ZKIZ Archives


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?
七警 警案 案中 中案
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=200057

寫在曾健超為七警案作供之前

很高興昨天(blogger昨天上午10時到今早10時)的24小時內, 點擊爆燈, 創開blog以來紀錄, 舊紀錄是4400次, 那是因為林慧思事件, 今次主要是曾健超事件, 有5400次。多人閱讀也心情矛盾, 因為每當有社會分裂事件發生而我去評論, 點擊就會多。那麼, 這一次高點擊率是否社會分裂的訊號呢? 我覺得不是, 因為這社會已四分五裂, 裂無可裂。原本是藍絲、黃絲壁壘分明, 現在藍絲裏又裂痕重重, 李偲嫣那小眾裂了, 那原本是烏合糾結的一群, 不成氣候的, 建制派也各懷鬼胎, 又鬧出中澳槍炮團的醜聞來, 連大公報都對他們發炮。泛民也不見得有多好, 有比人民力量更激進擲磚派出現, 又有極度無知的港獨叫喊, 連悼念六四都變成另一種分裂, 甚至有弱智不堪的鴇母論。沉默的人越來越多, 無他, 誰不會厭倦, 天若有情天亦老。佔中的失敗引發一連串的後遺症現在漸漸浮現出來。

我以前寫得太多佔中的文, 現在也沒興趣去為它蓋棺定論, 這些東西還是留給政治歷史學者, 不如去講自己有點皮毛知識的刑事案。曾健超襲警案判決了, 但暫時還未算告一段落, 因為他明天就要為七警案作供。上一篇有一問:

匿名2016年5月31日 上午11:26

請教標少,在七警案的審訊,控方可以盤問曾健超有關淋液案的詳情嗎?
法官會否以與七警案無關而拒絕?


雖然潑液案已審結, 我也不知道曾健超在七警案錄取的口供在這方面講過甚麼, 有待明天或後天他開始作供時才能揭曉, 不過, 我想預先推測一下。我相信曾健超在證人口供裏沒有割喉式承認自己潑液(割喉式即攬住一齊死), 如果他承認了就不會多次高調接受訪問談論此事, 而談論時也避重就輕。如果他在證人口供裏承認了潑液, 而又多次高調地顧左右而言他, 作供時捅了出來, 這不單是打擊他個人誠信, 也禍及公民黨所餘無幾的公信力。所以我相信他在證人口供紙裏沒有承認自己是潑液的人, 而只會說警察誤認他是潑液的人而拘捕他。控方在七警案傳召曾健超, 一定會觸及潑液那部份證供, 那是提供他被打一鑊的原因, 控方會提出這是七警打他的動機。雖然審案的法官一定有看報、看電視及上網, 一定知悉本案的報導, 但審理本案, 他就如白紙一張, 一切可以考慮的證據, 都要從審訊過程中獲取, 而不是從傳媒處得來。故此, 就算講警察誤以為曾健超潑液, 控方也要引導這種證供出來, 才可以交待他為何被拘捕, 繼而被打。況且, 控方簡單交待, 辯方也會在這方面大肆盤問以攻擊其誠信。故此, 區域法院法官不會拒絕控辯雙方觸及這方面的證供。

可能有人會質疑, 當曾健超作為襲警案的被告時, 辯方試圖引用他被毆打的證供卻被羅官所拒, 豈不是存在雙重標準? 其實這情況性質不同, 拘捕制服他的警員不涉毆打他, 而毆打那部份並非襲警案審理的案情, 所以屬離題。相反而言, 潑液卻是引致毆打的原因(motive)。而且, 作為證人, 可被盤問的範圍很大, 如果證入有刑事案底, 控方也有責任通知辯方, 以便對方循個人誠信方面作盤問。證人可被盤問的範圍遠比被告的大, 因為在法律原則上保障被告的權利比保障證人為多。

風水佬可以呃你十年八載, 我看得準不準一兩天就知道了。
寫在 在曾 曾健 健超 超為 為七 七警 警案 案作 作供 之前
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=200062

七警案落幕

今天情人節, 不去打波, 偕老伴郊遊, 由山頂遊到海灘邊, 開車200公里, 愜意享受了大半天。也是今天, 有人心情沉重的過。曾蔭權案今天由陳官引導陪審團, 曾生心情忐忑, 生死未卜, 有待陪審團的裁決。這件案沒有直接證據, 全靠推論, 陪審團退庭商議時, 我相信一兩天內就有結果, 不會懸峙。

七警今天也面對結果, 新年在家過了, 元宵也過了, 最終也難逃在裏面過一段日子。我對這七人有點同情, 以前罵過他們, 現在不想再罵了。畢竟打人一鑊, 自己也落鑊, 付出沉重代價, 我還可以講甚麼。Dufton這判辭200幾頁, 共817段, 我沒有耐性細讀, 只是粗略地速讀了一次。

如果問我釘得合唔合理, 我覺得以證據而論(包括受爭議的電視及傳媒影片及圖片、ID及曾健超的可信性), 釘得合理。如果甩晒又合唔合理, 那就需要個放官, 加埋啲歪理, 加埋驚恐被上訴, 就可以全部脫罪。咁講仲有乜好評論。無就唔寫喇。

曾健超在自己身為襲警案的被告時, 抗辯的方向是爭辯自己是潑液者, 定罪之後打算上訴。他在七警案作供, 被盤問到他是不是潑液者時, 他突然承認了, 判案書第322段這樣描述;

322.  In cross-examination Mr Lok SC played to Tsang the police video shown to Sgt 47574 and asked Tsang whether he was the one who was pouring the liquid.  After the court gave a warning against self-incrimination[234] Tsang answered that he was the one pouring liquid.  Tsang agreed that he was charged in relation to his conduct that evening[235].

我以前曾經評論過, 曾健超這承認就等如放棄了他自己襲警罪的定罪上訴, 他還要上訴就只可就着判刑上訴了。他承認是在他受審的案中影片顯示的潑液者。他這做法叫兩害取其輕, 如果在盤問下他否認是潑液者, 他的可信性更加會被猛烈攻擊, 到時七警脫罪機會就更大。在這情況下, 他用了割喉式攬住一齊死的方式, 反而使法官可信納他的證供。當然, 七警律師一樣不會放過攻擊他的誠信, 尤其是他在襲警案否認控罪, 指證七警時就承認是潑液者。無論如何, 七警以後上訴時, 也會集中火力以曾健超的誠信來着墨。我覺得曾健超被拘捕後以至向警察投訴課投訴時, 都採納了律師的bad advice, 擴大了在盤問時受到的攻擊。這一點我以前寫過罵過, 我罵那些不熟悉刑事法的人, 胡亂教曾健超, 去警察投訴課投訴竟然這樣不答那樣不答, 係咁做乜去投訴啫? 我罵時還有人留言罵我。好喇, 判案書都間接批評這legal adviser, 睇你點撐。判案書有好幾處提到, 曾健超在大律師陪同下錄取口供, 有的出錯令法官對曾的可靠性置疑, 下面一個場景是一例:

