 |
|
|
|
回應 : 0
|
雙學三子的判刑覆核星期三就要聽審, 我在司法機構網頁查看一些案例, 要找相同案例當然欠奉, 沒有衝擊公民廣場的但有衝擊立法會的, 就是這一宗: HKSAR v. TAI CHI SHING AND OTHERS HCMA579/2015。這件案是所謂為了阻止「網絡23條」立法而衝擊立法會, 衝擊的人以鐵馬擊毀立法會大樓的玻璃門, 四名被告分別被檢控刑事毀壞及參與非法集結罪, 提控上庭四人即時認罪, 主任裁判官錢禮為他們索取感化官及社會服務令報告, 最後判各人社會服務令150小時。律政司覺得刑罰太輕申請覆核, 錢禮除了19歲的第一被告維持原判外, 第二至四被名改判監3個半月, 被告不服判刑提出上訴, 期間第三被告放棄上訴, 聽審上訴的張慧玲最後駁回上訴。張法官其中一些論據是這樣講:41. Whilst the case of Cheung Chun Chin concerns the offence of riot, and the present case involves the offence of unlawful assembly, the same sentencing principles are applicable. The defendants’ acts were certainly “riotous” in nature, if not a “riot” by legal definition. Bearing in mind the violence used, in particular the way mills barriers and other objects were deployed to charge violently at the glass doors of the complex, causing extensive damage; the number of persons involved; the intimidating nature and duration of the assembly; the fact that such riotous behaviour took place despite the legislative councillor Mr Cheung telling those present that there would not be a debate on the so-called “Internet Article 23” the next day; and the corporate nature of the offence, CSO was not a viable sentencing option and an immediate custodial sentence was appropriate, even for a first offender.
42. In my view, a clear message must be sent to the public that whilst one has the constitutional right of freedom of expression and freedom to take part in an assembly, one must respect the law and order and cannot behave in such a destructive way, causing damage to properties (or causing injuries to others, which fortunately did not happen in the present case). The courts will not condone such irresponsible and unlawful behaviour and a deterrence, immediate custodial sentence will be imposed, even for a first offender.雙學三子沒有涉及以硬物破壞性的衝擊, 只是攀圍欄, 呼籲「和理非」, 裁判官張天雁在裁斷陳述書裏描述第二被告羅冠聰在台上呼籲示威者的其中一個描述是這樣:54. 法庭亦留意到第二被告在台上亦有重覆提醒市民要和平、理性、保持克制及舉高雙手、保持秩序及注意安全，並提醒市民行動是有被捕風險的，未成年及不清楚自己責任的應離開。
明顯跟以鐵馬撞擊立法會的玻璃的暴力行為相差甚遠, 如果用這兩件案作比較, 三子的行為就沒有riotous的元素了。以非即時監禁的方式來判刑, 不見得有嚴重不妥當的地方。衝擊立法會案的第一被告被判處150小時社會服務令, 主任裁判官沒有覆核刑期, 律政司也沒有因此上訴。三子案的第一被告黃之鋒現年也是19歲, 控罪及culpability較前者輕, 判社會服務令80小時, 比例上也可謂合理。
我預測將會發展的情況是這樣, 張天雁會拒絕律政司申請, 三子已提出上訴, 如果律政司不服, 只可以向上訴庭申請覆核刑期而不可向高院原訟庭申請, 所以不會出現在高院原訟庭律政司和被告的交义上訴, 律政司向上訴庭申請判刑覆核要等待高院原訟庭審理被告上訴之後才能處理, 將會是再三拖延之後的事。而且向上訴庭申請判刑上訴一點也不能輕率, 原則是這種申請要exercise sparingly, 而且一般是因為這種行為猖獗(prevalent), 顧及公眾利益(public interest)及判刑嚴重偏低(manifestly inadequate)才適合在上訴庭提訊。It is not one of the cases to contemplate this course of action. 欲知後事如何, 瞬間便有分曉。
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
