您的位置: 首页 » 法律资料网 » 法律论文 »

法学论文/农日吉

作者:法律资料网 时间:2024-07-09 15:58:05  浏览:8257   来源:法律资料网
下载地址: 点击此处下载
  内容摘要:起诉自由裁量权是法律赋予检察官的一种权力,规范起诉自由裁量权对于维护公平正义,强化权力制约,提升执法公信力,保障人权具有重要的意义,目前规范检察官自由裁量权还存在不足,检察机关应积极回应人民群众的合理诉求,规范起诉自由裁量权,确保执法的法律效果、社会效果和政治效果的有机统一。规范起诉自由裁量权应明确不起诉自由裁量边界,建立和完善不起诉听证制度,强化内外部制约,规范量刑建议程序,形成执法公信力的正能量。

  关键词:执法公信力 自由裁量权 规范


  检察官起诉自由裁量权是检察官“对法律规范进行选择、适用或创造新规范而酌情作出决定的权力”,[2]是法律赋予检察机关依法独立行使检察权的具体体现。检察官起诉自由裁量权能否正确实施,事关检察执法公信力问题。就司法现状而言,由于起诉自由裁量权的扩张,检察官对案件的量刑权、求刑权、刑罚权和监督权集于一身,如果不受制约,容易成为权力寻租的温床,众所周知,“权力不受监督必然导致腐败,这是颠扑不倒的真理。”[3]目前我国的自由裁量权监督制约机制还不完善,实践中,检察官自由裁量权的规范还存在许多问题,这些问题,降低了司法公信力,损害了检察机关形象,割裂了检察机关与人民群众的血脉联系,因此,充分认识规范检察官自由裁量权的重要性,深入剖析规范检察官自由裁量权的问题和原因,进而寻找规范检察官起诉自由裁量的路径,对于提高检察执法公信力具有极其重要的作用。

  一、规范检察官起诉自由裁量权的价值定位

  (一)维护公平正义的需要

  公平正义,是社会主义法治建设的根本目标,也是人民群众的强烈愿望。“人民群众对司法公正与否的评价,来源于活生生的现实,来源于对一个个具体案件的感受。”[4]因此,如果检察官起诉自由裁量权滥用,公平正义就不可能得到实现。

  公平正义要求检察官对案件的起诉裁量不偏不倚,客观公正,但是,与行政自由裁量权、法官自由裁量权相比,检察官的自由裁量权更容易受到行政机关、社会团体和个人以及社会舆论的干扰,一旦“为了迎合公众与被害人的利益,检察官就可以利用自由裁量权对案件作出适合自己利益的处理,而这无疑会极大地动摇检察官客观公正的立场。”[5]起诉自由裁量权的规范化,正好解决这一问题。因此,规范检察官的起诉自由裁量权是独立行使检察权,实现好、维护好公平正义的关键。

  (二)权力制约的内在要求

  “权力是一种强大的物质力量,必须用另外一种能够与之相等的或者更强大的力量来制约,它才能循规蹈矩。”[6]事实上,“在我国刑事司法中,由于公安、检察机关的强势地位,检察机关一旦起诉,法官很少会作出无罪判决。”[7]因此,“法律若不设置相应的控制机制,起诉裁量权的滥用则不可避免,并将导致若干负面效益。”[8]

  在司法权力制约中,公、检、法三家的权力应当是相对均衡的,如果过度向法院倾斜,“就会导致法官权力的滥用,”[9]但如果向检察院让步,就有可能导致检察官自由载量权的滥用,因为“在审查起诉过程中,证据是否确实充分,是由检察机关自行判断的,有时甚至是由具体办理案件的检察官个人进行判断的。在这种情况下,就有可能出现不当使用或者滥用存疑不诉的权力,影响案件的公正处理,甚至还可能出现用存疑不诉的权力与犯罪嫌疑人进行私下交易的现象,放纵犯罪。”[10]因此,规范检察官的起诉裁量权实际上是一种权力的制约,是司法相互监督的内在要求。

  (三)有利于提升检察执法公信力

  检察执法公信力来源于人民群众对检察机关执法的信赖,来源于检察官“严格公正、规范、文明、安全执法的意识明显增强,执法行为更加规范,重程序、重证据、尊重和保障人权的社会主义法治理念深入人心,”[11]司法公信力“是指诉讼程序及判决结果,不仅应当为当事人接受和认同,而且还应获得公众的信任和尊重,从而达到维护社会稳定与和谐的效果。”[12]以量刑建议为例,实践中,针对过去量刑的暗箱操作,检察官“依据被告人实施犯罪的事实、情节、性质,对社会危害程度及其认罪态度,确定其是否具有法定、酌定情节,在法律规定的幅度范围内提出量刑建议,并制作量刑建议书,在量刑建议书上载明对被告人处于刑罚的种类、刑罚幅度及其理由和依据。”[13]这种规范化的量刑建议能增强检察机关的办案透明度,赢得公众的信赖,从而提升了检察机关的执法公信力。

