不夠班的法官

官錯將危駕判不小心駕駛

【明報專訊】搭棚工人駕車在新娘潭高速轉彎，輾過並拖行失控撞車被拋落地的鐵騎55米身亡。工人原被控危險駕駛致他人死亡，區院法官杜麗冰認為無法確定鐵騎被輾前是否已死亡，改判其不小心駕駛罪成，罰款4500元及停牌一年。律政司不服，要求案件發還區院繼續以危險駕駛罪審理，昨獲上訴庭接納。

明知前方有車高速轉彎

事發於2008年8月17日凌晨， 22歲被告謝永鏗駕車緊隨4 名鐵騎士，其中3人讓路，惟領前的事主突失事翻車撞斜坡，被告以時速78公里轉彎時閃避不及，輾過事主，事主及後不治。該路段時速限制為50公里。

辯方指當晚行車量小且在郊區，被告因大意肇禍；但上訴庭指被告明知前方有車，仍然選擇高速在窄路上轉彎，即使沒有撞死人，其整體駕駛態度仍有可能被控危駕，故認為原審法官錯判。

【案件編號：CACC354/10】

上面一則新聞是明報今天的報導，上訴庭的判辭還沒有上載，所以未能看到。指名道姓批評法官，屬不敬的做法，但那是標少一貫本色。我在Paul Joseph Fok一文，批評過杜麗冰，我是這樣講的：「這樣升不到職的表表者是杜麗冰(Esther Toh)，論資歷，她綽綽有餘；論能力，她乏善可陳。連小弟對法律一知半解的人，看她一些上訴判辭，都會搖頭慨歎。她做暫委法官前後十年，依然原地踏步，行人止步。」(她正式官階是區域法院法官，時常被委任為高等法院暫委法官。)

那麼，就這件案而言，杜麗冰錯在那裏呢？危險駕駛引致他人死亡干犯香港法例第374章第36(1)條，36(10) 訂明，被告36(1)條罪名不成立，可以被定38(不小心駕駛)，39(酒/藥影響下駕駛)，39A(醉駕)等罪。那是屬於轉以他罪裁決(alternative verdicts) 。譬如被控盜竊，被告除了原本的盜竊罪，還可被判其他9條罪其中一條的罪名。如果法官覺得証據不支持原本的控罪，也不適用轉以他罪裁決，可以判被告無罪，或者是修改控罪。這件案據報章的報導，杜麗冰不肯定在被告輾過電單車司機時，該司機是否已經死亡，所以判被告危險駕駛引致他人死亡罪名不成立，而簡單地引用第36條第10款，把被告定了不小心駕駛罪。超速轉彎很明顯是危險的駕駛態度，控罪應該修改為危險駕駛，再聽取被告答辯，問辯方是否需要為修改控罪而押後審訊，是否需要重召証人作盤問等一系列的基本問題，便可萬無一失。法官能力高下，一目了然。當然不夠班的法官，各級法院都有，一言難盡。

再談奶昔謀殺案

今天司法機構上載了高等法院法官Andrew Macrae，對Nancy Kissel終止聆訊申請的判辭。2010年2月終審法院撤銷被告的定罪，下令重審，重審在今年1月10日開始，3月25日審結，被告再被定罪。控辯雙方都引入外援，從倫敦請了QC來對壘。正審未展開，辯方在2010年11月1日至3日先來前哨戰，申請終止聆訊(stay of proceeding)。如果成功，被告便無須再面對重審。法官在2010年11月19日，作出判決，拒絕辯方申請。以免影響陪審團的看法，故此判辭在案件審結後才上載。

辯方提出三大理據來申請終止聆訊：辯方認為被告未能獲得公平審訊 (She will not be able to secure a fair trial, contrary to her constitutionally protected right to a fair trial under Article 10 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383 and Article 87 of the Basic Law.)及就算可以獲公平審訊，重審是基於主控官行為不當引致，故此繼續審訊下去是對公眾良知的侮辱(even if a fair trial might be possible, it would be an affront to the public conscience and/or oppressive to permit the prosecution to proceed in circumstances where the question of a retrial has only arisen because of prosecutorial misconduct at the first trial and where she will inevitably be placed at a handicap in her retrial. )。再者，被告的精神狀態不宜面對重審。