352.  When describing the assault on the voir dire, Tsang was not asked how many people assaulted him.  What Tsang did say was that from the time he was picked up and carried by his arms and legs face down nobody left the group but having seen the video footage someone else joined the group.  The first reference by Tsang to seven people was when he gave evidence that after being assaulted he was taken to a car.  When asked how many males left the substation to go to the car Tsang replied seven.  
353.  In cross-examination[260]Tsang agreed that when the First Information of Complaints Against Police Report was completed, he was accompanied by Ms Tanya Chan, a barrister and member of the Civic Party; in a formal complaint to CAPO (exhibit P38), made later the same day, he said he was assaulted by several persons; in his first witness statement made four days later he said he was assaulted by a group of males and did not know how many kicked and punched him[261]; and later when applying for a Judicial Review he said he was attacked by a group of six. 
354.  Tsang explained that he told DSPC 50117 that he was assaulted by six or seven persons but DSPC 50117 only wrote six persons in the First Information of Complaint Against Police Report and drew six things below a figure in a diagram.  Tsang was not sure whether he corrected this but explained that when he pointed anything out, for example his injuries, the officer would not amend the complaint.  When put by Mr Cheng SC that he never told anyone he was assaulted by seven persons until the day before he gave evidence, Tsang disagreed and said that he mentioned this before going to the hospital. 
355.  Considering Tsang was accompanied by Ms Tanya Chan, a barrister and member of the Civic Party, I have my reservations DSPC 50117 did not write down what Tsang said, in particular if Tsang pointed out the error.  Notwithstanding these reservations, the fact that the initial complaint records Tsang was assaulted by six persons and not six or seven as he says and later he said he was assaulted by a group of persons does not cause me to doubt his evidence he was assaulted, which assault was captured on the video footage.  For the reasons already given I am satisfied that the video footage shows Tsang being assaulted.  Considering Tsang was carried face down and the manner in which he was assaulted, it is not at all surprising he was unable to say exactly how many people assaulted him. (Mr Cheng SC就是清洪)
再看這兩段:
382.     After Mr Cheng SC referred Tsang to his affirmation[285], and paragraphs 26 & 27 of the affirmation of Ms Tanya Chan[286], filed in the judicial review proceedings, Tsang agreed that during the giving of his first witness statement[287] he refused on three occasions to answer questions as to whether his recollection was based on his own memory or based on the video footage. 
383.  Tsang explained in refusing to answer the questions he was acting on legal advice and not because he did not want to bind himself to evidence he might not be able to change.  Tsang agreed the reason given by his legal advisers for refusing to answer the question was as stated in his affirmation, namely that they considered the question inappropriate and calculated to prejudice a possible prosecution. 
還有其他例子, 譬如407段提及在投訴課錄有關傷勢的口供與事實的分歧, 這些都因為索取了大律師的意見下出現的問題, 如果遇到個用放大鏡審視案情的法官, 分分鐘大條道理送幾個兜(doubt)畀你, 咁咪放晒囉。

上一篇有留言問, 如果行政長官特赦七警及曾健超, 是否可以大和解? 我覺得休想, 首先行政長官只可以就着判刑特赦, 而不是定罪特赦(《基本法》第48(12)條), 以前的港督, 現在的行政長官, 都只有赦免、減輕刑罰的權力, 而沒有撤銷定罪的權力。真的赦免刑罰, 就更加分裂, 到其時就拿算盤出來計, 我坐3個月, 佢坐15個月, 赦免咪好唔公平。

香港還未到置之死地而後生的地步, 梁振英下場後, 就輪到批鬥下一個, 抗爭批鬥慣了, 怎會讓心靈空虛寂寞。
七警 警案 落幕
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=235369

從七警案的判刑, 看法官的判案步驟

香港受到政治氣候的影響下, 近年司法機構也變成磨心。十幾年來, 搞社會運動涉及示威遊行、非法集結、行為不檢、阻街等的控罪, 審訊經歷三級法院(裁判法院、高院及終審法院)的審訊及上訴, 逐步釐清了這些控罪在法律上的元素, 以及牽涉《人權法》、《基本法》及一些國際公約賦予平民權利義務方面的解說。經終院闡釋後, 下級法院在審案時比以前更易處理法律爭拗。以前建制人士不會批評法官, 只有泛民及激進社會運動人士罵法官。可是到了近年, 建制人士也開始罵官了, 不止罵官, 還會罵娘。一下子甚麼監察法官判案, 甚麼警拉官放等一干言論, 甚囂塵上。七警被定罪和判監兩年之後, 這股罵官氣氛被推上高潮, 連警察也罵官了, 又說會按章工作。不少人提出近期個別判決, 譬如襲警脫罪、暴徒輕判感化, 衝擊政府機構判社會服務令等例子, 來證明「黃官」的偏頗。我寫這一篇是預了給人罵的。我一直以來都被人罵撐警, 現在連撐警的人都罵起我來。罵就無需講道理, 罵我無妨, 有沒有道理都可以罵人, 這是言論自由賦予我們的權利。我罵得人多, 被別人罵也可能活該, 但道理我還是想講的。

我寫這一篇有兩個目的, 其一, 粗略分析一下法官判刑的準則, 其二, 上一篇有讀者在留言留下一篇文章的連結, 是香島中學鄧飛校長在《文匯報》發表一篇叫《用法治的方式解決法治中可能存在的問題》的文章, 我從鄧校長的文章學習之餘, 也寫一下香港法院在判刑一致性方面的法律原則。我不是為了反駁鄧校長的觀點而寫, 而是見到他在文章末兩段講英國的情況, 我借香港上訴庭一宗案例來講香港、英國及澳洲三地對判刑一致性(parity)的思維。

罵警拉官放的人其實也希望警拉官放吧, 他們不是很希望Dufton判七警無罪嗎? 如果Dufton判七警無罪, 到其時就輪到非建制的人罵警拉官放了。即是說, 只要法官釘你想釘的人, 而放你的同路人就可以了。那麼法官變成磨心, 兩面不討好, 該怎辦? 咿, 來個網上投票, 順應民情來判案好嗎? Majority wins. 一於搞判案雷動計劃, 發動網民來決定是釘是放, 符合民主精神, 豈不美哉? 真正維護法治, 不是那種一方面講維護法治, 另一方面收受利益, 也不是講贏了法治輸了公義、七警不是故意打人那類廢話。Dufton判這件案, 仔細考慮了影片呈堂的法律爭拗, 涉案人身份的爭論, 也衡量證據事實, 詳盡解釋了理據, 寫了817段判辭。不滿這裁決, 請從這判案書找空間去上訴, 沒有入會阻你, 而不是發動種族歧視去罵這洋法官, 罵就找判詞的錯處來罵。判刑可以批評嗎? 當然可以, 不過要用法律去批評, 說他判得輕和判得重, 都要提出實質理據。

法官判刑是隨心所欲的嗎? 基本上法官可以有兩種途徑去決定怎樣量刑。其一, 司法機構有判案的Manual, 提供給不同工種的各級法官作為參考, 這種Manual是時常更新的, 民事、刑事、家事、各種審裁處、死因庭諸如此類, 都各有判刑及程序指引, 這些Manual只有法官才看到, 因為要從司法機構的內聯網登入, 公眾接觸不到。其二, 參考Sentencing In Hong Kong這本書, 這書是由前刑事檢控專員江樂士及他的下屬前助理刑事檢控專員張維新共同撰寫的, 現已出到第七版。法官判案的量刑基本上參考這些東西, 參考了也難免同一個官, 判同一件案(超過一名被告)會出現不一致的刑罰, 因為裏面涉及很多不同因素, 年齡、背景、案底、犯法的角色等, 都足以使判刑時出現各被告刑罰不一樣的情況。同一個官, 判不同的案就更加千變萬化了。不同的法官, 處理同類形和不同類形的案就更加不會一致。再加上有些法官仁慈, 有些法官嚴厲, 根本無可能會一樣。七警遇到另一位法官可能脫了罪, 定罪也未必判多過15個月, 根本沒有對錯可言, 有人會把量刑起點降低, 再把求情因素增大, 就會出現很不一樣的結果了。如果案情特別, 沒有可作參考的案例, 就靠法官個人看法去判刑了。七警案可算是這種情況。