  (四)有利于保障人权,维护当事人合法权益

  规范检察官起诉自由裁量权监督过程,实际上也是保障人权的过程。尊重和保障人权是刑事诉讼法的核心,修改后刑事诉讼法把这一核心内容列入总则,这一措施是我国刑事诉讼法历史的一次革命,体现了司法对人权的高度重视。检察官自由裁量权的运用和实施,当然不能背离这一核心理念。在保障人权理念的审视下,检察官“应当在平和、理性心态的支配下,在罪行法定和无罪推定司法原则的引领下,牢固树立客观全面地收集、保全对犯罪嫌疑人不利和有利的各种证据的执法观念,树立向辩护方开示与指控犯罪事实有关的各种证据,不隐瞒对被告人有利证据的执法观念。”[14]

  当然,规范起诉自由裁量权并不是要检察官禁锢于法律法规条文,而是要根据不同的案情,在法律效果、社会效果和政治效果中,找到平衡点,进而作出符合客观实际的判断,因为“法律作为一种社会解释结构,其面对的是形形色色、纷繁复杂的社会关系,这种社会关系并不是静止不变的,而是不断变化发展、出人意料的。”[15]因此,检察官可以根据案件的客观实际,从化解社会矛盾出发,作出符合实际的价值判断,当然这样的判断是基于自由裁量权规范的基础上,诚如霍姆斯所说的“法律的生命不在于逻辑,而在于经验。”这个经验,实际上就是起诉自由裁量权理论向实践升华的规范过程。起诉自由裁量权只有规范化,才能减少工作失误,才能最大限度地维护当事人的合法权益。

  二、检察官起诉自由裁量权规范的不足

  (一)不起诉听证制度发展不平衡

  毕竟,在处理案件的过程中,检察官依据的绝大多法律条文以法律原则为主,因为法律原则天生存在缺陷,这一点不同于法律规则,“法律原则区别于法律规则的地方在于内涵的抽象性、模糊性以及开放性,它无法像法律规则那样为”[16]检察官提供规范的具体的操作办法,而恰恰是这一原因,在为检察官提供自由裁量空间的同时,因为没有规范执法行为,会造成同案不同处理的混乱。而设立不起诉听证制度恰好解决这一难题,因为, “对重大疑难案件的不起诉处理通过听证形式向社会公开办理情况,广泛接受社会各界的监督,”[17]已成为制约检察官自由裁量权的一项方式,但在司法实践中,“听证程序至今却尚无统一规范和具体、明确的规定,”[18]因此,各地的不起诉听证制度发展很不平衡,由于没有明确的规定和统一的规范,全国检察机关有的地方还停留在试点阶段,有的甚至还没有建立起来。

  在规范性文件缺失的情况下,一些检察院对不起诉案件的听证制度束之高阁,程序上并无不当,因为,无论是法律条文,还是部门规范性文件,都没有规定不起诉一定要实施听证制度。问题在于,近年来,为了顺应检察改革需要,检察机关在检务公开方面已下足功夫,对于涉及人民群众的切身利益,社会影响大、群众反映强烈的案件,检察官作不起诉处理时,一般都要启动听证程序。由于各地实施不起诉听证制度不同步,加上检察官的办案能力和执法水平难于划一,因此,在不起诉听证制度失衡情况下,检察官的自由裁量得出的结论有时难于服众,在一定程序上削弱了检察执法公信力,不利于检察事业的健康发展。

  (二)量刑建议随意性大

  “量刑建议,是指检察机关在提起公诉之后,就有罪被告人的量刑种类和量刑幅度向法院提出的法律意见。”[19]作为检察官自由裁量权的一个重要组成部分,量刑建议不可或缺。问题在于,检察官量刑建议“通常都是凭借自身的业务水平和生活经历对案件进行裁决,随意性很大,”[20]同时,实践中,如果“公诉人内心的量刑起刑点如果与法官内心的量刑起刑点及对自首、主从犯、退赃、谅解等酌定情节的量刑幅度不一致的话,就将导致检察机关提出的量刑建议不被采纳。”[21]检察官提出的量刑建议本义是制约法官的自由裁量权,约束法官的权力扩张,但是,如果量刑规则没有成为法律,检察官的量刑建议基本上处于摆设地位,不会引起法官的共鸣。就量刑本身而言,如果法官和检察官在起刑点和量刑幅度大相径庭,那么就会出现一个问题,法官将毫无顾虑地将检察官的建议置之脑后,使检察官的量刑建议变得毫无意义。

