中大人評中大事：黃燕雲死因的結論----自殺

研訊壓力 梁認服藥過量入院

【明報專訊】曾傳出在死因研訊開庭前服藥過量自殺，一度留醫深切治療的梁少光，昨在庭上承認曾因服藥過量入院。梁不滿事件發生約4年後，方得知被指控性騷擾女同事，直斥指控不公，稱其待遇「比刑事案犯人更差」。

斥指控不公 「好激氣」

黃燕雲的死因研訊於今年4月展開。梁少光昨表示，事前收到證人交到死因庭的證供文件，發現有多名證人「睇問題對我好唔公道」，令他「好激氣」；又認為傳媒報道令其名譽受損，故在如此「精神狀態下食多藥」入院，他透露正在康復中。

代表梁少光的資深大律師陸貽信說，若研訊與性騷擾調查有關，則屬「完全不合格、不合乎法治」。陸稱眾證人證供皆屬未調查的指控，且梁4年來一直被蒙在鼓裏，無申辯機會，對梁極不公平：「呢幾年來，梁少光所受嘅待遇比一個刑事犯更差！」

陸貽信續說，在黃、梁兩人看電影當日，假如黃被非禮，她大可拒絕與梁同乘的士回家，「如果佢戲院內嗌一聲，梁少光咩聲譽都晒喇」。陸又稱，黃擔任中大防止性騷擾委員會秘書一職已7年，不時協助處理性騷擾個案，故若梁性騷擾的話，黃將是「危險對象」，故陸相信黃是受調職及人事關係惡化影響情緒而患上抑鬱症，走向不歸路。 (6/6/2012明報)

梁少光昨天終於出庭了，換了資深大律師來押陣。陸貽信是中大校友，標少大一通識教育的導師。陸貽信在私人執業前是副刑事檢控專員，在律政司的時候也處理過大型的死因研訊。

一如所料，梁少光對性騷擾一味抵賴，死無對證，自圓其說的空間很大。以他的學識及律師團的經驗，他的供詞盡量營造合乎情理的講法，把在電影院裏發生的事，講到幾乎自己才是受害者。這件案一則並非刑事案，結果如何都不會引致刑事後果(前面寫了3篇相關文章：中大人評中大事：黃燕雲的死因研訊——給沈祖堯校長寫的一個blog ，再談黃燕雲的死因研訊 ，三談黄燕雲的死因研訊 ，觀點不再在此贅述 )；一則是用民事舉證規則，法庭可以接納傳聞證供，作出死因考慮，無論如何，結論都是自殺。日後死者家屬提出民事索償，就算死無對證，從報導的證供來看，中大校方證人及死者家人朋友的證供，對梁少光都非常不利。加上梁提早退休及服藥企圖自殺，以民事判案準則(onus of proof)相對可能性的衡量(on balance of probability)來考慮，我會判令死者家屬勝訴，問題只是責任的分配而已。

陸貽信在陳詞中批評，若果死者在戲院裏被非禮，為何會不吭聲。我相信不是每個女性，在那種環境下，一定會有冷靜理智的反應。對死者來講，梁是地位高，父執輩之類的人，死者在那情況下，念頭千廻百轉，真的會大叫非禮嗎？女性讀者請認真思考一下，給我一點意見。事實上在公共交通工具上遭陌生人非禮的人，也不少啞忍了沒有叫出來。況且死者有沒有某種情意結(complex)，也不得而知。

