ZKIZ Archives


長毛脫罪, 無得郁

昨日律政司發聲明, 表示長毛收受黎智英250,000萬捐款沒有申報一案, 脫罪後律政司不能上訴, 解釋十分清楚, 我是看明報這報導的: 長毛收款案 律政司棄上訴 稱裁決基於法官考量事實證供。其中一段這樣講:

律政司發言人指,根據《區域法院條例》第84條,對區域法院法官就某裁定無罪的裁決,律政司長只能以案件呈述方式上訴,而該類上訴只限法律事宜(matters of law)。

在另一段, 明報這樣報導:

香港大學法律學院首席講師張達明表示,一般而言,刑事檢控案件的被告被判無罪後,除非律政司發現裁判官錯誤演繹法例,否則一般不能上訴,故今次律政司不能上訴亦屬「正路」。

我在《長毛脫罪, 郁個官!》一文已評論過, 現在再講是提出案例出來印證。Happy Zenith在該文的留言引用了大公報的一篇評論來問我, 我寫這一篇是順便回應該文的看法, 而並非對號入座。

《區域法院條例》第84條, 跟《裁判官條例》第105條都涉及案件呈請式的上訴(appeal by way of case stated), 雖然兩條例所用的字眼不相同, 目的及背後的法律理念卻是一樣, 都是涉及法律觀點(point of law)才可以用呈請的方式來上訴。法律觀點其實也可以包括案情事實, 如果法官在案情事實方面作出有悖於常理的看法, 也屬犯了法律上的錯誤。這看法當然不是我講的, 而是殿堂級的法官的看法。終審法院在李民偉(音譯)一案, 在這方面作了分析, 請看判辭這兩段:

18. An appeal by way of case stated under s.105 of the Magistrates Ordinance is not an appeal by way of rehearing. (See Lord Widgery CJ in Harris Simon & Co. Ltd v. Manchester City Council [1975] 1 All ER 412, 417b dealing with a similar provision in England.) It is a review by the appellate court on the limited ground that there is an error of law or an excess of jurisdiction.

19. Where a magistrate has come to a conclusion or finding of fact which no reasonable magistrate, applying his mind to the proper considerations and giving himself the proper directions, could have come to, this would be regarded as an error of law. Such a conclusion or finding is often described as "perverse" (See Lord Goddard CJ in Bracegirdle v. Oxley [1947] 1 KB 349 at 353; Lord Widgery CJ in Harris Simon & Co. Ltd v. Manchester City Council at 417d; and Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ in R v. Mildenhall Magistrates' Court, ex parte Forest Heath District Council (161) JP 401 at 410 E-F.) This is the case where the court is satisfied that the magistrate, in reaching his conclusion or finding, has misdirected himself on the facts or misunderstood them, or has taken into account irrelevant considerations or has overlooked relevant considerations. (See Lord Denning MR in Re D J M S (a minor) [1977] 3 All ER 582 at 589c-e.) In such a case, the court is entitled to intervene and the magistrate's conclusion or finding would not be allowed to stand.

LI MAN WAI AND SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE   FACC No. 6 of 2003

李運騰法官在判辭中詳細分釋了判長毛無罪的理據, 我在先前的評論也引用了該判辭中李官所指的疑點所在, 李官的結論並非“perverse”, 並無違反常理, 所以不屬法律犯錯(error of law), 控方就不能上訴了。

如果控方在不悖於常理的事實裁斷上可以上訴, 就等同叫法庭介定甚麼叫合理疑點, 合理疑點是從來都沒有人介定過的一種虛無的法律概念, 這概念與寧縱無枉的刑事舉證責任息息相關。但李官在判辭裏清楚分析了法理及案情, 理由並不虛無。那位中小型律師會會長, 恐怕只用了中小型的智慧, 沒有全面理解判辭及刑事法的法律理念, 就大聲疾呼叫律政司上訴, 豈不是在自暴其醜。我覺得律政司也應該常規性地多發一些訊息, 使大眾更清楚了解法庭的判決, 以免那些盲毛胡亂鼓動幾句, 市民就熱烘烘起來。The blind leads the blind....As the lost lead the way, another heart is led astray.
長毛 脫罪 無得 得郁
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=256118

長毛脫罪, 無得郁之二

我本來以為這課題已完結了, 已沒有討論的餘地, 因為律政司表示了在法律上不能為長毛案上訴, 殊不知有讀者在上一篇把陳律師鍥而不捨的討論連結給我看, 還要我評論。我猶豫, 因為我不想挑起筆戰, 要挑也要找個值得挑的課題, 否則只會浪費時間。反正以前為這課題寫過兩篇, 我就再寫這篇作結。

為了方便討論, 我引用「港人港地」報導陳律師的講法:

陳曼琪質疑,立法會議員權力過大,不受法律約束,法治制度及根基被動搖,有走向人冶的危險,法律的公信力也受到嚴重打擊。她促請立法會需盡快堵塞立法會議員申報制度的大缺口。

陳曼琪建議律政司基於該案判決對社會負面影響極大,需鍥而不捨地再次重新考慮。「其實,我覺得有一個法律觀點需釐清的。一個人以立法會議員身分收錢的法律定義是什麼?『個人』的法律定義是否包括與他立法會議員身份有連繫的第三者呢?associated third party ? 這是法律問題需釐清!」


如果陳律師講的是政治評論, 我就一定不答嘴。每個市民都可以對立法會議員的行為作出批判, 如果現行規管立法會議員不端行為的規則不夠, 而應加強堵塞漏洞, 以建立足夠公信力, 有誰會提出異議? 但以律師身分來提出需要釐清法律問題, 那就需要嚴肅正視了。陳律師提出來要釐清的法律問題在長毛這件案是其中一個課題嗎? 我恐怕不是。