  显然,在有罪被告人的量刑方面能够左右被告人刑罚的是法官,而不是检察官,检察官此时只能是公诉人和法律监督者,行使审判权的只能是法院,只有法院才能判决谁有罪,谁无罪。在这里,规范和事实是一对矛盾的统一体,因此,“把规范和事实结合起来时,二者的张力关系将得到体现,其解决依赖与法官的自由裁量权的运用和发挥。”[22]有意思的是,检察建议是能伸能缩的,如果判决有错误,法院可以提起审判监督程序加以纠正,检察机关可以抗诉。因此,在法官视角,认为检察官量刑建议带有很大随意性的大有人在。

  (三)不起诉内部制约机制不完善

  的确,在检察官自由裁量权中,相当比例的自由裁量权是以不起诉裁量权来体现的。“我国不起诉制度包括三种具体的不起诉类型:法定不起诉、酌定不起诉和证据不足不起诉。”[23]刑事诉讼法修改后,针对未成年人犯罪特点,又增加了附条件不起诉这么一个类型,应当说,“附条件不起诉决定具有法律效力,不仅是附条件不起诉作为检察机关一项裁量权的本质要求,而且是附条件不起诉作为一项制度的重要内容。”[24]因此,附条件不起诉和其他不起诉类型一样,属于检察官自由裁量权范畴。

  不起诉案件的认定,常常伴随检察官的个人感情色彩,需要内部制约机制来规制。在不起诉案件中,首先作出决定的是案件的承办检察官,承办检察官根据案件的事实判断,结合法律法规,对案件作初步裁定,其中法定不诉,由检察长最终决定,其余的不诉决定交由检察长或者检察委员会决定,问题在于,在案件侦查监督和公诉审查环节,“办案人员在案件的审查中没有对检察委员会决策的程序进行必要的考虑,而从客观上,业务部门办案工作任务量大,无法预留必要的时间给检察委员会,”[25]这就使得检察官的自由裁量没有在内部监督中得到制约和规制,在人少案多的情况下,这一问题尤为突出。
下载地址: 点击此处下载

SECURITIES (INSIDER DEALING) ORDINANCE ——附加英文版

Hong Kong


SECURITIES (INSIDER DEALING) ORDINANCE
 (CHAPTER 395)
 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
  
  ion
  I    PRELIMINARY
  hort title
  nterpretation
  pplication
  Connected with a corporation"
  ossession of relevant information obtained in privileged
capacity
  Dealing in securities"
  Take-over offer"
  Relevant information"
  II    INSIDER DEALING
  hen insider dealing takes place
  Certain persons not to be held insider dealers
  Trustees and personal representatives
  Exercise of right to subscribe for or acquire securities
  Duty of officers of corporation
  Insider dealing not void or voidable
  III   INSIDER DEALING TRIBUNAL
  Constitution of Tribunal Inquiries by Tribunal
  Inquiries into insider dealing
  Powers of Tribunal
  Further powers of Tribunal to obtain information
  Incriminating answers
  Offences
  Privileged information Report and orders of Tribunal
  Report of Tribunal following inquiry
  Orders etc. of Tribunal
  Order against officer of corporation
  Limitation on aggregate amount of penalties
  Witnesses' expenses
  Expenses of investigation and inquiry
  Form and proof of order of Tribunal
  Order of Tribunal may be registered in Court
  Offence
  IV    APPEALS
  Appeal to Court of Appeal
  Powers of the Court of Appeal on appeal
  Stay of execution on appeal
  V    MISCELLANEOUS
  Offences by corporation, etc.
  Limitation on commencement of proceedings
  Chief Justice may make rules
  44. (Omitted)
 Whole document:
  
  dule.
  rdinance to amend the law relating to insider dealing in 
securities;
  for connected purposes.
  eptember 1991] L. N. 269 of 1991
 PART I PRELIMINARY
  
  hort title
  Ordinance may be cited as the Securities (Insider Dealing)
Ordinance.
  nterpretation
  In this Ordinance, unless the context otherwise requires--
  ociate", in relation to a person entitled to exercise or control 
the
  cise of voting power in relation to a corporation, means--
  that person's spouse, reputed spouse, person co-habiting 
with that
  on as a spouse, that person's brother, sister, parent, 
step-parent,
  d (natural or adopted) or step-child;
  any corporation of which that person is a director;
  any person who is an employee or partner of that person;
  if that person is a corporation--
  any director of that corporation;
  any related corporation of that corporation; and
  ) any director or employee of any such related corporation; and
  if that person has with any other person an agreement or 
arrangement
  respect to the acquisition, holding or disposal of shares or 
other
  rests in that corporation or under which they undertake 
to act
  ther in exercising their voting power in relation to it, that 
other
  on;
  k or other document" includes--
  books of a banker;
  cheques, orders for the payment of money, bills of 
exchange, and
  issory notes in the possession or under the control of a banker;
  securities in the possession or under the control of a banker,
whether
  ay of pledge or otherwise;
  any document or record used in the ordinary course of business 
of a
  ;
  any record so used which is kept otherwise than in a legible form 
and
  apable of being reproduced in a legible form; and
  any accounts or deeds;
  mission" means the Securities and Futures Commission 
established by
  Securities and Futures Commission Ordinance (Cap. 24);
  pany" means a company as defined in section 2 (1) of the 
Companies
  nance (Cap. 32);
  troller", in relation to a corporation, means any person--
  in accordance with whose directions or instructions the 
directors of
  corporation or of another corporation of which it is a subsidiary 
are
  stomed to act; or
  who, either alone or with any associate, is entitled to exercise, 
or
  rol the exercise of, more than 33% of the voting power at 
general
  ings of the corporation or of another corporation of which it 
is a
  idiary, and references in this Ordinance to "control" 
shall be
  trued accordingly; "corporation" means any company or 
other body
  orate or an unincorporated body, incorporated or formed either
in Hong
  or elsewhere;
  
