問題:1. 上訢庭裁決的一個焦點是副刑事檢控官薛偉成未能在庭上提出拒絕提供呼氣樣本的判監先例,結果上訢庭維持囚期原判。但過往林漢榮一案中就有拒絕吹波而判監1個月的先例, 薛偉成指區域法院起訢的案件未必適用於裁判法院。當然,根據判例法Case Law, 他說的可能是對,上級法院不受下級法院的案例約束。但在量刑上,下級法院的案例不是仍對上級法院有參考價值嗎? 如有錯,請糾正我。因為既然他本身並無其他拒絕吹波而判監的案例在手,此案例仍然可以一試的。
由於過往法庭不乏司機接受吹波被染出超標要接受監禁這一類的先例,而現在一案又立了撞車拒絕吹波兼掌襲警仍無須判監的壞先例,這不就是鼓吹日後司機撞車後可以拒絕吹波,以Amina一案為有力案例做辯護以逃避判監? 這將造成醉酒駕駛上的一個法律漏洞,難怪裁判官形容薛偉成在檢控上的表現是 "Unhelpful" 了。我的續問是2. 律政司下一步可采取甚麼行動,例如就此案上訢到終審法院?3. 法律程序上,律政司能否要求法院重新覆核襲警罪刑期?
事件經過和相關法庭判決
1. Amina 2010年1月27日,駕車駛經跑馬地時發生意外,她拒絕接受呼氣測試,並掌摑一名男警員,被控不小心駕駛和襲警等3項罪名2. 原審及复核聆訊中裁判官院偉明都指意外無人受傷, 答辦人又屬初犯,按一般慣例判12個月感化令,停牌1 年,罰款8000 元3. 感化條件:到美國戒酒中心接受住院式治療，回港後再接受戒酒療程，定期接受心理及精神治療4. 裁判官胡雅文審閱感化報告認為Amina 違反感化令條件, 判入獄6星期5. 律政師決定不就襲警罪申請覆核刑期,認為6星期是適當判刑幅,但對拒絕提供呼氣樣本罪判刑過輕,對刑期提出上訢上訢庭判決6. 律政師未能提供案例指初犯者也曾被判增時監禁,只批準律政師廷長停牌令由1 年廷長至3 年, 毋順增加囚期
拒絕接受呼氣測試一問
2011-01-13 3:33 am
回答 (1)
2011-01-15 6:36 am
✔ 最佳答案
I may answer as follows:1) You are right. The senior courts need not concern the judging result of junior courts, like the manager needs not listen to the janitor staffs. But, if their advice are reasonable and worth for further analysis, there is no excuse the senior courts should take the cases into future consideration before sentencing the imprisonment, etc.
2) Yes, he can. But I am sure he won't. The Court of Final Appeal of HK should not be abuse in use, which was established for dealing with the influential, serious and large case. Amina's case, or similar those, are not on top priorities and thus they would not be considered to send there. Only the Regional Court will be used to deal with those issues.
3) Yes. He has the authority doing so, and he has done times for different cases the past year. He gave up the case on Amina only because Amina was later sentenced to a 6-week imprisonment. Originally he has a plan for re-checking.
Hope I can help your critcial thinking and opinion consolidation.
參考: Mathematics Teacher Mr. Ip
收錄日期: 2021-04-26 12:06:19
原文連結 [永久失效]:
https://hk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110112000051KK00941