讀咗幾年Law，又喺法庭做過打字，都未見過有單criminal case好似李柏儉呢單咁富娛樂性，佢唔似小甜甜單爭產案一味得個拖字，成部《季節》咁，死唔斷氣：小甜甜本人更加只係大配角，真正主角係佢同家翁重金禮聘班silks (資深御用大狀)，同埋喺幕後泵水俾佢家翁打官司班誠實商人。
李柏儉自己响1974年已經take咗silk (果時李柱銘仲係junior)，當年御用的數目少過依家好多，又要有兩個律師公會，首席按察司(Chief Judge)、高院法官一致同意，再奏請殖民大臣(Colonial Secretary)，然後由女皇御筆欽點先至做得成，仲麻煩過人大釋法。李官當年排場仲行過督爺，返工要用兩架Rolls Royce，一架佢用，另一架用嚟幫佢車文件及公事包。講行/碼頭，論氣勢，果個城中無良潮州佬，枉稱首富，行事正牌煎讓三寶(孤寒、度縮、算死草)，最近佢間超市仲被人踢爆賣垃圾魚，拍埋李官度，直頭係相形見拙。(李嘉誠，好心你收皮啦)難為仲有啲契弟發錢寒，成日想話做李嘉誠，正低B仔。李柏儉單嘢，最好笑係佢當個澳洲檢控Kevin Zervos係流。佢話Zervos祖先係雅典人，响公元前五世紀果場Battle of Thermopylae 度臨敵腳軟，累到300個司巴達戰士被波斯軍任鋸；跟住又話Zervos係納粹餘孽，而佢自己(即李柏儉)以前二次大戰服役果陣打瓜左唔少德國佬，所以呢次明係政治報復。老實話，你幾時見過咁學通古今嘅犯，又幾何遇過咁輕蔑檢控官嘅呃綜援犯，我諗古往今來除咗古羅馬件Marcus Tullius Cicero之外，就只有Jackson-Lipkin(李柏儉)咁夠薑敢窒到個檢控官一棟都無，真係抵我封佢做偶像。
佢老婆阿Lucille姐都唔弱，當住個官數臭個檢控，全程望都唔望佢半眼，仲話佢係Mr Persecutor，特登將個Pro-變成Per-，呢招唔係advocacy係咩？兩公婆全程玩殘個法庭，十足孫悟空大鬧天宮，難為個官仲話佢哋無悔意，佢都死架，唔通佢想一個曾經做過High Court Judge(官階比裁判官高出十萬八千里)而又係女皇御用大律師嘅人向你搖尾乞憐博減刑咩？都忽忽地，換轉係我，對住個喺我practice果陣仲含住個奶咀嘅Mag仔，我都當佢無到啦，駛俾面佢？
好似前排清洪被人告响候機室打空姐，律政司最後撤銷控罪係明智抉擇，清洪本身己係Criminal Bar 四大天王之一，佢仲揾埋另外一支天王級大炮Lawrence Lok (駱應淦，三色公仔箱丑角駱應鈞大哥)友情幫拖，兩條友putting two heads together，你鋤得佢入，我叫聲你做契哥，幫埋你挽鞋都得。
除咗衣着品味，李柏儉最叫人津津樂道係佢採取一種知識型的對抗方法，唔係好似長毛梁班打壞咁，淨係識瞓街、抬棺材、燒國旗。原因係長毛古思堯之流係市井，只識打爛仔交，反之李柏儉係從前日不落帝國培養嘅高級知識份子，唔會同你示威抗議咁cheap，要玩就喺法庭同你班契弟玩，唔同你空喊口號，同你玩食腦，玩法律，分分鐘你判佢custodial sentence(依家只係convict咗，未sentence)，佢實揾幾件大炮上訴，同你玩浪費公帑，橫掂佢身無長物，同政府玩絕對玩得起。(寫於26-1-2007)