  ector" includes--
  any person occupying the position of director, by 
whatever name
  ed; and
  any person in accordance with whose directions or 
instructions the
  ctors of the corporation are accustomed to act;
  ument" includes any register, book, record, tape recording, any 
form
  omputer input or output, and any other document or similar
material
  ther produced mechanically, electrically, or manually, or by any
other
  s whatsoever);
  h Court" means the High Court of Justice;
  ding company" means a corporation which is a holding company 
within
  meaning of section 2 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 32);
  uiry" means an inquiry instituted under section 16;
  ider dealer" means a person who perpetrates any act which 
is an
  der dealing within the meaning of section 9 and also means a 
person
  is to be regarded as an insider dealer under section 16 (6);
  ider dealing" means an insider dealing within the meaning of 
section
  
  ted securities" means securities that are listed on the 
Unified
  ange at the time of any insider dealing in relation 
to those
  rities;
  icer" in relation to a corporation includes a director, 
manager or
  etary, and in relation to an unincorporated body includes every
member
  he governing body thereof; "related corporation", in relation 
to a
  oration, means--
  any corporation that is that corporation's subsidiary or 
holding
  any or a subsidiary of that corporation's holding company;
  any corporation a controller of which is also a controller of 
that
  oration; "relevant share capital" means a corporation's issued 
share
  tal of a class carrying rights to vote at general meetings 
of the
  oration;
  urities" means any shares, stocks, debentures, loan stocks, 
funds,
  s, or notes of, or issued by, any body, whether 
incorporated or
  corporated, or of any government or local government authority, 
and
  udes--
  rights, options, or interests (whether described as 
units  or
  rwise) in or in respect of any of the foregoing;
  certificates of interest or participation in, or temporary or 
interim
  ificates for, receipts for, or warrants to subscribe to or 
purchase,
  of the foregoing; or
  any instruments commonly known as securities;
  sidiary" means any corporation which is a subsidiary 
within the
  ing of section 2 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 32);
  bunal" has the meaning given to it in section 15;
  fied Exchange" means the stock market established under section
27 of
  Stock Exchanges Unification Ordinance (Cap. 361).
  For the purpose of the definition of "controller", where a 
person is
  tled to exercise or control the exercise of 33% or more of the 
voting
  r at general meetings of a corporation and that 
corporation is
  tled to exercise or control the exercise of any of the voting power
at
  ral meetings of another corporation ("the effective voting 
power")
  the effective voting power at general meetings of 
that other
  oration is taken as exercisable by that person.
  
  A person shall not be deemed to be a person in accordance with 
whose
  ctions or instructions the directors of a corporation are 
accustomed
  ct by reason only that the directors of the corporation act on 
advice
  n by him in a professional capacity.
  In this Ordinance securities are deemed to be listed on the 
Unified
  ange notwithstanding that dealings in such securities 
have been
  ended.
  In this Ordinance a reference to an interest in securities is 
to be
  as including an interest of any kind whatsoever in the 
securities;
  accordingly there are to be disregarded any restraints or
restrictions
  hich the exercise of any right attached to the interest 
may be
  ect.
  pplication
  Ordinance shall not have effect with respect to an insider dealing
in
  tion to the listed securities of a corporation which has taken 
place
  re the commencement of this Ordinance.
  Connected with a corporation"
  A person is connected with a corporation for the purposes of
section 9
  being an individual--
  he is a director or employee of that corporation or a 
related
  oration; or
  he is a substantial shareholder in the corporation or a 
related
  oration; or
  he occupies a position which may reasonably be expected to give 
him
  ss to relevant information concerning the corporation by virtue
of--
  any professional or business relationship existing between
himself (or
  employer or a corporation of which he is a director or a firm of
which
  s a partner) and that corporation, a related corporation or an
officer
  ubstantial shareholder in either of such corporations; or
  his being a director, employee or partner of a 
substantial
  eholder in the corporation or a related corporation; or
  he has access to relevant information in relation to the 
corporation
  irtue of his being connected (within the meaning of paragraph (a),
(b)
  c)) with another corporation, being information which relates 
to any
  saction (actual or contemplated) involving both those
corporations or
  lving one of them and the listed securities of the other or to 
the
  that such transaction is no longer contemplated; or
  he was at any time within the 6 months preceding any 
dealing in
  tion to listed securities within the meaning of section 9 a 
person
  ected with the corporation within the meaning of paragraph (a),
(b),
  or (d).
  A corporation is a person connected with a corporation 
for the
  oses of section 9 so long as any of its directors or employees 
is a
  on connected with that other corporation within the 
meaning of
  ection (1).
  In subsection (1), "substantial shareholder" in 
relation to a
  oration means a person who has an interest in the relevant 
share
  tal of that corporation which has a nominal value equal to or 
more
  10% of the nominal value of the relevant share capital of 
that
  oration.
  