這種不一致, 就帶入鄧飛校長的宏文提出的論據。我講了不是要反駁, 而是用香港案例來展示香港法院的思維。在吳敏兒案 (HKSAR v Ng Man Yee CACC 278/2013), 上訴庭副庭長 Stock及上訴庭法官McWalters (不好意思, 那些不喜歡老外法官的, 這兩位是老外, 而且以前都是在律政司工作的), 在判辭中講了判刑是否一致的原則:
40.  When disparity of sentence is the ground of appeal we note that in the High Court of Australia decision of Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 Mason J expressed the view that the fact that the sentence is not a just sentence is a ground for appellate intervention notwithstanding that the injustice is generated by error arising in proceedings other than those of the appellant.  At page 613 he said:
“The sentence under appeal may be free from error except in so far as discrepancy itself constitutes or causes error. And the justification which the courts assign for intervention in the case of disparity is that disparity engenders a justifiable sense of grievance in the applicant and an appearance of injustice to that impassive representative of the community, the objective bystander.” [5]
41.  These views were subsequently followed by the majority of the High Court in Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462 where French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ said at page 475, paragraph 32:
“32 A court of criminal appeal deciding an appeal against the severity of a sentence on the ground of unjustified disparity will have regard to the qualitative and discretionary judgments required of the primary judge in drawing distinctions between co-offenders. Where there is a marked disparity between sentences giving rise to the appearance of injustice, it is not a necessary condition of a court of criminal appeal’s discretion to intervene that the sentence under appeal is otherwise excessive. Disparity can be an indicator of appealable error (88). It is also correct, as Mason J said in Lowe, that logic and reality combine to favour the proposition that discrepancy is a ground for intervention in itself (89). Unjustifiable disparity is an infringement of the equal justice norm. It is appealable error, although it may not always lead to an appeal being allowed.”
42.  It is important to recognize that whether a disparity between sentences is an unjustifiable one, thereby resulting in an unjust sentence, does not fall to be determined by the subjective feelings of the offender whose sentence is under appeal.  As the majority said in Green at page 474, paragraph 31:
“31. … The sense of grievance necessary to attract appellate intervention with respect to disparate sentences is to be assessed by objective criteria. The application of the parity principle does not involve a judgment about the feelings of the person complaining of disparity …”
43.  In Hong Kong the objective test that has been applied is that expounded by Lawton LJ in Fawcett (1983) 5 Cr App R (S) 158 which he described at page 161 as:
“… would right-thinking members of the public, with full knowledge of all the relevant facts and circumstances, learning of this sentence consider that something had gone wrong with the administration of justice?” [6]
44.  The argument in the present case seeks to extend disparity of sentence as a ground of appeal beyond co-offenders to a disparity in sentence between wholly unrelated offenders; here the applicant and other persons sentenced for the same type of criminal activity but in respect of completely unrelated crimes. In considering whether such an extension should be permitted it is helpful to have an understanding of the legal foundation of the parity principle.  This was explained by the majority in Green.  They said at page 473, paragraphs 28-29:
“28. … Consistency in the punishment of offences against the criminal law is “a reflection of the notion of equal justice” and “is a fundamental element in any rational and fair system of criminal justice” (75). It finds expression in the “parity principle” which requires that like offenders should be treated in a like manner (76). As with the norm of “equal justice”, which is its foundation, the parity principle allows for different sentences to be imposed upon like offenders to reflect different degrees of culpability and/or different circumstances (77). [7]
29. … The consistency required by the parity principle is focused on the particular case. It applies to the punishment of “co-offenders”, albeit the limits of that term have not been defined with precision.” [8]
45.  As can be seen from this passage the parity principle is confined in its application to co-offenders.  Likewise, in Hong Kong where there is long line of authority that limits disparity of sentence as a ground of appeal to co-offenders sentenced differently by the same judge.[9] It has never been extended to offenders charged with the same offence arising out of completely unrelated criminal conduct.
46.  Nor, has it been so extended in England. In the English case of Large (1981) 3 Cr. App. R (S) 80 the Court of Appeal refused to entertain a submission that there was disparity of sentencing between the sentence imposed on the appellant and sentences imposed by the same judge on other offenders for the same offence but who were participants in completely unrelated crimes.  At page 82 the Court said:
“This Court declines to entertain such a submission. By reason of the appeals which consistently come before it the Court is aware of the general level of sentencing throughout the country. If, when individual sentences are being considered, it was permissible for counsel to analyse sentences passed by other judges on other occasions for other offences the work of this Court would come to a standstill. It would occupy the time of the Court to an inordinate extent and would do no more than draw its attention to the sentencing practice of a particular judge on a particular occasion in circumstances quite different from those with which the Court is immediately concerned. We will consider the matter of disparity when it arises in respect of participants in the same offence who have received different sentences for the parts that they played in the offence. Where it appears that for similar involvement in the offence the offenders have received very different sentences it is a warning sign that something may possibly have gone wrong with one or more of the sentences.”
47.  The New South Wales Supreme Court adopted a similar view in Kardoulias v The Queen (2005) 159 A Crim R 252.  After accepting that what in Australia is referred to as the parity principle applies to co‑offenders, the Court of Criminal Appeal said at page 274, paragraph 106:
“However, the parity principle is not to be applied when a ground of appeal invites comparison between sentences imposed upon two offenders who are not co-offenders simply because the two offenders may have similar characteristics and may have committed similar crimes.”
48.  There is nothing in the judgment of the High Court in Green to suggest that the parity principle can inure to the benefit of persons other than co-offenders; nor is there in English or in Hong Kong case law.  All three jurisdictions speak with one voice.  The only occasion that relativity to other offenders’ sentences will create a justified sense of grievance is when the relativity concerns sentences imposed on persons who participated in the same offence as the offender.  That is not, of course, the position here.
49.  Outside of this situation it is for each applicant to demonstrate error or excessiveness in his own case.  A sentence otherwise appropriate for the level of that offender’s culpability does not become unjust simply by reference to an erroneous or unduly lenient sentence imposed on another offender in an unrelated crime.
50.  That being so, it cannot be said that other erroneous or unduly lenient sentences imposed in unconnected cases involving the same offence, provide an offender receiving a heavier sentence than those imposed in these other unconnected cases, with a justified sense of injustice.  It does not seem to us that it matters what the reason is for the alleged disparity between the cases; whether it be one judge being more lenient than another or the prosecutor selecting the wrong venue for trial.  Whatever the reason, the principle remains the same – the parity principle only applies to co-offenders.
51.  We do not doubt that this applicant and his family may not understand why others involved in more serious money laundering activity have been sentenced apparently more leniently but, for the reasons we have given, this does not entitle this applicant to harbour a justified sense of injustice.