李柏儉喺庭上面對住控方排山倒海嘅鐵證亦毫不畏懼咁去抗辯，真係有啲似《滿城盡帶黃金甲》中杰皇子果種近乎浪漫式揮舞住把大刀去殺敵嘅激昂，睇起嚟仲有啲明知不可為而為之嘅精神，呢種就係「士可殺不可辱」嘞。唔通去叫個當年同Henry Litton Q.C.(嗰件幫古德明打甩咗單theft的鬼佬)、施偉賢(Bar List排名第一)等齊名的狀門高手跪地求饒，叫個Mag仔從輕發落？不過李官，你千祈唔好學杰皇子咁喺散場果陣揮劍自刎至好。
查實條Mag仔都死嘅，佢話李官行為剝削左有需要人士嘅權利，喂，人哋話到尾以前交咗咁多年稅，依家攞小小綜援洗吓，有乜問題先？反而嗰班「大陸L」對香港乜X貢獻都無，但就個個月屙蛋咁屙班「小燦頭」出嚟，仲奉咗旨咁要住大公屋，咁先至係大問題。計我話李瀚良唔係「鐵面判官」，佢連上訴庭大法官封求情信都唔俾面，正一係「撚樣判官」。小弟唔怕你告我藐視法庭，有種就告我，吹我唔漲。
最後的貴族(監獄版)
標籤:
左冷禪,
法訟江湖誌
訂閱：
發佈留言 (Atom)
13 留言:
可見得好的大狀﹐不代表是好的投資家﹐如果唔貪心搞到投資失誤﹐佢兩公婆都有錢可以舒舒服服食過世﹐唔洗搞到咁折墮﹐臨老入冊唔過得世。
當第一次聽到這段新聞﹐我就已經覺得提出起訴就已經係浪費人力物力﹐對一個行將就木既老坑大施刑訟﹐一廢。不見得能作殺雞警猴或有更長遠建功立案例﹐二廢。佢得個百零萬﹐只不過住下公屋﹐拿十來萬﹐又唔係搾成千零萬侵佔豪宅﹐當retirement package咪算羅。就算告到佢屈死獄中﹐對立威﹑法治﹑民識﹑公帑無樣野有著數﹐萬一李氏在庭上拉柴﹐相信引來的也只有負面後果。我係律政署﹑房署咪暗瓦底cut佢水電趕佢走就咪算羅﹐話唔埋﹐得個百零萬﹐兩﹑三年佢用埋咪又係名正言順咁翻去住﹐要告就有大把人應該排在前面。在情在理﹐我都覺得是小題大作﹐吃力不討好的白痴案。
將個本來呃綜援貪小便宜嘅阿伯，講到成個同龐大惡勢力奮死對抗嘅英雄咁，左冷禪，律師呢行真係好啱你，有前途呀你。
題外話: 掟舊錢出來就成班乞兒醫官跟住響後邊乃x眼兼出賣最值錢果塊招牌.莫講話契弟,仆街都唔怕做.
那拼了老命寧抗旨也不願公開的「誠實商人」，就是當年的「老實商人」嗎？
今次恕我唔能夠同意左兄某d論點,尤其是最尾一段:「查實條Mag仔都死嘅，佢話李官行為剝削左有需要人士嘅權利，喂，人哋話到尾以前交咗咁多年稅，依家攞小小綜援洗吓，有乜問題先？反而嗰班「大陸L」對香港乜X貢獻都無，但就個個月屙蛋咁屙班「小燦頭」出嚟，仲奉咗旨咁要住大公屋，咁先至係大問題」,其實呢度已經把兩種情況混淆了。而家李柏儉同佢老婆係呃綜援,唔係話以前交好多稅,而家就可以拎或者呃住少少過日辰,反而d內地新移民拎依足手續拎綜援就大問題。因為首先已經係一個犯法,一個唔係犯法的分別。如果個個都持住自己以前個朵幾響,交幾多稅,而家臨老就可以呃政府或者呃其他人的錢的話,咁呢個社會仲得掂?此其一。其次要視乎你對貢獻的定義係乜,如果只係交左好多年稅又或者交左好多稅,對香港就係貢獻的話,咁李嘉誠晌香港投資咁多,加上佢咁多年捐的錢同交的稅唔少啦掛?咁係咪一樣代表佢臨老可以任由旗下d集團晌北京賣爛樓,晌香港賣油魚當雪魚呢?
成篇野全無理據，mentality好有問題。
咩「高級知識份子」、咩「士可殺不可辱」？讀過law唔係大哂，兩名犯人(已定罪)唔在講，寫篇野o既人又吹咩唔脹呢？
好明顯，呢篇文唔係咩「持平」嘅社論，而係徹頭徹尾對人唔對事嘅怪論。左冷禪祟拜李柏儉，以我理解，並唔係刻意造出嚟嘅笑話，而係佢心悅誠服嘅愛的宣言，左生唔只鍾意李柏儉，甚至連希特拉都鍾意添，so what?