  ossession of relevant information obtained in privileged
capacity
  A public officer or a member or employee (whether such 
member or
  oyee is temporary or permanent, paid or unpaid) of any body 
referred
  n subsection (2), who in his capacity as such receives 
relevant
  rmation concerning a corporation shall be deemed to be a 
person
  ected with that corporation for the purposes of section 9.
  The bodies referred to in subsection (1) are--
  the Executive Council;
  the Legislative Council;
  the Futures Exchange Company, Stock Exchange Company or any 
clearing
  e;
  any board, commission, committee or other body appointed by 
or on
  lf of the Governor or the Governor in Council under any Ordinance;
  any body corporate established or incorporated by Ordinance; and
  any body corporate specified by the Financial Secretary by 
notice
  ished in the Gazette.
  In this section--
  aring house" means a clearing house within the meaning of section
2
  of the Commodities Trading Ordinance (Cap. 250) or authorized 
under
  other Ordinance to carry on business as a clearing house in
respect of
  rities;
  ures Exchange Company" means the Exchange Company within the 
meaning
  ection 2 (1) of the Commodities Trading Ordinance (Cap. 250);
  ck Exchange Company" means the Exchange Company within the
meaning of
  ion 2 (1) of the Stock Exchanges Unification Ordinance (Cap. 361).
  In the case of a body referred to in subsection (2) which 
has no
  ers the reference in subsection (1) to a member shall be construed 
as
  ference to a member of the governing body thereof.
  Dealing in securities"
  the purposes of this Ordinance, a person deals in securities if
  ther as principal or agent) he buys, sells, exchanges or 
subscribes
  or agrees to buy, sell, exchange or subscribe for, any securities 
or
  ires or disposes of, or agrees to acquire or dispose of, the right 
to
  sell, exchange or subscribe for, any securities.
  Take-over offer"
  his Ordinance, "take-over offer for a corporation" means an offer
made
  ll the holders (or all the holders other than the person making 
the
  r and his nominees) of the shares in the corporation to acquire 
those
  es or a specified proportion of them, or to all the holders (or 
all
  holders other than the person making the offer and his nominees)
of a
  icular class of those shares to acquire the shares of that class
or a
  ified proportion of them.
  Relevant information"
  his Ordinance "relevant information" in relation to a 
corporation
  s specific information about that corporation which is not 
generally
  n to those persons who are accustomed or would be likely to deal 
in
  listed securities of that corporation but which would if 
it were
  rally known to them be likely materially to affect the price of 
those
  rities.
 PART II INSIDER DEALING
  
  hen insider dealing takes place
  Insider dealing in relation to the listed securities of a 
corporation
  s place--
  when a person connected with a corporation who is in 
possession of
  rmation which he knows is relevant information in relation to 
that
  oration deals in any listed securities of that corporation (or
in the
  ed securities of a related corporation) or counsels or 
procures
  her person to deal in such listed securities knowing or 
having
  onable cause to believe that such person would deal in them;
  when a person who is contemplating or has contemplated making
(whether
  or without another person) a take-over offer for a corporation 
and
  knows that the information that the offer is contemplated or 
is no
  er contemplated is relevant information in  relation 
to  that
  oration, deals in the listed securities of that corporation (or
in the
  ed securities of a related corporation) or counsels or 
procures
  her person to deal in those listed securities, otherwise than for 
the
  ose of such take-over;
  when relevant information in relation to a corporation is 
disclosed
  ctly or indirectly, by a person connected with that 
corporation, to
  her person and the first-mentioned person knows that the 
information
  elevant information in relation to the corporation and knows 
or has
  onable cause for believing that the other person will make use
of the
  rmation for the purpose of dealing, or counselling or 
procuring
  her to deal, in the listed securities of that corporation (or in 
the
  ed securities of a related corporation);
  when a person who is contemplating or has contemplated making
(whether
  or without another person) a take-over offer for a corporation 
and
  knows that the information that the offer is contemplated or 
is no
  er contemplated is relevant information in  relation 
to  that
  oration, discloses that information, directly or 
indirectly, to
  her person and the first-mentioned person knows or has 
reasonable
  e for believing that the other person will make use of the
information
  the purpose in dealing, or in counselling or procuring 
another to
  , in the listed securities of that corporation (or in the 
listed
  rities of a related corporation);
  when a person who has information which he knows is 
relevant
  rmation in relation to a corporation which he received 
(directly or
  rectly) from a person--
  whom he knows is connected with that corporation; and
  whom he knows or has reasonable cause to believe 
held that
  rmation by virtue of being so connected,
  s in the listed securities of that corporation (or in the 
listed
  rities of a related corporation) or counsels or procures 
another
  on to deal in those listed securities;
  when a person who has received (directly or indirectly) from a 
person
  he knows or has reasonable cause to believe is contemplating or
is no
  er contemplating a take-over offer for a corporation, 
information to
  effect and knows that such information is relevant 
information in
  tion to that corporation, deals in the listed securities 
of that
  oration (or in the listed securities of a related 
corporation) or
  sels or procures another person to deal in those listed
securities.
  
