鳴冤

裁判官涉無故拘押 男子枉囚小欖索償

【明報專訊】中年漢捲入刑毀案，在沒有律師代表下在裁判法院受審，惟審訊期間突被裁判官指「語無倫次」，無故被囚禁小欖兩周以索取精神報告。恢復審訊後，中年漢被定罪，他不服之下提出上訴，高院質疑裁判官無故收押他的做法，判其得直。上訴人並促請當局發放恩恤金，律師指此案有可能是首宗涉及裁判官疏忽而發放恩恤的案例。

指被告「語無倫次」 囚禁索報告

裁判官馬保華早前裁定上訴人陳樹雄（59歲）於去年12月6月，在觀塘康濤閣毀壞天台的防盜鐵線罪成，罰款1500元。高院法官張慧玲表示，審訊期間裁判官懷疑正在盤問證人的上訴人有精神問題，決定將之囚禁索取報告，更對被告說「抱歉」。裁判官似乎未必得悉，上訴人可保釋外出等候報告的做法。

張官形容上述做法「奇特」，當法官20多年從未遇過，又指上訴人若非涉及暴力或有自殘傾向，不應在未定罪前無故拘押。張官認為「裁判官權力係好大，加上（上訴人）無律師代表，更可以話係『肉隨砧板上』」，促裁判官小心運用，「唔好立亂困住人」，否則對當事人不公。 (13/12/2011明報節錄)


昨天上訴判辭還沒有上載，我也按捺不住，寫這blog為Wahab(馬保華)呼寃。不認識香港法律的讀者，可能給報導誤導，班太(Judianna Barnes即張慧玲)對Wahab的批評有欠公允。首先，先談法理。香港法例第221章刑事程序條例第75條是否適宜受審，是裁判官押後案件，索取被告精神報告的權力來源。第75條的英文版本比中文更易明白，張貼如下：

chapter:	221	Title:	CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ORDINANCE	Gazette Number:	32 of 2000
Section:	75	Heading:	Fitness to be tried	Version Date:	09/06/2000

---

(1) This section applies where on the trial of a person the question arises (at the instigation of the defence or otherwise) whether the accused is under a disability, that is to say, under any disability such that apart from this Ordinance it would constitute a bar to his being tried. (Replaced 37 of 1996 s. 3)
(2) The court, if having regard to the nature of the supposed disability is of opinion that it is expedient so to do and in the interests of the accused person, may postpone consideration of the said question (hereinafter referred to as "the question of fitness to be tried") until any time up to the opening of the case for the defence, and if before the question of fitness to be tried falls to be determined the jury return a verdict of acquittal on the count or each of the counts on which the accused person is being tried that question shall not be determined.
(3) Subject to subsection (2), the question of fitness to be tried shall be determined as soon as it arises.
(4) The question of fitness to be tried shall be determined by a jury, and-

(a) where it falls to be determined on the arraignment of the accused person, then if the trial proceeds the accused person shall be tried by-
(i) where paragraph (a) of the definition of "court" is applicable, a jury other than the jury which determined that question;
(ii) in any other case, the same jury which determined that question;
(b) where it falls to be determined at any later time, it shall be determined by-
(i) where paragraph (a) of the definition of "court" is applicable, a separate jury or the jury by whom the accused person is being tried, as the court may direct;
(ii) in any other case, the same jury by whom the accused person is being tried. (Replaced 37 of 1996 s. 3)

(5) A jury shall not make a determination under subsection (4) except on the written or oral evidence of 2 or more registered medical practitioners (of whom not less than 2 shall be psychiatrists on the Specialist Register established under section 6(3) of the Medical Registration Ordinance (Cap 161)). (Replaced 37 of 1996 s. 3. Amended 32 of 2000 s. 11)
(6) In this section-
"court" (法庭) means-

(a) the Court of First Instance acting in the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction; (Amended 25 of 1998 s. 2)
(b) the District Court acting in the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction; or
(c) a magistrate;

"verdict of acquittal" (無罪的裁決) does not include a special verdict that the accused person is not guilty by reason of insanity. (Replaced 37 of 1996 s. 3)
(7) In this section, any reference to a jury shall, where the trial concerned takes place in the District Court or before a magistrate, be read as a reference to a District Judge or the magistrate, as the case may be. (Added 37 of 1996 s. 3)

從75(3)可見，當是否適宜受審的問題出現時，即須予以裁定，那是法律上的規定。Wahab覺得被告語無倫次，把案件押後，索取被告的精神報告，做法正確，可謂duty bound。如果班太真的像明報所講「高院質疑裁判官無故收押他的做法」，我覺得批評罔顧法理，並不公正。班太無需講一大堆煽情的話，把Wahab講成犯下彌天大罪。班太講得正確的是「裁判官似乎未必得悉，上訴人可保釋外出等候報告的做法。」根據第136章精神健康條例第51(2)(a)條讓被告保釋在外，索取報告：

(2) (a) A court or magistrate may, in lieu of remanding a person under subsection (1), admit him to bail in accordance with the periods specified in subsection (1) on his procuring or producing such surety or sureties as the court or magistrate thinks fit.

可是，慣常的做法是在第一庭，在被告第一次提堂時，控方提出對被告索取精神報告的申請，以決定被告是否適合答辯(fit to plea)，或者在把被告定罪之後，在判刑之前，索取精神及背景報告。兩種情況下都把被告還押小欖。審案中途要索取報告，雖然較少，但Wahab沒有做錯。唯一可以批評Wahab的，只是有關扣押的做法。如果把裁判法院索取精神報告的案件來做統計，恐怕不是全部也會是絕大部份都把被告收押。我的看法或許過時，在此，有經驗的讀者，真的要給我指點一下。