清潔工羅長清中磚亡 兩少年被控謀殺及暴動 陳慶偉下周一負責案件管理聆訊 9月20日開審

唔係個大媽掉架咩?

呢單野檢控基礎係joint enterprise (共同犯罪原則)。

首先要搞清楚謀殺MR (犯罪意圖) 唔需要證明有意圖殺人，只需要證明有意圖對他人身體做成嚴重傷害（姐係傷人17標準）。

「誤殺」其實翻譯得有得差，因為manslaughter嚴格黎講唔係「錯手殺人」咁簡單。針對involuntary manslaughter，可以分為gross negligence (非常嚴重既疏忽) 同 unlawful dangerous act (非法危險行為，但唔一定符合傷人17既意圖)；而voluntary manslaughter講緊依靠謀殺既special / partial defence，將謀殺降格做誤殺處理，例子有provocation俾人激親。

檢控角度出發，通常會吿咗謀殺先，因為謀殺入唔到都可以直接降格誤殺處理。

咁關joint enterprise咩事呢？因為香港既joint enterprise有一樣野叫situational uncertainty，姐係大家本身集體干犯A罪行，但可以合理預計過程中有B罪行發生，而最後B罪行真係發生咗，所有本身參與A罪行既都會guilty for B罪行。

套用返呢單案，姐係大家本身打算掟磚，但可以預計掟磚有機會死人，最後真係掟死咗，嚴格黎講所有掟既都可以告謀殺，唔一定要證明舊致命既磚係exactly邊個度出黎。

當然呢單案最需要證明既係：
1. 意圖，我有意圖掟磚唔一定代表我有傷人17意圖
2. 死因

檢控決定黎講佢係去到盡。

誤殺合理啲

咁即係其實個到全部扔過磚都可以告老謀?

好明顯拉錯人

當然，你要extended joint enterprise apply，首先都要有joint enterprise，所以嚴格黎講係掟磚for a common purpose既同一團伙全部都會中。

唔俾引渡，有能辦法

同控方標準，現場有掟磚o既都可以

咁即係專登針對手足啦 係要搵個兩個黎告

兩邊都有掟磚
藍o既出哂樣都冇拉過
你話喇

原則上係㗎

理論上嘅基礎就係，當你哋一班人同意扔磚 (干犯傷人罪) 嘅時候，已經准許 (authorise) 咗彼此去干犯謀殺罪 (合理可見嘅B罪行)

所以實質上只有一個兇手，但法律上可以冚唪唥入晒所有人罪

謀殺， 點樣謀丫你老味

未成年喎

以前應該打得甩，而家就難啦
坐硬都似

即係無得打?

應該都係用後面果個方向去告
都係拗共同犯罪呢樣嘢

手足唔使驚
我哋會寫信支持你

所以有陪審團係最後防線
除非呢單又關國安事

擺到明就係針住晒我哋呢邊啲人磚就互掟 但出晒樣嘅藍 一件都冇事

仆街未成年都可以坐終生同埋一定係誤殺而唔係謀殺，撚有預謀咩

控方立場嚟講係

錯

CFA in HKSAR v Chan Kam-Shing

C.1 Basic joint criminal enterprise
41. The common law has developed two forms of joint criminal enterprise which may be referred to as the basic and extended forms. The basic version involves the co-adventurers simply agreeing to carry out and then executing a planned crime. As it was put in the joint judgment of French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Nettle and Gordon JJ, in Miller v The Queen:

“If the crime that is the object of the enterprise is committed while the agreement remains on foot, all the parties to the agreement are equally guilty, regardless of the part that each has played in the conduct that constitutes the actus reus.”

42. Since participation in the joint criminal enterprise makes all participants guilty whoever the actual perpetrator may have been, this doctrine is of particular value in murder cases where there is evidential uncertainty as to who struck the fatal blow.