- 股票掌故
- 香港股票資訊
- 神州股票資訊
- 台股資訊
- 博客好文
- 文庫舊文
- 香港股票資訊
- 第一財經
- 微信公眾號
- Webb哥點將錄
- 港股專區
- 股海挪亞方舟
- 動漫遊戲音樂
- 好歌
- 動漫綜合
- RealBlog
- 測試
- 強國
- 潮流潮物 [Fashion board]
- 龍鳳大茶樓
- 文章保管庫
- 財經人物
- 智慧
- 世界之大，無奇不有
- 創業
- 股壇維基研發區
- 英文
- 財經書籍
- 期權期指輪天地
- 郊遊遠足
- 站務
- 飲食
- 國際經濟
- 上市公司新聞
- 美股專區
- 書藉及文章分享區
- 娛樂廣場
- 波馬風雲
- 政治民生區
- 財經專業機構
- 識飲色食
- 即市討論區
- 股票專業討論區
- 全球政治經濟社會區
- 建築
- I.T.
- 馬後砲膠區之圖表
- 打工仔
- 蘋果專欄
- 雨傘革命
- Louis 先生投資時事分享區
- 地產
Random Tags
誰為非禮受害人討回公道?
這是一篇遲來的評論, 上星期三(17.5.2017)上訴庭的判辭上載了, 我卻忙於「不務正業」, 只能斷斷續續看完這157頁, 共286段的判辭。一宗簡單的在戲院裏摸鄰座女士大脾的非禮案, 審前覆核上了3天法庭, 正審用了18天: HKSAR AND HARJANI, KISHORE MOHANLAL, HKSAR AND MARK RICHARD CHARLTON SUTHERLAND HCMA 685/2013 AND HCMA 425/2014(有興趣可以click入這連結來看)。
我寫這一篇有兩個目的, 一為受害人抱不平, 二為了臭罵大律師Mark Sutherland(MS)使專業蒙羞的行為。我相信香港開埠以來, 上訴法院從未試過批評辯護律師比這件案批評得更嚴厲, 我也從未見過比這件案更無理拖長審訊會拖得這樣無恥地長的律師。一宗可以一兩天之內審結的簡單案件, 審了18天, 審訊過程的錄音謄本長達2181頁。審訊時間長, 盤問詳盡仔細, 絕對不是反映虛耗法庭時間的指標, 只要對題, 有目的, 有需要, 就算要花更長時間, 也不應受到批評。不過, 簡單不過的案情, 主要爭議在於有摸/無摸, 抑或是意外觸碰, 無論怎樣天花亂墜, 也無可能盤問受害人四、五天, 荒謬之處, 我不想重覆, 判辭中所舉例子已不勝枚舉。拖長這件案的元凶當然是這個不知廉恥、嚴重專業失當的大狀, 拖長案件是為了自身利益, 因為上庭收費斷日計, 不單止虛耗了被告的金錢, 更嚴重浪費了法庭時間。我以前也評論過原審裁判官也有不能推卸的責任。這位裁判官展示了無限的容忍能力, 也沒有發火, 卻無形中縱容了大狀的奸計得逞。有些法官可能認為, 你下下阻止他發問, 在過程中會花更多時間爭論應否發問那些問題(這件案無出其右), 不如索性任他離題發問, 反而減少爭論而浪費的時間。我絕不同意這種處理方法來對付無恥拖長審訊的人, 我覺得給他三幾次解釋盤問離題的理據後, 就不應再給他機會繼續纏擾, 應該不怒而威地講: “question disallowed, move on”。這件案的審訊過程, 提供不少反面例子, 看得我火起。MS這種劣質的律師, 確實難得一見。你不對付他, 無形之中變成助長了他的惡行。只有那些假難民的Torture Claim的人才會喜歡他, 因為MS這種手段, 幫助他們可以藉詞拖長留在香港的時間, 讓他們留得越久對他們越好。
本案受害人不單只受害於被非禮, 也受害於法律制度。被告上訴得直, 撤銷了非禮定罪, 並非受害人作供出了甚麼問題, 也並非原審裁判官審訊的判決犯錯, 而是劣質大狀的表現對被告造成不公才驅使上訴得直。這受害人在作供的過程中受到不必要的欺凌, 隨便在判辭找一段也足以反映:
162. It is clear, on MS’s own concession before the magistrate, that it was not until the fifth day of PW1’s testimony that he embarked upon putting his case to her and “taking the witness through various matters that happened on the evening in question based on her answers in-chief”[1]. It seems to us, and we have had difficulty in avoiding the use of hyperbole, that most of the first four days of cross-examination of PW1 were taken up with page after page of obtuse, pointless and irrelevant cross-examination. Counsel’s questions appeared to have no sensible direction or purpose whatsoever other than to badger or bully the witness and prolong her ordeal. It ought to have been obvious to counsel when PW1, a respectable and obviously intelligent woman, complained of her frustration, as