關於 department of justice hk ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

#hkanimalrights

I hope this challenge can raise awareness over hk animal rights and prevent more animals from being harmed and injured. In Feb 2020, 30 animals were thrown from height and 18 of them died. Two suspects turned themselves to police, but Hong Kong department of justice declared yesterday that they will set the suspects free and the suspects won’t face prosecution for their actions.

This is a serious threat to Hong Kong animal rights. We should stand up and voice out our concern over the lack of justice and protection against animal cruelty in Hong Kong. They are lives and their lives matters.

To join this challenge, please tag your friends and post a b/w photo of your pet or any animals you like. We hope to show the society or even the world the importance of animal rights.

Now I challenge
哥基懵仔·懵事記
小霸王金多寶 Corgi Jackpot
長毛｡噴泉尾 ε- 哥基 Gigi

#每日一post

My recent article😎😎😎
我最新的評論文章💪💪💪

Opinion | A misleading slogan by the opposition camp: political prosecution HK

Current2小時前

By Athena Kung

LegCo members Lam Cheuk-ting (hereinafter referred to as "Lam") and Ted Hui Chi-fung (hereinafter referred to as "Hui") were arrested at their residence respectively in the morning on 26th of August 2020. In the afternoon on 27th of August 2020, they were brought before Magistrate Peter Law Esq. sitting in West Kowloon Magistrates' Courts. Both of them faced a count of attempting to perverting the course of justice. Lam was also charged of 1 count of riot. Hui further faced 2 more charges, including criminal damage and access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent. Their bail application was objected by prosecution. After all, the court granted bail to both Lam and Hui. Their cases were adjourned for mention.

Shortly after being released by the court, Lam and Hui strongly criticized the arrest and prosecution and described it as a "public prosecution". All along, whenever any members of the opposition camp have been arrested and prosecuted, then their whole group with the local and foreign media supporting them would together accuse the HKSAR Government of making a political prosecution with an aim to suppress the dissidents. They would also try their best to condemn the HKSAR Government's such act as being a violation of the Sino-British Joint Statement and Hong Kong Basic Law. From time to time, they further attack the Government's such acts as suppressing their freedom of speech.

It appears that whenever the opposition camp alleges the Government conducts a political prosecution, all they mean is that the Government is making use of the political reasons to arrest or prosecute them. Recently, the term "political prosecution" has been the slogan made use of by the opposition camp frequently for the purpose of smearing the Hong Kong Police, Department of Justice, the Judiciary as well as the whole HKSAR Government. The motive behind is to provoke the public's hatred towards the HKSAR Government and even the Central Government, which has been a very important step in the Colour Revolutions instigated by the US Government all over the world.

Everyone is equal before the law. Even the LegCo Members must comply with all the laws in Hong Kong. No doubt, according to the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, Cap 382, Laws of Hong Kong (hereinafter referred to as "the Ordinance"), the privileges and immunities to be enjoyed by the LegCo Members include:

(1) Freedom of speech and debate "in the Council or proceedings before a committee" under Section 3 of the Ordinance.

(2) Immunity from legal proceedings, namely no civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted against any member for "words spoken before, or written in a report to, the Council or a Committee, or by reason of any matter brought by him therein by petition, Bill, resolution, motion or otherwise" under Section 4 of the Ordinance.

(3) Freedom to arrest under Section 5 of the Ordinance, including:

(a) No member shall be liable to arrest for any civil debt whilst going to, attending at or returning from a sitting of the Council or a committee;

(b) No member shall be liable to arrest for any criminal offence whilst attending at a sitting of the Council or a Committee.

In short, the privilege, immunity and freedom of speech and debate can only been exercised by the LegCo Members when they are performing their duties in making speech and debate in the Council or during the committee proceedings. The charges faced by Lam and Hui occurred in Yuen Long MTR Station on 21st of July 2019 or outside Tuen Mun Police Station on 6th of July 2019 respectively. Clearly, on both days, Lam and Hui were not performing their duties in the Council or before any Committee. On 26th of August, they were arrested at their home, but not during their attending at or returning from the Council or any Committee. Obviously, the LegCo Members from the Opposition Camp often exaggerate their privilege, immunity and freedom of speech to mislead the public.

Outside the Council and Committees, all LegCo Members must obey to all the laws in Hong Kong. Being the lawmakers who play a significant role in discussing and passing the Bills in the Legislative Council, as expected by the society, they have to behave themselves properly and setting up as good models for the public to follow and imitate, particularly for those youngsters who are immature. Their keeping on showing no respect at all towards the law and order is step by step ruining Hong Kong's rule of law, which has been the cornerstone of the success gained by the Pearl of the Oriental.

The Opposition Camp often alleges that the HKSAR Government has violated the Sino-British Joint Statement and the Hong Kong Basic Law. However, never have they pointed out which part of the 2 documents have been breached by the HKSAR Government. Obviously, such condemn is slogan as well without any concrete support at all, aiming at spreading the hatred towards the Government in the society.

So long as the Opposition Camp is of the view that any prosecution has insufficient basis to support the charge, all they should do is to face the trial bravely instead of keeping on criticizing the Government wrongfully from time to time. In court, they may have the right to deny the charges against them. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution whereas the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. Defence discharges of no burden of proof at all. All defendants in criminal cases are presumed to be innocent. Prosecution had the duty to produce evidence to prove all elements of the charges they are facing. They also have the right to have their legal representation, call their own witnesses and decide whether to give evidence during the court process. Even if they are convicted after trial, they still have the right to appeal against the conviction and/or the sentence.

