【法庭】港鐵：法庭確立乘客有嚴格責任確保車票有效，失靈不是合理辯解，僅是求情原因
庇護十二世
686 回覆
27 Like
917 Dislike
第 1 頁第 2 頁第 3 頁第 4 頁第 5 頁第 6 頁第 7 頁第 8 頁第 9 頁第 10 頁第 11 頁第 12 頁第 13 頁第 14 頁第 15 頁第 16 頁第 17 頁第 18 頁第 19 頁第 20 頁第 21 頁第 22 頁第 23 頁第 24 頁第 25 頁第 26 頁第 27 頁第 28 頁
依家擺明就係佢成本低過你好多，普通市民邊有時間同金錢同佢玩
係
你買咗飛部機唔work都係入你數
你買咗飛部機唔work都係入你數你試下同個官講
肯定屌到你仆街
肯定屌到你仆街仲話入閘後去COUNTER 問下有冇入到閘真係個個咁玩條龍長到你唔想排啦
真係個個咁玩條龍長到你唔想排啦咁係你捉到我一個姐
香港啲濕鳩法官就係咁離地
因為請左班查飛狗
因為閘機唔用轉轉棍sensor 成日計錯數
因為閘機唔用轉轉棍sensor 成日計錯數
出閘十部閘機得一兩部入到飛
排撚死
排撚死
獨市公共交通 驚春
你覺得好意外？訓咗幾耐？
惡過黨安
香港人真係三等公民都不如
香港人真係三等公民都不如
死撐
立法會個班提都唔提
無敵法律
閘機鳩綠燈
乘客要提供有效車票 (有罪推定）
閘機鳩綠燈
乘客要提供有效車票 (有罪推定）
每次拍左卡唔好入著 大聲叫查飛幫你check 左先入
有咩同個官講
上訴等於警察投訴課
自己查自己
錢已袋
自己查自己
錢已袋
釣魚執法
一百個人入閘屈一個黎罰錢都fatfat
一百個人入閘屈一個黎罰錢都fatfat
個情景都幾荒謬，乘客出閘有問題，自然走去最近票務處處理，但中途如果唔好彩俾人截停查票，因為你當刻無有效車票，咁就係違法多謝一千大元，港鐵即將抵壘政策搬左落去玩，去到票務處見到個staff當你贏，排隊都當你輸
CLS
CLS
咁你港鐵整撚壞晒啲閘機咪得，屌你都戇鳩
因為附例係嚴格責任，即係好似簡易治罪條例一啲罪行（例如高空擲物）、車上亂拋垃圾、違例泊車、行人紅燈過路等，好難逐個證明你有心，但個行為有問題。相反情況嘅原意係檢控有權力者，保護弱者。而呢啲又係以前英式法律假設檢控者有權唔會用盡，再有法官制衡。
所以要修例，不過其實普遍嚴格責任應該有辯護，可以合理真誠相信拍咗卡。而且而家係犯法行為嗰點已經有問題，機器證明唔到一定冇拍卡，應該要爭論事實。
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-2527-2425
Question A: Is not having a ticket on a bus a strict liability offence?
Answer: Fare evasion on a London bus is regulated by the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 and the PSV (Conduct) Regulations 1990. The 1981 Act provides for a statutory defence for those accused of fare evasion where they have had a “reasonable excuse” for not having a ticket. Therefore, under the 1981 Act, bus fare evasion is not a strict liability offence. Where in doubt independent legal advice should be sought if considered necessary.
Question D: Do you say travelling without a valid ticket on tube, train or tram is a strict liability offence? If yes can you quote the relevant legislation?
Answer: TfL considers fare evasion offences prosecuted under the TfL Byelaws as strict liability but we suggest independent legal advice is sought if in doubt.
Thousands of convictions for dodging bus fares could be invalid due to TfL 'advice' https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/tfl-dodging-bus-fare-convictions-invalid-sjp-b1171653.html
In 2018, it published a “frequently asked questions” document online stating that all fare evasion offences are “strict liability” — a legal term meaning that a suspected offender’s intention at the time is irrelevant and they “may be guilty simply by the fact you did not have a valid ticket”.
But TfL has now conceded that there is a statutory defence available to bus passengers accused of fare evasion — that they might have had a “reasonable excuse” for not having a ticket.