well as her feelings of being insulted, by questions of no discernible consequence being repeatedly asked of her, that a more restrained, delicate and sensible approach, which would have been entirely consistent with his instructions, was required. Instead, she was met with an obdurate, relentless and remorseless cross-examination which displayed neither skill, restraint nor sensitivity, and which went on for days on end; despite the valiant efforts of the magistrate to control it.
上訴庭也要坦白承認, 受害人也因為法律制度感到沮喪:
218. We have arrived at this conclusion with profound dismay because the magistrate’s evaluation of evidence and reasons for convicting the defendant are in themselves unimpeachable, and we are acutely conscious that the defendant is the only beneficiary (albeit indirectly) of his counsel’s antics. Conversely, the unfortunate complainant, who was subjected to counsel’s extraordinary forensic machinations for days on end, had every right to expect that she would be treated respectfully and that justice would be done on the merits of the case according to law. From her perspective, justice has manifestly not been done to her. She could be forgiven for thinking that she has been sorely let down by the legal system; and by the legal profession in particular, which should play an integral and important part in ensuring that the system works properly, fairly and efficiently.
這無恥的大狀在庭上放映受害人在戲院看的那齣由羅拔迪尼路主演的電影"RED LIGHTS"的DVD, 離題萬丈, 受害人很迷惘地爆出這一句使我搖頭爆笑的話:
“It’s annoying. Now it’s not Robert De Niro who indecently assaulted me.”
我寫這一篇有兩個目的, 一為受害人抱不平, 二為了臭罵大律師Mark Sutherland(MS)使專業蒙羞的行為。我相信香港開埠以來, 上訴法院從未試過批評辯護律師比這件案批評得更嚴厲, 我也從未見過比這件案更無理拖長審訊會拖得這樣無恥地長的律師。一宗可以一兩天之內審結的簡單案件, 審了18天, 審訊過程的錄音謄本長達2181頁。審訊時間長, 盤問詳盡仔細, 絕對不是反映虛耗法庭時間的指標, 只要對題, 有目的, 有需要, 就算要花更長時間, 也不應受到批評。不過, 簡單不過的案情, 主要爭議在於有摸/無摸, 抑或是意外觸碰, 無論怎樣天花亂墜, 也無可能盤問受害人四、五天, 荒謬之處, 我不想重覆, 判辭中所舉例子已不勝枚舉。拖長這件案的元凶當然是這個不知廉恥、嚴重專業失當的大狀, 拖長案件是為了自身利益, 因為上庭收費斷日計, 不單止虛耗了被告的金錢, 更嚴重浪費了法庭時間。我以前也評論過原審裁判官也有不能推卸的責任。這位裁判官展示了無限的容忍能力, 也沒有發火, 卻無形中縱容了大狀的奸計得逞。有些法官可能認為, 你下下阻止他發問, 在過程中會花更多時間爭論應否發問那些問題(這件案無出其右), 不如索性任他離題發問, 反而減少爭論而浪費的時間。我絕不同意這種處理方法來對付無恥拖長審訊的人, 我覺得給他三幾次解釋盤問離題的理據後, 就不應再給他機會繼續纏擾, 應該不怒而威地講: “question disallowed, move on”。這件案的審訊過程, 提供不少反面例子, 看得我火起。MS這種劣質的律師, 確實難得一見。你不對付他, 無形之中變成助長了他的惡行。只有那些假難民的Torture Claim的人才會喜歡他, 因為MS這種手段, 幫助他們可以藉詞拖長留在香港的時間, 讓他們留得越久對他們越好。
本案受害人不單只受害於被非禮, 也受害於法律制度。被告上訴得直, 撤銷了非禮定罪, 並非受害人作供出了甚麼問題, 也並非原審裁判官審訊的判決犯錯, 而是劣質大狀的表現對被告造成不公才驅使上訴得直。這受害人在作供的過程中受到不必要的欺凌, 隨便在判辭找一段也足以反映:
