151. I have therefore come to the clear conclusion that it is necessary to include the police authorisation direction in all the injunction orders. In light of the circumstances of the present case, I would however revise the direction to the following terms: “Any police officer be authorised to arrest and remove any person who the police officer reasonably believes or suspects to be obstructing or interfering any bailiff in carrying out his or her duties in enforcing the terms of the injunction order herein, provided that the person to be arrested has been informed of the gist of the terms of this court order and that his action is likely to constitute a breach of the order and obstruction of the administration of justice, and that he may be arrested if he does not desist.” 袁國強：昨日的判詞說得很清楚，執達主任要採取一切必須及合理的措施協助申請人，即原告，清理障礙物，亦授權警方在有需要及適當時作出拘捕行動。所以現階段，律政司的工作是如何與警方配合，給予相關法律意見，就如何協助執達主任協助原告人清理相關障礙物。我強調這是協助原告人清理障礙物，並不是坊間所說的清場，這在法律上是兩回事。 ＸＸＸＸＸＸＸＸ 阿袁司長，執達主任是協助原告清理障礙物，你憑咩會從判詞中（Any police officer be authorised to arrest and remove any person）再得出警方又有份「協助執達主任協助原告人清理相關障礙物」呢？仲有，警方既然係「remove any person」，按許SIR個標準，就係「清場」，究竟係法律上是兩回事，定你當做兩回事？而法律上又真係有定義咩叫「清場」？ 嚴正警告你，如果有警察幫手搬走任何障礙物，已經係違反了判決吧！到時又咪成隊藍衣差人出現掃場！
Posted on: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 15:10:49 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015