Train firms face review over fare dodging penalties https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg0l8r3zy1o
The Transport Secretary told a committee of MPs on Wednesday it was clear "people who’ve made genuine mistakes shouldn’t be prosecuted".
https://www.tannerdewitt.com/zh-hans/halfway-house-criminal-strict-liability-offences/
There were 3 categories identified in between. In both of the first 2, namely categories 2 and 3, the common law defence would apply and the differences between the two was which party, the prosecution or the defence, had to prove or disprove the defence, and on the standard of proof to be applied. The second category applies mostly to serious cases where serious penalties apply and the test is that though the prosecution does not have to prove mens rea if there is evidence capable of showing an exculpatory common law defence , the onus remained on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable belief the absence of such an exculpatory belief. The third category or ‘halfway house’ is where the onus of proof is on the Defendant and he has to prove the common law defence on a balance of probabilities.
https://www.onc.hk/zh_HK/publication/be-my-guest-saga-how-can-an-agent-prove-reasonable-excuse-for-accepting-an-advantage
在本案中，陳志雲面對的一項控罪是代理人接受利益罪，違反香港法例第201章《防止賄賂條例》（「該條例」）第9條。陳志雲辯稱他收取商場款項是有「合理辯解」的。對於「合理辯解」的舉證責任在於哪一方，法院釐清，這取決於「合理辯解」是否與罪行的元素有關。
在香港特別行政區訴 印伯祥 [2009] 1 HKC 339一案中，被告人同樣被控代理人接受利益罪，違反該條例第9條。法院裁定，罪行的元素只包括 (1) 接受利益；(2) 作為任何行為的誘因或報酬；及 (3) 該行為與其主事人的事務或業務有關。「沒有合理辯解」並非罪行元素之一，而是一個免責辯護。上訴法庭引用印伯祥一案，裁斷陳志雲有責任以相對可能性較高的標準證明他有「合理辯解」。
所以要修例，不過其實普遍嚴格責任應該有辯護，可以合理真誠相信拍咗卡。而且而家係犯法行為嗰點已經有問題，機器證明唔到一定冇拍卡，應該要爭論事實。
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-2527-2425
Question A: Is not having a ticket on a bus a strict liability offence?
Answer: Fare evasion on a London bus is regulated by the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 and the PSV (Conduct) Regulations 1990. The 1981 Act provides for a statutory defence for those accused of fare evasion where they have had a “reasonable excuse” for not having a ticket. Therefore, under the 1981 Act, bus fare evasion is not a strict liability offence. Where in doubt independent legal advice should be sought if considered necessary.
Question D: Do you say travelling without a valid ticket on tube, train or tram is a strict liability offence? If yes can you quote the relevant legislation?
Answer: TfL considers fare evasion offences prosecuted under the TfL Byelaws as strict liability but we suggest independent legal advice is sought if in doubt.
Thousands of convictions for dodging bus fares could be invalid due to TfL 'advice' https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/tfl-dodging-bus-fare-convictions-invalid-sjp-b1171653.html
In 2018, it published a “frequently asked questions” document online stating that all fare evasion offences are “strict liability” — a legal term meaning that a suspected offender’s intention at the time is irrelevant and they “may be guilty simply by the fact you did not have a valid ticket”.
But TfL has now conceded that there is a statutory defence available to bus passengers accused of fare evasion — that they might have had a “reasonable excuse” for not having a ticket.
Train firms face review over fare dodging penalties https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg0l8r3zy1o
The Transport Secretary told a committee of MPs on Wednesday it was clear "people who’ve made genuine mistakes shouldn’t be prosecuted".
https://www.tannerdewitt.com/zh-hans/halfway-house-criminal-strict-liability-offences/
There were 3 categories identified in between. In both of the first 2, namely categories 2 and 3, the common law defence would apply and the differences between the two was which party, the prosecution or the defence, had to prove or disprove the defence, and on the standard of proof to be applied. The second category applies mostly to serious cases where serious penalties apply and the test is that though the prosecution does not have to prove mens rea if there is evidence capable of showing an exculpatory common law defence , the onus remained on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable belief the absence of such an exculpatory belief. The third category or ‘halfway house’ is where the onus of proof is on the Defendant and he has to prove the common law defence on a balance of probabilities.
https://www.onc.hk/zh_HK/publication/be-my-guest-saga-how-can-an-agent-prove-reasonable-excuse-for-accepting-an-advantage
在本案中，陳志雲面對的一項控罪是代理人接受利益罪，違反香港法例第201章《防止賄賂條例》（「該條例」）第9條。陳志雲辯稱他收取商場款項是有「合理辯解」的。對於「合理辯解」的舉證責任在於哪一方，法院釐清，這取決於「合理辯解」是否與罪行的元素有關。
在香港特別行政區訴 印伯祥 [2009] 1 HKC 339一案中，被告人同樣被控代理人接受利益罪，違反該條例第9條。法院裁定，罪行的元素只包括 (1) 接受利益；(2) 作為任何行為的誘因或報酬；及 (3) 該行為與其主事人的事務或業務有關。「沒有合理辯解」並非罪行元素之一，而是一個免責辯護。上訴法庭引用印伯祥一案，裁斷陳志雲有責任以相對可能性較高的標準證明他有「合理辯解」。
好呀 到時個個都排隊check 條隊一定長到仆街
個客服準備由朝早check到凌晨到得
我呢d良好市民一定check多幾次
個客服準備由朝早check到凌晨到得
我呢d良好市民一定check多幾次
大到不能倒，党鐵驚閪咩
衰撚過大陸