Hong Kong RC Sailplane Forum 香港滑翔機發燒友論壇

This forum is dedicated to r/c sailplane enthusiasts 此論壇專為遙控滑翔機發燒友而設
It is currently 18 Dec 2017 11:21 am

All times are UTC + 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 19 Jul 2004 11:06 am 
Quote:
製造、裝配,出售該等無線電裝設給與無該牌照的人或公司亦屬違法,

咁又未必。因為零售商大都領有 radio equipment dealer licence,我估佢賣乜頻率都得。佢亦可振振有詞,話 35, 36, 40, 41 Mhz 等,是賣給遊客往外國用。


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 19 Jul 2004 11:30 am 

Joined: 05 Mar 2004 10:05 pm
Posts: 122
Willy (as guest) wrote:
Quote:
製造、裝配,出售該等無線電裝設給與無該牌照的人或公司亦屬違法,

咁又未必。因為零售商大都領有 radio equipment dealer licence,我估佢賣乜頻率都得。佢亦可振振有詞,話 35, 36, 40, 41 Mhz 等,是賣給遊客往外國用。


事實黎講賣既人有無牌或者合唔合法唔重要,而係買既人唔玩,藏有都違法,
零售玩具商亦未必知道要有radio equipment dealer licence,點都好,睇下有關部門會唔會正視此問題。


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 19 Jul 2004 10:54 pm 
Just my speculation. Ofta have a complainant and probably a telecom company? They had the police came with them and probably assisted in collecting evidence and/or statement? And Ofta and/or police had opened a file for that... Now is there any hint that they won't proceed to prosecution? Is there a good reason at all for them to not do that? I don't think the inspector or case officer can show favour or exercise discretion in this respect. They'll just review the evidence available, see if they have a case and schedule a date with D of J to issue a summon. I don't think our pleasing them or pi**ing them will make much difference and it's all up to the judge after that point. So I would say there is not much to worry about if we step up our action now.

If someone can change the decision to press charges it would be a senior officer like an assistant director. But why should he show such favour? Does he need some justification? I don't want to go too far in this part here, but I think if we're to help and maybe change something now is the time. I firmly believe that there is a neglect of duty on ofta's part regarding the permissible frequencies over the years. How do you compare flying in those frequencies with driving without a seat belt? There is also no need for a senior management if they only wait for the phone to ring and act/enforce that law upon complaints. How would a citizen see it differently from "bust as you like"?

Finally, is that a "no" from our 2 buddies? I can't wait to throw complaints at Ofta/Ombusman/SCMP.

CT


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 19 Jul 2004 11:51 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2004 10:52 pm
Posts: 587
Location: Shatin
CT,

I agree with you in a lot of the points. But before we do anything, we need to have a good strategy. During last few days, we gathered a lot of different views with a lot of professional opinions. and we will have an HKRCSS internal meeting very soon. We still have time at the moment, From what you have written, I can tell that you can give the 2 buddies or the whole R/C activities a great help. Can you give us an personal mail so we can work together. my e-mail is: ken@hkrcss.org


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 Jul 2004 12:17 am 
User avatar

Joined: 03 Mar 2004 07:31 pm
Posts: 1023
:D Dear CT,

I can see your enthusiasm to do something in this regard, as well as you valid points on your side. Being an open minded person, I appreciate your effort in putting ideas forward, and that is this forum set up for. I observe this thread for few days, and also see other fellows?views are sensible and support with facts. Let


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Jul 2004 12:59 am 

Joined: 20 Jul 2004 12:57 am
Posts: 4
請注意
各位機師,40Mhz不可再用。
27Mhz,29Mhz,35Mhz及36Mhz全頻暫時可繼續使用(不過都係違法)。
72Mhz須避免使用下列的士頻度或接近頻率。
72.3125Mhz
72.3375Mhz
72.3875Mhz
72.4375Mhz
72.4625Mhz
72.4875Mhz
72.5000Mhz
72.5250Mhz
72.5750Mhz
72.5875Mhz
72.6875Mhz
72.7500Mhz
72.8375Mhz
72.8875Mhz
72.9125Mhz
72.9250Mhz
72.9500Mhz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 Jul 2004 03:55 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2004 09:23 pm
Posts: 93
Ah Pong wrote:
Does the law enforcement agency would schedule a date with DoJ once they decided to proceed with the charge, or they make a day with the Judiciary instead?

