是阻撓他的人的背後政治目的所做成不公義之處。如果在他獲推薦後左報及建制派並無聯合行動作政治上的攻擊, 社會人士根本不應討論他的任命, 否則這些機構裏誰可以由副教授升為教授也要一起商議, 就會超越了關注的範圍及阻撓了他們的正常運作。社會關注的只限於公義問題。都關注了, 也沒有再談的必要。教授自己再談, 就變成吃不到的酸葡萄, 塵埃已落定, 結果不能扭轉, 就要懂得放下。

作為學者, 教授應該潛心教學。作為學者和知識份子, 對社會不公義發聲責無旁貸, 也符合作為知識份子的使命, 但發聲時, 千萬不要扯個人利益得失進去, 否則評論的價值會大打折扣。大家當然理解教授的沮喪, 面對狐群狗黨肆意攻擊的無力和無奈。反正可以潛心教學, 有些事情也不到你不忍耐。狗黨之所以可以糾結也有一定原因。他們有各自利益的考慮, 也有貪便宜的, 也有不甘寂寞的, 你不能要求他們有高尚情操, 有的根本是盲目無知的, 有的明知不當也會跟從, 對此根本無需憤怒。烏合的人不會有持久的關係, 當利益產生衝突時就自然會分裂。你看李偲嫣這些狗黨, 他們的分裂不就是活現眼前嗎? 就算最有條件和資源可以成為政黨的民建聯, 為了選情, 久合的也會分離, 他們不是要扔棄鍾樹根嗎? 換轉是我做主席, 鍾樹根這種料子, 醜態百出, 埋沒良知才會和他走在一起, 但那是政治現實。大家有互相利用的價值, 就美其名為合作, 沒有價值時, 或者有害選情時, 當然會踢走他, 政治現實嘛! 那麼以前鍾樹根又怎可以獲取這麼多選票? 無可否認, 他盤據了地區一大段時間, 表面上做了一些事情, 加上選民水平整體不高, 所以盲目支持者多。這些人無能力更無洞察力去看清他的面目, 所以對他投票, 當他醜態畢露時, 才赫然發覺這人的真面目, 連黨也覺得他剩餘價值無幾, 便只好把他扔棄。

教授面對龐大狗黨的力量, 有力的抗衡是不應把自己的失意扯進去。教授一定不會隨波逐流, 也不要黨同伐異, 否則會變成另一種狗黨。真正的知識份子要不怕孤獨, 也要有傲氣, 要敢於批評, 不管是敵是友, 都要憑良心說話。怕得罪人就只會投鼠忌器, 言論偏頗袒護, 不獲別人敬重。就算不涉政治, 在我們身邊都有不同的黨羽, 臭味相投的人自然會走在一起。他們雖然不會犯大惡, 因為層次低和能力有限, 但是我們不能受幾句奉承就飄飄然, 否則又助長了狗黨的羽翼。教授受到友儕學生問候, 銘感於心已足夠, 不應反應過敏, 再一次追憶失落的職位, 酸湧上喉。這些人也難保沒有一些是教授詬病那種阿諛奉承的人。

我時常收到求助的信, 總有一些客套話, 也有一些直接了當直言求助。我對客套話無感覺, 只看內容, 幫得到就幫, 不會因為別人讚兩句就加多幾錢肉緊, 蠢人才會被奉承到飄飄然。今天教拍檔打波, 打出要求就讚, 打得不好就直接指出來, 只有別有用心的人才會連打到不知所謂也讚好。波友告訴我, 昨晚跟子女談我上一篇文, 告誡他們做兼職時要先了解公司的文化習慣, 才好拿東西吃。我收到店鋪盜竊的求助, 也會告誡朋友提醒子女別以身試法，而無需大大聲講我怎樣關心你。對待朋友的真誠態度就是這樣, 只需坦誠, 何需奉承? 

咖啡炒魷

Sacked for having a cup of coffee on the job

A cleaner who was sacked because he had a cup of coffee on the job has won an unfair dismissal case in the Fair Work Commission.

In deciding the dismissal was unfair, Fair Work Commission vice president Adam Hatcher quoted the modern philosopher Alain de Botton: "Office civilisation could not be feasible without the hard take-offs and landings effected by coffee and alcohol."