長毛這件案的審訊過程中有不少法律爭議, 沒有一點涉及陳律師倡議律政司去上訴由上訴庭去釐清這一點。控辯雙方對於議員可以收取及「代收」捐款毫無爭議, 議員收取了捐款必須申報, 立法會已有清晰的「個人利益登記指引」, 如屬議員「代收」對政黨的捐獻, 卻無需申報, 控方對這些原則沒有爭論, 控方只是游說法官否定長毛收黎智英這250,000屬「代收」。判辭第78段介定了這些基礎:
“Accepting on behalf” (代收)
78. There is one proposition raised by the evidence of PW1 which appears to be common ground, that is to say that if a Member received a donation which was in fact intended for someone else rather than the Member personally, in other words if the Member only received the donation on behalf of a third person (“代收”), then Rule 83 of ROP would not be engaged and there would be not a duty to make disclosure of that donation pursuant to that rule. PW1 in his evidence cited a precedent concerning LegCo Member Alan Leong to that effect. In that incident, it was accepted that Mr Leong had received a donation on behalf of Alliance for True Democracy and he had not made any disclosure of that donation as a Member. The CMI looked into the matter and resolved that the non-disclosure was not a breach. I say that the proposition appears to be common ground firstly because the prosecution has not asked the court to reject the proposition whilst the defence relies on the proposition in the defendant’s defence. The prosecution’s attack on that defence is on the factual level, submitting that the defence evidence in this aspect should be rejected. Secondly, I note that the prosecution has laid no charge and raised no question in respect of the 2nd Payment (HK$50,000) from Mr Lai through Simon, even though the defendant was named as the payee on the payment cheque,[87] there being evidence that the defendant had subsequently withdrawn the money and paid it into the bank account of LSD. Thirdly, apart from PW1’s evidence, I also take into account the common stance of the parties. Lastly, as a matter of construction of the relevant rules of the ROP, I agree that if a Member receives a donation on someone else’s behalf, then he is not accepting the donation “as a Member” and in those circumstances Rule 83 would not be applicable. I note that there may an interesting legal issue which has not been addressed by counsel, namely “who is to decide whether an interest was required to be disclosed pursuant to Rule 83 of ROP, is it a matter for the court or is it within the exclusive cognizance of LegCo?” However, since my view on the proposition is the same as that of CMI, the point does not need to be resolved for the purpose of this trial.

我想陳律師提出要釐清的事項, 在上面這段判辭已講清講楚, 是一個事實裁斷的問題而並非法律問題(套用李官的原話: The prosecution’s attack on that defence is on the factual level)。簡單講, 控方叫法官不要相信長毛在「代收」捐款, 控方認為長毛假借「代收」之名來「袋錢」。辯方卻叫法官接納長毛是「代收」捐款。整件案都沒有一個律政司可以以呈請方式提出上訴的法律事項, 上訴庭可以釐清一個在審訊過程中控辯雙方都沒有爭議過的法律議題嗎?上訴庭又怎樣可以釐清事實裁斷?

讀者問我陳律師的質疑站得住腳嗎? 我覺得陳律師除了要認真閱讀李官的判辭之外, 還要重新學習甚麼叫案件呈請式的上訴, 她在這方面的法律概念屬fundamentally faulted。

如果有人問我長毛扺唔抵釘, 我覺得條友呢件事根本係出古惑, 釘咗佢我就話你都有今日, 抵你死。但睇咗李官篇判辭, 寫到滴水不漏, 我又無話可說。咁講標少豈非搖風擺柳, 看風駛?。非也。法律的看法尚有案例可循, 事實裁斷卻沒有必然結論, 我會審視法官判案的心路歷程, 而不是看end result。昨天讀了女護士在迪士尼偷糖被定了盜竊罪而上訴得直的判辭(HKSAR and PANG Shuk-king (彭淑琼)), 對於高院法官Campbell‑Moffat批評原審裁判官黃國輝的講法, 我向老伴講那是rhetorical nonsense, 我也不是在看end result。
長毛 脫罪 無得 得郁 郁之 之二
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=256322

困籠太耐無得郁獲救狗狗坐住瞓唔識瞓低

1 : GS(14)@2017-01-31 03:13:26

南韓一隻被狗肉農場養大,準備屠宰出售的珍島犬,獲救後被送到美國等待好心人收養,但由於牠與多隻同伴被困狗籠太久,即使已經脫離了狗籠的「束縛」,亦不懂得如何躺下休息,睡覺也是坐着睡,場面令人心痛。3歲珍島犬「Harriet」是上周在原州(Wonju)獲救的200隻狗之一,牠與另外14隻同伴被送到佛羅里達州坦帕灣(Tampa Bay)的動物收容中心。中心職員指「Harriet」已習慣坐着睡,相信與牠自幼與其他同伴長時間關在籠裏,無法自由活動有關。雖然職員特意為牠準備了一條毛毯,但牠也只會坐在毛毯上睡覺,完全不懂得躺下。「Harriet」的情況令人心酸,一名義工就花上一整天教會牠躺下睡覺,最後拍到牠蜷縮一團躺在毛毯上休息的照片,叫人欣慰。中心表示雖然珍島犬赴美後情況良好,並慢慢適應新生活,但牠們仍要承受昔日的恐懼。「Harriet」雖然已是隻成年犬,但由於過往生活環境惡劣,導致體重過輕,中心估計牠適應正常飲食後,體重才會慢慢恢復正常。英國《每日郵報》




來源: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/international/art/20170130/19913098
困籠 籠太 太耐 耐無 無得 得郁 獲救 狗狗 狗坐 坐住 唔識
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=324698


ZKIZ Archives @ 2019