搶劫罪

#搶劫罪

根據香港法例第210章 《#盜竊罪條例》第10條,任何人如偷竊,而在緊接偷竊之前或在偷竊時,為偷竊而向任何人使用武力,或使或試圖使任何人害怕會在當時當地受到武力對付,即屬犯 #搶劫罪。任何人犯搶劫罪,或意圖搶劫而襲擊他人,即屬犯罪,一經定罪後,可處 #終身監禁

Robbery

Under Section 10 of the Theft Ordinance (Cap. 210), a person commits robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force. Any person who commits robbery, or an assault with intent to rob, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for life.

專業輸給了仇恨

//日前,2020年1月13 日,香港法律界舉行了一年一度的「#法律年度開啟典禮」,幾位領導人物發表講話中,最惹起人爭議的,恐怕非 #大律師公會主席戴啟思 所發表的莫屬了。這位英籍資深大律師,他一向的反中國反建制立場,大家都很清楚。但作為大律師界別的代表,在那麼重要的公開場合,他竟然講了以下的一番話:

「警方拘捕了來自各行各業的數千市民,大多數都是年輕人,有些只是學童,更多的是大學生,當中亦包括很多普通上班族或者離開職場良久的退休人士。很多人被指控干犯的公眾秩序罪行,但往往並不牽涉暴力或嚴重破壞,當中好一部分人正面對著會招致漫長刑期的嚴重控罪。大致上,他們都有著良好品格(good character),代表著香港社會一大部分人。 根據律政司的《檢控守則》,作出檢控的決定並不單單取決於警方是否有足夠的證據交給法庭及令被告入罪,作出決定時,公眾利益至為重要,即使證據充分,個別人士或者某些種類的案件亦不一定需要交由法庭定奪,若證據足以令人入罪,但律政司最後決定不作出檢控的話,這對某些人來說看上來或許有點古怪,甚至不符合他們心中對法治的定義——即所有看來有犯法者必須被檢控。恕我直言,這個理解並不正確。 」

袒護違法者 令人驚訝

這些充滿明顯袒護 「反修例」事件違法者的說話,竟然出於一位資深大律師之口,還要是在一個那麼高調的場合,這使筆者和很多法律界人士非常驚訝。戴啟思執業了超過四十年,雖然最擅長的不是刑事案,而是司法覆核等行政法案件,但他不可能完全忘記了一些,連大學法律系一年級學生也懂的刑事訴訟基本原則。

一個人干犯刑事罪行時,無論他的職業有多高尚,或他是否學生,他曾受過多好的教育,又或者無論他是什麼年紀(惟年齡低於七歲免於刑責 ),他從未有犯罪紀錄等等,都絕不是辯護理由。這些只能是被定罪後,向法庭陳述的求情理由。律政司在決定是否向嫌疑人提出刑事檢控時,最重要的考慮是證據是否充分。沒錯,有時某些刑事案中的被告就算是面對控方極強的證據,也能得到法官網開一面,撤銷其控罪,不致於受到牢獄之災。不過,這都是一些比較輕微的罪行,例如:涉及金額較低的店內盜竊、普通襲擊、公眾地方打架、公眾地方行為不檢等。如果受害人同意不追究,被告亦沒有前科,重犯的機會偏低,律政司在提出檢控後,是可以考慮接受以被告「簽保守行為」作為條件,撤銷其有關控罪的。這種「格外開恩」處理輕微罪案的程式,只是會在最低級別的刑事案法庭,即裁判法院採用。

公眾利益有考慮他人?

如果戴啟思資深大律師提出的建議被律政司接受的話,那豈不是只要身份是學生,或擁有高學歷的在職人士,或者是以前從沒有犯罪記錄的,便可以放膽去做壞事也不怕被追究?他說的什麼「公眾利益」,有包括反對暴力、反對蒙面黑衣人的市民利益嗎?幾個月來被暴徒害得天天提心吊膽過生活的「公眾」,其利益有被考慮嗎?如果出來堵路、暴動、襲擊傷人、刑事破壞甚至縱火,支持政府支持警方的群眾讀者們,你認為他也會叫律政司以同樣的理由放棄檢控嗎?倘若這樣把刑事法律的基本原則扭曲,恐怕香港將會變成電影《 蝙蝠俠 》中的葛咸城城(Gotham City)一樣,治安敗壞,盜賊如毛,法律如同虛設。