我沒有本事去翻譯, 一言以蔽之, 判刑的一致性只適用於同案的被告(the parity principle only applies to co-offenders)。時下聽到批評法官判刑, 甚麼黃絲藍絲的, 有沒有人認真去硏究孰輕孰重的因由, 連那些所謂法律學者也在胡謅, 又怎能怪一般市民。以我自己觀察, 事實上確有些不太稱職的法官, 也有些遇到棘手案件就以案情事實來判被告無罪的法官。世界不是完美的, 制度也不能說不存缺陷的, 在社會撕裂分化之下, 才會因感性充昏了理性, 七警案的審判結果使這種情緒完全發酵。我尚算有幸, 沒有置身於瘋癲之中, 還可以提出理性討論, 盡量撇開個人情感去思考。我不是睡不著輾轉反側才去思考, 我住在悉尼十多年, 有機會把兩地發生的事情作比較, 像曾蔭權那類案, 在澳洲, 官商利益輸送無日無之, 在澳洲那些官員, 給捅出來就只有撤職, 像影片落畫, 從來都不會被檢控。香港在法治方面的成績, 真的很不錯了, 把香港的法治精神輸到這裏來, 恐怕不少官員已鋃鐺入獄了。香港警察來澳洲做, 就會更舒適, 很少機會被辱罵, 動了粗也很多人撐你, 分別在於社會的氣氛很不相同。今時今日在香港當差不是一份筍工, 但尚算是一份好工。
從七 七警 警案 案的 判刑 法官 判案 步驟
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=236451

七警案量刑的討論

早幾天從留言連結牽引下, 我看了港台節目《左右紅藍綠》, 由馬恩國大律師評論七警案的判刑。馬大狀自從在立法會用粗口罵長毛給人留下惡劣印象後, 近年我看過他幾次對社會事件的評論, 印象改觀了。是否同意他的看法是一回事, 起碼他表現得條理分明, 論述較以前持平。在這一輯的《左右紅藍綠》, 馬大狀認為七警判刑上訴, 理應可以大幅減刑, 他提出兩宗警察打人的案例支持他的論述。第一宗是沙展甘天寶(音譯)案, 是一宗一隊便裝警察上門查案, 戶主多番延遲及打四、五次電話報警, 直至軍裝到場才肯開門, 開門之後便裝對戶主鎖上手銬拳打腳踼, 這些便裝最後被控「襲擊致造成身體傷害罪」, 聽畢控方證供後, 甘天寶把罪名攬上身, 一人認罪, 其他同僚脫罪, 在那種情況下他被判監七個月, 判刑上訴駁回。(THE QUEEN and KAM TIN-PO (D2) CACC 122/1985). 這判辭簡單易明, 只有一頁。另一宗馬大狀提出的案例是衝鋒隊六名警員嫌三名海關關員多管閒事, 挺身為被打市民作證而被毆打案, 打人的警員因為犯案嚴重程度不同, 而被控「普通襲擊」和「襲擊致造成身體傷害罪」, 六人經審訊後定罪, 判刑由緩刑到判監七個月不等, 這件案只提出定罪上訴, 並無為判刑而上訴, 上訴駁回。(The Queen and Cheung Kin Tak and 5 others HCMA 416/1994). 我恐怕這兩件案的判刑未必幫到七警, 同情歸同情, 法理就是講法和理。我用了一個晚上搜尋案例, 也找不到實際對題的案例。重看Dufton對七警判刑的理據(DCCC 980/2015), 基本上除了引用許文泰案有關警察犯罪的判刑原則之外, 其他一點也沒討論。反而是練官在署任區域法院暫委法官審理三名懲教署職員「對他人身體加以嚴重傷害」罪(台灣男子陳竹南被毆打後死亡案)的判刑討論得較詳細。驗屍顯示陳竹南有117處外傷, 頭及大脾有深層瘀傷。三名懲教署職員面對的控罪和七警的雖然不一樣, 但都是最高可處三年監禁的。練官引用了英國的警察逼供打犯人的判刑案例, 該案判監兩年。考慮求情因素後, 三名懲教署職員判監十六個月。練官的判刑理由這樣講:
Authorities
16.   The maximum sentence under section 19 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212, is three years.  The offence is included in Schedule 3 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 221, as an “excepted offence”, for which a suspended sentence of imprisonment was not an option: see section 109B(1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance.
17.   As has been pointed out by the learned editors of Archbold Hong Kong 2012 (at paragraph 20-221), there is no guideline sentence for such an offence,‘although the courts have consistently indicated that custodial sentences of some length are the normal means of dealing with such cases’.
18.   In my view, the most aggravating factor in the present case is the fact that the defendants as Correctional Services Officers had abused their positions and abused the trust of the society by using excessive force on an inmate, thereby causing him serious injuries.
19.   Although there must be plenty of instances of violence within the confines of the penitentiary, the cases that made their way to the courts were usually concerned with violence amongst inmates and violence on the officers.  While they are grim and serious in their own ways, they could offer little assistance for the present purpose.  Despite the joint effort of the prosecution, the defence and the undersigned, I can find no sentencing authority on facts similar to the present case.
20.   The most approximate authority came from England: R v. Lewis [1976] Crim LR 144:-
The defendant was a police officer with 24 years of service. In the course of questioning a suspect who he suspected to be not forthcoming, the defendant struck him twice in the face, causing his nose to bleed, banged his head against a wall and on a table and kicking him.
He also incited his colleague to do the same. The victim suffered a broken nose, a perforated ear drum, bruising and cuts. Finally, he had to make up some false information in order to stop the beating. The defendant’s sentence of two years’ imprisonment on a plea to charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm was upheld and the view of the Court of Appeal was reported thus:
“the court appreciated the tragedy of the matter in the light of (the defendant)’s excellent record. However the public interest must be served. Police officers were in a position of great trust and if that trust was broken the results for them must be serious. The sentence was correct in principle and not excessive”.
(HKSAR v. Leung Shing-chi (D1) So Kai-wai (D2) Tang Yuk-po (D3)  DCCC280/2012

三名被告不服定罪及判刑提出上訴, 上訴被駁回, 上訴庭對該案的量刑作出以下的觀察:

70.  I turn to the sentences of 16 months’ imprisonment.  The maximum sentence for an offence contrary to section 19 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance Cap 212 is three years.  The judge took a starting point of two years and reduced that by one third to reflect the mitigating circumstances that he identified.
71.  As can be seen from his reasons for sentences the judge was well aware of the implications of his sentences upon men of good character who had made positive contributions to society.  However, he rightly said that they had to be balanced against the interests of the victim and society.
72.  It was argued that the sentences were excessive “as it was impossible to tell which bruises and contusions on the deceased were inflicted during the legitimate attempts to control and subdue him and which were inflicted illegally”.
73.  Whilst, of course, it was right to say that some bruises may have been occasioned in lawful restraint, it is also right to say that one can look at the extent of the bruising and conclude that the deceased received the bulk of them in excess of such restraint.  After all, that was the basis of the convictions.
74.  I do not agree that the sentences were excessive.  Indeed, it can be said that the judge was merciful in the discount he gave for the mitigating factors.  I find no ground to interfere with the sentences.
(HKSAR and Leung Shing Chi (梁盛志) So Ka Wai (蘇嘉瑋) Tang Yuk Po (鄧旭波) CACC 382/2012

相比於馬恩國在《左右紅藍綠》提出的的案例, 我始終覺得梁盛志案更具參考價值。如果引用馬恩國提出的案例, 恐怕上訴庭未必會接納。若果是這樣, 馬恩國提出會大幅減刑的講法就會是一種false hope了。
七警 警案 量刑 討論
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=237165

7警案的保釋等待上訴

【七警案】3被告保釋 官指無推翻定罪機會:理據毫不現實(15:58)

佔領行動期間襲擊示威者曾健超的7名警員,同被判罪成並判監兩年,其後全部被告就定罪及刑期提出上訴。其中高級督察劉卓毅、警員劉興沛和黃偉豪今獲准申請上訴期間保釋。

上訴庭副庭長楊振權批准保釋時表示,警員作為維持治安的執法者,佔領時須長時間工作,更須面對示威者的暴力行為。楊官直言,曾健超的潑水行為是具攻擊性、高度挑釁和不安全,而案中七名警員則作出同等愚蠢(equally senseless)的行為,將曾帶到變電站教訓,才會有是次針對警員的嚴重指控。

