[GHS] [Grad] https://facebook/audrey.euyuetmee/photos/a.10152426257499435.1073741890.197345194434/10152843596514435/?type=1&pnref=story Lord Hoffmann at R v. Jones paragraph 89 The police and prosecutors, on the other hand, behave with restraint and the magistrates impose sentences which take the conscientious motives of the protesters into account. The conditional discharges ordered by the magistrates in the cases which came before them exemplifies their sensitivity to these conventions. According to the judgment in the House of Lords, there would be grounds for the defendants under the conviction of occupying central to defend themselves! Therefore, even if HK citizens are being prosecuted for supporting the Umbrella Movement, it would be quite certain that the magistrates would only impose sentences which take the conscientious motives of the protesters into account, which means the sentences would not be harsh. The Court of Appeal should greatly adhere to the judgment of House of Lords because of the stare decisis principle. 中文翻譯： 一句講哂，因為house of lords 之前有呢個judgment，而HK courts 好大程度上要跟翻個judgment(doctrine of precedent)，所以就算因為參與umbrella movement呢樣civil disobedient act而俾govt告，都好難告得入，最多只會offer conditional discharge（有條件咁釋放）， 唔會留案底,除非你breaches the conditional discharge and is required to be re-sentenced. *一切只是法律意見，最後點判都係要睇個官 :( 大家加油 我只能做鍵盤戰士
Posted on: Sat, 06 Dec 2014 12:47:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015