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
conduct sentence 在 李怡 Facebook 的最佳解答
Don’t get overawed (Lee Yee)
On the day that the National Security Law was passed by the National People’s Congress, I got a message of a friend from afar: “Are you secure?” I answered without even giving it a thought: ”No one is secure in a secure country.”
When maximal authority of a country is realized, individual rights are so minimal that no one is secure. Even in China where the plebs would answer with a big NO, are people in power secure? Was Liu Shaoqi, the late Chairman of the People’s Republic of China persecuted to death during the Cultural Revolution, secure? In the past 70 years, have most of the people in power of different levels been secure in view of the miseries they have encountered? Was and is Jiang Zemin, the former General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party(CCP), secure? Is Xi Jinping secure?
The befalling of the National Security Law is likened to “the second handover of Hong Kong”. An online article points out “the difference between the first and second handover” is that “the people who resent the CCP in 2020 is countless times more than those in 1997, and in terms of reputation, conduct and calibre, the people who espouse the second handover in 2020 are not even comparable to those who espouse the first handover in 1997”. Another says that “Hong Kongers belonging to no country before handover used to live in peace and work with contentment”, and asks “where their homes are when they belong to a nation”? In China, even the movers and shakers evacuate their relatives by fair means or foul from their country to a strange place they call home in the West.
The Articles of the Hong Kong version of National Security Law was not announced until it took effect, so that Carrie Lam was unable to utter a word about the details of it on the day of implementation of the Law. Legislation as such is preposterous. The full text of it is awash with equivocal meanings of unfinished wordings, which is so jaw-dropping that even a layman would ask: What kind of legal document is that? Zhao Sile, a journalist from China, said online: “The Law is typically from China because the laws of China have always been ambiguous and ill-defined”. She continued, “How are they enforced? Arbitrary and flexible provisions are made by different administrative departments which then inflate in power unceasingly.”
Regarding the abovementioned, it is almost pointless to delve into every Article of it for clarifying under what circumstances does one offend and not offend the Law, and where the grey areas are. Take those dubbed the “four ringleaders of Hong Kong independence” and “gang of four that jeopardizes Hong Kong” by Chinese media as an example. While they are known to be opposed to Hong Kong independence and even anti-localist, and did not advocate the protest last year, China deems them to be guilty of all of the above by dismissing the actuality. Subsequently, some budding political groups disbanded in no time. However, if the CCP decides to recriminate, on no account can they escape. That being said, it is possible that China will sit on the issue of Hong Kong independence provisionally in an attempt to dilute the sanctions against it from overseas. With the arbitrariness and flexibility of laws of China and its enforcement, no one is secure, nor one is doomed to committing a crime. Falling into a trap is simply akin to running into a car accident.
Looking at the National Security Law, Hong Kongers, who are accustomed to living under the rule of law, will naturally get frightened and anxiety-ridden, and try to wash their hands of sensitive issues. They think they will stay secure by stopping short of slogans with content of “secession of state” or disbanding a political group. In reality, if the CCP wants to get you in trouble, it does not have to leverage the National Security Law. Manipulated by the CCP, the SAR government can do and will do whatever stipulated by the National Security Law. Is the Law retroactive? Wasn’t the disqualification sentence for Leung Chunghang and Yau Waiching, former Legislative Council members, retroactive? And the judge that brought in the verdict based on retroactivity was Andrew Cheung Kuinung, the next Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal to-be. Does it make sense to contemplate upon the situation differently before and after the enactment of the National Security Law?
Now that the CCP can do whatever it wants. Is the enactment of the National Security Law an unnecessary move? As Chinese officials said, the Law, like a sword dangling above Hong Kongers, is to get them overawed and frightened.
Scared? Surely. Yet, one should have been scared much earlier on. If one had been scared, one would have arranged for fleeing from Hong Kong. Those who choose to stay should not let fear take control of them.
I have always remembered what British writer Salman Rushdie wrote after September 11 attacks in 2001: “Amid the conflict between liberty and security, we should always opt to stand with liberty without remorse even though we make a wrong choice. How do we beat terrorism? Don’t get overawed and don’t let fear take control of you even though you are scared.”
The late U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” If we let fear take control of us, we give up liberty.
conduct sentence 在 IELTS Thanh Loan Facebook 的最讚貼文
HƯỚNG DẪN GIẢI IELTS WRITING TASK 2 - ACTUAL TEST
👉Test IELTS MIỄN PHÍ: http://bit.ly/2Sx9Nin
---
Hướng dẫn chi tiết thế này thì mình đảm bảo các bạn học RẤT YẾU WRITING vẫn có thể VIẾT được!!
Đây là một đề thi thật năm nào đó :v Cùng giải quyết đề thi dưới đây nhé các bạn:
Đề bài: Scientific research should be carried out and controlled by the governments rather than private companies. Do you agree or disagree?
CẤU TRÚC BÀI VIẾT
👉 Introduction: Như thường lệ, bạn cần 2 câu cho phần Introduction
Paraphrase câu hỏi
Scientific research should be carried out and controlled by the governments rather than private companies.
carry out = conduct = perform
control = govern = handle
>> Khẳng định rõ ý kiến cá nhân là đồng ý với quan điểm rằng các nghiên cứu khoa học nên được
👉 Body paragraph 1:
Topic sentence: Nếu chính phủ kiểm soát thì quá trình thực hiện research sẽ tốt hơn
✅ Supporting idea 1: Nhiều research yêu câu sự hợp tác của nhiều quốc gia và các công ty tư nhân chưa đủ sức để giải quyết. Ví dụ research về vấn đề nóng lên toàn cầu
✅ Supporting idea 2: Government có nhiều tiền để thực hiện research hoặc xử lý những vấn đề back up
👉 Body paragraph 2:
Nếu chính phủ kiểm soát thì đảm bảo rằng nghiên cứu được thực hiện nhằm mục đích phục vụ cộng đồng. Nếu do các công ty thực hiện, họ có thể thực hiện sai mục đích
👉 Conclusion: Khẳng định lại quan điểm
---------------------
👉Test trình độ và nhận tư vấn lộ trình MIỄN PHÍ: https://ielts-thanhloan.com/kiem-tra-dau-vao
✍️ Thông tin khóa học Offline: https://ielts-thanhloan.com/khoa-hoc-ielts-offline
✍️ Khóa học IELTS Online: https://online.ielts-thanhloan.com/
✍️ Ebook IELTS: https://ielts-thanhloan.com/danh-muc/sach-ielts-thanh-loan-viet
---------------------
☎️ Liên hệ tư vấn: 0974 824 724 (Mrs.Thanh Loan)
📪 Địa chỉ: Số 18, Ngõ 11, Thái Hà, Đống Đa Hà Nội
💌 Email: hi@ielts-thanhloan.com
🌎 Website: http://ielts-thanhloan.com
👨👩👧👧 Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/IELTSThanhLoan/
---------
#IELTSThanhLoan
#Lớp_học_IELTS_cô_ThanhLoan
conduct sentence 在 Conduct in a sentence 的相關結果
219+22 sentence examples: 1. Your conduct is not consistent with what you say. 2. He dare not tell us his evil conduct. 3. ... <看更多>
conduct sentence 在 Conduct Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster 的相關結果
Examples of conduct in a Sentence ... Verb The police are conducting an investigation into last week's robbery. I like the way the company ... ... <看更多>
conduct sentence 在 The Word "Conduct" in Example Sentences - Page 1 的相關結果
English Sentences Focusing on Words and Their Word Families The Word "Conduct" in Example Sentences Page 1 · [S] · [T] We're conducting a survey. · [S] · [T] I ... ... <看更多>