勤力的士司機月入三萬，但原來大部份人都會蛇王！

(LEE CHIT MING v. MAN SIU HUNG [2017] HKCFI 442)

香港嘅的士司機賺幾多錢？拒客係咪會賺多啲？的士司機有冇蛇王？「佔中」嗰陣係咪賺少咗？

呢度全部都有答案！

2017年高等法院有單交通意外案件，有人撞傷咗的士司機(原告)，原告喺庭上證明自己收入，用嚟計賠償金額。

亮點s：

1. 案中司機大約每日賺 $1000，一個月賺三萬

2. 呢個數比其他公開數據多起碼一倍

3. 案中司機認為，其他人賺得咁少係因為 #拒客同 #蛇王！！！ [見31段]

4. 班仆街果然係唔撚交稅 [42段]

4. 班仆街果然係唔撚交稅

5. 「佔中」十月嗰排，生意少咗大約 15% 左右 [86段、Annex 2]

(大部份資料都係 24-41 段搵到，另外最底有晒成個表。案中司機嘅數據似乎都好可信，有多方面嘅佐證。)

Comments

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...

南丫海難唔夠救生衣祭旗案

HKSAR v. SO PING CHI [2018] HKCA 913 我好少睇完上訴庭判詞唔夠喉睇埋原審判詞。真係痴孖根。泛民議員涂謹申又走出嚟做show扮爭取正義，但事實就係海事處同業界一早有共識，舊船可以延後執行新例。喺審訊時，新例實施時嘅海事處處長竟然冇出庭作供(起碼判詞冇提佢)，冇人知佢係咪知情；而港九電船拖輪商會嘅主席又「唔記得」幾時同海事處邊啲官員討論過「舊船用舊例」。後嚟海事處執正嚟做，商會仲發起示威，反對執行新例。留意，新例實施日期係 2007 年 1 月 2 號，示威日期係 2013 年 3 月。中間隔咗 6 年。可見喺呢 6 年以嚟 (包括南丫海難發生之後)，業界一直都認為舊船唔需要跟新例配備足夠救生衣。呢樣嘢唔只係海事處一個官員嘅行為嚟，而係根本海事處同業界有共識唔去執法！被告上任嗰陣，好明顯呢個共識已經存在。話佢冇叫停呢個做法，技術上佢的確犯法，但點解得佢一個俾人告？我懷疑係因為佢份人最誠實。案中證供指出，被告喺出事之後其中一個會議嗰度好誠實咁承認自己俾過下屬咁嘅指示。然後佢就俾人捉咗去祭旗。至於其他被傳召作供嘅證人，雖然原審話話佢哋誠實可信，但我見到嘅係佢哋喺有啲關鍵地方記憶模糊。法庭話佢哋誠實可信就係誠實可信，我只係話佢哋記性真係幾差咁解。上訴庭輕判，主要原因都係睇唔過眼。佢哋差在冇講「屌你玩嘢呀？成個海事處都知有咁嘅事，你淨係交一個人俾我，仲要蝦佢老實？唔撚係呀？」（見最後引文）至於點解冇人喺審訊期間爆其他人大鑊，咁被告的確有叫人唔好執行新例，的確係犯咗法，佢再督多啲人出嚟都唔見得有好處，反而只會喺公務員內部處分俾人玩得更慘烈。而其他人喺關鍵時刻失憶，律政司又未必有足夠證據起訴其他人（或者有 #其他原因唔起訴啦？），咁咪淨係搵咗個老實人祭旗囉。原審同上訴庭都一再重申被告品格良好，甚至係「無可挑剔」 "impeccable character"，你都明啦。講真，馬後炮就好易嘅。你睇個商會喺南丫海難出事之後仲可以示威反對嚴格執行新例，就知道未出事嗰陣，邊個夠膽揸正嚟做都係會下場慘淡啦。最後引返上訴庭判詞原文。祝各位公務員官運亨通，步步高昇！我真係恭喜你哋呀！（話時話，點解報告唔出得街，我堅係唔知，不如你哋又估下點解？） /// 70. However, it is the third fa...

扮女同志呃蝦條犯唔犯法？

「扮女同志」比較似「呃蝦條」多過似「強姦」。馬後炮咁講，如果呢單案唔係告「強姦」而係「呃蝦條」，入罪機會可能會高啲。喺香港「呃蝦條」係犯法嘅，罪名係「以虛假藉口促致他人作非法的性行為」(Crimes Ordinance s120 "Procurement by false pretences")。呢條罪嘅條文用字有啲怪，斷估本身係用嚟阻止迫良為娼之類嘅犯罪行為。不過偉大嘅香港特區律政司發現啲條文可以用嚟告人「呃蝦條」。當年嘅「性交轉運案」就係用呢條 s120 嚟告。喺我眼中，「性交轉運案」有一大堆法理問題，包括條文寫到一嚿屎咁，字面解讀似乎係違心講句「I love you」嚟呃蝦條都會入到罪；另外就係明明香港喺基本法下有宗教自由，但法庭就好隨意咁批判民間嘅迷信。呢樣嘢我每隔一兩年就會「年經」提一次，因為真係講唔撚過去 (不過你提呢啲嘢，唔通你支持性交轉運呃蝦條？會俾人人格謀殺架）。今次俾我留意到原來有 Cornell 學者寫咗篇文詳細探討，所以唔係我講架，美帝大學學者講架。 link: https://ww3.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/ILJ/upload/Chen-final.pdf

香港奇案

Search This Blog