終審法院今天頒布了何來案的判辭, 以前我寫過好幾篇來罵何來這刁民,　先看下下面這兩張圖,　究竟你明不明白法例的要求。

 

一切問題皆由此起。何來騎單車經過155這圖後沒有下車, 警長把她截停控告她, 她抗辯的理由是這交通標誌圖像意思不清楚, 不知是要求騎單車的人下車, 原審裁判官不接納她這抗辯理由, 也不相信她所稱誠實地相信標誌含糊, 認為她是有心違例, 於是把她定罪。她上訴到高院時, 高院原訟庭裁定上訴得直, 因為標誌含糊不清, 該圖形違反法律必須明確的原則(legal certainty)。終院推翻高院的判決, 認為有關罪行並非“沒有遵守交通標誌”，而是“沒有遵守有關標誌所顯示的規定”。簡單講即係唔係淨睇公仔, 要睇埋啲字點講。如果個個都用自己既辦法去理解呢啲交通標誌, 咁就世界大亂(It would be a recipe for traffic chaos if an honest belief that those signs had different meanings to those set out in the relevant Schedule of the Regulations could constitute a reasonable excuse for not complying with their requirements.)

(para 56 HKSAR v HO LOY FACC7/2015)

我在刁民何來一文批評過資深大律師舉壞燈的例子荒謬,　因壞燈而衝燈只是求情因素,　並非合理辯解,　看下終院也講同樣的話:

(........In any event, it is not for the court to determine the reasonableness of the placement of the traffic sign, which might be a matter for a judicial review (if proper grounds existed for such a challenge, which was not suggested to be the case here), and the absence of risk to other road users by the commission of the offence is a matter in mitigation of penalty rather than a reasonable excuse for non-compliance. The traffic light stuck on red at 3am is simply an example of a malfunctioning light, which simply provides another example of a type of circumstance which might constitute a reasonable excuse for non-compliance.)
(para 58)