大律師非禮之二

上一篇講上訴以律師嚴重失職為推翻定罪的理由，考慮的法律原則方面，經常引用的案例是澳洲新南威爾斯上訴庭的R v Birks[1990]48 A Crim R，首席法官Gleeson 所講

“As a general rule an accused person is bound by the way the trial is conducted by counsel, regardless of whether that was in accordance with the wishes of the client, and it is not a ground for setting aside a conviction that decisions made by counsel were made without, or contrary to, instructions, or involve errors of judgment or even negligence.”

律師的抗辯策略可能在事後分析未必是對被告最有利的抗辯方法，或者律師在部份審訊中確有失職之處，都不是推翻定罪的理由。在律師失職的情況下，被告未能獲得公平審訊，才足以推翻定罪。在終審法院HKSAR v. Chong Ching Yuen[2004] 2 HKLRD 681一案，非常設法官Sir Thomas Eichelbaum頒布判辭時這樣講：

Occasionally, in extreme cases, an appeal may turn on counsel's conduct of the trial as a whole, for example a failure to conduct the case in accordance with any theory of a defence case where a clear line of defence is available. More often however assertions of "incompetence" will relate to the manner in which counsel dealt with a specific issue during trial, involving a matter of judgment or decision, or advice given to the defendant. The expression "flagrant incompetence" rightly underlines an appellant's need to show much more than a mistake, an error of judgment, or a decision to follow one course when in hindsight another would have been preferable. But it should not deflect attention from the most critical point, namely given that there was a significant error of some kind, what will be decisive is the effect of the error on the trial.

暫委法官彭寶琴傳召原審辯方律師鄭紀天上庭，如果為了調查非禮是否成立的話，這樣做已偏離聽審上訴的司法功能，要斷定辯方律師失職與否，先要看被告及律師各自的講法，再看審訊紀錄，不就可以判斷了嗎？傳召鄭紀天上庭，問他「你有沒有非禮？」，可獲得甚麼答案？

上訴法院很少接納控辯雙方律師嚴重失職的指責，除非在審訊紀錄中獲得明顯證據，否則對這種足以影響律師聲譽和飯碗的指責，都不會接納。在2010年哄動一時的中大碩士生張家和勒索宗教老人X先生一案，張家和被定罪後提出上訴，所持的唯一上訴理由是辯方大律師明顯失職，包括沒有向被告人提出妥善的意見，亦沒有適當地處理審訊，令被告人沒有獲得公平的審訊。辯方律師以誓章(affidavit)形式提出反駁，上訴庭最後駁回上訴，下面是判辭的其中幾段：

67. 本庭就雙方在事實上的爭議聆聽過陸大律師(陸偉雄)、何律師(instructing solicitor)和被告人的證供。陸大律師執業多年，亦富刑事案件經驗。被告人指陸大律師向他表示法官必需全部接納或全部否定，而不能採納部分供詞為證的說法不足為信。

68. 如被告人確有向陸大律師和何律師表明有關錄影會面記錄並非他自願作出，故要翻供，陸大律師和何律師不可能不根據被告人的指示來行事。本庭不能察覺陸大律師和何律師有任何動機和目的要和被告人的指示背道而行。
........ 

70. 本庭接納陸大律師和何律師的證供，指被告人表明有關的會面記錄是他自願作出，而他早有準備向警員詳細解釋事件的詳情。有關的會面記錄內容亦和申請人向陸大律師和何律師表達的立場吻合。(律政司司長 訴 張家和 CACC329/2010)

彭寶琴傳召鄭紀天上庭，應該只限於考慮抗辯失職的指責，其他事情，應當由警方或大律師公會紀律審裁團(Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal)來處理好了。