專業知識,竟然輸給因政見不同而產生的仇恨,真是令人歎息。//

作者:陳永良 (執業律師)

襲警有乜罪

#襲擊 在執行職務的 #警務人員 屬 #嚴重罪行

根據第212章《#侵害人身罪條例》第十七條,任何人意圖使任何人受 #殘害#外貌毀損#成為傷殘 或身體受其他形式的嚴重傷害而以任何方式 #非法 及 #惡意傷害任何人 或導致任何人身體受 #嚴重傷害 #即屬犯罪,可處 #終身監禁

另外,根據第212章第36(b)條,任何人襲擊、抗拒或故意阻撓在 #正當執行職務的任何警務人員或在協助該警務人員的人即屬犯罪,可處 #監禁2年。 根據香港法例第232章 《#警隊條例》第63條,任何人 #襲擊 或 #抗拒執行職責 的 #警務人員,或 #協助 或 #煽惑 任何人如此襲擊或抗拒,可處 #罰款$5,000及 #監禁6個月

Assaulting police officer in due execution of his duty is a serious criminal offence.

Under Section 17 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance (Cap. 212), any person who unlawfully and maliciously, by any means whatsoever, wounds or causes any grievous bodily harm to any person with intent to maim, disfigure, or disable any person, or to do some other grievous bodily harm to any person shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to imprisonment for life.

In addition, under Section 36(b) of Cap. 212, any person who assaults, resists, or wilfully obstructs any police officer in the due execution of his duty or any person acting in aid of such officer shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for 2 years. Under Section 63 of the Police Force Ordinance (Cap. 232), any person who assaults or resists any police officer acting in the execution of his duty, or aids or incites any person so to assault or resists shall be liable on conviction to a fine of $5,000 and to imprisonment for 6 months.

唔好以為攞咗不反對通知書就乜都可以做!

根據香港法例第245章《#公安條例》第11條(5)款,每一個組織公眾集會的人均須隨即遵從警務人員向他發出的任何指示,以確保第(1)款的任何規定(包括整個 #集會 進行期間均須維持良好秩序及公共安全的規定)或根據第(2)款警務處處長施加的任何條件獲得遵從或妥為履行。根據第17A條(1A)款,任何人如無合理辯解而違反上述條款即屬犯罪,可處 #罰款$5,000及 #監禁12個月

Under Section 11 (5) of the Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245), every person who organizes a public meeting shall comply forthwith with any direction given to him by a police officer for ensuring compliance with or the due performance of any of the requirements of subsection (1) (including the requirement that good order and public safety shall be maintained throughout the meeting) or any conditions imposed by the Commissioner of Police under subsection (2). Under Section 17A(1A), any person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes the above provision commits an offence and is liable to a fine of $5,000 and to imprisonment for 12 months.

戴啟思先生/Mr. Dykes:

可否講清楚這份建議書是代表多少位大律師公會會員的立場?發表此建議書之前可曾諮詢會員意見?如果有,徵詢過多少位會員?可否解釋一下大律師公會成員在獨立調查委員會的角色?他們會收取費用嗎?律師費預算是多少?

假如成立獨立調查委員會有可能令貴會一些成員從参與其中獲取極豐厚報酬,你們是否應在建議書內披露當中潛在的利益衝突?

Could you clarify how many members of the Bar Association do you represent in issuing your Commission of Inquiry (COI) recommendation report? Before issuing the report, did you consult members on their opinions, and if so, how many? Could you also explain what would be the roles of members of the Bar Association with regard to the COI? Would they charge any fees? If so, what would be the estimated legal fees?

If some of your members may stand to financially benefit in a substantial way through the establishment of the COI, should you and your members disclose any such potential conflict of interest in your report?

Chi:
https://www.hkba.org/…/20200114%20-%20Commission%20of%20Inq…

Eng:
https://www.hkba.org/…/20200114%20-%20Letter%20to%20CE%20an…

自由指數排第3的香港有一小撮人向自由指數 只排第14 和15 的英美要求幫助爭取自由。 「政客們,這是什麼邏輯??」

縱使2019年不斷的抗議,香港的自由指數仍然保持不變。

自由指數排第3的香港竟然有一小撮人向自由指數只分別排第14 和15 的英國和美國要求幫助爭取更多自由。政客們,這是什麼邏輯??