The part-time cleaner sought the "take-off" of a cup of coffee in a Sydney office block shortly before his evening shift started.

"However, far from uplifting him, that cup of coffee was the direct cause of his rapid descent into summary dismissal two days later," Mr Hatcher said.

The cleaner's employer, Glad Group Pty Ltd, characterised the coffee drinking as theft. It said the act was "serious misconduct warranting summary dismissal" and had caused a serious risk to its business reputation and profitability.

In awarding the cleaner $9187.20 in damages and the right to get his old job back, Mr Hatcher concluded the dismissal was "unjust and unreasonable".

He said the cleaner's conduct was "insignificant to the extent that it could not constitute a sound, defensible or well-founded reason for his dismissal".

"In my view, describing his conduct as theft verges on an abuse of the English language as used and understood by the ordinary person," he said.

"Equally the consumption of a glass of water drawn from a client's tap on a hot day would also constitute theft and the use of a client's toilets to answer an urgent call of nature without express prior permission would be a trespass."

The cleaner, an international student on a visa that restricted him from working more than 20 hours a week, recently completed a Masters degree in IT and was working as a part-time cleaner in an office block at 130 Pitt Street in Sydney's CBD.

Mr Hatcher accepted the cleaner's evidence that he had a good rapport with tenants in the office block who would often chat to him.

The cleaner said staff who worked for CMC Markets told him he was welcome to a cup of coffee when he was cleaning.

On January 12, he arrived 45 minutes early for his shift and had a cup of coffee with another cleaner while waiting for their 6.30pm starting time.

When the cleaners walked to the office lifts with their coffee cups, the CMC office and facilities manager asked them where the coffee was from.

She said: "You are not allowed to make coffee." To which the cleaner replied: "We are sorry, we did not intentionally want to upset you. We did not know we were not allowed to."

When she replied OK, the cleaner assumed the apology had been accepted.

But the manager reported the incident and requested the cleaners be removed.

The manager escalated her complaint to Glad, which sacked the cleaners for serious misconduct, despite their explanations and apologies for any misunderstanding.

The manager who complained about the coffee consumption also wrote to the manager of Investa, which had contracted Glad's cleaning services, saying she did not begrudge anyone a cup of coffee "but not without my knowledge".

"I find it totally inappropriate for cleaning staff to be in our tenancies for any purpose than to provide contracted cleaning services," she said.

Mel Gatfield, secretary of United Voice NSW, the union that represented the cleaner in the Fair Work Commission, said it was "outrageous that, in Australia, in 2016, a worker is sacked for having a cup of coffee before his shift".

"His case is indicative of the exploitation and poor treatment many cleaners experience in Australia," she said.
(1/6/2016 Sydney Morning Herald)

很久沒有評論澳洲這邊的事情了。這一篇評階級觀念。

上面這則新聞, 發生得有點un-Australian. 我不是指澳洲人有甚麼了不起, 只是想指出社會風氣習慣和香港很不相同。這裏的階級觀念沒有香港的強烈, 技術勞工階層賺錢能力不比白領弱, 叫這些人上門的call out fee絕不便宜, 甚麼也沒做只看兩眼, 動不動就一百幾十澳元, 然後再斷鐘計, 所以自己有能力就盡量百般武藝都懂多少, 成為家中的handy man. 我家中不少裝在天花的燈買了新的就自己換, 不是換燈泡, 而是要接駁生電那種。在香港, 買燈多數都包安裝的, 但這裏甚麼都分開計算, 自己做得來就盡量做。這些技工上門, 完全沒有任何地位卑微的態度, 不論是水喉匠或電工, 大家寒喧幾句, 要茶要水在所不拘。看到上面貼出來的新聞, 真的有點驚訝。我同意外判清潔工到公司上門做清潔, 咖啡不飲為妙, 跟喝水或用洗手間不能相比, 給罵了又道歉了事情理應完結, 這女經理再要以書函投訴以致連工也丟了實在太不近人情。既然不稀罕一杯咖啡的價值, 又何必要begrudgingly 寫信要求炒魷魚。不知換了是個男經理又會怎樣處理, 又不知這女經理是否正在調校生理時鐘, 到了又冷又熱的年華。有些女人到了那年華是生人勿近的, 只有充滿奉承的人才可以親近。