所謂審訊不公，在這件案而言，主要是指傳媒廣泛的報導。事實上在本地及國際上，不單只報章，還有小說、電影、電視及互聯網都存在不少貶斥性的報導。這種報導當然會影響陪審員對被告產生不良的印象，但法官認為就算陪審員看了報導而對被告產生偏見，法官也可以正確引導他們用公正持平的態度來看待證據，作出公正的裁決 (neither the quality nor the extent of that publicity which has gone beyond the factual and is personally hostile to the defendant is such that any prejudice arising from it cannot be removed by proper and emphatic directions to the jury at the beginning and end of the trial )。

欲知詳情，請看原判辭 HKSAR and Nancy Ann Kissel HCCC55/2010。

Andrew Macrae這件案的判辭寫得全面，有條理兼且清晰明確，毫無上訴空間。如果他在正審的時候也具備同樣水準(刑事案而言，公眾看不到正審判辭)，這一次就算再上終審法院，恐怕在申請上訴許可(leave to appeal)的階段，上訴已被駁回。公義彰顯人前，還死者一個公道。從報導知悉，被告在審訊期間說見到死者躺在法庭地上，似乎失去常性。若然標少成為殺人犯，大概也會七情上面，裝瘋扮傻，為上訴理據鋪路。

Connivance 姑息養奸

Sacked police officer wins back his job in appeal

Jim O'Rourke

March 27, 2011

ADAM McDONALD was a respected police officer who was headed for a long career in the force.

But his life began to unravel in January 2009 after waking drunk at a house party and finding that a black marker was used to draw penises and obscenities on his face and body. Someone had even scrawled ''[f---] the pigs'' on his back after he passed out. The off-duty senior constable stormed out of the house and jumped in his car. Moments later he crashed into a parked car and was charged with being more than four times over the legal alcohol limit.

In December 2009 the 35-year-old was sacked due to a ''lack of Police Commissioner's confidence''. But last week he won his job back.

On the day of the accident, Mr McDonald had four beers while playing poker at the Kiama Golf Club from about 1.30pm and then several bourbon and colas at the house of an acquaintance.

The Industrial Court, where Mr McDonald appealed against his dismissal, heard he had left the house abruptly just after discovering the drawings. He angrily confronted people at the party and said he left the house because he feared he would be assaulted.

Police called to the crash found Mr McDonald, who was stationed at the Commuter Crime Unit at Campbelltown, smelling strongly of alcohol and was unsteady on his feet.

The court heard that he asked the officers to record the incident as a minor accident and let him walk home. When the officers refused, he said, ''This is f---ed, I can't believe you are doing this,'' and later became abusive to officers at the police station. He also asked an officer to take the breath test for him.

Mr McDonald was breath-tested and returned a reading of 0.205. He later pleaded guilty in court.

Industrial Court judge Wayne Haylen heard that Mr McDonald later said he could not remember the incident, but had admitted that he had a drinking problem.

In his judgment Justice Haylen noted that Mr McDonald had expressed remorse and was attending regular alcohol counselling.

Justice Haylen ordered last week that Mr McDonald be reinstated because he ''has drawn back from the precipice and is deserving of a chance to redeem himself in the eyes of the Police Service.''

Mr McDonald did not return the The Sun-Herald's calls.

I read the above news with displeasure. It is such a disgrace that this cop should be reinstated to enforce the law while he had behaved in such a way anyone could not expect of to come from a policeman. Being drunk is one thing. Trying to solicit his colleagues to tamper with his breath test amounts to an attempt to pervert the course of justice. I wonder why he was not charged.  I can feel a strong sense of favouritism. His dismissal without further charge is already a very lenient treatment. Now that the court gives him further credit for his remorse and attendance of rehab for his alcohol problem has really gone too far. The dismissal itself is not a harsh penalty for him at all. He has brought the name of the police force into disrepute. He is also unfit to be a policeman by trying to influence his colleagues to turn a blind eye towards his drunken and disorderly behaviour. The court is over lenient. Its reason is an affront to the intelligence of the people. This cop deserves a chance to redeem himself to be a good citizen instead of a policeman. This is what I always advocate against: connivance 姑息養奸.

