法律能制裁疑似陳冠希嗎?

標籤: ,


首先响呢度恭賀鍾亦天獲釋,唔係細佬認叻,我之前估控方遲遲唔向法庭申請審單案係想揼波鐘探多D料,原來差佬都未送D相去審檢,本來咁做係無唔妥,D道友白粉佬俾人控,都係先告人再送D粉去化驗,但係唔俾人保釋搞到人哋係荔角度新歲,就明係玩尻人,枉佢班冚家剷仲向個電視死唔認錯。

講番希少,佢就真係巴X閉,佢單靚相風波係繼03年沙士之後做咗最多日報紙雜誌頭條既港聞,叻仔,Two thumbs up!!班網民成日話要懲罰佢,查實計就唔係無,不過就要各路人馬集思廣益吓。

1. 先講刑事criminal sanction,真係講到口都臭哂,影鹹相(自影)絕對無罪,不過如果相中主角唔夠秤,咁就另作別論;
2. 另外,如果「白痴」等人係被迫,咁就係非禮,案例我都有,叫Mok Pak-wo v The Queen [1980] HKCA 75。至於非禮,元素包括indecent(是否連right-minded/thinking person都覺得係indecent)+ assault (apprehension of imminent physical contact/indecency),班女如果啪咗藥,又點會有apprehension? 不過呢單野係以用相機影裸照為基礎,响人哋瞓着覺摷人陰就變咗indecent battery,一樣告得入。但刑事法只會處理危害公眾嘢,响屋企吹簫撚雀玩自拍關佢X事咩?
3. 又如果班女係食咗嘢之後先同希少扑嘢,咁就有可能係強姦,因為佢哋嘅 consent唔係响清醒時候俾,就算希少都High咗嘢神智不清都係強姦。當然係呢度就有技術上既問題,雖然刑事同民事最大既分別係無時限,但隔咗咁撚耐先告人,就真係好難係毫無合理疑點咁舉證成功(prove beyond reasonable doubts)。

依家講吓民事,過年前响明報一篇專欄見個筆者教白痴佢哋申請禁制令對付放相者,挑條盲毛都忽嘅,第一唔理你告人索償又好,申請禁制令又好,你都要寫入稟狀(statement of claims/ex-parte application for injunction),呢D都係pleadings,根據Order 18 Rules of the High Court/ Rules of the District Court (RHC/RDC),狀紙入邊一定要標明原告被告係乜水,依家個個都有相,行去中環旺角起碼有一半人有forward個D相,分分鐘連阿一哥做幫辦個仔都有份,但係你又唔知人姓什名誰,唔通你去禁九哂全香港七百萬人唔俾上網咩?明報仲扮乜鬼知識份子報?起初人哋份份報紙都登靚相,佢就扮哂嘢物都唔登,咁撚悶鬼睇你咩,到後來發覺D銷量唔好,就姣婆守唔到寡咁,走去登楊超成個女張出浴相,正式又要起貞節牌坊又要做淫婦,不知所謂。

有人話叫班女告希少疏忽處理輯相。老實講我唔知佢係唔係講緊民事侵權法(Tort Law)入邊既疏忽(negligence),如果係就听收檔都得,呢瓣嘢係非常複雜,如果看官有興趣,遲些我可以寫吓同大家研究吓,不過就一定要用雞腸,因為呢D係鬼佬嘢,用中文解釋就比較困難,同著住條牛仔褲打飛機差唔多,但簡單D就係要證明被告對原告有Duty of Care(Proximity+reasonable foreseeability+fair, just and reasonable to impose duty),然後要證明被告有breach of duty,最後又要證明被告的疏忽directly, consequentially令原告有損失(causation),兼且原告可能要證明埋自己無唔小心(contributory negligence),真係煩撚到仆街,不過值得一提就係:
1. 希少輯相唔係佢自己發出去,而可能係班友無佢同意從部電腦個Hard Disk度提取,咁呢個盜竊行為就係獨立行為中斷咗條chain of causation(novus actus interveniens);
2. 班女無腦到任希少影,自己係唔係多少都要負小小責任呢? 但係我講明,上邊講既疏忽處理相片既「疏忽」未必係希少果種,如果俾我撞中就實行早抖啦。

又有人提議告違反保密(Breach of Confidence),識得咁諗既就有腦啦,證明有讀書。要告呢樣就要證明:1)有關資料是值得保密(唔係果D三姑六婆街市賣魚勝都知既嘢);2)收料者有義務去守秘密;3)D嘢見光會令發料人(confider)受損失。首先一般來講,呢D confidence係指商業秘密,公司機密或政府機密,收料人同發料人有一定合約或信託責任(fiduciary duty),好似律師同客人,公司董事同公司,醫生同病人等,仲有法律係唔會視果D gross indecent既嘢值得保密,不過法庭話做愛既內容並非gross indecent (Stephens v Avery [1988] Ch 449 the court rejected the defendant’s argument that any sexual conduct lacked the quality of confidentiality)。不過,希少同班女並無任何合約或信託關係,其次係D相唔係班女confide俾佢既資料,輯相係希少自己影,唔少仲自己條賓周都做埋主角添,咁技術上就唔算係information communicated to the recipient by confider。

Be so as it may,過去亦有案例指二人的性生活都係保密資料,爆咗都係Breach of Confidence。但以小弟的陋見,要告人就要過一個叫做springboard test,根據Seager v Copydex Ltd [1967] / WLR 929 Lord Denning既解釋﹕

As I understand it, the essence of this breach of law, whatever the origin it may be, is that a person who has obtained information in confidence is not allowed to use it as a springboard for activities detrimental to the person who made the confidential communication...


個故事講到呢度,你地不妨諗吓希少有無用輯相作為跳板做出傷害班女既事,輯相如果真係如班差佬咁講係班淫蟲响佢部腦處偷番嚟,然後發放俾我哋班契弟,咁又關希少撚事咩,有撚用過D相做跳板咩?

計我話講物尻嘢法治,每人夾一千蚊,集腋成裘,揾人炳佢一獲算吧啦,我講明先我唔係教唆你班粉樣傷人呀,你班豬腦唔好去買凶,如果希少返番香港之後俾人打殘咗隻手、隻腳,又或者踢爆咗粒testicle,唔好入我數,我唔係「奇拿」,我頂多係「騎拿」咋。

2 留言:

江南柒怪 說...

左官, 我地班粉腸雖然柒, 但係都唔會無情到想睇你著住條牛仔褲打飛機, 只不過寫雞腸之餘仍然keep到你"很黃很暴力"0既iconic style, 咁就真係perfect 0敕!

M.K. Lai 說...

d差佬係咁話佢詐騙, 點解仲唔告佢?