立場新聞 Stand News

Six complaints against Magistrate Ho dismissed

2020/10/8 — 19:46

The Hong Kong judiciary dismissed six complaints out of the eight involving Magistrate Stanley Ho Chun-yiu. The rest will be followed up after the conclusion of legal proceedings

In one case accusing District Councillor Jocelyn Chau of assaulting police, Ho was complained for accusing the police witness “covering a lie with another”. After the investigation, the complaint was dismissed as the magistrate has the right to comment and judge the witness accountability.

The judgement came after Ta Kung Pao and Wen Wei Po, under the control of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government, recently repeated bombarded magistrate Stanley Ho Chun-yiu, accusing him for “releasing black violence defendants” that triggered a round of companies from the pro-China camp started a round of complaints.

廣告

Six out of eight complains dismissed, two awaiting legal proceedings

The Judiciary today announced that starting from July, if there are a vast number of similar complaints about the judge’s conduct in any case, the Secretariat for Complaints Against Judicial Conduct will announce the key points, investigation results and the considering factors in the webpage of the Judiciary.

廣告

The investigation of the first badge of complaints has been completed; among them are eight complaints on Magistrate Stanley Ho Chun-yiu. After a thorough investigation, the Chief Magistrate dismissed six complaints, and vowed to follow up 2 after the conclusion of legal proceedings. The Judiciary also noted that Geoffrey Ma, the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal, also agreed on the opinion of the Chief Magistrate.

In the case against District Councillor Jocelyn Chau assaulting police, one of the six cases complaining against Magistrate Ho, Ho was complained for criticizing the police witnesses for their frivolous and contemptuous attitude, giving witness in a “parallel universe” and “covering a lie with another”.

The Judiciary points out that when analyzing the evidence, the magistrate states that the police says to the defendant “taking sneak shots on us” in a frivolous and contemptuous manner. He was not pinpointing the attitude of the witnesses when making their witness.

Judiciary: analysis is based on evidence and not targeted at police officers

According to the judiciary, the magistrate’s factual verdict and analysis of the case is based on the evidence from this case, and is not targeted at any specific individual or any political speech, nor is it in favour of the police officers.

The judiciary also pointed out that, when the magistrate evaluated the evidence from the case, the film clips presented to the court indicated that, the police officers at the scene had spoken to the defendant with a flippant and contemptuous attitude, saying: ‘you are filming us illegally.’ The magistrate is not referring to the attitude of the police officer witnesses when they gave their testimonies.

Based on the judiciary, in analysing the evidence, the magistrate discovered that there was a substantial discrepancy between how the two police officers described the incident and the actual video clip presented to the court. The situation seemed to fit what the defendant’s claim, i.e. the police officer sounded like they were describing a “different time and space, or some kind of a “parallel universe”.

The verbal verdict given by the magistrate was based on the analysis of the evidence given by the two police officers, including their speeches at the court and also the notebook records from the police officers, the discrepancy between the witnesses’ written accounts and the film clips of what happened; the objective feasibility of the evidence, and the explanation provided in response to the defendant’s interrogation. Based on all these above, the magistrate has the power to comment on and make a decision on the credibility of the witnesses, judging from these evidences presented to the court.

Source:
何俊堯斥作供警「大話冚大話」 司法機構:投訴不成立 裁判官有權評證人可信

發表意見