奶昔謀殺案

奶昔謀殺案重審今天在高院審結，陪審團一致裁定被告Nancy Kissel謀殺罪名成立，案發在2003年11月2日，被告經歴了一次高院審訊，二度上訴，在2010年2月獲終審法院撤銷控罪，發還重審，這是被告再次被定罪。

案情我不再重複，有興趣可參看拙文《從爭產案看終審法院》。以刑事案的上訴而言，奶昔謀殺案是使我最不服氣的終審法院案例。這件案的犯案意圖mens rea昭然若揭，鐵證如山，再審幾次，陪審團都會一致定被告罪。當然，被告會繼續上訴。再上訴會多了一項理由，那就是傳媒過份報導，引致審訊不公。再上訴起碼是一年半載後的事，結果難料。我在《先科案裁決的啟示》一文講過「只要不妄存幻想，以為法庭是尋求真理真相的地方，那麽對某些裁決的錯愕感便會減少。」要知道法院愈高級，裁決愈難明，所以才出了龔如心的勝訴。龔如心也可以勝訴，才會出陳振聰的爭產案，有趣嗎？有時看起來是法庭制造了案件給自己審，可笑嗎？

賄選

本週六(26/3)是紐省的選舉日，我對澳洲的政治一向冷漠，一向都是採取兩害而取其輕的態度(the better of two evils)，甚或交白票。那一個黨上場，那一個黨就以權謀私，魚肉百姓。省長Kristina Keneally下台在即，想盡辦法垂死掙扎。今天看到報章，她提出修改法例，容許駕車犯規扣滿分停牌的人有限度駕駛，譬如駕車上下班，往看醫生等。這等承諾，看似德政，執行起來十分困難，扣分法例形同虛設。不如乾脆取消扣分，或者扣滿分之後，用罰款代替停牌，來救濟一下財政拮据的政府。

一般扣滿分停牌的法律原則，連職業司機停牌便手停口停，都不予考慮作豁免停牌因素。法例寫明，停牌引致困苦的情況(hardship)，不會考慮，極度困苦的情況除外(exceptional hardship)。攪盡腦汁來賄賂選民，顯示這政府已經到了油盡燈枯的時候。

牧師地鐵非禮

小弟在2月26日寫了《在地鐵及巴士上發生的非禮案》一文，提及柴灣平安福音堂牧師吳漢超，在地鐵非禮的審訊。今天報章報導了被告被定罪判監21天的新聞，被告獲准保釋等候上訴。小弟也寫過《保釋等候上訴Bail Pending Appeal 》一文，討論有關法律準則。既然他要上訴，我暫且不談他應否被定罪，因為那是sub judice。我要談的是新聞中見到的這段報導：

辯方求情指被告已婚，育有兩子，身為牧師對教會貢獻良多，請求判處社會服務令或緩刑。(明報18/3/2011)

辯方律師明顯經驗不足，非禮罪是違反香港法例第200章刑事罪行條例122條，這一條屬第221章刑事程序條例附表3裏所列的例外罪行(excepted offences)，不能判處緩刑。律師竟然要求主審裁判官判緩刑，豈有此理。

煲咖喱妹

不是講吃，煲咖喱妹所指是Amina Bokhary。行內一向叫包致金法官為煲咖喱，太座女包大人為煲咖喱太。所以小弟叫他們的侄女為煲咖喱妹，可以吧。煲咖喱妹這件案本來是舊聞，但是覆核判刑上訴的判決書今天才上載到司法機構的網頁。小弟從來都不單憑報章報導來評論，要等到看到判辭才能覺穩妥。自己錯誤理解，好過看二手資料，錯上加錯。

這件案有些不尋常。2011年1月11日聽審上訴，即日判決，為何等到3月11日才宣讀判辭，到了今天才上載到網頁。這是一件很簡單的案件，除了煲咖喱妹的來頭外，本來是不值報導的案件。當然有可能是大老爺放假去也，擱下公務，所以延遲發放。

代表控方的副刑事檢控專員薜偉成Zervos, SC, DDPP(是接任刑事檢控專員必然人選，非他莫屬，快將公佈)，被受批評，沒有做好功課，沒有提供數據和上訴案例，空槍上陣。我的感覺是在煲咖喱妹違反感化令被判監後，控方已經覺得沒有上訴空間，但又要面對輿論壓力，故此敷衍了事。若真如此，變成輿論主導了法律，是香港之悲。

撰寫主判辭的高院署理首席法官對煲咖喱妹的背景與判案關係，隻字不提。反而是另外兩位法官各打了阮偉明耳光。法律面前，人人平等，談何容易。始終有人是法律面前，高人一等。奈何！