Social News
Written by: Lin Leer
2020-07-28 17:36
Last update date: 2020-07-28 17:36A Form 5 boy was found in the "Operation Dawn" last year. After the trial, he was found guilty of possession of prohibited weapons. The probation officer originally suggested that the defendant be probated, but the defendant refused. The magistrate Xiang Shuxian allowed him to pay 1,000 yuan. Sign conservative behavior for 1 year. However, Officer Xiang later claimed that he had been misled by the defense and voluntarily asked for a review. The defense today (28th) emphasized in the Eastern District Court that he was based on the judgment of the High Court and believed that the High Court had accused the defendant to imprisonment. It was "disproportionate" and "unfair," but the official said that after reading the transcript of the verdict, the relevant words were not noticed, and that she had the right to review and adjourn the case until Thursday.
The defendant Wu Mingyang (18 years old) is now rereading Form 5 for the third time. He is charged with possession of a switchblade in Chai Wan Road near Chai Wan Road roundabout on November 11 last year. After being convicted, he was repaid and released on bail in the High Court a week later. His representative barrister Guo Jingxian once said that when the judge of the High Court approved the defendant's bail, he had accused the defendant that the fine was generally sufficient and that the defendant's repayment and imprisonment were "disproportionate" and "unfair."
After the magistrate, Hung Sook, sent a light sentence to a student, he felt that he was misled by the defense's statements and offered to review the sentence. (Profile picture)
Means that the high court officials did not say the words and sentences of the defense
Official Xiang said that after reading the transcript of the judgment of the judge of the High Court, she found that the judge had not said the relevant words and sentences mentioned by Guo Dazhuang.
Guo Dazhuang immediately read out the sentence, alleging that the judge had said: "It is difficult to support imprisonment punishment in law." It was also mentioned that failure to grant bail might cause injustice, so the guarantee was approved. Guo believes that from the above, it can be understood that the judge's alleged return and imprisonment are unfair. He also claimed that the judge also mentioned that this case was less serious than the case submitted by him, so he believed that he also agreed that the fine was sufficient.
Barrister Guo Jingxian claimed that the reasoning was based on the verdict. He believed that imprisonment was inappropriate and insisted that he did not mislead the court. (Profile picture)
The defense insists that there are more than a percentage of imprisonments
After hearing this, the official Hong Kong questioned that the judge of the High Court had not said such words as "disproportionate practices." Guo Dazhuang quoted the verdict again, pointing out that if he was sentenced to the training center, the defendant would lose at least 6 months of freedom. The judge at the time described this as "out of proportion." He also emphasized that it is difficult to record what the judge said verbatim. The defense has recorded the judge's meaning as accurately as possible, and the repetition is absolutely true.
Xiangguan insisted that he was misled by the defense to influence his sentence
Guo Dazheng continued that he has filed a conviction appeal, and if the magistrate uses the controversial conviction basis as the basis for sentencing, it is against the principle of sentencing. He further said that the magistrate should tell what was wrong in the sentence before proceeding to review the sentence. He hoped that the court could explain what was wrong with the earlier approval of the conservative behavior. The magistrate later ruled that he had the right to review the sentence, and claimed that he had been misled by the defense's inaccurate quotations earlier and affected the sentence.
Rereading Form 5 three times, the boy admits that he has a switchblade and refuses to accept the probation officer's conditional release
Sentence of Switch Knife Sentenced by the Chinese Fifth School, the official said that he felt suspicious after the sentence and filed for a review
A boy with Aberdeen disease wants to draw his father's attention to the emergency room, and he is sentenced to one year for robbing a police officer with a gun
Guo Panneng released the defendant on the spot
Guo later stated that the defendant was remanded for 7 days and received a notice to review his sentence while preparing for the examination, which not only affected the examination, but also put him and his family under tremendous pressure. Guo quoted reports written by the probation officer and correctional officers, saying that the defendant with hyperactivity and lack of concentration had poor memory and did not know that there was a switchblade in his backpack. He reiterated that he had no intention of using knives and was unwilling to accept probation. Released on the spot. Regarding the report that the defendant stopped taking drugs on his own and had poor conduct and academic performance, Guo explained that he stopped taking the drugs with the consent of his mother, and that he did not have behavioral deviations due to illness and was carrying a switchblade.
Case Number: ESCC2524/2019
Contraband Operation Dawn Fugitives Ordinance Court