  An insider dealing in relation to the listed 
securities of a
  oration also takes place when a person who is knowingly in 
possession
  elevant information in relation to that corporation in any 
of the
  umstances described in subsection (1) --
  counsels or procures any other person to deal in the listed
securities
  hat corporation (or in the listed securities of a related
corporation)
  he knowledge or with reasonable cause to believe that, that 
person
  d deal in those listed securities outside Hong Kong on any 
stock
  ange other than the Unified Exchange; or
  discloses that relevant information to any other person 
in the
  ledge or with reasonable cause to believe that, that or some 
other
  on will make use of that information for the purpose of dealing,
or of
  selling or procuring any other person to deal, in 
the listed
  rities of that corporation (or in the listed securities of a 
related
  oration) outside Hong Kong on any stock exchange other 
than the
  ied Exchange.

不分页显示   总共3页  1 [2] [3]

  下一页


1、自从买了车之后,在心中一再告诫自己:成为有车一族了,好歹也算是个有钱人了(与骑电动车和自行车的人相比,参加环法自行车赛的人例外),不要动不动就为交通违章罚款的事情耿耿于怀了,就当是为交管部门捐点款吧,顶多当成出门被偷了或被抢了几百元钱,不值得生气,更不值得像秋菊那样非要寻个理或法的什么,既耽误时间,又伤了身心。

2、可惜呀,全国的开车人却很少有我这样良好的心态。这不,又被2012年8月21日公安部部长办公会议通过《机动车驾驶证申领和使用规定》搞得心神不宁。别看那是个关于驾驶证的部门规章,但好歹也是公安部部长办公会议通过的,尽管不如全国人大或人大常委会那么具有立法权威,但那些饱经沧桑的部长们搞个管理全国开车人的规章也还是名正言顺的,不值得大家说三道四吧?至于袁裕来律师“煽动”说“人民法院虽然不能直接宣告公安部123令相关条款违法、无效,但可以选择不予适用。”那就更加高看了人民法院与公安部对局时的姿态和气度了,且不谈公安部123令是否违法还是问题,即使违法了,最高法院及其统领下的全国法院系统,有必要为一个闯黄灯扣6分这样一个小问题与公安部对着干吗?何况公安部123令才颁布正有效着,哪个基层法院的法官自狂到敢不适用公安部123令?笑话!

3、在我看来,不但公安部部长办公会议通过《机动车驾驶证申领和使用规定》根本不违法,而且公安部有关负责人关于闯黄灯适用《机动车驾驶证申领和使用规定》扣6分的解释也不违法。

4、《中华人民共和国道路交通安全法》第二十六条:“交通信号灯由红灯、绿灯、黄灯组成。红灯表示禁止通行,绿灯表示准许通行,黄灯表示警示。”第二十四条:“公安机关交通管理部门对机动车驾驶人违反道路交通安全法律、法规的行为,除依法给予行政处罚外,实行累积记分制度。公安机关交通管理部门对累积记分达到规定分值的机动车驾驶人,扣留机动车驾驶证,对其进行道路交通安全法律、法规教育,重新考试;考试合格的,发还其机动车驾驶证。”

5、国务院颁布的《中华人民共和国道路交通安全法实施条例》第三十八条 机动车信号灯和非机动车信号灯表示:
  (一)绿灯亮时,准许车辆通行,但转弯的车辆不得妨碍被放行的直行车辆、行人通行;
  (二)黄灯亮时,已越过停止线的车辆可以继续通行;
  (三)红灯亮时,禁止车辆通行。

6、《机动车驾驶证申领和使用规定》(公安部令第123号)附件2《道路交通安全违法行为记分分值》“二、机动车驾驶人有下列违法行为之一,一次记6分:(二)驾驶机动车违反道路交通信号灯通行的;”

