Like Tree87Likes

Week 7 of Occupy Central: Updates & Discussions

Closed Thread
Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 3 8 9 10 11
  1. #101

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Sin bin
    Posts
    1,896
    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast:
    The injunction is based on Taxi drivers and minibus drivers claiming with no evidence that they are suffering substantial losses.

    Does this mean the Government will have to fiddle the transport digest figures as there almost certainly is no drop in overall taxi usage in November from the limited anecdotal information I have been able to gather.

    What is the penalty for lying to a court?

    It's political prosecution/persecution and everyone knows it.

    The administration in Hong Kong sees no irony in the fact that they are using "... political organizations in Italy known as fasci, groups similar to guilds or syndicates" (Wikipedia) to prosecute pro-democracy campaigners.

    Certain types find it advantageous to abuse the letter of rule of law and public order to supress other ways of thinking and managing a society.

    I'm sure many in the legal sector are privately horrified about this rapid deterioration of legal system's independence, but can they coordinate anything more than the petitions already signed?



    SCMP: Top court judge questions 'odd' injunction
    UPDATED : Thursday, 13 November, 2014, 8:15am

    A top court judge has questioned the "curious" handling of applications for injunctions to clear the Occupy protest site in Mong Kok, and described the orders themselves as "extremely odd".

    Speaking in a personal capacity, Mr Justice Henry Litton, a non-permanent judge of the Court of Final Appeal, also questioned why the government did not take over the lawsuit, initiated by taxi and bus operators.
    In a rare speech on Occupy and rule-of-law issues at the University of Hong Kong yesterday, Litton said: "A civil court process was being invoked for what I feel is a public order issue."

    He was "intrigued" by the actions and the fact the case was first heard on an ex parte basis, meaning the party affected was not present to defend the action.

    "The process of going to a court to seek an order behind the back of a person to be affected by the order is a most drastic remedy, because the unvarying principle of common law is no one's interest should be affected without having been given an opportunity to be heard."

    Only an urgent situation would justify an ex parte hearing, he added, and he questioned what the urgency was.
    threesummers likes this.

  2. #102

    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3,921

    Week 8 of Occupy Central: Updates & Discussions

    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast:
    The injunction is based on Taxi drivers and minibus drivers claiming with no evidence that they are suffering substantial losses.

    Does this mean the Government will have to fiddle the transport digest figures as there almost certainly is no drop in overall taxi usage in November from the limited anecdotal information I have been able to gather.

    What is the penalty for lying to a court?
    Its interesting because if one is to go strictly by the letter of the law, the police don't need any court injunction to clear the OC movement from the roads. The very fact the protesters are occupying the roads already constituted an illegal act which would give the police all the reason to clear it.

    This is more a pressuring tactic against the OC movement than anything else. It is also a pressuring tactic to push the police to take action as well, from certain pro-establishment groups that are...not happy with the police inaction. In either case, this smells of political pressure more than legal pressure.
    threesummers likes this.

  3. #103

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    384

    Get the broom...lift the rug...and sweep them under it. Nobody's really paying attention anymore.


Closed Thread
Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 3 8 9 10 11