2013年3月13日星期三

非禮簽保守行為


雅居樂主席准守行為

涉非禮下屬 控方突提申請


【明報專訊】雅居樂主席陳卓林請女下屬到其住所籌辦晚宴,涉在賓客離場後將她帶到卡拉OK房間掃背、摸臀非禮,並一度捉她的手撫摸其陽具,女下屬曾驚叫「主席唔好」。陳早前原被控兩項非禮罪,至昨日控方突然申請以守行為方式處理,雖然裁判官多番反對,但陳終獲准以自簽2000元守行為1年,毋須留案底。

原被控兩項非禮罪的被告陳卓林(50歲),原本控罪指他於去年7月10至11日,在跑馬地包華士道一獨立屋內非禮女子X;及於7月11日在同一地點非禮X。

控方昨提出以自簽守行為方式處理,但署任主任裁判官錢禮質疑﹕「這是很嚴重的控罪。」律政師高級女檢控官金玉說,被告沒有案底,表現後悔,他亦同意案情並願意向事主道歉,加上本案並非最嚴重的非禮案,而事主為年屆28的成熟女士,兩控罪實於同一晚發生,事件亦沒有嚴重違反誠信。

官多番反對﹕極度不宜守行為

但錢官反駁,被告與事主屬上司下屬關係,兩者存在互信,案情十分嚴重,駁斥「這極度不宜守行為」。辯方的資深大律師清洪見狀加入「戰團」,指被告和事主當時都喝了相當多酒,事發時二人身處私人地方,事主沒有投訴,令被告誤以為她默許才做出不符其性格的行為。

錢官一邊翻閱案情一邊說﹕「他(被告)捉住她(X)的手去摸其陽具,而非他直接去摸她……他用其私處去摩擦她的身體」,並再次問控方是否仍堅持以簽守行為方式處理。控方確認,並補充說被告已寫信道歉,X亦同意該處理方式,終獲錢官批准。

女事主驚叫﹕主席唔好

清洪呈上補充信件指出﹕「(案發當晚)長達3小時的相處過程是輕鬆及友好的,由始至終陳先生從沒有使用粗暴行為對待X小姐,也沒有觸碰過X小姐的私處,更沒有阻止X小姐離開他的住所……整件事情的發展都是出乎陳先生意料。」

案情指去年1月入職雅居樂的X,7月10日到被告家中籌辦宴會後,獲被告邀請與男下屬Kenneth一起留下「唱K」。其間被告對她掃背、摸臀非禮,X起初震驚但沒反抗,之後被告將X帶入無人的房間,捉X的手摸其陽具,X驚叫﹕「主席唔好」,但被告直至Kenneth敲門才停止。

3人回到K房,被告又用下體摩擦X的身體。X事後一度將自己反鎖廁所內,直至凌晨近1時,在Kenneth陪同下離開獨立屋。X於7月14日報警,被告事隔個半月後到警署自守。

考慮賠償等因素

律政司﹕撤控處理恰當

律政司發言人昨回應稱,考慮了整體案情及事主立場、被告同意道歉及賠償等因素後,認為監守行為及撤銷控罪的處理方法恰當,亦獲法庭同意。此外,在適合的案件中,不尋求定罪而給予犯罪者改過自新機會,能產生顯著良效,當同意某人簽保時並非讓他逍遙法外,因他仍須在法庭承認案件和犯罪的事實,並向法庭承諾在指定期內守行為及遵守法紀,而以這方法處理適合的案件,最合乎公眾利益。

【案件編號﹕ESCC86/13】



話你知﹕守行為三種 兩不用留案低


【明報專訊】大律師陸偉雄指出,被告獲准守行為與否須考慮六大因素,包括被告的悔意、重犯可能、過往案底、案情嚴重程度、事主是否堅持追究,以及控方本身的意願。他補充,被告的背景或社會地位屬「無咁重要」的考慮,因為「法律面前,人人平等」,以免予人「叻、成功(的人犯法)就可以無事」的觀感。

陸偉雄說,守行為可分3種模式,一是警方決定不檢控,並向法庭申請被告簽保守行為;二是警方決定將案交律政司檢控,但控方庭上決定撤銷控罪,准許被告以守行為了事,陳卓林案屬此情;三是被告於庭上認罪或審訊後被判罪成,法官決定判被告守行為。陸指出,被告於首兩種守行為情下均毋須留案底,因他由始至終都沒被定罪,換言之陳卓林不會因本案而留案底。

(13/3/2013 明報 )

這件案見證了有錢的力量。如果你沒有錢請出名的律師,你休想犯非禮可撤銷控罪簽保守行為。「法律面前,人人平等」當然真確,更加真確的是,有權、有勢或有錢的人更加平等,這就是George Orwell 的 Animal Farm:"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"。

如果你沒有三幾十萬請清洪或同等資深大律師,請他游說律政司撤銷控罪,如果你只是窮等人家,或者「茂理」一個,「光棍」一條,就不要癡心妄想,怎會讓你非禮簽保守行為。如果我是主控官,我一定不接納這處理方法。如果我是 Bina Chainrai (Acting Principal Magistrate),我也不讓控方撤罪。有權有勢更加平等的例子,這裏舉兩個。1. 包致金的女兒在置地高買,超齡獲警司警誡方式處理。2. 前刑事檢控專員阮雲道(Peter Nguyen)的兒子藏毒獲撤銷控罪簽保守行為。他們不是更加平等嗎?