7、《机动车驾驶证申领和使用规定》对“驾驶机动车违反道路交通信号灯通行的”行为记6分,完全合法,尽管公安部把这种行为的记分由3分增加到6分,但根据《中华人民共和国道路交通安全法》二十四条,公安部有权实行累积记分制度,其有权对累积记分制度中的分值进行调整。而且这种累积记分制度不是行政处罚,其达到12分后“扣留”驾驶证的行为是否属于行政处罚中的“暂扣”驾驶证行为还值得探讨。但无论如何,公安部还是有权对某种行为的记分的分值进行调整的。因此,《机动车驾驶证申领和使用规定》(公安部令第123号)完全合法。

8、公安部交管局相关负责人对闯黄灯扣分的解释,与其说是对《机动车驾驶证申领和使用规定》的解释,不如说是对国务院颁布的《中华人民共和国道路交通安全法实施条例》第三十八条的解释。尽管公安部交管局相关负责人的解释触犯众怒,但应该看到,该负责人对《中华人民共和国道路交通安全法实施条例》第三十八条的解释是正确的。“黄灯亮时,已越过停止线的车辆可以继续通行;”这句话能否解释成“黄灯亮时,未越过停止线的车辆禁止继续通行”?

9、《中华人民共和国道路交通安全法实施条例》可不是几个部长爷们开个办公会议就敲定的东东,而是由国务院总理温家宝签发的国务院行政法规,这是法院审判必须遵守的法律依据。要想正确解读《中华人民共和国道路交通安全法实施条例》第三十八条“黄灯亮时,已越过停止线的车辆可以继续通行;”这句话的含义,我们先来看看第三十八条“(三)红灯亮时,禁止车辆通行”这句话的含义。红灯亮时,已越过停止线的车辆可否继续通行?在2013年1月1日之前,全国很多地方交管部门不拿《中华人民共和国道路交通安全法实施条例》第三十八条“黄灯亮时,已越过停止线的车辆可以继续通行;”这句话当回事,闯黄灯不算交通违章,但当黄灯变红灯时,已经过停止线的车辆一致认为是可以继续通行的,未过停车线的车辆禁止通行。至今还有很多地方绿灯闪烁后是直接变红灯的,没有黄灯过度,红灯亮时过线的车辆可以继续通行,未过线的车辆禁止通行。因此,第三十八条“(三)红灯亮时,禁止车辆通行”这句话的含义为:“红灯亮时,已越过停止线的车辆可以继续通行,且未越过停止线的车辆禁止继续通行”。

10、从语言逻辑角度看,“ 已越过停止线的车辆可以继续通行”与“未越过停止线的车辆禁止继续通行”这两个命题并不等值。“ 已越过停止线的车辆可以继续通行”仅仅是对已越过停止线的车辆行为的规范,并没有规定没有越过停止线的车辆可以继续通行还是禁止继续通行。因此,不能以“ 已越过停止线的车辆可以继续通行”推出“未越过停止线的车辆禁止继续通行”。同理,“未越过停止线的车辆禁止继续通行”也仅仅是对未越过停止线的车辆行为的规范,并没有规定越过停止线的车辆可以继续通行还是禁止继续通行。不能以“未越过停止线的车辆禁止继续通行”推出“ 已越过停止线的车辆可以继续通行”。严格按照语言逻辑立法,“(三)红灯亮时,禁止车辆通行”这句话,应该表述为:“已越过停止线的车辆可以继续通行,且未越过停止线的车辆禁止继续通行”。

11、但是,生活往往是非逻辑的,我国的立法语言往往强调简洁而难免模糊。更重要的是停止线不是在路上的随意划的一条线,关于“停止线”这个概念,如果公安部门一旦定义为:“过线行,未过线停”(这个定义或解释完全符合2013年1月1日之前社会公众对“停止线”含义的理解),那么“红灯亮时,已越过停止线的车辆可以继续通行”与“红灯亮时,未越过停止线的车辆禁止继续通行”这两句话就等值了,可以互为推导。由此可见,公安部交管局的有关负责人从《中华人民共和国道路交通安全法实施条例》第三十八条“黄灯亮时,已越过停止线的车辆可以继续通行”推导出“黄灯亮时,未越过停止线的车辆禁止继续通行”就是正确的了,该公安部负责人的解释一点不违反《中华人民共和国道路交通安全法实施条例》。

12、有的人也许还不服气:《中华人民共和国道路交通安全法》第二十六条明明规定:“红灯表示禁止通行,绿灯表示准许通行,黄灯表示警示”,而《中华人民共和国道路交通安全法实施条例》竟然无视“警示”与“禁止通行”的区别,把黄灯的“警示”,解释成与红灯一样的“禁止通行”。我的乖乖,你们竟然敢质疑国务院行政法规的合法性!行政法规不是部门规章,不是法院参照的东东,而是法院审判的依据啊!

