Skip to main content

「不誠實使用電腦」

(SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHENG KA YEE AND 3 OTHERS [2019] HKCFA 9)

終審法院今日就「有犯罪或不誠實意圖而取用電腦」罪行頒下判詞。

今次判決令到「不誠實取用電腦」唔再係電子罪案嘅「萬能key」，尤其是唔可以用嚟控告人用自己電腦作出嘅各種行為。呢件絕對係好事。但究竟呢條罪所謂「取用」實際上應該點理解，我睇完判詞之後一嚿雲。

例如話，如果有個變態佬喺廁所影人相，之後上一個forum，login自己account去post相，佢 login 嗰下算唔算係「取用」(obtaining access)呢？律政司會唔會嘗試用返 s161 去告佢？ 判詞又唔係寫得好清楚（再睇埋LI MAN WAI 案更加係覺得⋯?!?!?!??!?!?!?）。根據律政司往績，s161 寫得不明不白嘅地方，最後都係會作為「萬能key」攞去告人，所以大家「不誠實」嘅時候小心唔好「取用」電腦喇。

至於啲變態偷拍案件點樣處理，真係唔知。唔排除律政司入面嘅法律精英會搵到點樣控告人喺私人地方偷拍裙底，不過如果你真係有舖咁嘅癮，不妨趁呢個疑似「法律真空」期間⋯⋯ 呀，我意思係各位女士要小心啲。

（btw 究竟香港立法會除咗搞為國家服務之餘有冇時間為人民服務我都唔知。不過你問我就梗係引渡法呀23條呀呢啲重要啲。正如律政司嘅大狀話齋，法庭幫手做埋立法工作都好合理啫，國情不同，終審庭搵個澳洲法官嚟判案真不該囉我覺得。）


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Trump v. CASA, Inc. et al.

The recent Trump case was one of the most eye-opening and confusing judgments I've read. For context, Trump signed an executive order to re-interpret "birthright" citizenship limiting it to children born in USA by at least one parent with US citizenship. A couple district courts ordered preliminary injunctions against its enforcement. The government eventually argued to the Supreme Court that the preliminary injunctions were too broad in scope. The court with an apparently 6:3 majority decided that the lower courts had no right to award "universal injunctions" beyond the scope of the plaintiffs seeking the injunction. Federal courts' power to issue injunctions apparently stems from the Judiciary Act of 1789, which endowed federal courts with jurisdiction over "all suits... in equity". This is nothing exciting, except that the USSC then declares that the scope of "equity" is basically the jurisdiction of the High Court of Chancery in Engla...
Post a Comment
Read more

Reconciling apparent inconsistencies within the Basic Law -- what is the proper approach?

What happens when two different pieces of legislation contradict each other? In common law, one could apply the principle of "implied repeal", where the subsequent legislation would be considered to have repealed the earlier one. But the Basic Law has not undergone amendments since its promulgation in 1990, so this does not apply. Another common way to resolve apparent contradictions is to consider that the more general provision be qualified by the more specific one. Yet in cases where fundamental rights are at issue, courts may instead adopt a " generous interpretation ", restricting the scope of those provisions that appear to restrict fundamental rights. Indeed, this was the approach laid out by the Court of Final Appeal in 1999 in Ng Ka Ling : The courts should give a generous interpretation to the provisions in Chapter III that contain these constitutional guarantees in order to give to Hong Kong residents the full measure of fundamental rights and freedoms so...
Post a Comment
Read more