陸貽信最嚴厲的指控是眾證人證供皆屬未調查的指控，且梁4年來一直被蒙在鼓裏，無申辯機會，對梁極不公平：「呢幾年來，梁少光所受嘅待遇比一個刑事犯更差！」這樣講是否成理呢？我記憶力不太好，很多案例看了隨即又忘記。但是我還記得潘敏琦法官(Maggie Poon)當年在區域法院審理的劉嘉兒案 (Lau Ka Yee Michael and HKSAR FACC9/2004)，定罪上訴至終審法院也給駁回。判辭太長，我不想花時間撮寫出來，只好把28段控方案情張貼在下面*。我舉劉嘉兒神父非禮及意圖雞姦學生這案例，想說明受害人是事發4年後才向蘋果日報記者爆料，事件才曝光。受害人患上偏執型精神分裂(paranoid schizophrenia)，兩度就這件事報案，警方都不受理，直至2002年，世界各地揭發了不少神職人員的性罪行，才加速檢控劉嘉兒。我一向都佩服潘敏琦法官的硬朗作風，深得我心。換了料子差的法官，對着花了幾百萬請清洪來抗辯的案，很可能用合理疑點放掉被告。所以隔了幾年才對梁少光提出性騷擾的指控，未必是比刑事犯更差。

遇到性騷擾應該怎樣反應，沒有定律。比較難搞的當然是上司對下屬那種，為了防微杜漸，以致姑息養奸，不幸遇上這種事，一定要發聲。比較容易應付的，是同事朋友的性騷擾，有些人喜歡無故挨碰，或專門走入女人堆中，又獻殷勤，又講是非，又講自己身世可憐，搏取同情。如果你身邊有這種人，你會遭他性騷擾的機會很大。對這種人，最佳對付方法最是給他打兩耳光，他必然啞忍，不敢吭聲。若他報警告你襲擊，那該怎辦？可惜標少讀得書少，不是法官，否則必判你無罪，兼贈堂費。心智正常的法官，心中都會認為這耳光打得好，送你benefit of doubt，無罪釋放。最穩妥的做法還是遠離這種人，或者像標少打落水狗一樣，狠狠地打得牠嘷不出聲來，才不會惡向膽邊生。