楊官認為,原審法官低估警員在處理佔領運動時面對的壓力,2年半的量刑起點值得爭議,加上上訴庭未必能在6至9個月內安排排期上訴,故決定批准保釋等候上訴。

至於推翻定罪的理據,楊官直言劉卓毅曾干預襲擊的說法毫無說服力,以中途警員曾換人的說法更是毫不現實,認為他們無推翻定罪的機會。

(28.6.2017 明報即時新聞)

楊副庭長批准了3警保釋的一番話, 已替7警案上訴定了調。第一, 定罪上訴會被駁回, 第二判刑上訴會成功。上訴庭時常用計數機來計算刑期的(一笑), 所以我也拿計數機來算下。以下是一些數據:

  • 7警的「襲擊致造成身體傷害罪」被判監以兩年半為起點, 減6個月, 最終刑期兩年, 即是104個星期。

  • 第5被告陳少丹的「普通襲擊罪」判監1個月同期執行。

  • 7警在2017年2月17日開始服刑, 到了今天, 共133日, 即19星期。

  • 楊副庭長說因上訴排期, 未必在6至9個月內可以聽審, 故此批准保釋, 言下之意即是批准判刑上訢的話, 到時就可能會坐多了監。

開始計數。一般坐監行為良好及扣減假期, 實際會坐刑期三分之二。現在坐了133天, 再加6個月的話, 即是加180天, 總刑期是313天, 即31個星期。若從現在計再加9個月, 即是加270天, 連同已坐的總共是403天, 即57.6個星期。

假設判刑上訴得直, 扣完假坐31個星期, 還原的判刑會是

31÷2x3=45.5星期(469.5日)。

若以實際坐57.6個星期來計, 還原判刑會是

57.6÷2x3=86.4個星期(604.5日)。

7警的刑期如果不變, 104個星期, 打折後實際上會坐69.3個星期。但副庭長說太長, 再坐6至9個月也可能太長, 那麼, 看來改判15個月或更短的刑期機會頗大。如果判15個月, 即65個星期(455日), 打折扣3分1, 是43.3個星期(303.3日), 會是短過再等6至9個月的上訴排期。我原本預測是15個月, 看來我是準確的。問題是, 現在保釋了, 正審後如改判15個月, 就要繼續坐多24個星期, 坐監咁斬件上可能仲慘。最近郭炳江案就是一例。

我不會同人爭抝應該怎樣判, 除非有案例, 以前都大幅討論過, 不想重複講。反正上訴庭說了就是終結, 除非7警對定罪上訴到終審法院獲批, 判刑上訴就不能上終院, 上訴庭的判刑一錘定音。
警案 案的 保釋 等待 上訴
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=253270

7警案保釋等候上訴的判辭

忙了一整天, 吃完晚飯才有閒暇讀判辭, 楊副庭長批准7警案其中3人保釋等候上訴的判辭上載了。看了判辭, 我有點意見。這件案的上訴還有兩關要過, 第一關是上訴許可, 第二關是上訴正審。在楊大人席前的課題是保釋申請, 保釋申請會考慮定罪被推翻的機會, 也會考慮判刑是否恰當。在考慮的過程中, 以免給上訴人錯誤的印象, 或者對處理正審的法官在看法上的壓力, 考慮保釋時一般都不會講得太多。楊大人對判刑方面似乎講得太明確, 他這樣講:

45. Without in any way underestimating the seriousness of what the applicants and his colleagues did, it is, in my view, highly arguable that the 2 ½ year starting point, 6 months off the maximum sentence, adopted by the judge is manifestly excessive and that a significantly lower starting point should be adopted.

講判刑‘highly arguable’無問題, 表達可爭議量刑起點‘a significantly lower starting point should be adopted’, 是否講過了界線呢?  以Dufton原本的兩年半量刑起點作比對, 怎樣才算是‘significantly lower’? 兩年抑或兩年3個月, 都不夠significant, 分分鐘以1年半為起點才算了。若以18個月為判刑起點, 又有甚麼求情因素呢? 楊官列了一籮, 集中批評曾健超的行為, 不是嗎:

41. As pointed out to the judge, police officers, in carrying out their duties, had to work very long hours without proper rest and they were also subject to unwarranted and serious insulting remarks as well as violent behavior from some of the protestors of whom Tsang was perhaps an infamous example.

42. The applicants and their colleagues were acting under immense stress in the face of the violent and provocative behavior of the protestors, many of whom were oblivious to the fact that police officers were there to maintain law and order, and to safeguard the well-being of the society as a whole.

43. When police officers were trying to clear the protestors, having removed the barricades set up by them, Tsang splashed liquid of an unknown nature onto them. Tsang’s arrogance and stupidity, as demonstrated by his unsavoury, highly offensive and provocative behaviour, unfortunately led to an equally senseless response from the applicants, who together with the other defendants had decided to teach Tsang a lesson by taking him to the substation to assault him. It is in such circumstances that the court has to assess a suitable sentence.

警察長時間超時工作, 面對不必要辱罵, 還要應付曾健超這刁民的表表者, 這些刁民行為粗暴, 言辭使人惱怒(所以抵打一鑊, 口脗好似白宮發言人為小學雞總統辯護, 話佢喺twitter鬧記者因為被provoked)。楊大人以5個形容詞來描繪曾健超有幾抵打:

Tsang’s arrogance and stupidity, as demonstrated by his unsavoury, highly offensive and provocative behaviour...

7警只是equally senseless。楊官又幾貼地喎。

Dufton判7警入獄時, 在警察面對佔中長期超時工作壓力及定罪後會被撤職的後果的描述, 只有這一段, 一句批評曾健超的說話也沒有:

18. Taking into account the circumstances prevailing at the time and the great stress the police were under in handling the Occupy Central movement; that the defendants, all of clear record, have served the community as police officers; that the conviction will result in all the defendants being dismissed from the police force and the likely loss of any pensions; and the stress caused while waiting for trial, I reduce the sentence by 6 months to 2 years imprisonment.
(Reasons For Sentence DCCC 980/2015)

Dufton的判刑理由, 重點集中於7警行為使警隊蒙羞及打擊香港聲譽:

13. The defendants have not only brought dishonour to the Hong Kong Police Force they have also damaged Hong Kong’s reputation in the international community, the assault having been widely viewed around the world and reported as front-page news in a number of countries[5].

14. Although Tsang had broken the law for which he was subsequently sentenced to imprisonment[6] and the defendants were at the time acting under immense stress, there was no justification for taking Tsang to the substation and assaulting him.

15. The defendants, serving police officers who in the execution of their duty took Tsang to the substation to assault him; the multiplicity of the injuries sustained by Tsang as a result of the assault; and the damage to Hong Kong’s reputation make this, in my view, a very serious case.

16. I am satisfied a term of imprisonment is appropriate. Tsang was defenceless, his hands handcuffed behind his back with plastic ties. The assault was a vicious assault, in particular the first thirty seconds when Tsang was dumped on the ground, stabbed, stamped on and repeatedly kicked. Most fortunately Tsang did not suffer more serious injuries.