案情簡單,不涉複雜法律問題,我估執法機關(OFTA 或警方)會自己決定是否落案起訴,不用事前諮詢律政司 (Dept of Justice) 意見。

其實若該2位人士同意,會方可代他們做一份陳述書(submission) 去 OFTA,請求他們不要檢控,並列舉理由。我樂意義務協助。若該2位人士認為以律師信型式致函 OFTA 會較為適合的話,我亦樂意義務代為草擬及寄出。

P.S. Stanley, 請問為何程式被更改為一定要 log in 才能發言?我覺得以 guest 身份留言較快捷喎。我知有人以 guest 身份發表具爭議性的留言,但同一個人,都可開不同 account 留言。結果都是一樣。


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 Jul 2004 05:48 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2004 05:31 pm
Posts: 741
Location: 沙田
Willy Lim wrote:
....我樂意義務協助。若該2位人士認為以律師信型式致函 OFTA 會較為適合的話,我亦樂意義務代為草擬及寄出 ....


係個會咁耐都只係見人放飛機﹐但今次就睇到會員間患難相扶持既一面﹐難得﹐難得.....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 Jul 2004 06:58 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 03 Mar 2004 07:31 pm
Posts: 1023
Dear Willy,
please see the private message that I sent to you.
Regards,
AH PONG


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Jul 2004 11:57 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2004 10:52 pm
Posts: 587
Location: Shatin
I read the following message on the forum of www.hk-aviation.com today:


I forgot to mention that I was also a member of the HK Paragliding Association and we had similar case happened about a year ago. During our flying, it is almost a must for us to carry walkie-talkie for communication and safety purpose. And obviously, they are not the endorsed frequencies. One of our pilot was arrested by a OFTA official came together with a policeman. It was also because someone complained to OFTA on the illegal use of the walkie-talkie frequency. Luckily that pilot was not charged because he was leaving HK for good. He was planning to go back to his home country anyway. So OFTA decided to drop the charge and only confiscated the equipment. And since this incident happened, the HKPA and David Chu, the legislator and also a member of HKPA wrote to OFTA on opening up frequency for the HKPA. And at the end, we do have some legal frequency to use for our flying. This is just experience that I want to share with RC modellers .
Rayray


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 Jul 2004 12:13 am 

Joined: 20 Jul 2004 12:57 am
Posts: 4
Willy Lim wrote:
Ah Pong wrote:
Does the law enforcement agency would schedule a date with DoJ once they decided to proceed with the charge, or they make a day with the Judiciary instead?

案情簡單,不涉複雜法律問題,我估執法機關(OFTA 或警方)會自己決定是否落案起訴,.....


路邊社透露,當日警方突然收到OFTA通知到飛鵝山協助處理一宗非法無線電案件,事後亦到黃大仙警署作進一步調查,警方完全無參與拘捕行動,因行動順利,警方亦無須作任何舉証。OFTA亦祇是借用黃大仙警署報案室作被捕人士保釋及處理証物程序,事後OFTA亦取走所有文件及証物檢驗以作訴訟証供。調查及檢控與否均由OFTA決定。


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 Jul 2004 01:30 am 

Joined: 21 Jul 2004 12:54 am
Posts: 43
I registered and can speak up my mind again. Can't believe you're changing the system to prevent that (if that's really the case). You guys have my apology if you feel offended (offence never intended tho) and if I've violated any rules here feel free to point out or bash.

The approach I suggested does not come with a guarantee. However, we need to think hard and consider possibilities and alternatives, and it's good that we have lawyers here now. Would the gentleman please advise the liklihood of our 2 buddies (or any of us who comes to it) getting prosecuted, convicted and getting a criminal record? Hope you guys won't mind me stir up the wrong side of the cake but I just want to see every side of it.