The freedom index ranking for HK has remained the same for 2019 despite the protests.

A small bunch of people in Hong Kong (which, according to the Human Freedom Index, ranks 3rd in human freedom) ask the UK and the United States (which rank only 14th and 15th respectively) for help in fighting for more freedom in Hong Kong. Politicians, what is the rationale for this?

Source:
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/st…/human-freedom-index-2019

區議員作為公職人員竟然公開問人哋攞利是?可能觸犯什麼法例?

根據香港法例第201章 《#防止賄賂條例》第4條,任何公職人員索取或接受利益,#作為執行職務的誘因或報酬,即屬犯罪,而 #提供利益者 亦屬犯罪。根據第12條,任何人干犯以上罪行可處罰款HK$500,000及監禁七年。

A District Councillor, being a public servant, openly asked people to give her red packets? What laws might she have breached?

Under Section 4 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap. 201), any public servant who solicits or accepts any advantage as an inducement to or reward for performing duties shall be guilty of an offence. The offeror of the advantage shall also be guilty of an offence. Under Section 12, any person guilty of the above offence shall be liable to a fine of $500,000 and to imprisonment for 7 years.

在工作時間內罷工會否有機會被炒? 政治罷工不受勞工法例保障?

根據香港法例第57章《#僱傭條例》第21B(1)(b)條,任何僱員,在其本人與僱主之間,並凡作為職工會會員,享有在適當時間參加該職工會活動的權利。

適當時間(appropriate time),就僱員參加職工會任何活動而言,指-
(a) 其工作時間以外的時間;或
(b) 其工作時間以內的時間,而按照與其僱主或任何代表其僱主的人所議定的安排,或得到其僱主或任何代表其僱主的人給予的同意,容許在該時間內參加該等活動。

換句話說,僱員不可在未經僱主同意下在非「適當時間」參加職工會活動(包括罷工),否則可被視為行為不當,有機會被紀律處分甚或终止僱傭合約。

另外,現行法例主要是針對僱員在爭取勞工權益而行使罷工權時給予保障。以政府不封關的政策為由發動罷工,在現行法律定義可能根本不被當作「罷工」。如果這樣的話,參與者亦可能不會受到勞工法例保障。

根據香港法例第332章 《#職工會條例》:
“罷工” (#strike)指一群受僱用的人經共同協定而停止工作,或任何數目的受僱用的人因發生糾紛而一致拒絕、或經達成共識而拒絕繼續為某僱主工作,作為迫使他們的僱主、另一人或另一群人的僱主,或任何受僱的人或一群受僱的人,接受或不接受僱傭條款或條件或影響僱傭的條款或條件的方法。

Is it possible for an employer to dismiss an employee who takes part in a strike within working hours? Is taking part in a strike for political reasons not protected under the existing employment legislation?

Under Section 21B(1)(b) of the Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57), every employee shall as between himself and his employer, and where he is a member of any trade union, the right, at any appropriate time, to take part in the activities of the trade union.

appropriate time (適當時間) means, in relation to an employee taking part in any activities of a trade union, time which either—
(a)is outside his working hours; or
(b)is a time within his working hours at which, in accordance with arrangements agreed with or consent given by or on behalf of his employer, it is permissible for him to take part in those activities.

That means an employee shall not take part in any activities of a trade union (including a strike) at a time which is not an “appropriate time” without the consent of the employer. Otherwise, the employee’s action may amount to misconduct, which is subject to disciplinary actions or even termination of employment.

In addition, the existing employment legislation offers protection to an employee taking part in a strike for matters relating to employment terms and conditions. Taking part in a strike for the purpose of demanding closure of the border with mainland China by the HKSAR Government may not even fall within the legal definition of “strike” under the existing legislation. If that is the case, the employees who take part in the strike may not be able to rely on the protection offered under the employment legislation.

Under the Trade Unions Ordinance (Cap. 332):

“strike” (罷工) means the cessation of work by a body of persons employed acting in combination, or a concerted refusal, or a refusal under a common understanding, of any number of persons employed, to continue to work for an employer in consequence of a dispute, done as a means of compelling their employer or the employer of any other person or body of persons, or any person or body of persons employed, to accept or not to accept terms or conditions of or affecting employment.