162. It is clear, on MS’s own concession before the magistrate, that it was not until the fifth day of PW1’s testimony that he embarked upon putting his case to her and “taking the witness through various matters that happened on the evening in question based on her answers in-chief”[1]. It seems to us, and we have had difficulty in avoiding the use of hyperbole, that most of the first four days of cross-examination of PW1 were taken up with page after page of obtuse, pointless and irrelevant cross-examination. Counsel’s questions appeared to have no sensible direction or purpose whatsoever other than to badger or bully the witness and prolong her ordeal. It ought to have been obvious to counsel when PW1, a respectable and obviously intelligent woman, complained of her frustration, as well as her feelings of being insulted, by questions of no discernible consequence being repeatedly asked of her, that a more restrained, delicate and sensible approach, which would have been entirely consistent with his instructions, was required. Instead, she was met with an obdurate, relentless and remorseless cross-examination which displayed neither skill, restraint nor sensitivity, and which went on for days on end; despite the valiant efforts of the magistrate to control it.
上訴庭也要坦白承認, 受害人也因為法律制度感到沮喪:
218. We have arrived at this conclusion with profound dismay because the magistrate’s evaluation of evidence and reasons for convicting the defendant are in themselves unimpeachable, and we are acutely conscious that the defendant is the only beneficiary (albeit indirectly) of his counsel’s antics. Conversely, the unfortunate complainant, who was subjected to counsel’s extraordinary forensic machinations for days on end, had every right to expect that she would be treated respectfully and that justice would be done on the merits of the case according to law. From her perspective, justice has manifestly not been done to her. She could be forgiven for thinking that she has been sorely let down by the legal system; and by the legal profession in particular, which should play an integral and important part in ensuring that the system works properly, fairly and efficiently.
這無恥的大狀在庭上放映受害人在戲院看的那齣由羅拔迪尼路主演的電影"RED LIGHTS"的DVD, 離題萬丈, 受害人很迷惘地爆出這一句使我搖頭爆笑的話:
“It’s annoying. Now it’s not Robert De Niro who indecently assaulted me.”