In fact, are our 2 buddies seeking legal advice yet? If they have already done so and don't need anything else, or think that we/I'll just screw it up then things are in fact simpler for us. We can just concentrate in fighting for more frequencies only and wait until their ordeal is over before we act so that we wouldn't affect their trial. Otherwise, I have more controversial proposals but I think I'll just email Ken.

CT
P.S. Ken you have my email address


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 Jul 2004 01:46 am 
User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2004 03:51 pm
Posts: 3626
Location: Hong Kong
The system requires login for leaving message in the board is because we received complaints from fellow users that some unknown guests leaving messages with bad language and they feel very disturbing.
Sorry for the inconvenient.
We always welcome any view expressed in this forum.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 Jul 2004 01:50 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2004 09:23 pm
Posts: 93
Quote:
Would the gentleman please advise the liklihood of our 2 buddies (or any of us who comes to it) getting prosecuted, convicted and getting a criminal record?

是否控告,由 OFTA 決定。但希望上述建議的陳述書,會說服它不予檢控。若 OFTA 決定控告,我想不到有任何抗辯理由。幾乎肯定會被定罪。

[事後補充︰不過,香港「終審法院」,曾在1999年的一單有關違反《電訊條例》第8(1)(a)條的上訴案中,裁定 contravention of s.8(1)(a) is a strict liablilty offence and it is sufficient for the prosecution to prove knowledge of the establishment and maintenance of the means of telecommunication in question; the prosecution does not have to prove guilty knowledge. But, it is a defence if the accused can prove on a balance of probabilities that he honestly held, upon reasonable grounds, a belief in the existence of facts which if true, would make his conduct innocent.

既然如此,陳述書大可話,有關遙控器材是在一聲譽良好(reputable)零售商公開發售。該2位人士於購買時,自然有合理理由,去相信有關器材是合法的。]


有否刑事記錄,就要視乎是否用「傳票」型式、還是落案用「起訴書」提出檢控。後者會涉及打手指模,及若被定罪的話,留有案底。

用「傳票」檢控的話,就無須打手指模。被定罪的話,會留有法庭記錄(其實任何法律訴訟,民事、刑事、打贏、打輸,都一樣有記錄)。但警方主管的刑事記錄,就不會有記錄(因當初無打手指模)。


Last edited by Willy Lim on 21 Jul 2004 07:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 Jul 2004 02:04 pm 

Joined: 02 Mar 2004 10:18 pm
Posts: 208
Willy Lim wrote:
Quote:
Would the gentleman please advise the liklihood of our 2 buddies (or any of us who comes to it) getting prosecuted, convicted and getting a criminal record?

是否控告,由 OFTA 決定。但希望上述建議的陳述書,會說服它不予檢控。若 OFTA 決定控告,我想不到有任何抗辯理由。幾乎肯定會被定罪。

有否刑事記錄,就要視乎是否用「傳票」型式、還是落案用「起訴書」提出檢控。後者會涉及打手指模,及若被定罪的話,留有案底。

用「傳票」檢控的話,就無須打手指模。被定罪的話,會留有法庭記錄(其實任何法律訴訟,民事、刑事、打贏、打輸,都一樣有記錄)。但警方主管的刑事記錄,就不會有記錄(因當初無打手指模)。

其實這件事同D的士、貨車用D不合法無線電係咪一樣?同樣罪名?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 Jul 2004 03:23 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 03 Mar 2004 07:31 pm
Posts: 1023
Quote:
有否刑事記錄,就要視乎是否用「傳票」型式、還是落案用「起訴書」提出檢控。後者會涉及打手指模,及若被定罪的話,留有案底。


Dear Willy,
I share a different view. Using summons or charge sheet are simply two different ways to bring the accused to court, whilst fingerprinting is another aspect. It depends on the nature of the offence but not the way bringing the accused to court. There have many instances that the accused was summonsed to court and convicted thereafter, he will then be fingerprinted should the alleged offence require fingerprinting.

On the other hand, in the worst case that OFTA determines to go further. We may ask for plea bargain, ONE bound over could settle the ordeal (of course, subject to the will of our buddies).
Regards.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 Jul 2004 10:35 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2004 09:23 pm
Posts: 93
其實該2位人士,向 OFTA、警方俾口供未?

