Skip to main content

暗角七警上訴案

HKSAR v. WONG CHO SHING AND OTHERS [2019] HKCA 839

(其一)

七警案搞咗咁耐，最後都係有兩個黑警嘅身份確認唔到，所以只有五個人入罪。

第四被告劉興沛被指參與毆打曾建超，據判詞所言，冇證人喺影片認到片中人係劉，但原審法官自己審視影片嘅時候見到某警察臉部一部份，確認佢係劉。上訴庭話法官憑自己感覺認人冇佐證，事件亦過咗幾年，所以有認錯人嘅危險。

第七被告黃偉豪冇喺毆打片段被認出，法官只係從佢同某啲其他被告隸屬同一個小隊，推斷佢係影片中打人警察之一。上訴庭認為證據唔夠力，有合理疑點 (例如押送過程有其他人加入)。

呢單案件應該會係「法官靠影片認人」嘅先例嚟。日後若果有警察(或任何人)打人嘅影片證據，如果唔係好清晰咁影到疑犯嘅臉相，又冇其他有力嘅證據證明疑犯係片中人，好可能告唔入。

即係咁講，如果普通市民暴力打人，警察(或其他市民)可以當場拘捕佢，送佢去差館，咁佢嘅身份就唔會成疑。但如果警察濫暴，基本上係唔會被即場拘捕嘅，所以，除非你啲片影得好清晰，佢又冇遮臉，或者有其他方法確定警察嘅身份，否則真係會告唔入架。就算上咗 CCTVB 都告唔入。

至於刑期，其實都係海鮮價，冇咩好評論。

----
利申：只係睇咗部份判詞。冇時間呀。so99ry。

(其二)

【下以內容涉及潑冷水，或打擊大家屌TVB雅興，不喜勿看】

連登有個咁嘅 post：「七警可以翻案，關鍵在於TVB無交母帶同無攝影師作供」。

post 內引述《明報》報導：「上訴方早前稱原審法官裁定傳媒片段的真確性時，採用錯誤的法律原則；並質疑沒有攝影師作供或母帶的情況下，以有關片段作參照是犯下法律錯誤。原審案件時，無綫電視拒絕交出片段原檔，控方沒有傳召攝影師上庭作供。」

《明報》報導應該係準確嘅，嗰度係講「上訴方」嘅上訴理據。

但其實法庭冇接納架。上訴庭話原審法官接納 TVB 播放嘅片段（非母帶）係冇問題。（見判詞106段)

所以「七警可以翻案，關鍵在於TVB無交母帶同無攝影師作供」暫時嚟講係錯嘅。（唔排除有人會就呢個問題再上訴到終審法院。）

至於 D4 同 D7 點解無罪，我早前已經解釋咗。 (見上) 刑期就係海鮮價嘅，冇咩好講。

btw, TVB 企圖妨礙法院得到真相，仆街陷家鏟，就算睇完呢篇文都應該照屌。


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law, one could apply the principle of "implied repeal", where the subsequent legislation would be considered to have repealed the earlier one.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