📖 ZKIZ Archives


非禮案各懷鬼胎 陳嘉桓離奇身世

2011-12-1 NM

陳嘉桓非禮案後第五日,陳浩民拖住大肚老婆喊到腳軟認錯,再搵曾志偉做和事老,欲大事化小,可惜陳嘉桓老闆冼國林(師傅)唔俾面,高調表示要追究到 底,反而放生要做善事贖罪的另一人狼馬德鐘。一單圈中色慾醜聞,愈來愈多人插手加把口,表面為公道發聲,實質各懷鬼胎,借勢抽水。 本週一(十一月二十八日),非禮案再現新版本,受害者陳嘉桓被揭在受辱過程中,雖略有反抗,但全程傻笑。貪玩闖禍,為保玉女形象,陳嘉桓借勢自爆坎坷童 年,並公開與經理人的母女關係。

借勢抽水
陳嘉桓事件發生後,人狼兄弟陳浩民、馬德鐘各自發功,希望擺平事件;陳浩民 找曾志偉出面求情,馬德鐘就有無綫高層樂易玲撐腰。結果,只有馬德鐘獲特赦,陳嘉桓老闆冼國林上週召開記者會表示要報公安,咬住陳浩民唔放,又聲言從沒偏 幫徒弟,甚至試過怒摑陳嘉桓。「佢落重本捧徒弟做玉女打女,依家形象有損,投資咗嘅錢同心機隨時化為烏有,梗係激氣。」知情人士說。

順水人情
馬德鐘能夠甩難,全靠樂易玲。據知,她跟冼國林是多年好友兼鄰居,才輕易講掂數,「雖然馬德鐘仲有個零月就約滿,但無綫嘅態度只要一日係無綫人,都會保住你,樂小姐仲同冼師傅講到明,今次要死咬住陳浩民,放過馬德鐘,日後大家合作就有偈傾。」知情人說。 後台唔夠力,陳浩民拖老婆認錯都無用。據知有份參與國內新劇《濟公》的他,劇組隨時嗌停,陳浩民可能因好色見財化水。 至於在微博發文章鬧爆陳浩民、馬德鐘的王晶,變身正義之士背後,亦為了維護個人利益,保住導演地位,陳嘉桓孭飛的新片《笑功震武林》。「齣戲未拍完就出事,唔㷫就假,佢同兩隻狼又冇乜交情,梗係落力插,當幫套戲宣傳吓。」

單親長大
原本盡收同情眼光的陳嘉桓,因再被揭受辱期間仲識傻笑,令非禮事件疑點重重,而正身在橫店開工的她,連日封嘴避記者,但因有傳媒挖到料,為免愈描愈黑,經理人Ronnie(陳瑰霖)突然在微博自揭二人母女 關係。 據知,Ronnie十六歲誕下Rose及幼子後,便獨自飛加拿大,將一對兒女交由親戚照顧,直至女兒十二歲、七年前才回港跟他們一起生活。Rose為維護母親,多年來一直隱瞞身世。 女神今次先行自爆複雜背景,明顯是想沖淡非禮事件。 「成個過程(非禮)係點,只有Rose先最清楚,所以對記者嘅問題,佢唔敢講得咁詳細,事發嗰晚有份同佢哋去嘅劇組人員話,Rose嗰晚俾人感覺幾主動,食飯時仲飲咗少少酒。」知情人士透露。

阿媽陪試鏡
十 五歲入行做模的陳嘉桓,曾處於反叛期,跟住一班TB朋友周圍玩,由於樣甜身形又夠高,在屯門區妹界相當有名氣。在讀書時期,已開始替雜誌做模特兒,自 己亦不斷試鏡探路,最後加入冼國林的國藝簽約獲力捧。 「佢去試鏡簽約,都係Ronnie陪住佢,其實有段時間Rose唔係咁聽話,Ronnie有搵過圈中朋友呻,叫佢哋幫手教女。Rose簽約國藝時未中學畢 業,當時公司要求佢一定要完成中五,仲要佢學功夫。佢跟咗冼師傅之後,乖咗好多,Ronnie都睇得Rose好緊,唔做化妝轉做經理人,都係為咗個 女,Ronnie明白後生女有反叛期,佢後生都係咁,所以Rose同咩人玩,佢都要一清二楚。」知情者說。

