| 释义 |
減輕判處 The submission of certain facts either by the person charged or his or her lawyer in such a way to cause an offence to seem less serious in a hope of receiving a more lenient sentence than the court would otherwise impose. Where mitigation is advanced which is on its face incredible, the court is not required to indicate that it has doubt as to its correctness. Where mitigation is advanced which is not on its face incredible, the court should, before rejecting it, indicate that it is not prepared to accept it from the Bar and should give the opportunity to the person charged or his or her lawyer to call evidence: R v Chung Kam Fai (CACC 29/92, unreported). See also Mitigating circumstances; Sentence.
Tort - The duty on a plaintiff to avoid or minimise loss: Davey v Harrow Corp [1957] 2 All ER 305, [1958] 1 QB 60 (CA). The court will not compensate a plaintiff for avoidable losses: British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co of London Ltd [1912] AC 673. Where a person, acting reasonably after suffering a tortious injury, so conducts himself undesignedly to aggravate his damage, such additional loss is recoverable from the defendant: Wilson v United Counties Bank Ltd [1920] AC 102. Nevertheless, any profits made as a result of mitigating acts is taken into account against the loss caused by the wrongful conduct: The World Beauty, Owners of the Steam Tanker Andros Springs v Owners of the Steam Tanker World Beauty [1969] 3 All ER 158. The plaintiff is only required to act reasonably: Nazir Begum Din v Lee Kwei Ying (HCA 3811/80, unreported). It is for the defendant to prove that the plaintiff has acted unreasonably: Chan Tak Chi v Wong sin Tao [1998] 4 HKC 16. See also Mitigating circumstances; Remoteness.
被控人或其律師所提出某些事實的陳述，目的是使罪行看似較輕，從而希望得到一個比法庭將作出之判決較輕的刑罰。當減輕判處之提出在表面上不可信時，法庭毋須指出其對減輕判處之提出正確性有懷疑。當為減輕判處之提出在表面上不是不可信時，法庭應該在其拒絕接納減輕判處前指出其並不準備接受大 律師提出的陳述，並給予被控人或其律師傳召證據之機會：R v Chung Kam Fai（刑事上訴1992年第29號，未經彙報）。另見 Mitigating circumstances; Sentence。
侵權法 - 原告人有責任避免或減低損失：Davey v Harrow Corp [1957] 2 All ER 305, [1958] 1 QB 60（英國上訴法院）。法庭將不會賠償原告人可避免的損失：British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co of London Ltd [1912] AC 673。當一個人受到侵權性傷害合理地行事，而他的行為非有計劃地加重其損害，該額外損失是可向被告人追討：Wilson v United Counties Bank Ltd [1920] AC 102。但因作出減低損失的行為而所獲得之任何收益將用作抵銷因作出錯誤行為而引起的損失：The World Beauty, Owners of the Steam Tanker Andros Springs v Owners of the Steam Tanker World Beauty [1969] 3 All ER 158。原告人只需要合理地行事：Nazir Begum Din v Lee Kwei Ying（高院民事訴訟1980年第3811號，未經彙報）。是由被告人証明原告人不合理地行事：Chan Tak Chi v Wong sin Tao [1998] 4 HKC 16。亦見 Mitigating circumstances; Remoteness。n. |