當然, 這課題有得寫續集, 到正審時看下是否楊官主理, 最終的判刑會不會appeal against sentence allowed to the effect of an immediate release。

法官的對錯, 只能用官階來衡量, 只有坐上面的可以話下面錯, 除此之外, 只有草民可以指指點點了。
警案 保釋 等候 上訴 的判 判辭
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=253446

廉署偷拍片段曝光 黑幫前坐館:打甩賄警案出得 黎行預咗還

1 : GS(14)@2010-11-27 18:14:38

2010-11-17 iM
被警方列為打擊目標之一的黑幫和勝和前坐館「崩嘴」,多年來都能避過警方的線眼,直至早前被廉署告上法庭,才揭發他涉嫌長時間賄賂一名警長,以換取對方在職務上提供利益。

案件本周一在區域法院審結,因廉署舉證不足,及兩被告以「助養智障女」拆解懷疑賄款來源,成功脫罪。

本刊深入追查這宗黑幫賄警案,並從廉署跟蹤被告的偷拍影片中,揭開崩嘴兩度將一叠叠現金,交到警長妻子所經營報檔的過程;涉案警長更向本刊披露與崩嘴及另一名江湖猛人的秘密關係。

雖然我並不盡信兩被告的作供內容,但基於廉署未能提出有力證據,指證他們有串謀犯案、以及涉案賄款最後是落入警長手上,所以只能判兩人罪名不成立。」區域法院暫委法官陳錦昌,周一就賄警案作出裁決時說。

原名潘偉業的「崩嘴」,四十八歲,被控在○四年中至○八年三月期間,每月向五十歲的警長潘國球提供四千元,作為潘以警務人員身份,在有需要時向他提供優待的報酬,涉及金額共約十九萬元。

潘國球在八九至九四年間,曾駐守荃灣警區反黑組及新界南總區重案組;崩嘴則被廉署形容,是活躍荃灣區的黑幫和勝和前坐館,相信二人早已認識。

從廉署的偷拍片段所見,○七年十二月十一日,穿橫間衫的崩嘴,第一次被拍得現身荃灣大河道,將一個相信載有四千元現款的白信封,交到警長妻子所經營的報檔;第二次在○八年三月十一日,這次他穿深色西裝外套,把一叠同樣共四千元的五百元鈔票,遞給報檔職員。

直認交錢到報檔

「是呀,影片中交錢到報檔的人是我。」審訊期間,崩嘴在庭外向本刊直認不諱,但接着又似是而非說:「警察想拉我好耐啦,佢哋拉唔到,?家又輪到廉署,我出得嚟行,預咗還,最多咪坐一年半載;不過我要強調,給報檔的錢,並不是要收買警長。記得他當年駐守反黑組時拉過我,如果知道他就是報檔老闆娘的丈夫,我一定搵人教訓佢,點會仲畀錢。」警長潘國球則回應說:「我九四年升警長後,就調去沙田警區做軍裝,怎記得十多二十年前拉過甚麼人;還有廉署一直未能證明我提供了甚麼着數給對方,單憑他定時拿錢到我老婆的報檔,就指我受賄,叫我怎服?」他並透露之所以與崩嘴扯上關係,原來牽涉另一江湖猛人。

「老婆在我被捕後才說,她所收的錢,是其父生前的江湖朋友拿來,給患有智障的胞妹阿玉。其妹雖然已四十幾歲,但只得十歲的智商,岳父臨終前最放不下的,就是這個智障女兒。」潘的岳父綽號「驢仔添」,據悉是黑幫十四K支派「湃盧」的重量級人物,早在六十年代已闖出名堂,曾活躍旺角及沙田區,門生近千人,他過身前雖已屆七十多歲,但仍對幫中大小事務親力親為。

驢仔添在○二年證實患上癌症後,曾四出向不同幫會的江湖好友託孤,希望他們有生之年,能協助照顧其智障女兒,結果大部分都答應。然而驢仔添同年底身故後,兌現承諾的人卻不多。

江湖猛人臨終託孤

江湖傳聞,八十年代末,崩嘴在其所屬幫會還未上位時,驢仔添曾多次借錢給他並介紹工作,又帶他結識不同幫會的江湖朋友。其後崩嘴愈撈愈掂,兩人亦成為莫逆之交,故崩嘴對其託孤一事最為上心。

「據老婆透露,自其父過身後,間中就有三幾個不知名的人拿錢到她在大河道經營多年的報檔,他們沒承諾會按時給錢阿玉,但每次出現都會放低幾千元,後來部分人疑因年事已高甚至已離世,沒有再出現。她印象中,崩嘴是最常到來的一個。」潘續說:「阿玉現時在荃灣區一庇護工場工作,每日下午放工後,都會到報檔拿零用錢,然後去買零食或逛街,她所拿的錢,正是岳父的江湖朋友所提供。」據悉,崩嘴與潘國球被捕之初,完全無提及「助養智障女」一事,直至案件開審,潘才以此作辯護理由;加上在廉署舉證不足情況下,二人才得以把行賄受賄罪推得一乾二淨。

崩嘴還在庭外高談闊論說:「我明知警察一直都想拉我,如果真是賄警,又怎會蠢到親自拿錢去其老婆的檔口呢?」逃過廉署檢控的崩嘴,現仍要就涉嫌操控及勒索荃灣區多條小巴路線一案,接受警方調查。有反黑警官相信,他跑得了和尚,也跑不了廟,遲早被送入監牢。

老叔父變箭靶之謎

近年執法部門經常拘捕一些已退下江湖前線的黑幫叔父輩人物,有指是因卧底人員難以接觸當紮大佬,為求交差,遂轉向名氣大兼戒心低的老叔父埋手。

雖然黑道中人批評此舉等同「恰阿伯」,但一名反黑警官表示,不少自稱退隱江湖的大佬,其實仍暗中操縱幫會運作,故必須予以打擊。

「尤其掛着前坐館名銜的老叔父,他們地位超然,除不時出面調解各頭目之間的糾紛,更可直接影響幫會的選舉,當中涉及頗大的利益及權力爭鬥。」警官舉例說,今年六月警方在深水埗及時制止一宗買兇殺人案,事件背後正正涉及黑幫坐館人選的爭鬥,幕後主腦及被追殺的目標,均為叔父輩人物。
2 : abbychau(1)@2010-11-28 00:18:32

浪費左咁耐調查了
廉署 偷拍 片段 曝光 黑幫 前坐 坐館 打甩 甩賄 賄警 警案 案出 出得 黎行 行預 預咗 咗還
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=271804

七警案 曾健超認出部份被告控辯雙方需時研究新口供 案件今續審

1 : GS(14)@2016-06-06 02:58:05

■七警案昨日開審,被告警員抵達法院時,獲李偲嫣為首的撐警人士喊口號支持。何家達攝


【本報訊】前年佔領運動期間,7名警員涉在金鐘添馬公園暗角毆打公民黨成員曾健超,被無綫電視等傳媒拍下過程。事隔18個月,案件昨在區域法院開審,七警維持不認罪。由於曾健超前日錄取了新口供,相片及影帶中認出自己及部份被告,控辯雙方需時研究,辯方另於前日才收到律政司提供逾500頁文件,押後至今午才傳召證人。記者:歐陽聯發 楊思雅案件料以案中案方式,先審理相關新聞片段可否呈堂。據悉曾健超一早有意就七警案補錄口供,惟他希望等候潑液體襲警案審結,該案本周一才完結。消息指,他前日再到警署錄取口供,在相片及影帶中認出自己就是被制服抬走的黑衣人,及認出部份被告。至於控方交出的新文件,辯方認為有重要性,早已向控方索取,但至前日才取到。