13、黄灯是否有警示作用?当然有。《中华人民共和国道路交通安全法实施条例》第四十二条:“闪光警告信号灯为持续闪烁的黄灯,提示车辆、行人通行时注意?望,确认安全后通过。”这里的黄灯就是典型的警示作用。问题是绿灯转黄灯时的黄灯并不闪烁哦,由绿灯转为不闪的黄灯其含义如何?按照《中华人民共和国道路交通安全法实施条例》第三十八条其含义就是“禁止通行”,其含义与红灯相同。交管部门有些人故意说不闪的黄灯就是过线还是可以进行通行,不过线禁止通行。废话!难道红灯时过线车辆不也是可以继续通行的吗?没有必要这样遮遮掩掩的,由绿灯转为不闪的黄灯其含义就是禁止通行,与红灯含义完全一样。男子汉要敢作敢为,既然对《中华人民共和国道路交通安全法》的黄灯含义作出了扩大解释,就应该敢理直气壮的宣示出来。

14、在我国,最高法院和最高检察院的司法解释也好,国务院的各种实施细则的行政法规也好,常常对全国人大及全国人大常委会制定的法律进行扩大解释,甚至进行无中生有的规定。例如,新出台的最高法院关于刑事诉讼法的司法解释,其中关于证据部分,就无中生有地添加了许多规定,完全无法与新出台的刑事诉讼法条文相对应。这种司法解释与其说是解释,不如说是立法。这种情况见怪不怪,天长日久大家都适应了,也算是中国特色吧。国务院颁布的很多法律的实施细则也一样,喜欢玩第二次立法。很少人有兴趣去指责最高法院和国务院违法,再说指责了也没有什么用处,各级法院都按照最高法院的司法解释和国务院的行政法规审理案件,对于法律实务来说,最高法院的司法解释和国务院的行政法规往往比全国人大及常委会制定的法律更加重要。偶尔有几个愣头青的学者或律师跳出来指责最高法院的司法解释或国务院的实施细则越权违法,但最终都不了了之,弄得自己都没有兴趣再提起此事。在富有中国特色的司法背景下,跳出来指责《中华人民共和国道路交通安全法实施条例》第三十八条扩大解释了《中华人民共和国道路交通安全法》的黄灯含义,有意思吗?

15、从对黄灯含义的扩大解释角度来批评《中华人民共和国道路交通安全法实施条例》违法,实在不足为取,基本上是老生常谈,没有新意,更撼动不了这个国务院的行政法规作为法院审判依据的地位。作为开车人之一,我想换个角度来谈论黄灯之痛。

16、为何要在绿灯和红灯之间设置一个黄灯?有好事者翻出了一个尘封的故事:杭州人胡汝鼎(1905—1985),他早年留学美国。1927年的一天,他站在美国繁华的十字路口,他看到绿灯亮了,正要向前走,一辆汽车擦身而过,吓了他一身冷汗。后来他反复琢磨,终于想到在红、绿灯中间再加上一个黄灯,提醒人们注意危险。这可能是黄灯的警示作用的历史渊源吧。

17、法学不是文学或语言学,词语或制度的历史渊源并不重要,关键是立法者立法时的动机和目的,当然,动机和目的的合理性和善意是重要衡量标准,尽管美国佬也使用黄灯,但中国的黄灯的含义不需要非要与美国佬一致。

18、在绿灯和红灯之间设置黄灯,据说有两个目的或作用:(1)清空交叉路口。(2)在绿灯变红灯时给车辆驾驶人以制动的反应时间。

19、所谓清空交叉路口,就是在直行由绿灯变红灯之间,安插一个黄灯,让已经过停止线的车辆继续通行,没有过停止线的车辆停止通行,以免横向交叉通行的车辆在绿灯情况下与直行还没有过路口的车辆相撞。

20、这个清空交叉路口的说法,是公安部交管局一口咬定的设置黄灯的唯一目的或作用。公安部交管局负责人表示,在车辆正常行驶过程中,只要驾驶人注意力集中、与前车保持安全车距,行经交叉路口时减速慢行、谨慎驾驶,追尾事故是可以避免的。由此可见,公安部交管局不认为设置黄灯是为了在绿灯变红灯时给没有过停止线的车辆驾驶人以制动的反应时间,因为没有过停止线的车辆遇到黄灯仍然不得通行。换句话说,公安部交管局否定了(2),肯定了(1)。

21、这个似是而非的清空交叉路口的说法,真的能为设置黄灯提供合理依据吗?不设置过度性的黄灯,直行由绿灯变红灯后,规定红灯时过了停止线的车辆继续通行,不过线的车辆禁止通行,与设置黄灯,规定黄灯时过了停止线的车辆继续通行,不过线的车辆禁止通行,有实质性区别吗?

22、真的想清空交叉路口的直行车辆,明智的做法是直行绿灯变红灯后,横向交叉的红灯延迟几秒变绿灯,等直行的车辆过完后,横向交叉的红灯再变绿灯。

23、由此可见,设置过度性黄灯清空交叉路口的说法,不仅似是而非,而且很弱智。让人们不得不怀疑公安部交管局的有关负责人一口咬定设置黄灯是为了清空交叉路口这个说法时的精神状态。