*

The prosecution case at trial

8. The prosecution case was largely based on the evidence of the complainant. His evidence, as well as that of Father Chiu and Dr Wong (PW6), the principal supporting witnesses for the prosecution, is summarised in the following paragraphs.
9. The complainant was born on 13 July 1975 and brought up in a Roman Catholic family. He had been a student at St. Joseph’s Anglo Chinese School at Kowloon Bay before the alleged offences occurred. He and his younger brother were members of the Altar Boys’ Association. The appellant, who was then a seminarian, was in charge of the Association and its activities. The appellant and the complainant knew each other.
10. In September 1990 the complainant became a student at the College of the Sacred Heart in England to continue his education. The College was co-educational.
11. After the complainant returned to Hong Kong for a holiday in December 1990, he stayed overnight, at the invitation of the appellant, with the appellant in his room in the priests’ quarters at St. Joseph’s on the first Friday in January 1991. It was then that the first three of the four alleged offences took place.
12. The appellant, after discussing with the complainant how he was getting on at the English school, asked the complainant whether he knew anything about sexual intercourse. The complainant replied “No”. The appellant then said “I must do sexual therapy on you”.
13. The appellant then asked the complainant to take a shower in the bathroom attached to his bedroom. While the complainant showered, the appellant took off his clothes, stood behind the complainant and shook the complainant’s penis several times. The complainant was told to wait for the appellant in the bed. While they were in bed without their clothes on, the appellant, with his hand, shook the complainant’s penis many times. This was the basis for the first charge of indecent assault.
14. Throughout the night the appellant touched the complainant’s penis. The appellant asked the complainant to sleep on top of him and treat him as a woman. The complainant kissed him on the nipple and the neck with his penis touching that of the appellant. This was the basis for the charge of gross indecency.
15. In the morning the complainant felt the appellant try to insert his erect penis in the complainant’s anus. On the first two occasions, the complainant cried out “Stop”. On the third occasion, the appellant made a more determined effort. The complainant resisted and cried out “Stop” very loudly. The appellant stopped. These events were the basis for the charge of attempted buggery and an alternative charge of gross indecency on which there was, of course, no conviction.
16. On the Saturday morning, the complainant was told to go home. In the evening, he returned to the appellant’s room and requested that the appellant swear to what had happened the previous night. The appellant refused, saying “ancient people who swore and told lies under oath were punished by God”. The appellant then asked the complainant to leave.
17. The complainant said that he asked the appellant to swear to what had happened because he thought that, if the appellant as a priest swore to what had happened, it would show that what had happened was not evil. The complainant had been disturbed and felt worried and uncomfortable about the events which had occurred. He had not discussed the matter with his parents because his father was ill with cancer of the liver and he did not know what to say.
18. When the complainant returned to England the next day, his family and the appellant saw him off at the airport. While the complainant was in England, he and the appellant corresponded and talked on the telephone.
19. When the complainant returned to Hong Kong on 8 May 1991 to attend his father’s funeral, the appellant collected him at the airport and helped the complainant’s family in arranging the funeral.
20. Up to this time, the complainant made no complaint to anyone about the appellant’s conduct. The complainant said he was only “a kid” at the time, that he did not know whether what the appellant had done was right or wrong and he did not wish to make a false accusation against a priest. He did, however, warn his sister and his younger brother to avoid the appellant.
21. In September 1991, the complainant had a nervous breakdown. He said that he was under great pressure because the appellant had hurt him and he had lost his father. He had delusions and hallucinations. He did not have medical treatment immediately. Some months later, he was diagnosed by psychiatrists as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and then received psychiatric treatment, including medication.
22. He returned to Hong Kong on 10 June 1992. On an occasion some time afterwards he went back to the appellant’s room. While sitting in a chair, he was asked to take off his trousers. The appellant’s hand then touched the complainant’s penis several times. This was the basis for the final charge of indecent assault.
23. In the autumn of 1992, the complainant complained to his family of what had happened. He continued his studies in Hong Kong, receiving psychiatric treatment until he returned to England in 1993 to further his studies. While he was there he told his guardian what had happened to him. He realised then that he had been sexually assaulted. After his return to Hong Kong on 30 June 1994, he claimed to have made a report to Wong Tai Sin Police Station in early July 1994. There is no record of that complaint and no action was ever taken on it.
24. After he had completed his education, the complainant took up employment in Hong Kong. In that year, he met reporters from the Apple Daily and told them of his sexual abuse by the appellant. In the same year he had meetings with Father Chiu Bit Shing, told him about the incidents in 1991 and 1992 and later informed him that he had told reporters about the incidents. Father Chiu said this would affect the reputation of the Church and he would handle the matter. The complainant had known Father Chiu for a long time. Father Chiu also knew the appellant. They had been students together and became friends. Father Chiu had attended the ceremony when the appellant was ordained as a priest on 1 December 1991.
25. In June 1995, the appellant telephoned Father Chiu and told him that an Apple Daily reporter had contacted him and wanted an interview for “a piece of news”. The appellant requested him to arrange a meeting with the complainant in order to persuade him not to have published an article based on an interview given by the complainant to the Apple Daily. Father Chiu had been appointed by Cardinal Wu, along with others, to deal with the matter. In arranging and conducting the meeting, which took place in the evening of 20 or 21 June, Father Chiu described his role as that of a “middleman”. He was not appointed, he said, to protect the reputation of the Church. The complainant, however, said that Father Chiu wanted him to see the appellant face to face and tried to persuade him not to put the case to the newspaper.
26. Both the complainant and Father Chiu gave evidence of what transpired at the meeting. Neither the appellant nor the complainant’s friend Kong Ka Wai, who were also present, gave evidence. The complainant wanted Kong Ka Wai to attend to give him support. Father Chiu obtained the appellant’s consent to Kong Ka Wai’s attendance.
27. Although there were some discrepancies between the versions given by the complainant and Father Chiu of what happened at the meeting, the substance of their accounts was similar. It is convenient to begin with Father Chiu’s account of the meeting:

“I asked both parties ….. to tell their side of the story. [The appellant] first of all pleaded to [the complainant] and asked him to forgive him, and he said that he knew it was wrong. He also mentioned that when he himself was small, he had also been sexually abused by somebody. The fourth matter was that he hoped that [the complainant] could stop the article from being published in the Apple Daily. These were the four main messages coming out of the mouth of [the appellant] that night.”

