📖 ZKIZ Archives

MS案的庭上認人

閱讀上一篇提及的上訴庭判辭, 勾起我的回憶, 我去年批評高院法官Campbell-Moffat有關庭上認人的錯誤法律看法, 我去年寫了這一篇: 庭上認錯人。昨晚飯聚, 才知道原來大法官是 Archbold Hong Kong 有關 Identification 章節的編輯, 有點失覺, 那她就錯得無理了。凑巧在MS一案, 在審訊非禮案的過程中, MS尋鸒滋事, 無端爭論起認人的證據, 反對受害人在庭上認人, 而原審裁判官因此裁定因為審訊前沒有安排過認人手續(ID Parade), 所以不准受害人在庭上認人。這裁決可能受到Campbell-Moffat 在 HKSAR and CHEUNG WEN PO PHILIP (張文波) HCMA 58/2016 的判決所影響, 被誤導而錯判了。上訴庭在MS一案, 也指出原審裁判官不准受害人在庭上認人是錯誤的判決, 無形中顯示 Campbell-Moffat 的看法是錯誤的, 下面這兩段判辭就清楚不過。

199.      MS explained his position when directly asked by the magistrate if identity was in issue, as follows:

“Well, I think all I would say is if I may put it this way is that whether or not identity is in issue, the prosecution must prove their case, and they have to lay a sufficient foundation to enable a dock ID to be made, in any event. That’s all I would say. And, so far, I don’t believe that’s been done.”

Ultimately, having heard argument, the magistrate disallowed a dock identification, saying that a proper identification parade should have been held.

200.     With respect to the magistrate, his ruling was wrong. In circumstances where the parties had met outside House 2, on which occasion PW1 had, in the presence of cinema personnel, accused the appellant of indecently assaulting her, for which he had tried to explain and apologise, following which the police had arrived and arrested the defendant, as a result of which both proceeded to the police station, a formal identification parade would have been a futile exercise. No one ever suggested that the man who came out of the cinema, who was accused by PW1 of indecent assault and who was subsequently arrested in the presence of witnesses, was not the defendant, nor was that ever the defence. A dock identification should have been permitted.
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=250435

女律師使人噁心的庭內照

上一篇多個留言都談及女律師張昭婷在區域法院庭內照在自己facebook刋出一事, 當然是劣評如潮, 她最終會不會被檢控, 律師會又會不會採取紀律處分, 都是後話。不論誰是拍攝者, 張律師拍攝時的表情, 以及在facebook的描述, 以後怎樣去解釋, 都開脫不了這使專業蒙羞的行為。對一個執業多年的律師來講, 上庭其實有甚麼使人亢奮雀躍之處而搞到拍照, 我真百思不得其解。唯一可以想得到的, 就只有因為近年這些social media興盛, 以手機拍照即時上載極方便, 勝過千言萬語的描述。到了那裡看到風景美麗, 非筆墨所能形容, 一幅照片就省了唇舌。律師也只是普通人一個, 把相片、selfie上載與朋友分享, 也是很平常的事。但作為一個律師, 應清楚明白法律的界限, 不論你上庭怎樣英姿颯颯, 也不能在法庭裏取景來吹噓。早前何君堯在法庭大堂拍selfie已引起公眾的責難, 怎會有律師做更愚蠢的事, 竟在庭內拍攝, 除非精神有點問題。早前那在街上打人兇人的海關督察就是一例。雖然不能如此類推, 卻雖不中亦不遠矣。

在多個留言引述的不同媒體報導, 使我最震撼的是《巴士的報》這一篇:「出位女律師 庭外百變愛黑唇妝」。我用震撼來描述, 一點也沒有誇張。Wow!有無搞錯, 是我看完那些照片的反應。但想深一層, 一個不顧專業形象的律師的私生活也應受到尊重。《巴士的報》把報導重點放了在貶斥這女律師的私人照方面, 而不是針對在庭上拍照事件。值得這樣報導嗎? 她畢竟沒有穿奇裝異服上庭, 其他「豔」照,又何必展示出來, 吸引公眾批判。除了在庭上發生, 屬知法犯法的情況外, 沒有人有興趣知道這女人的其他事, 尤其是會使人夢魘的事。有的selfie都好self destructive, 我年紀大了, 想看喜劇, 不想看恐怖片。
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=254069
Next Page
ZKIZ Archives @ 2019