香港特別行政區(qū)6514672415(存儲(chǔ)版)
【正文】 the necessary mens rea, there was a clear line between (1) 阮雲(yún)道法官在香港特別行政區(qū)訴蔡穗玲，HCMA614/2006一案中，就不作供的被告有以下的說(shuō)法：「正如Bruce and McCoy的著作Criminal Evidence in Hong Kong指出：『There are circumstances in which a court may more readily draw an inference adverse to the accused from evidence in the absence of testimony from the accused.』編者引述了R. v. Lo Sui Wing amp。 上訴人大律師依賴(lài)Berton v. Alliance Economic Investment Co. [1922]日才獲食環(huán)署正式批準(zhǔn)。 (潘敏琦) 高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官控方：由律政司高級(jí)檢控官陳淑慧代表香港特別行政區(qū)。日已沒(méi)有經(jīng)營(yíng)該食肆及在事發(fā)當(dāng)天並不在場(chǎng)，這些說(shuō)法並不影響她作出上訴人是容受當(dāng)時(shí)違例情況的唯一合理推論，裁判官並無(wú)顛倒舉證責(zé)任，上訴人大律師不宜斷章取義。年10299一案中裁定了：『Where the inference of guilt is available to the tribunal of facts and no explanation is given, it is not open to plain on appeal that another inference was available to be drawn, particularly when the facts cry out for an explanati
法律信息相關(guān)推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號(hào)-1