這件上訴案的判決之後, 我希望司法機構可以採用行政手段, 指導法官加強case management的正確態度, 對於MS這類行為加強約束, 除了MS, 也有一些慣於拖長審案的律師, "Woody Allen"就是另一例, 當然沒有一個會像MS這樣離譜的。
唯一值得安慰的是, MS會面對大律師公會的紀律聆訊, 最嚴重的指控不是他嚴重失職, 而是他講大話, 接了區域法院案件而假稱自己離港休假, 三番四次拒絕裁判官安排押後續審本案的日子, 到了續審當日索性去了區域法院而不出席續審, 這反而是應該受到嚴厲制裁的行為。我去年評論本案時預測非禮案的被告會因為MS的失職而上訴得直, MS被罰虛耗訟費的上訴會被駁回, 而他應被停牌18個月, 當時不知他假稱離港休假這欺騙法庭以便自己吃兩家茶禮的行為, 現在重新審視, 我認為他應被大律師公會停牌5年, 希望大律師公會不會縱容這使大律師聲譽蒙羞的人繼續得逞。
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=250436
"小鳴單車"破產清算 70萬用戶能否討回押金仍是未知數
近日，沈寂已久的共享單車“小鳴單車”的經營管理方，廣州悅騎信息科技有限公司已進入破產清算程序，眼下市民最關心的便是“退押金”的問題。押金究竟能否順利退還？那些散落在街頭數以萬計的小鳴單車現狀如何？是否還有人在使用呢？來看記者的調查。
記者在街頭走了一圈，發現還有為數不少的小鳴單車，它們三三兩兩和其他品牌的共享單車一起。有的車把被擰成了180度完全變形，有的座椅上沾滿了泥垢，被遺棄在墻角。經常使用共享單車的市民告訴記者，小鳴單車的APP內，大部分功能都已經無法正常使用。
市民 毛先生：登進去只能看到地圖，看不到車輛定位之類的。
相比車輛的運營，不少用戶最關心的還是自己的押金能否退還的問題。近日，根據廣州市中級人民法院公告，小鳴單車的經營方悅騎信息科技有限公司破產清算一案已被法院受理，正式進入破產程序。
隨後，“小鳴單車”經營管理方廣州悅騎信息科技有限公司，在媒體上公開發表道歉聲明。
據悉，小鳴單車共收到400多萬用戶的押金，共計約8億元。法庭審理時，還剩下70多萬用戶的押金尚未退還。根據企業破產法的相關規定，押金未能退還的消費者是對悅騎信息科技有限公司享有債權的債權人，可依法行使自己的權利，進行債權申報。具體可通過微信搜索關註“小鳴單車破產工作信息”公眾號，進入公眾號之後，點擊申報入口，填寫相關的信息，就可以自助進行包括押金、余額在內的債權申報了，申報截止日期為2018年6月27日。
據公開信息，這可能是國內第一家正式進入破產清算程序的共享單車企業。雖然已經有了正規的途徑來申報，但是能不能順利討回全部押金，需要看公司剩余資產的情況，因此仍然是個未知數。
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=264753
上書朱鎔基謀討回非名下財產
1 : GS(14)@2017-02-02 02:33:54【拆局】賴昌星因走私和行賄罪2012年被判終身監禁，沒收個人全部財產。坐監四年後突然上書朱鎔基告狀，指專案組至今未將沒收他的財產入國庫，還入狀告申訴，要求法院重審其財產部份。分析認為他是想借當局強調出台新政策之機，爭回一些不在他名下、但實際歸其享有的財產。
沒收1,500多畝土地
賴昌星被沒收財產的結構複雜，當時專案組不分青紅皂白，只要沾賴昌星邊的財產統統沒收，殃及諸多合夥人，包括賴老婆及兄弟。賴的家屬去年已公開投訴，法院從不交付涉案的資產沒收清單，資產去向不明。據稱，賴僅被沒收的土地就有1,500多畝，加上被沒收的房產及其他財產，有分析指現值逾千億人民幣。內地最高法院去年12月發佈《關於依法妥善處理歷史形成的產權案件工作實施意見》，提出要「規範涉案財物的處置，維護涉案企業和人員權益」，意思是法院要求區分違法者違法所得和合法財產，及嚴格執行涉案財物的保管、處置制度。分析認為，賴昌星顯然對當局這個新的法律意見有所領會，因為他出事前財大氣粗，旗下不少公司雖是他出錢，但未必是他掛名，故他要打財產官司，爭回那些不是他名下、但實際是他所有的財產；上書前總理朱鎔基批專案組侵吞財物，只不過是把朱與事件切割，同時引起朱的注意。《蘋果》記者
來源: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/international/art/20170201/19914358
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=324929
Next Page