2012年3月20日星期二
唐英年向廉署備案的謬誤
唐廉署備案 梁﹕賊喊捉賊
稱防暴隊論來自行會 發律師信促為「誹謗」道歉
【明報專訊】特首候選人唐英年上周五指控梁振英在23條討論上提出以防暴隊及催淚彈對付示威者，他昨承認上述言論是來自2003年七一遊行後政府討論強推23條立法的行政會議。唐英年更主動就梁指摘他造一事，向廉政公署備案，反指控梁對他作出失實聲明。唐又發出律師信，要求梁收回「誹謗言論」並道歉，更下戰書說﹕「如果梁振英認為我言論誹謗，我大可歡迎他告我誹謗。」
梁振英反擊指唐英年「誹謗」他，唐卻反而指自己被人誹謗，「這是賊喊捉賊」。另一候選人何俊仁指應有獨立機構去調查兩人「誰講大話」。
昨晚由選委合辦的「行政長官候選人答問大會」，有逾600名選委到場，甫開場，梁振英便批評有人造指控，惡意抹黑，「甚至不惜以不法及不道德手段攻擊我誠信，謀殺我人格」。其後他嚴正聲明自己不是共產黨員，亦沒在03年提出以防暴隊對付示威者，以及沒提出過縮短商台的續牌年期
唐英年在開場白解釋冒風險提出這兩指控，是認為公眾知情權比保密要求重要，又批評在03年香港處於十字路口，梁振英仍以強硬態度推23條和阻撓商台續牌是「愚不可及，加強矛盾」，錯估形勢及一錯到底。
唐﹕倘有誹謗 歡迎梁告我
在市民書面提問環節，有市民問到唐英年的兩大指控有什麼證明，唐透露已先發制人﹕「對於梁生誹謗性言論（指唐造事件），我做了兩件事。今日（昨日）我去廉署備了案；第二我委派了律師寫信給梁生，要求他撤回言論和公開道歉。」 (20/3/2012明報節錄)
看到這則新聞不禁失笑，唐營的團隊陣容鼎盛，裏面一定包括不少資深法律界人士，況且還向梁振英發了要求撤回言論及道歉的律師信，唐英年怎能夠為了指控梁振英誹謗而向廉政公署備案？誹謗在香港是純民事訴訟，不是警察或廉署會受理的事情，他們管的是刑事案，廉署接手調查的案件範圍更狹窄，何必浪費公帑，浪費廉署人員的工作時間，走去備案。何謂備案？備案即要求記錄在案，保留日後追究的權利。可是，不論誹謗指控怎樣發展下去，都不涉廉署職權範圍，這種備案的做法，純粹是政治宣傳，對追究誹謗責任完全沒有作用。如果梁振英不肯撤回言論及道歉，下一步就只有入禀法院，要求賠償。在整個法庭程序中，廉署都不會扮演任何角色，這備案的做法除了是宣傳，還可以是甚麼？另一方面，廉署也不應該接受唐英年的備案，換了是標少為了被人誹謗去備案，肯定給人攆走。唐英年這手段，跟陳嘉桓在內地被非禮一樣(見陳嘉桓案香港管不了一文)，向香港警方備案，只有宣傳效果，沒有實際作用。如果他們不是有點名聲地位，警方及廉署都不受理，兩天前不是有一則新聞講一位女士向警方報案，投訴在印度被男團友非禮，香港警方不受理的嗎？想做特首，也要搞清楚香港的法律制度，司法管轄範疇。當然，唐英年若果還有這一絲幻想，恐怕離幻滅的時候不遠。
訂閱：
發佈留言 (Atom)
Bill,
回覆刪除It appears that he went to make a complaint about the making of a false statement by another candidate. If so the ICAC should be investigating for a possible violation of Cap 554.
L
L,
刪除Thank you for pointing this out. The possible violation should be S.26 Cap 554 then, (pasted below)
(1) A person engages in illegal conduct at an election if the person publishes a materially false or misleading statement of fact about a particular candidate or particular candidates for the purpose of promoting or prejudicing the election of the candidate or candidates.
(2) A candidate engages in illegal conduct at an election if the candidate publishes a materially false or misleading statement of fact about the candidate or candidates with whom the candidate is associated, or about another candidate or other candidates, for the purpose of-
(a) promoting the election of the candidate or candidates with whom the candidate is associated; or
(b) prejudicing the election of the other candidate or candidates.
(3) For the purposes of this section, statements about a candidate or candidates include (but are not limited to) statements concerning the character, qualifications or previous conduct of the candidate or candidates.
(4) In a prosecution for an offence of having engaged in illegal conduct under subsection (1) or (2), it is a defence to prove that the defendant believed on reasonable grounds that the statement was true at the time when it was made.
Subsection (1) is most relevant. If so, CY Leung was denying the statement by saying that it was a false statement. Does a denial constitute the publishing of a false statement then? Has Henry Tang actually put the cart before the horse? If I am facing an allegation and I deny and further say it is a frame up, does it amount to publishing a false statement?
From the news report, Tang also said he had asked his lawyer to send a letter to CY Leung asking him to withdraw the defamatory statement and apologise. It is consistent with a defamation lawsuit. That was why I formed a view that he was talking about defamation.
It may appear I have taken side. It may be true. On the other hand, Henry Tang is such a laughing stock. I just cannot resist the temptation of writing about his stupidity and ludicrousness.
L,
回覆刪除In furtherance of what I said above, seeing the matter from another angle. If Tang thinks that the denial of Leung and the counter accusation of frame up constitutes a violation against Cap 554 S.26(1), then it will be an offence to be investigated by the ICAC. There cannot be any withdrawal of what was said couple with an apology. A criminal offence in law is committed and cannot be undone. There cannot be any private settlement. It further ehances my way of thought about a civil case of defamation. Either way, Tang is bad for stupidity.