未的話,及若他們萬一要錄取口供而期間又需要律師陪同及提點,我樂意義務陪同他們出席。請代轉達。


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 Jul 2004 11:54 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2004 03:51 pm
Posts: 3626
Location: Hong Kong
HKRCSS will hold a committee meeting on 25 July (Sunday) night to discuss this incidence. We will derive follow-up actions to help those accused and also the strategies to continue fighting for more legal r/c frequencies.
Thank you all for your whole heart supports. We will brief you on this issue after the meeting.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 22 Jul 2004 12:56 am 

Joined: 05 Mar 2004 10:05 pm
Posts: 122
Willy Lim wrote:
其實該2位人士,向 OFTA、警方俾口供未?

未的話,及若他們萬一要錄取口供而期間又需要律師陪同及提點,我樂意義務陪同他們出席。請代轉達。


To Willy,
剛才同2位不幸者通過電話,他們於8月頭才比口供,他們渴求有律師陪同及提點,但驚唔好意思;
他們會出值我們的特別會議提供資料,或者到時再傾。多謝您的協助。

Billy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 22 Jul 2004 02:46 am 

Joined: 21 Jul 2004 12:54 am
Posts: 43
Ken,

You got my 3rd email?

CT


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 25 Jul 2004 08:43 am 

Joined: 25 Jul 2004 07:45 am
Posts: 4
Billy wrote:
Willy Lim wrote:
其實該2位人士,向 OFTA、警方俾口供未?

未的話,及若他們萬一要錄取口供而期間又需要律師陪同及提點,我樂意義務陪同他們出席。請代轉達。


To Willy,
剛才同2位不幸者通過電話,他們於8月頭才比口供,他們渴求有律師陪同及提點,但驚唔好意思;
他們會出值我們的特別會議提供資料,或者到時再傾。多謝您的協助。

Billy.


It is doubtful if the transmitters somehow related to the 2 arrested persons have genuinely caused the interference leading to the complaint that OFTA attended to on 14.7.04. It was possible that there were other interfering sources of radio or non-radio nature, or interfering frequencies generated and emitted by other apparatus of other parties. It was also possible that the equipment allegedly interfered had defects or maintenance problems rendering it susceptible to interference not happening under normal situation, in particular if the equipment operated in digital mode.

If OFTA cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that the transmitters related to the 2 arrested persons were the only sources that caused genuine interference at real time during her locating of the sources on 14.7.04, she had just caught 2 scapegoats only. If that is the case, she should follow her policy of not taking action for cases not related to complaint by instituting no prosecution.

In fact, the arrest related to 2 different but close frequencies has indicated the doubt of what actually caused the interference. The case is quite similar to a photo of speeding detected by radar showing 2 vehicles for which the police cannot prosecute any driver.

The 2 arrested persons, being possible victims of the case, may consider to take their legal right to remain silent when asked for statements under caution because any confession would complicate the situation in a negative way.

Of course, OFTA might consider prosecution without connecting to the complaint against her policy, which would qualify Ombudsman's investigation for mal-administration. The implication would also very likely arouse follow-up actions from radio equipment importers, dealers and users later.

Not just for the 2 arrested persons but also the interest of all its members and local RC hobbyists, HKRCSS may wish to communicate with OFTA further, and seek legal and professional advice for the doubts raised above.

XR


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 25 Jul 2004 05:27 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2004 09:23 pm
Posts: 93
Quote:
It is doubtful if the transmitters somehow related to the 2 arrested persons have genuinely caused the interference

有何關係?若指控是「電波干擾他人」,你講法就合理。

但現在指控是「無牌使用無線電器材」,控方只須證明是無牌,就夠喇,無須證明有關器材干擾到其他人士。正如若我被控「無牌藏械」,差人只須證明我係無牌,不須證明有關槍械曾「干擾」(或射殺)他人。


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 25 Jul 2004 09:22 pm 

Joined: 26 Jun 2004 09:59 am
Posts: 204
Location: Hong Kong
Agree with Willy, it's the problem with illegal usage of equipment. :shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC + 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

RCSAIL Home

WindGURU at Ma On Shan, Clearwater Bay and Fei Ngo Shan

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group