行為解讀
陳嘉桓非禮案,幾位涉案者反應各異,耐人尋味。臨床身心行為心理學家李寶能,嘗試從他們的行為反應,解讀他們的心理狀態。

點解笑
橫店狎玩事件中,陳嘉桓被人質疑不但冇反抗兼面露微笑。不過,據臨床身心行為心理學家李寶能指出,很多強姦、非禮案的受害者,在受虐過程中,潛在本能會蓋過理性駕馭能力,甚至發出錯誤訊號,令施暴者誤以為對方非常享受和期待。

拖妻壯膽
至於要太太陪同下公開道歉的陳浩民,李寶能指,他的行為顯示未有足夠信心處理事情,情感上需要多一個人壯膽,例如太太或女友,作為強大保護者,跟他一起面對群眾壓力,要身邊人與他共苦的表現。

驚執輸
有份攬錫,但冇份受罪的馬德鐘,李寶能指出,人的行為是傳染性,「見有好嘢就會跟、會搶」,這是羊群心理;尤其是性的訊息,容易誘發動物本能,令施暴者同伴怕執輸,做埋一份。

兜巴星
嬲爆的冼師傅,公開承認曾怒摑徒弟陳嘉桓。李寶能認為冼師傅的行為,在心理上已取代陳的父母角色,並且視徒弟為資產,引致會用行動去表現他的強烈關心。

詠春變鵪鶉
雖然有媽咪護航,但一次睇漏眼即出事。據了解,由她代言的香港航空,有意飛起這個在危急關頭冇晒反抗能力的詠春師妹。 「Rose老闆出事之後特登打電話俾香港航空嘅負責人,想盡力掹番代言人位置。事關航空公司搵Rose開班教空姐防狼,點知Rose自己有事竟然唔識反抗,詠春變鵪鶉,雖然航空公司最後決定繼續用Rose,但就會淡化佢代言人形象。」 大難臨頭,在橫店開工的陳嘉桓,一度秘密搬酒店躲避傳媒,劇組更全面封鎖消息阻止採訪,直到本週日(二十七日),才見她換上女裝戲服在外景場地開工,同行尚有媽媽兼經理人Ronnie。 至於有無綫高層樂易玲幫手調停的馬德鐘,高調在橫店開工,為獲特赦接受傳媒訪問,並在本週一(二十八日)急急腳趕返香港慰妻。 另一邊廂被冼師傅死咬唔放的陳浩民,連日來扮好老公陪實老婆,週一下午十二時,帶同大肚老婆、還有外父外母,一行四人山長水遠去迪士尼家庭樂,對於冼師傅不接受道歉,陳浩民表示可以做的已經做晒,日後再有狎玩照片流出,只是在傷口上再灑鹽噃。

PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=29624

來而不往非禮也 泰國旅遊部門鼓勵民眾赴中國旅遊

“到泰國旅遊的中國民眾越來越多,我們同時希望更多的泰國民眾到中國看一看。”泰國國家旅遊局顧問博瑞蘇1日在武漢舉行的“2016中泰文化旅遊友好行”湖北行活動上表示。

“現在有許多泰國家庭將子女送到中國學習文化,也有一些中國家庭將子女送到泰國學習,這是兩國文化交流融合的很好證明。”博瑞蘇說,中國文化博大精深,發展速度驚人,尤其是城市的變化令人印象深刻,到中國旅遊應該成為泰國民眾的首選。

泰國一直是中國消費者出境遊重要目的地之一, 據數據顯示,2015年中國赴泰國突破800萬人次, 今年1-4月中國赴泰國遊客突破360萬,全年有望突破一千萬人次,位居泰國遊客人數首位。在驢媽媽公布的《2016暑期出遊趨勢報告》中,泰國成為今年暑期中國遊客最愛的出境遊目的地國家。

中國文化部外聯局正局級參贊柯亞沙柯亞沙表示,泰國是“一帶一路”沿線重要國家,也是東盟與瀾滄江—湄公河合作機制重要成員國,讓更多泰國民眾了解中國,邀請更多的泰國客人到中國來旅遊,都將對促進兩國經濟文化交流具有重要意義。

PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=212888

律師非禮和襲擊之二

Stint on the sex offenders register for City lawyer who racially and sexually assaulted woman at Christmas party

He also poured beer over his victim’s head and called her an “Australian slut”

A high-flying City solicitor, who earlier this month was found guilty of racially aggravated assault and sexual assault, has today been handed a 12-month community order.

Following sentencing at Wimbledon Magistrates, Alastair Main will have to complete 200 hours of unpaid work. His name will be placed on the sex offenders register for five years.