I am not instructed by Miles Jackson-Lipkin to defend him, but I just wish to point out a legal point, that is the sentencing should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. The maximum sentence for theft is 10 years imprisonment, but a person will not get 10 years just for stealing a bar of chocolate in the supermarket. I am not in the position to say Jackson-Lipkin is innocent since I have never looked at the prosecution bundle, but even if he and his wife are guilty, they do not deserve a 11 months imprisonment. There is no binding precedent judgment in the HIgh Court or even persuasive precednet in lower courts like Magistrate Court, that people committing an offence as such should be thrown immediately to jail. If your memeory is still sound, you would remember the "Indonesia Tasumi Couple" who hugged and kissed each other before the camera, only received suspended sentence for the same crime. They did not enter a guilty plea, nor did they show any remorse in the court. So why do the Jackson-Lipkin be sentenced to jail for 11 months but not suspended sentence? The age as well as health condition should be considered when the trial judge enters a custodial sentence. 李瀚良, is only trying to present himself as a fair judge before the public who knows nothing about principles of sentencing. (Note that magistrate is employed on contract-basis and has to be renewed for every three years.) A sentence as such would surely attract lot of popularity. Disparity of sentence though is not itself a good ground for appeal, but if the facts and situation of two crimes are similar or of the same nature, the sentences imposed should never be so different. What I have in mind on this issue are both the point of law and justice, otheriwse why should there be a scale in the hand of the Justice Statue. Jackson-Lipkin does not deserve to have a heavier sentence only because he is a man of position, his fierce line of defence adopted in court.
左兄要閻晒燦頭就叫偏激﹐其實我於李柏儉一案反而偏向同意左兄既看法﹐(當然lipkin又不是什麼英雄﹐佢走得甩我就覺係英雄啦﹐重可幫我證明司法制度根本就是塊布境板。) 一對呃公援去印尼旅行既年輕夫婦得輕判緩刑﹐這對曾為香港供獻過的﹑老到就來死的反而要即刻入獄。當天那對夫婦呃公援有得輕判﹐不嚴懲為戒﹐我亦大叫無天理。今天這對老到隨時接埋既反而用以警剔民識???就叫罪有應得? 我亦覺有公報私仇﹐純緒囉采之嫌。隨了這宗外﹐呃公援而有得被輕判不是第一次﹐當日有父婦為兒子申請大學津貼亦虛報資料﹐結果亦被判得以緩刑﹐按"以往案例"既準則﹐這宗案亦理應緩刑。
其實一講呢位老人家,我就諗起幾年前比人斷正收埋包丸仔(唔知有幾多粒) o既阮姓後生仔,過完堂無穿無爛施施然行出法庭 o既情境.相比之下,我反而唔係諗兩老抵唔抵死,而係懷疑呢個人執業果陣係咪得罪左好多行家,連班細 o既都唔睇佢.
我都知實有人會用"知法犯法"這一句。我雖不如左兄覺得李柏檢是英雄﹐不過我卻覺得判詞值得斟酌﹐可能是避嫌﹐可能係比人吋親有心報復﹐我覺得判詞是很有問題。無錯﹐普通市民一般的確會覺得佢抵死﹐因為有罪有罰無乜問題﹐但其實問題在於個個唔駛即時執行收監﹐呢個反而要? 問題既重點不是在應不應有罪﹐而是法律的consistency﹐應該幾有罪﹐喂﹐有個人揼垃圾比公價千五﹐另一個因為個樣討厭﹐所以個官要罰萬五﹐咁還需乜鬼法律? 叫個皇帝隨心所欲咁判羅。
係唔係從今以後﹐呃親公援就要即刻坐監先? 如果係既話﹐不妨索性叫埋李氏父婦打靶﹐咁就以後少好多人呃公援。
In response to the matter on trial magistrate or judge’s discretion in sentencing, I wish to add judge’s discretionary power, though not denied, is subject to the common law principle of “stare decisis” which means keep to the decisions of the past in English. In terms of sentencing, the lower courts have to follow any tariff or guideline delivered from the higher courts like the Court of Appeal or Court of Final Appeal. It is so called binding precedent. And even if there is no binding precedent, similar judgments by courts of same level can be referred to before handing down a sentence. When almost convicted defendants of all charges concerning social welfare payouts received suspended sentence or 1 to 3 months imprisonment, the one the Jackson-Lipkin and his wife received from the Chief Magistrate (11 months) is deviated from the sentencing line adopted by the other magistrates. This is a sufficient ground for either requiring the magistrate himself to review his sentence which I do not think he would, and appeal to the High Court to reduce the sentence. The Chief Magistrate perhaps is too eager to portray himself as just person, that he has forgotten to consider the age of the defendants, their clear records, their previous contribution to the society, the mitigating letters from 12 social elites including a judge of the Court of Appeal, as well as other judgments from the magistrates, when sentencing. He fails to keep in line with the rule. It is not a matter of fairness, rather it is only a matter of law. Like it or not, our judiciary system concerns itself more with consistency, procedure and precedents than fairness.
不好意思,細路仔唔識野, Criminal Bar 四大天王, 除左清洪 同Lawrence先生之外, 仲有邊兩個
發佈留言