上面另一則新聞講三種守行為的模式,所講的只圍繞裁判官的權力而言,其實只有兩種模式,權力來自《裁判官條例》 第36條(定罪之後的簽保守行為)及第61條(並非定罪的簽保守行為)。大律師陸偉雄所講三種守行為的模式的頭兩種,權力都是來自第61條,其實是一種模式。第61條相信源於幾個世紀之前Justice of the Peace Act 1361,所以警方向裁判官申請要某人簽保守行為,會引用Justice of the Peace Act 1361及《裁判官條例》 第61條。

其他定罪之後的簽保守行為判罰,見諸循公訴程序被定罪的案件(《刑事訴訟程序條例》第107條)。就算審結被判無罪的被告或案中證人,法官一樣有權要他簽保守行為 (《刑事訴訟程序條例》第109I條)。






9 則留言:

  1. I was just discussing this case with my friends earlier. I thought it was ridiculous that the DoJ accepted a bind-over order. The more I read about these sort of news; the more I feel disappointed in the judicial system and want to make a difference. The ironic thing is the person who was charged with assaulting a police officer (he whistled in the police officer's ear) was sentenced to 6 weeks in prison (ESCC3557/12). The difference in severity of both cases is apparent; it's a shame that access to justice is not equal among individuals.

    BTW, Animal Farm was my favourite novel in high school.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. DuckiFlo,

      It is always difficult to compare 2 distinctly different cases. The bloke who whistled into the ear of the policeman has 2 previous similar record. Seeing it from that angle, the 6 weeks imprisonment cannot be said to be manifestly excessive.

      There is no absolute equality. What is disgusting is the impropriety of O.N.E. bind over in this indecent assault case. I would rather lose the case than let the defendant be bound over. It looks ugly. The explanation given by the spokesman of DoJ is an affront to my humble intelligence. I was from DoJ back then. I know all these tricks and I know how to manipulate.

      刪除
    2. I agree that the nature of the 2 cases are very different; however, my point was that it's still an example which reflects the inequality of access to justice. I dare say that if Mr. Cheng Huan was to represent the guy who whistled at the police officer; the outcome of the case will be very different. But of course that's just my 半桶水 opinion.

      刪除
  2. I guess the main point is the reluctance of the victim to give evidence, nor gain anything from giving evidence in this point, and probably the defense would argue without an independent witness or concrete circumstantial evidence, it is not easy for the court to arrive at a guilty verdict.

    Yes, I would rather want the case to be lost, but honestly O.N.E. Bind over gives the best result to every tangible party: The victim got a bit of money and would not need to risk any work-disruption, nor she need to face the incident again. The defendant lost a damn lot of money - which he would have no problem paying anyway, and he emerges clean. The sad fact is that only justice suffer, and rather than blaming the system of Binding Over, I would blame the horrible lack of legal education for layman and the labeling of sex crime victims.

    回覆刪除
  3. 標少兄﹕
    請問律政署放生包致金的女兒和阮雲道的兒子有甚麼理據?其他市民有可能阻止放生嗎?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. C,

      Both cases were really old. Bokhary's daughter was dealt with by superintendent's caution in 1994. It had nothing to do with the then Legal Department. The case was concluded at the police level without the need to seek advice or approval from the Legal Department. Peter Nguyen's son was handled by Department of Justice (formerly known as Legal Department) in 2000. Nguyen's son was charged with possession of dangerous drugs. The lawyer represented him wrote to DoJ to bargain for offering no evidence and bind him over. There were many reasons put forward, good family background, clear record, small amount of drugs, remorseful ... I can say it was rather unusual to accept that course of action for a dangerous drug's case. But, I do not want to guess the justification. I can only say it was a very usual course to take. After this case, there were many attempts made by other defendants requesting the prosecution to accept O.N.E/bind over. The prosecution accepted some of them in order to avoid being criticised of favouritism.

      No way could the general public stop the decision of DoJ even though the AG/DPP could be asked in Legco to explain.

      刪除
    2. Dear Mr. Bill,
      Thank you for your reply! I should have known that the name of the scheme Superintendent's caution implies that the case had never gone beyond the police. I don't remember the case of Bokhary's daughter causing an uproar at the time. Nguyen's case was plainly outrageous. Unfortunately there is no mechanism of checks and balances outside of the DoJ.

      刪除
    3. C,

      No "Mr" please. Just call me Bill. I hope my third blog on the same subject helps explain why I have disgruntled feelings about the way this case was handled.

      刪除
  4. 請問自簽守行為同不提證供起訴分別在那?

    回覆刪除