Main — who has reportedly been sacked from his previous job as legal counsel at London-based asset management firm Schroders — also risks being struck off. A spokesperson for the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) told Legal Cheek today:

We are aware [Main’s conviction] and now the court case is concluded, we will seek all relevant information before deciding on the appropriate action.

Main, 35, was accused of pouring a beer over a 27-year-old woman at the London Rowing Club’s 2015 Christmas party in Putney. He was also said to have called her an “Australian slut”.

At trial, the court heard how Maine followed the young woman into the ladies’ toilets, lifted up her skirt and repeatedly slapped her. After “storming out” of the restrooms, he continued to pursue his unnamed victim before apparently giving her another slap on the bum.

The Ashurst-trained lawyer — who accepted that he had followed the woman, but only because he wanted to apologise for pouring beer on her — maintained that the bum slap was “cheeky”. He accepted calling her “a slut” but insisted that the incident was not racially motivated.

Admitted as a solicitor in October 2007, Main was found guilty of aggravated assault and sexual assault earlier this month. He had, until today, been on unconditional bail while pre-sentencing reports were prepared.

Ordering Main to cough up £1,000 in costs and an £85 victim surcharge, Judge Barnes today told him:

I take into account that you have lost your job and cannot work in your chosen sector in future and the impact on your reputation, your family, friends and the public.

The judge said money could not recompense behaviour like this, and that the victim “would like to leave this all behind” and has “moved on”.

Main, whose legal career now lies in tatters, is also subject to a five-year restraining order that prevents him from contacting the victim.
(Legal Cheek Weekly: Friday 27 January)

5個月前寫過這件案: 律師非禮和襲擊, 這律師最終被定罪和判200小時社會服務令, 如果不是律師, 可能已判了監。這判罰也不算太輕, 畢竟被告也有很多求情因素, 他對控罪也沒有完全否認。當然, 在不認罪的情況下經審訊後定罪而判社會服務令, 在香港也時常發生。泡妞不成而老羞成怒, 真有趣, 便要拳打腳踢, 兜頭潑酒? 雖然有醉酒的因素, 也明確顯示這種大男人沙文主義(male chauvism)作祟。

這種泡妞不成繼而動粗的情況說起來像有普世價值, 半個月前香港一宗上訴案情也有相類案情:

THE UNDISPUTED FACTS

3. The victim under Charge 1, Yeung Sin‑yee, was a 21‑year‑old law student enjoying a night out at the Ore‑no Kappou restaurant in California Tower, 32 D’Aguilar Street, Central on 5 June 2015. She was attending a friend’s birthday party and the whole restaurant had been booked out. The appellant, a 54‑year‑old male, had also been invited. At about 9.10pm, the appellant, who was described as drunk and aggressive, approached Miss Yeung and stroked her bare back two to three times. Miss Yeung became upset and started to cry, at which point the appellant grabbed her wrist and said “Drink with me!”. She asked him to let go and told the appellant that she did not drink. In response, the appellant said, “I am not the one who tells you to drink but my friends do”. The appellant was still holding the victim’s wrist at this time and she was crying. She told the appellant to let go and not to touch her again. The appellant eventually let Miss Yeung go and said “Fuck you! Who do you think you are? Don’t drink with me!” Then the appellant threw a glass of wine over Miss Yeung’s head.

4. The incident was reported by Miss Yeung to the police and they arrived a short time later at which stage the appellant was described as smelling of alcohol, being incoherent and staggering. He was arrested by PC 16734 at about 10.05pm and became emotional. He was escorted from the restaurant by three police officers. A friend was also present to assist because of his emotional state. By the time the group reached the roadside, the appellant was yelling and staggering. He shouted to the police officers, “I am your boss. I am the chairman. You do not need to come to work tomorrow.” He was also heard to say “What is your number? I beat the fuck out of you. (I will) fire you tomorrow.” He then tried to break free and kicked out at PC 16197. He also hit the right side of the crotch of PC 16734 and kicked the other escorting officer PC 6994. In order to subdue the appellant, PC 16734 tried to handcuff him and was hit in the lips and abdomen for his trouble. He was eventually handcuffed but only after he was pressed down onto the pavement. As a result of his behaviour towards the police he was arrested for assault police, at which point he became emotional and struggled with the guarding officer.
HKSAR and YEUNG HOI SHAN (楊凱山) HCMA 202/2016

這被告是上市公司達進東方照明前主席, 也曾任葵青區撲滅罪行委員會主席, 幾十歲人對着個做他女兒有餘的法律系學生, 毛手毛腳, 我不明白為何不告他非禮, 起碼有不爭議的證據他摸了受害人坦露的背脊兩三下。這件案上訴駁回之餘, 控方聲言會上訴至終審法院, 因為涉及上訴法院在聽審上訴時接納被告一方呈上新證據, 控方認為這做法犯了重大法律錯誤。我等睇下集。

又是這些飲兩杯助慶的日子了, 講兩句掃興話, 這穿腸物不只危害健康, 別讓它毀了前途。當然毀了前途的人, 又可以有理由再灌幾碗黃湯, 浮一大白了。

恭祝各位從心所欲不逾矩。
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=233969

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.”

