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

公民拘捕Uber司機

標少

2017年7月13日

香港有長洲的司法覆核王, 最終因濫用而被禁止申請法援, 除此, 他還要揹了一身官司債。悉尼卻出了個行使市民拘捕權來拘捕Uber司機的Uber拘捕王。此君名叫Russell Howarth, 他拘捕了9個Uber司機。他自我宣傳的背景如下(採自Uber BV & Anor v Howarth [2017] NSWSC 54 (3 April 2017 一案):

Russell Howarth has been an industry advocate for over ten years now. Formerly with the London Metropolitan Police working in advanced riot- policing, counterterrorism, working with MI6. Now looking after key world figures, celebrities, corporates and personal clients travelling around Sydney and Australia.

好巴閉, 可惜沒有去捉恐怖份子。他自己曾參與Uber的運作, 然後卻認為Uber沒有有效第三保險屬非法運作, 於是發起拘捕Uber司機運動, 預先通知電視台拍攝, 又上電台大談理念。

70. In oral submissions, Mr Howarth said his motivations were to uphold the law and to promote public awareness of these issues. He submitted his arrests were predicated on criminal conduct by Uber or its drivers. Mr Howarth tried to distance himself from the ‘vigilante’ trademark:

“I would suggest to you that there is no intention, desire or evidence that I have acted as a vigilante and I would caution you to consider the use of this word as bandied about particularly by the plaintiffs, because a vigilante infers that some punishment has been exacted. All I'm doing is merely delivering the people to be dealt with according to law.”

我也是今早看到Sydney Morning Herald的報導才翻這件案的判辭出來看。呢條友又係破產一族, 這次Uber申請禁制令, 法庭也頒佈了, 禁止此君再滋擾Uber司機, 還判令他賠訟費澳幣400,000給Uber(只屬6成訟費)。在新南威爾斯州, Uber已分階段合法化了, Uber X是以普通私家車經營的, 最初有出租車執照的UberBLACK, 繼而有的士加入為UberTAXI。新州的Uber現在全是合法經營的, 跟香港不同, 香港還在為了那些大的士商的反對而停滯不前。

Howarth以前憑甚麼去拘捕Uber司機呢? 新州也有類似香港的101拘捕令(我以前寫過一篇: 101拘捕令在法律上的意思), 新州是這一條:

LAW ENFORCEMENT (POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES) ACT 2002 - SECT 100

Power of other persons to arrest without warrant

100 Power of other persons to arrest without warrant

(cf Crimes Act 1900 , s 352)

(1) A person (other than a police officer) may, without a warrant, arrest a person if:
(a) the person is in the act of committing an offence under any Act or statutory instrument, or

(b) the person has just committed any such offence, or

(c) the person has committed a serious indictable offence for which the person has not been tried.

(2) A person who arrests another person under this section must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, take the person, and any property found on the person, before an authorised officer to be dealt with according to law.

新州的公民拘捕權(citizen's arrest)在法律字眼上用得比香港的101拘捕權闊得多。在新州Uber未合法經營時, 違反了Passenger Transport Act 1990, 所以Section 100(1)(a)、(b)的拘捕權都適用。在香港就不能用101拘捕權來拘捕Uber司機, 胡亂拘捕會構成襲擊和非法禁錮罪。