7被告繼續否認控罪

七警昨由私家車接載到庭,他們清一色結上警方傳統黃紅黑斜間領呔,其中同屬反黑組的劉興沛(38歲)和黃偉豪(36歲),及警員陳少丹(31歲)直到步入法庭後才脫下口罩和墨鏡。七警於犯人欄內狀甚輕鬆互有交談,但開庭後他們顯得緊張,眉頭緊鎖,部份人戴上耳機聽繙譯。七警否認前年10月15日在龍匯道政府大廈變電站外,蓄意嚴重傷害曾健超。陳少丹另否認同日在中區警署接見室內襲擊曾健超。外籍主控、資深大律師麥禮士甫開庭便指,曾健超周二向警方錄取一份額外的證人供詞,由於文件是中文,未有時間閱讀。代表高級督察劉卓毅(29歲)的資深大律師清洪質疑,為何本案去年10月首次提訊、兩個月後移交區院,曾健超偏偏近日才錄口供。法官杜大衛問新提交文件包括甚麼,麥禮士指新材料主要包括曾健超早前申請司法覆核要求公開七警身份的文件和誓章,及其他控方不依賴的資料。法官再問為何不能提早給辯方,麥禮士指他本人沒代表該司法覆核案,也是近日才取得有關文件。代表陳少丹的大狀鍾偉強質疑,部份資料提到認出被告的警員,顯然與案有關,非如控方所說「不依賴」。鍾又表明反對將中區警署的閉路電視片段呈堂。



■有警員涉嫌在前年佔領運動期間毆打曾健超。

【控方】■資深大律師麥禮士指需時研究曾健超的新口供。


【辯方】■代表次被告的資深大律師清洪抵達法院時險摔倒;他在庭上質疑曾健超為何近日才補錄口供。

辯方反對呈涉毆打片

辯方又表明反對now、無綫、蘋果日報及亞視共4間傳媒的新聞片段呈堂,並爭議全部影片的真實性,包括片中人是否被告,建議用案中案方式先處理片段可否呈堂。控方預計要傳召曾健超及6名拘捕警員,以證明片段真確,若以案中案審理,正審時部份證供或重叠,證人又要再次出庭,故反對用案中案方式。代表總督察黃祖成(48歲)的資深大律師駱應淦要求法庭准許被告使用平板電腦閱讀案中文件,法官表示要再考慮。


【辯方】■代表首被告的資深大律師駱應淦要求讓被告用平板電腦閱文件。


7名被告依次為有組織罪案及三合會調查科總督察黃祖成、觀塘區反黑組高級督察劉卓毅、觀塘區反黑組警長白榮斌(42歲)、觀塘區反黑組警員劉興沛、東九龍總區刑事總部警員陳少丹、九龍城區刑事偵緝警員關嘉豪(32歲)及觀塘區反黑組警員黃偉豪。案件編號:DCCC980/15





黃祖成(48歲)有組織及三合會調查科總督察

劉卓毅(29歲)觀塘區反黑組高級督察

白榮斌(42歲)觀塘區反黑組警長





劉興沛(38歲)觀塘區反黑組警員

陳少丹(31歲)東九龍總區刑事總部警員





關嘉豪(32歲)九龍城區刑事偵緝警員

黃偉豪(36歲)觀塘區反黑組警員





來源: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20160602/19637830
七警 警案 曾健 健超 認出 部份 被告 控辯 雙方 需時 研究 口供 案件 今續 續審
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=301852

七警案開審曾健超胸背15瘀痕 法醫:警棍捅傷

1 : GS(14)@2016-10-20 08:00:53

■曾健超背部傷痕。



【本報訊】轟動全城的七警案拖拉兩年,昨終在區域法院正式開審。控方讀出開案陳詞,指曾健超在前年傘運被七警抬到暗角拳打腳踢約4分鐘,過程被傳媒拍下,其中6名被告容貌清晰可見,所有被告有默契、或默許他人共同使曾的身體受到嚴重傷害。法醫證實其胸背15處瘀傷,與伸縮警棍形狀完全脗合,幾乎肯定曾被警棍捅傷。曾被帶到中區警署後,因他不肯說出手機密碼,即遭其中一警連摑兩巴。記者:歐陽聯發七名被告包括總督察黃祖成(48歲)、高級督察劉卓毅(29歲)、警長白榮斌(42歲)、警員劉興沛(38歲)、陳少丹(31歲)、關嘉豪(32歲)及黃偉豪(36歲)。昨晨大雨滂沱,七警落車時紛紛開傘擋雨,但關的傘突然被吹反,狀甚尷尬,最後白遮他步入法院。黃被問及會否緊張,帶笑道:「都係咁啦!」法官早前裁定接納暗角打人片段,及警署閉路電視片段等全部呈堂。



曾兩度遭掌摑

控方在開案陳詞指,案件緣於前年10月14日,當時大批示威者堵塞金鐘龍和道馬路,警方見衝突升級,增派反黑組加入清場。警司吳樂俊指派黃祖成分派人手和指揮部分小隊。當晚最終人手編配,白榮斌、關嘉豪、劉興沛、陳少丹及黃偉豪屬同一隊,小隊由劉卓毅帶領。15日凌晨,兩名軍裝警在龍和道花槽看到曾健超正向下方警員潑液體,遂上前制服。因曾反抗,另外6名警員加入制服他,有人扯下曾的眼鏡及口罩,並噴胡椒噴霧。控方指,該6名警員沒對曾使用警棍。成功制服曾健超後,暗角事件便拉開序幕。警員將曾交給5名被告,分別是黃祖成、白榮斌、劉興沛、陳少丹及關嘉豪,劉卓毅其後加入;接着白榮斌、劉興沛、陳少丹及關嘉豪「捉手捉腳」將曾抬起,黃祖成和劉卓毅在旁同行,各被告的容貌被多間傳媒清楚拍下。曾一直背朝天被抬到龍和道變電站暗角位置,這時黃偉豪加入。與此同時曾被拋到地上,他面向變電站牆身,雙手遭反綁,頭部及身體不斷遭拳打腳踢,背部被硬物襲擊,歷時4分鐘,曾感到襲擊如雨般落下。控方指控所有被告有默契、或默許他人共同使曾的身體受到嚴重傷害。七警其後帶曾登車,陳少丹及關嘉豪押他到中區警署。警察會面室內,曾因拒絕透露手機密碼遭陳兩度掌摑,當時關亦在場。關其後將曾轉送往黃竹坑警察學校,並應值日警員要求,在表格上填上其警員號碼。


肩腹疑被踢傷

曾會見陳淑莊大律師後決定正式投訴,但不肯給當值官查看傷勢,後被警方送往律敦治醫院驗傷。法醫證實曾身上傷勢是受拳打腳踢等重擊所致;心口及背部15處圓形狀紅腫,與警方常用「軍裝專用警棍」形狀脗合。而曾部份傷勢亦與另一款伸縮警棍脗合。曾的肩膀和腹部有條狀紅腫,可由警員軍靴造成,估計有人踢傷曾。至於如何認出各被告,控方只透露案發後一年間,有警員下載不同新聞片。但證人名單中部份警員有份認人,包括黃偉豪於觀塘區的同袍,控方並將各被告的委任證相片呈堂。聆訊今續。案件編號:DCCC980/15




來源: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20161020/19806621
七警 警案 開審 曾健 健超 超胸 胸背 15 瘀痕 法醫 警棍 捅傷
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=312805

網民咒罵甚至威嚇圍住所 司法機構轉介七警案 法官受辱 律政司跟進

1 : GS(14)@2017-02-18 00:48:33

■高志森在七警判決當日於fb留言以示不滿。資料圖片



【本報訊】七警暗角打人罪成,法庭今日判刑。撐警「藍絲」連日來發動網上攻勢,辱罵案件的主審法官,「狗官杜大衞,去死啦你」,甚至恐嚇其人身安全,有藍絲網民揚言「包圍杜X偉居所」。司法機構昨日表示高度關注,已轉介事件給律政司跟進。有法律界人士指出,侮辱法官「黃狗」、「狗官」等言論,有意圖損害法官權威或司法運作,已可構成藐視法庭罪。記者:王家文司法機構發言人表示,高度關注近日有人在社交媒體發表對個別法官的評論,已將事件轉介律政司跟進。律政司前日表明,惡意攻擊法官有可能構成藐視法庭,會毫不猶豫轉介執法機構調查。惟律政司昨回應則相對溫和,沒用上「藐視法庭」字眼,僅稱會跟進,重申社會人士不應惡意攻擊法官或作出損害司法的行為,也應避免向法院或個別法官施壓,影響司法獨立。



