怡居地產

加入怡居

過去7年，我司每年平均捐出52%純利作慈善用途，款額動輒以百萬元計，可稱實至名歸的社會企業。閣下光顧我司，是變相自己做善事！日後請多多光顧為感！

尖沙咀總行 : 2569 2192

太古城華山分行 : 2569 1339

沙田銀禧分行 : 2636 1380

太古城明宮分行 : 2560 3738

沙田第一城專責組 : 2647 1838

杏花邨專責組 : 2898 0007

尖沙咀總行 : 2569 2192

太古城華山分行 : 2569 1339

沙田第一城專責組 : 2647 1838

沙田銀禧分行 : 2636 1380

太古城明宮分行 : 2560 3738

杏花邨專責組 : 2898 0007

回應 : 0

法律隨筆

違反交通案，連官都做唔到

標少

2014年6月3日

Judicial Appointment and Motoring Offences
Andrew Keogh, Barrister

Solicitor Graham Jones, who already held appointment as a Deputy District Judge, applied for a full time judicial appointment. As might be expected he was of ‘good character’ in the real sense of the phrase, so no doubt was not too concerned to have to disclose the following matters to the Judicial Appointments Commission (‘JAC’):

As at 21 November 2013, he had seven penalty points on his driving licence. This was the result of two convictions: one for speeding in August 2010, resulting in a conviction of February 2011, for which he was fined £650 and received 4 penalty points; and a second for failing to obey a traffic signal in 2012, for which he received a fixed penalty and 3 points.

So, 2 relatively minor motoring matters, or so you might think. The view of JAC on that subject is somewhat different as they say:

Criminal convictions (including motoring) are regarded as inherently serious matters

Would this matter to the outcome of the application however?

Indeed it would said the JAC, when refusing to let him progress his application any further, despite him being an otherwise exceptional candidate.

In a challenge by way of judicial review Mr Jones argued the following points:

i) The material part of JAC’s good character policy does not rationally reflect the purpose pursued by section 63(3) of the 2005 Act.

ii) Even if the policy is lawful, it was not properly applied in this case.

iii) The good character decision reached in relation to Mr Jones was not a rational decision.

Unfortunately for Jones, the challenge failed, although the court did say this:

Although I would grant permission to apply for judicial review, for the reasons set out above, I would dismiss the claim. Given the outstanding success that Mr Jones otherwise had in the District Judge competition, however, I conclude by hoping that, as the first of his convictions will fall away later this year, he will consider re-applying when the next competition is launched

寫完兩篇就看下CrimeLine這電郵，違反交通條例而定罪，申請做官也不能，做緊官而犯交通例，是否要罷官呢？香港的交通違例是使用刑事審訊程序的，大部份都稱不上嚴重罪行，英國有點兒那個吧！