重案組調查林慧思

下面是今天明報的即時新聞：

重案組調查　林慧思：好驚 (17:08)

警方將林慧思老師講粗口列作求警協助案，交由旺角重案組跟進，林慧思在明報即時新聞fb回應：「好驚」。

警方回覆本報查詢時表示，一名59歲姓李男子於8月10日下午約2時30分到旺角警署報案，指閱覽網上媒體資料及報章報道後，懷疑有人在公眾地方行為不檢及阻礙警務人員執行職務，要求警方跟進。案件暫列求警協助，現交旺角警區重案組第一隊跟進。

《明報即時新聞》將新聞上傳至fb後，林慧思以兩個字回應：「好驚」。有網民就留言:「香港已向國際邁進一大步，特首引領香港進化成國際笑話之都，市民真係多得佢唔少 !」更有網民指，警方是否無事做，講粗口都要重案組去查。有網民就嘆言：「香港真係好顛，泛民無根無據就打鑼打鼓上廉署投訴，現在又輪到對手因粗口辱警小事上差報案，互相濫用投訴，文革之風籠罩香江。」

上月13日在旺角行人專用區，青關會人員用橫額遮擋法輪功的街站，林慧思不滿警方未處理青關會的做法，卻圍起封鎖線不准市民進入，其間以粗口罵警員。

事件引來社會兩極意見、尖銳辯論，亦引發本月4日旺角街頭兩派人士抗議並對峙，而特首梁振英本月11日落區時，更當眾表示要教育局就事件提交報告。(即時新聞)

有人向警方報案，指林慧思在公眾地方行為不檢及阻礙警務人員執行職務，前者我在討論青關會可否被控擾亂公眾秩序之類的控罪幾篇文已討論過，把分析套用在林慧思身上，我不覺得她應被控在公眾地方內擾亂秩序行為(disorderly conduct)，現在談究竟應否告她故意阻撓在正當執行職務的警務人員(wilfully obstructs police officer in due execution of duty)。

怎樣才構成阻撓在正當執行職務的警務人員呢？最簡單的法律介定來自Hinchliffe v. Sheldon [1955] 1 WLR 1207 ：

“obstructing, for the present purpose, means making it more difficult for the police to carry out their duties”.

林慧思當日的行為算不算令警察執行職務更困難呢？當然不能單靠上述案例簡單字面的解釋，讓我們看一下終審法院在談立徽 案(HKSAR v TAM LAP FAI FACC15/2004)怎樣講法律的大原則：

23. Police officers have an onerous duty to discharge in the detection of crimes and the making of enquiries. Private citizens have a moral or social duty to assist them. After all, police officers are there to protect the safety and property of private citizens. There are however bound to be situations where co-operation is not readily forthcoming from a private citizen to a police officer doing his duty: the citizen may wish to exercise his right of silence; or he may wish to seek clarification from the officer as to what the matter concerns or what it is that is expected or required of him, or he may wish to reason with the officer and to try to persuade the officer that he has made a mistake, or he may wish to protect or advise a relative or close friend who is being questioned by the police, or he may have other more urgent matters to attend to for the time being. Conduct of this kind would not normally be regarded as obstructing the officer in the due execution of his duty because it is neither the type of criminal conduct contemplated by the statutory provision nor is it wilful in the sense that it is deliberate and without lawful excuse.

24. Whether particular conduct amounts to wilful obstruction of an officer in the due execution of his duty is always a matter of fact and degree. It is important to look at all the circumstances of each case, including what the person has done and how it is done, what the officer is doing, and the effect of what the person has done on what the officer is doing. As LeGrandeur PCJ pointed out in R v. Robinson, (paragraph 13), “what may be an obstruction in one set of circumstances may not be in another, even though the act undertaken is the same in both instances.”

林慧思無論是在"seek clarification from the officer as to what the matter concerns"，抑或挑戰警察執法是否公正或選擇性，儘管她表現儼然一個強悍的潑婦，整體來講我認為不至於要檢控她。上星期明報訪問劉達強，他透露涉及示威人士的案都交重案組辦，若然如此，交重案組調查也屬正常，無需大驚小怪。