The author is Barrister-at-law.

The views don't necessarily reflect those of Orange News.

責任編輯：CK Li

編輯：Whon

My recent article😎😎😎

https://apps.orangenews.hk/app/common/details_html…

Opinion | LegCo Member Ted Hui Chi-fung may be liable for malicious prosecution

HK Current

2020.08.24 16:41

By Athena Kung

In June 2020, Magistrate Lam Tsz Kan sitting in Eastern Court allowed LegCo Member Ted Hui Chi-fung (hereinafter referred to as "Hui") to press ahead with 2 firearm-related counts, including "discharging ammunition with reckless disregard for other's safety" and "dealing with arms in a way likely to injure or endanger other's safety". Maximum sentence for both of the above firearm-related offences is 7 years imprisonment. In addition, another count of shooting with intent which is an offence punishable by life imprisonment was added to the case.

Hui's such legal action was initiated by private prosecution, which was against the police officer who opened fire during a riot in Sai Wan Ho on 11th of November 2019. At common law, like prosecuting authorities, all citizens have the same right to institute proceedings. As time goes by, subject to certain restrictions, private prosecution continues to enjoy a respectable position in modern schemes of criminal justice. In any event, the right of private prosecution is not absolute. A private prosecutor has 2 hurdles to surmount. Firstly, he must persuade a magistrate to issue a summons. Thereafter, so long as he wishes to retain control of the case, he may have to persuade the Department of Justice not to take it over.

When deciding whether to issue a summons, the magistrate who has a discretion should consider at least the following factors:
(1) whether the allegation is of the offence known to law, and if so, whether the essential ingredients of the offence are prima facie present;
(2) that the time limits have been complied with;
(3) that the court has jurisdiction;
(4) whether the informant has the necessary authority to prosecute;
(5) whether the allegation is vexatious.

Once the summons has been issued, like the case initiated by Hui, it is open to the Secretary of Justice to intervene, which may be with a view to continuing or terminating such private prosecution. To prevent the abuse of private prosecution, it is thus necessary to seek to achieve a balance between the citizen's right to prosecute and the responsibility of the Secretary for Justice so as to ensure that unworthy prosecutions do not proceed. Under section 14 of the Magistrates Ordinance, Cap 227, Laws of Hong Kong, the Secretary of Justice enjoys wide power of intervention and "may at any stage of the proceedings before the magistrate intervene and assume the conduct of the proceedings."

What has really happened on the day of incident on 11th of November 2019? According to "The footage of the shooting" which was a broadcast live in the Facebook by a bystander, an officer drew his sidearm in the district of Sai Wan Ho while trying to detain a masked man at a blockaded junction. Then, another masked man attempted to liberate the other, appearing to take a swipe at the officer's pistol before being shot in the midriff. After all, police could successfully detain both men onto the ground. The first man had a pool of blood next to him. His body limped as police officers moved him around. Apparently, the officers tried to tie his hands. The second man appeared to be conscious.

No doubt, according to the above footage, Hui's private prosecution is misconceived. Hui has completely turned a blind eye to the imminent danger confronted by the officer at the particular moment. With ulterior motives, Hui intentionally and wrongfully misled both the court and public by alleging that the police officer's such dedication and discharging his duty to maintain law and order during the riots amounted to abusing of police power and police brutality.

Obviously, Hui's private prosecution should have no prospect whatsoever of success. On the contrary, Hui's such an action even constituted an abuse of prosecution process. Justice can only be achieved by the Secretary of Justice's termination of Hui's private prosecution. It explains why the Department of Justice has applied to the court to intervene the case. A hearing date between 24th to 28th of August 2020 has been applied for the Department's making formal application to terminate the case in open court. Indeed, according to Article 63 of the Basic Law, the Department of Justice shall control criminal prosecutions, free from any interference.

May the police officer wrongfully prosecuted by Hui seek any legal remedy? Historically, the tort of "malicious prosecution" in English law refers to an unreasonable criminal prosecution. All along, malicious prosecution has been generally brought as an aftermath of unsuccessful criminal proceedings.

In Hong Kong, in the decisive authority of Pathak Ravi Dutt v Sanjeev Maheshwari [2015] HKCA 595, the Court of Appeal had summarized that in an action for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove 4 essential elements:
(1) The Plaintiff was prosecuted by the Defendant, that is to say, the law was set in motion against the Plaintiff by the Defendant on a criminal charge ;
(2) The prosecution was determined in the Plaintiff's favour ;
(3) The prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause ; and
(4) The prosecution was malicious.

On the facts of the Hui's private prosecution case, following the intervention of the Department of Justice at the end of August 2020, it will be a case terminated by the Secretary for Justice instead of being ruled by the court with a verdict in favour of the police officer. Thus, it is advisable for the police officer to commence a tort of malicious prosecution action against Hui once the male shot by the police officer has been found guilty by the court. Then, the police officer may rely upon the male's conviction to support the assertion that his shooting under the particular circumstances was necessary and secure his civil claim against Hui.

The author is Barrister-at-law.

The views don't necessarily reflect those of Orange News.

責任編輯：CK Li
編輯：Whon