有一天，Jack Ong代表一宗刑事毀壞案的被告上庭審訊，案情是這樣的：被告和證人在路上駕車發生衝突，被告不滿證人切他的線，追上證人的車，把他截停，繼而下車，在地上拾起一條木棍，把證人的擋風玻璃打碎。證人於是報警，被告因此被檢控。
這件案安排在第一庭下午時段閞審，上午的新舊提訊案件都做完了。那個年頭，「半日安」近乎是絕唱。就算是忙碌的第一庭，每天下午都安排了審訊。Jack Ong走來跟我講，這件案不用審，他已經跟案件主管講妥，撤銷控罪，被告願意簽保守行為，他叫我打電話給案件主管確認一下。我不同意這做法，我不認為這件案的嚴重性適合用撤銷控罪簽保守行為來處理。Jack Ong指責我違反警方指示，況且被告屬初犯，應該給他機會。我從來都不會盲目聽從指示，我是主控當然有話事權，我告訴他，除非DPP指示我接納這plea bargaining，否則只好開審。
Jack Ong根本沒有抗辯的準備，一心以為跟警方講好，安寢無憂，殊不知會遇到一個刁難的主控。他進退維谷，唯有向法官投訴，逼我就犯。換了別人，這投訴可能奏效。法官問我Jack Ong所講是否屬實，我大概是這樣答：I do not think it is appropriate to take the course suggested by Mr Ong in view of the circumstances of the case. In any event, I am ready to proceed.
法官沒有貪圖「半日安」而逼我接納撤罪，他對Jack Ong講相信標少的決定一定有理由，就開審吧。Jack Ong當然不能開審，他根本沒有準備，他只好申請押後，但我提出反對，法官最後也批准了。我在檔案中寫，將來無論誰是主控，不准撤銷控罪。由此可見，當年我是何等跋扈。
不要以為我欺負Jack Ong, 我純粹對事不對人。如果被告下車踢證人的車一兩腳，而沒有使用木棍，我會接納辯方的建議。一時衝動做出蠢事的人，也需要為魯莽行為負上責任。主控要建立自己的聲譽和威信，怎能任人擺佈？
標少，我經常閱讀你的文章！寫得非常好。我昨天去裁判署去聽陳振聰的案件，更對你之前針對陳振聰刑事檢控和初級偵訊的分析佩服萬分。但看來控方最後只會傳召三位證人而已，兩名化驗師和一名警員。加上辯方會申請終止聆訊，感覺上控方可能會不夠料。
回覆刪除Dear Anonymous,
刪除Thank you for the compliment. What you were seeing in court recently only involved the committal proceeding. It has not yet reached the trial stage. You will not be able to see the full strength of the prosecution's case. The committal proceeding mainly deals with evidence on paper. Some witnesses will be called at the request of the defence either to challenge if there is prima facie case or lay foundation for the future high court trial. I am not surprised that you would feel there is insufficient evidence for the prosecution. You are able to see part of the prosecution case only.
Bill
感覺上杜裁判官(澳洲/新西蘭籍)覺得Permanent stay of proceedings申請和初級偵訊應該在高院進行。感覺上縱使陳氏輸了遺產案(民事標準)，要做到beyond reasonable doubts都幾難，除非在陳氏留下實質的偽造證據。但我相信要在香港找到一班中立的jury members都很難。在庭上陳氏臉色如灰土，和兩三年前180度相反。心想當初他的legal team和智囊團都有份送他到目前的境況。外人不禁對他有產生同情。Wang
回覆刪除Wang,
刪除I would have thought Tony Chan's applying for permanent stay of proceeding should be instituted in the High Court instead of the magistrate's court level. Preliminary enquiry is rightly done in the magistrate's court in accordance with the magistrate's ordinance. The entire case relies on inference to be drawn. The evidence is not overwhelming. Pre-trial publicity is so derogatory to Chan making it difficult for the trial judge to remove the prejudice against him. That said, in the end, I don't think the judge will allow the stay for that reason alone. You can see what happened to Nancy Kissel. She also applied for permanent stay but to no avail. Mr Justice Macrae has written a very beautiful judgment against her. I think Tony Chan has the same plight. I do not pity Chan. He has driven himself into the cul-de-sac.
Wang,
刪除One more thing, David Dufton, the acting Principal Magistrate, came from the UK. He is not Aussie or Kiwi.
Bill
標少，
回覆刪除謝謝您！不過要做到the one and the only probable inference也不是容易？
Wang
Wang,
刪除One will not be too surprised to see that he will eventually be acquitted.
Bill
標少，
回覆刪除這會否類似當年O J Simpson的情況，OJ贏了刑事但輸了民事，這種情況在澳洲和香港多發生嗎？
Wang
Wang,
刪除It is always difficult to make comparison. Jury trial can produce very aberrant results. There were not many cases similar to O J Simpson's in Hong Kong or Australia as far as I can remember. Frankly, I am not familiar with the Australian scenario at all. Another difficulty is that when we do not fully understand the evidence save the ones we see from the media report, we may be misled to believe that the prosecution case is stronger than we think but in reality it is not. It appears the evidence against Tony Chan is not strong at all so it is not comparable to O J Simpson's case. To me, if Tony Chan is acquitted in the end, I would not be surprised.
Bill