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

鏢埸非禮案的刑期覆核

今天好忙碌, 回到家裏已下午五時, 客仔又特別多, 有個還寫了4頁紙, 都一一回覆了。新聞又特別多, 寫了一單, 還有這一單: 飛鏢場東主非禮改判囚兩年 上訴庭斥行為近乎強姦, 早兩日的新聞, 今天頒判辭, 但司法機構網頁尚未上載。我去年寫過這篇評論: 寫在鏢場非禮案覆核上訴之前, 所以對這件案特別關切。上訴庭的判辭這樣描述:

The gravity of the offence was the respondent’s conduct towards an obviously unconscious and vulnerable woman. The respondent’s conduct fell just short of rape.  Clearly, a deterrent sentence was required. (p.20)

阻嚇性刑罰是甚麼?

Starting point for sentence

In all the circumstances, we are satisfied that the appropriate starting point to be taken for sentence is 4 years’ imprisonment.

Discount

The respondent is entitled to a discount from the starting point of ⅓ to reflect his plea of guilty. In addition, we are satisfied that it is appropriate to give the respondent a further discount of 3 months’ imprisonment to reflect the fact that he has performed 136 hours of the 240 hours of Community Service to which he was subject. Finally, given that the respondent, a man of good character, is now to be sent to prison, having been spared that punishment when he was sentenced on 18 October 2016, and having regard to the fact that the offence was committed some 38 months ago and that the respondent was not charged for 15 months after his arrest, we are satisfied that it is appropriate to afford the respondent a further discount of 5 months’ imprisonment.

上訴庭卻沒有對受害人飲了被告提供的兩杯酒後昏迷, 而之後法醫在血液中找到安眠、鎮靜藥的因素考慮在內。據被告人(在判辭中的答辯人respondent)同意的案情, 無可抗拒的推論是被告落藥, 這也是加重刑罰的因素, 最後那5個月的折扣其實可以免除, 現在豈不是對他過份仁慈了?(p.21)
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=251714

婚禮拒奉茶 揭家族淫亂史 兄弟分別認亂倫 非禮三外甥女

1 : GS(14)@2010-11-26 10:55:41

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/te ... 104&art_id=14698983

【本報訊】一個緬甸華僑大家庭定居香港後,家人相處樂也融融。料不到家中幼女去年底與姑姐及一對孖生姊姊商討籌辦婚事之際,因堅持不肯奉茶給四舅父,觸發四名女成員自揭傷疤,講出三女於童年時曾遭四舅父及三舅父淫辱,姑姐更被三哥強姦。三女受辱後曾向大人投訴,卻換來遭母親掌摑或長輩漠視,致持續遭性侵犯的悲劇。兩名中年兄弟昨在高等法院承認共 12項罪名,下月 15日判刑。
2 : 龍生(798)@2010-11-26 12:18:00

真恐佈...
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=271764

食家劉健威遭女色狼非禮

1 : GS(14)@2010-12-12 12:01:33

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/te ... 104&art_id=14757741
【本報訊】今年頭 8個月平均每日發生四宗非禮案,比去年同期多近兩成。色狼越來越多,當中更可能有男有女。飲食文化界名人劉健威最近便慘遭女色狼非禮,案發地點更是名人富豪聚腳地、中環陸羽茶室鄰近的唐樓,事件在上流社會引起議論。劉健威形容該女色狼年約 50歲,中等身材,衣着普通,是早有預謀地伸出「鹹豬手」。 記者:林浚川
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=272033

淫魔拖 12歲少女入後樓梯 非禮不成暴打

1 : GS(14)@2011-09-22 22:25:04

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/te ... 104&art_id=15636303
無路洩?