■珍惜群組前日在高院外示威。

高志森:對號入座吧

7名警員於佔領期間在添馬公園暗角毆打公民黨前成員曾健超,本周一在區院被裁定襲擊罪成,今日判刑。連日來網上湧現大量涉嫌針對七警判決的言論,矛頭更直指外籍主審法官杜大衞。七警案裁決當日下午,導演高志森即在其網上社交媒體facebook發文指,「黃絲法官偏幫亂港反港份(分)子。本土港獨暴徒縱火、打警察、破壞公物,狗官就輕判、甚至判無罪,實在偏頗至極」。高前日繼續在其facebook留言:「公道判案的是法官,偏頗判案的是狗官,對號入座吧。」並質疑「基本法那(哪)一條是『不可以批評法官』的?」至昨晚,高透過手機短訊回覆本報查詢稱,「謝謝告知(司法機構聲明),我不作進一步評論了」。


多個撐警專頁昨仍見辱罵主審法官杜大衞的言論。藍絲facebook專頁「9up新聞」管理員更張貼杜的個人照片,並寫上「狗官杜大衞,去死啦你」、「禍港(西人)黃狗官!杜大衞」;網民Fung Chon則揚言「撐七警,打倒垃圾法官」。在香港政研會facebook專頁,網民陳建波更稱「發動市民、警察和家人包圍杜X偉居所」。法政匯思召集人任健峰認為,司法機構評估有關言論有足夠嚴重性,故轉介律政司跟進,但檢控與否需由律政司決定。如立法會議員何君堯去年在法院自拍,司法機構也轉介給律政司,最終都沒作檢控。他指網上針對七警案的言論,若屬有意圖損害司法機關、法官權威或司法運作,例如部份指名道姓批評主審法官是「黃狗」、「狗官」等,已可構成藐視法庭罪,相信警方也可追查到發佈有關言論的人士。手機用戶請按此觀看 Timeline:七警案http://bit.ly/7-cops




來源: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20170217/19931071
網民 咒罵 甚至 威嚇 圍住 司法 機構 轉介 介七 七警 警案 法官 受辱 律政司 律政 跟進
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=326656

盧偉聰近日就七警案回應

1 : GS(14)@2017-02-19 12:19:20

談七警罪成

【2月15日致函全體警務人員】「相信各位同事和我一樣感到非常難過。我和管理層亦明白同事們的憂慮及失落感受……我向他們保證,若七位同事決定上訴,協會會盡一切努力,在各方面如法律上、經濟上提供全面協助。」


談七警判刑

【前日 公開發言】「今日(前日)成個心情都非常沉重同複雜……無論有乜困難、挑戰,我都會同我同事一齊去面對、一齊克服。」


談會否道歉

【昨日 公開發言】「目前呢單案件整個司法程序都未完成,所以我暫時不作評論……」資料來源:《蘋果》資料室、盧偉聰昨日言論




來源: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20170219/19933190
盧偉 近日 就七 七警 警案 回應
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=326936

香榭麗舍大道殺警案位置

1 : GS(14)@2017-04-22 10:49:22

來源: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/international/art/20170422/19997789
香榭 麗舍 大道 殺警 警案 位置
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=331287

七警案三人准保 官不認為可推翻定罪惟指兩年刑期或過長

1 : GS(14)@2017-07-01 09:09:32

■三名上訴人高級督察劉卓毅、警員劉興沛及警員黃偉豪昨獲准保釋,離開法庭時未有回應記者提問。何頴賢攝



【本報訊】七警在添馬公園暗角毆打公民黨前成員曾健超,今年2月被裁定罪成判囚兩年。其中三警,包括高級督察劉卓毅及兩名警員,昨率先向上訴庭申請保釋。法官聽罷理據,兩度指不認為三人就定罪的上訴有勝算可能,指曾健超的行為雖然挑釁、囂張、愚蠢,但七警教訓他一頓的表現也是「冇sense」,不過,法官認為兩年刑期或可能過長,上訴後有可能減刑,故准三人保釋等候上訴。 記者:黃幗慧 楊思雅



上訴庭副庭長楊振權昨近中午12時批准三名上訴人高級督察劉卓毅(31歲)、警員劉興沛(40歲)及警員黃偉豪(38歲)保釋。劉卓毅獲准以現金及人事各5萬元保釋,劉興沛及黃偉豪則以現金及人事各一萬元擔保,三人需交出旅遊證件。



■七名警員2014年雨傘運動期間,涉將公民黨前成員曾健超帶到添馬公園暗角毆打。

大狀稱劉卓毅曾叫停襲擊


三名上訴人至黃昏5時半,才在懲教員開路下步出高等法院羈留室,有記者問他們對法官批評他們「冇sense」有何感受、警察隊員佐級協會創會會長譚惠珠表示有銀行願意聘請,他們會否接受等問題,三人均沒有回應,並乘坐私家車離開。代表劉卓毅的資深大律師余承章昨日陳詞,質疑控方原審時依賴的片段未能顯示施襲者身份,即使片中其中一人是劉卓毅,他在「暗角」也曾兩度出手勸阻施襲。楊官反駁:「作為一個警察應如何去阻止呢?你會唔會拔槍?有4至5人毆打一人,作為警察係咪只係出手平定襲擊呢?」余解釋劉卓毅即使在現場,也不算是共同犯案,因他的確有叫停襲擊,相對其他落手毆打,或袖手旁觀的人,他應獲較輕刑期。


指警教訓曾健超「冇sense」


大律師蔡維邦則指,呈堂片段畫面不清,不能證明警員黃偉豪在現場;而新聞片段有43秒畫面被遮擋,抬走曾健超的人可能換了人,警員劉興沛或不涉之後的毆打。楊官批評蔡的講法只是靠估,沒證據支持。楊官聽取三人的部份上訴理據後,兩度稱不覺得三人就定罪的上訴有成功機會。楊官指佔領運動時,警察長時間當值,受到示威者的侮辱、無理的暴力對待,例如警察當時在維護法紀,卻遇到曾健超潑液體,但他同時指出,儘管曾的行為挑釁、囂張、愚蠢、攻擊性,可是警察教訓他一頓也是「冇sense」。楊官形容本案案情極度嚴重,過去沒同類案例,就算在極困難的情況下,警察也是受託去執法及履行職務。三人被定罪的襲擊致造成身體傷害罪,最高刑期為三年,原審法官以兩年半作量刑起點是否過高,楊官認為值得爭議。由於上訴聆訊在未來的6至9個月都未能進行,若他們最終就刑期上訴得直,已服刑期或會長過實際刑期,故批准他們保釋等候上訴。案件編號:CACC38/17



手機用戶請按此,觀看【七警案事件簿】



97年主權移交至今,香港前進還是倒退?「蘋果」與你細數廿載風雨。【回歸二十年】專頁:http://hksar20.appledaily.com.hk




來源: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20170629/20072592
七警 警案 案三 三人 準保 官不 認為 推翻 定罪 惟指 指兩 兩年 刑期 過長
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=337115

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 |
ZKIZ Archives @ 2019