南丫海難唔夠救生衣祭旗案

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？）

1. However, it is the third factor which is the most striking in this case. It was accepted by the prosecution that the appellant inherited the policy of not enforcing the Regulation from his predecessor. He continued it and did not rescind it for the entirety of his term of office. When he left office, it was carried on by two of his successors. Neither his predecessor nor his two successors have been dealt with by the criminal law. We are told that only the appellant’s successors have been the subject of disciplinary action, each receiving a warning letter, yet, as Mr Bruce conceded at the appellant’s application for bail pending appeal before the Single Judge, “there was nothing to distinguish the applicant, morally or legally, from those who succeeded him in his post”[62]. As McWalters JA further noted in his judgment, and we agree, the fact that they “have escaped a criminal prosecution and the level of punishment which the applicant has been forced to endure must … as a matter of simple fairness, be a valid consideration to which a sentencing court should have regard”[63]. The judge did not advert to this matter in his Reasons for Sentence. /// [1]

[1] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=118764&currpage=T