案發於今年 1月 13日早上約 10時,少女考試後獨自返回上水清河邨的家。就在她走到家門前,與她同的被告突然從後箍住她,捂住她的嘴,然後將她拖到後樓梯。被告將她推倒後,伸手入她的校裙內非禮,但少女反抗,咬被告的手和抓他的臉。被告不忿她還擊,抓着她的頭撞向地下多次,還伸腳踢她的身體幾下,然後離開。少女向鄰居求救並報警,送院後證實頭部嚴重受傷,留醫 13天後出院。據了解,少女案發時大聲呼救,她的繼父、鄰居及清潔工人都聽到,但他們以為有人在玩叫囂而沒有理會。
2 : 龍生(798)@2011-09-22 22:28:23

住得個頭的人, 話知你出面劏人都唔會望下...

唔好話我口臭, 但如果住跑馬地, 就會好少少....
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=276027

法乎情:非禮不同性騷擾(上)

1 : GS(14)@2011-12-29 12:49:24

http://m.sharpdaily.hk/detail.ph ... 8065&category=daily

報章同一版內,有威爾斯醫院顧問醫生涉嫌性騷擾女醫生案;又有投資公司老闆被控非禮女文員案開審。
「非禮」和「性騷擾」,到底有甚麼分別?
最簡單答案,動口不動手,可構成「性騷擾」;但假如動了手,「非禮」也!
根據「刑事罪行條例」,「非禮」罪最高可被判監十年。構成「非禮」罪,必須有身體接觸;屬猥褻性質;受害人不同意;及犯案者有猥褻意圖。撫摸女性「敏感」或一般與性有關部位,對一般正常思想人來說,該行為本身已屬猥褻行為,控方要證明被告有猥褻意圖相對較容易;但假如案情所涉行為本身不屬猥褻性質,例如脫掉當事人的鞋,則除非同時有證據證明犯案者有猥褻意圖,例如鬼鬼祟祟、或面帶猥褻表情(天生一副猥褻相貌男士可吃大虧),否則不足以定罪。
曾有案例,被告在公眾場合從後面撲上企圖「咀」受害女子,吻臉行為本身被判不屬猥褻性質,只判普通襲擊罪。另一案例,被告在巴士座位上把手放在他自己的大腿與鄰座女乘客大腿中間,該行為本身也被判不屬猥褻性質。
涉案行為假如可能涉及犯案者有意造成身體傷害,一般不能以受害者同意作為答辯理由;但假如只涉及輕撫行為,則控方需同時證明當事人不同意有關行為。
何謂「性騷擾」,下回分解。

電郵:[email protected]

謝偉俊
2 : GS(14)@2011-12-30 11:30:04

http://m.sharpdaily.hk/detail.ph ... 8065&category=daily
「性騷擾」與「非禮」,坊間一般把兩者混淆。
九五年通過「性別歧視條例」,主要針對僱傭背景性別歧視行為,包括「性騷擾」行為。
對另一名女性(女性對男性同樣適用)提出不受歡迎的性要求,或與性有關的好處;或對她作出不受歡迎並「涉及性的行徑」,而有關行為對於一般合理人士經考慮所有背景情況後應可預期該女性會感到冒犯、侮辱或威嚇,即構成「性騷擾」。
「性騷擾」也包括獨自或與其他人作出「涉及性的行徑」,而有關行徑可造成對當事女士構成有敵意或具威嚇性的環境。
「涉及性的行徑」,包括對女性或當她在場時作出涉及性的陳述,不論陳述是以口頭或書面作出。
因此,對女同事口花花,或所謂「吃豆腐」,假如她或在場女士不介意,可能被認為可以增進大家工作愉快氣氛,但假如當事人或任何在場女士感到被冒犯,則隨時可演變為「性騷擾」行為。如何判斷,恐怕要考大家常識及智慧。
身為老闆者更須特別小心,員工之間「性騷擾」行為,老闆也可能要負責,除非他能證明他當時以合理可行措施預防或制止。

「性騷擾」不屬刑事罪行,惟受害者可循區域法院索償。

電郵:[email protected]
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=277057

菲傭涉非禮少主兄弟

1 : GS(14)@2012-01-10 23:16:29

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/te ... 104&art_id=15969002
【本報訊】女菲傭涉嫌藉詞「啫啫有污糟嘢」,替僱主的 7歲兒子洗澡時,用手作勢剪掉男童陰莖,又拉他的陰莖和「菇菇」(陰囊),懶理男童向父親投訴。男童兩年間疑多次遭性侵犯,連他的 9歲哥哥亦受害。涉案菲傭否認非禮罪,昨在九龍城裁判法院受審。
記者:黃幗慧
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=277206

Next Page

ZKIZ Archives @ 2019