Father Chiu also said that the appellant said “I have hurt you. I’m sorry.” According to Father Chiu, the complainant was emotionally upset and verbally abused the appellant and the appellant:

“continued with his dialogue with an attitude of begging for forgiveness.”

The appellant also became emotionally upset “and he was crying badly”.
28. The complainant said that the appellant begged him not to put the story to the newspaper, apologised for hurting him sexually and said that he (the appellant) had been sexually abused when he was young. The complainant stated that both the appellant and Father Chiu pleaded with him not to have the article published (a matter denied by Father Chiu), that the appellant broke down and cried and that he (the complainant) said that he had been sexually assaulted by the appellant, though he did not claim that he had given details of what had happened. At the end of the meeting, he did not say that he would stop publication, though he was considering doing so.
29. The complainant had wanted the newspaper to publish the interview as he considered that the appellant would be a danger to children if he remained a priest. However, after the meeting, he began to consider whether to stop publication and eventually decided to do so. But the newspaper decided that it was too late to stop publication.
30. On 25 June 1995, the Apple Daily published an article describing an incident involving sexual abuse by a Catholic priest on an altar boy. Four days later, the appellant was suspended from the priesthood. He was then serving as a priest at the Trappist Monastery on Lantau Island. In September 1995, he resigned from the priesthood.
31. In May 1999 the complainant made a further report to the police. No action was taken.
32. In May 2002, the complainant watched a television programme about complaint of sexual abuse against members of the Church in which it was stated that no complaints had been received by the police. Upset by this, the complainant went to the police and made a witness statement which resulted in the charges against the appellant.
33. Dr Wong Meng Kong, a psychiatrist, was called as a witness for the prosecution. He was familiar with the complainant’s history having interviewed and treated him from time to time since 1995. After experiencing his first breakdown in the summer of 1991, the complainant has been treated by psychiatrists in England and Hong Kong since 1992. He was hospitalised in the Castle Peak Hospital twice in 1994 when he experienced hallucinations. He did not tell the psychiatrists that he had been sexually abused until a complaint was recorded in the Castle Peak Hospital that he had complained to the police in 1994 that he had been raped by a priest.
34. Dr Wong was asked by the police to make a report on the complainant’s fitness to make a statement. In his report of 9 May 2002, which was read to the Court, Dr Wong said:

“In my opinion, he suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, episodic remittance with psychotic episodes from September 91 to March 92 and from mid-June 94 to 10 October 94, and briefly in January 99. He remained well between episodes. He is currently fit to give a statement. While it is possible that the recollection of past sexual abuse by the priest was delusional, given his clear and consistent recollection of events and the religious contents of his delusions, it is just as possible that the abuse actually occurred and might in fact be the principal precipitating factor of his schizophrenic illness.”

Dr Wong had seen the complainant on 8 May 2002, the day before his report.
35. Dr Wong delivered two subsequent reports dated 9 September 2002 and 18 October 2002. In the report of 18 October, Dr Wong expressed the view that the complainant’s recollection of alleged sexual abuse which had occurred after the onset of his illness in October 1991 may have been influenced by the presence of delusions but that “[r]ecollections of events prior to October 91 are unlikely to have been affected”. Dr Wong considered that the complainant was in remission when he was giving evidence and that he was not suffering from residual delusional symptoms. The fact that he was in remission made it unlikely that his evidence was affected by such symptoms. Dr Wong did not consider that the complainant was suffering from any cognitive impairment.
36. At the conclusion of the prosecution case, HH Judge Poon heard argument on the admissibility of the admission at the meeting, stated that she was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that it was made voluntarily and concluded that it was not a case in which she would exercise the general discretion to exclude the admission. The judge followed what is known as “the alternative procedure” in concluding that the admission was admissible: see Archbold Hong Kong 2004, §15-121; R v. Kwan Wai Hung [1973-1976] HKC 449.