2012年7月19日星期四

有權審之二

無罪腦退化婦囚兩周賠訟費大律師再「挑戰」官資格

【明報專訊】觀塘法院暫委裁判官許淑儀因沒有執業大律師證書,早前被大律師郭憬憲質疑其裁判官資格,二人昨日狹路相逢,郭為一名患嚴重腦退化症、被控店舖盜竊的老婦辯護。案中老婦經審訊後已經脫罪,但許淑儀擔心她會影響公眾利益,兩周前把已證明清白的被告還押,考慮把她強制送入醫院治療,無罪老婦平白要坐監兩周;昨日,郭趁機會質疑許的法官資格,要律政司出動回應,許再一次肯定自己有資格審案,並要辯方負擔律政司出庭的訟費,無罪的老婦要為此賠上6000大元。

醫學界及法律界人士都質疑,裁判官以「危害公眾利益」為由把一名患嚴重腦退化症的老婦還押並不洽當。港大法律學院助理教授張達明解釋,裁判官有權根據《精神健康條例》及《刑事訴訟程序條例》,要求為無罪被告索取報告,並按被告利益或保護他人頒下監護令、治療令或無條件釋放,但等候報告時應否還押則要小心處理,「這等同剝奪自由」。張達明認為本案被告脫罪後要還押,做法值得商榷,「有無事實基礎,有無需要,有好大問號」。

憂危害公眾還押 醫生質疑

香港精神科醫學院李永堅醫生解釋,腦退化症患者大多記憶力衰退,失去自我維生能力,有賴他人照顧,較少有暴力傾向,「醫學界考慮公眾利益,一般指會否傷害他人」。精神科醫生曾繁光亦指出,被告等候精神報告,除了還押在小欖精神病院接受觀察,亦可透過門診見醫生。李永堅不評論法官決定,但直言對還押「摸不頭腦」。

案中63歲被告董華芬被控於今年4月,在樂富的百佳超市偷去200多元食品,經審訊後獲裁定罪名不成立。主審裁判官許淑儀指「基於公眾利益」,要將被告還押以等候精神科報告,辯方昨引述精神科報告,指被告證實患中度至嚴重腦退化症,不適宜判入院令,許接納報告,決定毋須禁閉式住院,只需醫療跟進,當庭釋放被告。鑑於被告有6次盜竊案底,其行為會影響社會,故叮囑其家人多關心被告。

代表董的大律師郭憬憲上周曾在另一案件挑戰許的審案資格。雖然董婦已重獲自由,但郭再提出相同爭議,律政司亦派出高級檢控官出庭應訊。郭指出,根據《裁判官條例》及《法律執業者條例》,必須擁有執業證書的執業大律師方可獲委任為暫委裁判官,而翻查執業大律師名冊,發現本港現時20名暫委裁判官,17名為律師或大律師,僅許一人沒有今年執業大律師證書,質疑許無權處理案件。

被指論點荒謬 辯方:被告擬上訴

律政司代表反駁,合資格的大律師可向大律師公會申請證書,但與裁判官的資格並非對等。他又指出,現時有不少裁判官在原有崗位退休後再獲委任,若辯方論據成立,則高等法院部分法官亦不合資格,故論據並不合理。許最後亦重申其上周觀點,指大律師執業證書僅是私人執業要求,並不是任命裁判官的條件,認為辯方的論點荒謬、不合情理,駁回郭的質疑,並要求辯方負責昨日訟費。

郭憬憲昨透露,雖覆核失敗,但他說被告正考慮上訴,爭議點可能仍與該裁判官是否有資格獲委任有關。至於6000元訟費,郭承認要由被告負責。
(19/7/2012明報)

有權審與無權審之爭昨日在觀塘裁判法院再上演一幕,控辯雙方及裁判官基本上沒有新的看法和論據,我在上一篇文已經評論了,也沒有新的看法。這件案由原本的ultra vires問題,變成了3個問題,除了有沒有權審之外,另外的兩個問題是還押脫罪被告索取精神報告及判令被告賠訟費的做法。第2和第3個問題我覺得許淑儀犯錯。有關還押被告索取精神報告的做法,我在鳴冤法庭的新遊戲規則 兩篇文,討論過上訴法院在這方面的新思維。許淑儀既然判被告無罪(以本案而言,即控方證據顯示,被告有犯案的行為actus reus,而沒有犯罪的意圖mens rea),審訊理應結束,畢竟是店鋪盜竊案,多數爭論dishonest intent,無論被告精神或身體出甚麼問題,只要沒有暴力傾向,可能危害自己或別人的安全,法官不應再管下去。盜竊案判了被告無罪,法官的司法權力完結(functus officio),收押索取精神報告,實屬不智。在鳴冤 一文中的被告,審結被定罪,原審裁判官為收押他尚且受到嚴厲批評,判被告無罪而卻把她收押,許淑儀大概要執包袱,續領她的practising certificate,重操故業。如果她今年在法官招聘中榜上有名(結果尚未公佈),恐怕因此案而出現變數。

許淑儀犯的另一個錯誤是判令辯方支付訟費,被告被判無罪,就算辯方在法律爭抝中觀點不被法官接納,還要為此額外傳召高級檢控官出庭陳辭,也不是判罰訟費的理由。許淑儀可能是引用法例第492章刑事案件訟費條例第17條,認為郭憬憲提出無權審的論據,招致不必要的訟費。如果真的這樣想,就應引用第18條法律代表或其他代表對虛耗訟費的法律責任,判令郭憬憲支付,而不是諉過於被告。如果引用第18條的話,也要考慮18(3)所提出的原則:

(3) 在決定是否根據第(1)款作出命令時,法院或法官除須考慮所有其他有關情況外,亦須考慮在對辯式訴訟的司法制度下進行無顧忌訟辯的利益。

故此,許淑儀判令訟費的決定,恐怕犯下原則性的錯誤。這種料子,當真可以做官?

2 則留言:

  1. The costs order was made under s.11 of Cap. 492, I think.

    As I see it, the key issue is not whether you're entitled to defend yourself but whether you're supposed to raise the same argument over and over again. Kwok has argued those points before Hui and they were rejected. Now he comes back with those arguments once again, why shouldn't costs be ordered against the defence? I say this assuming the defendant has personally approved her counsel to put forward such argument, knowing the risks of failure.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. I am afraid I cannot agree that S.11 applies here. S.11(a) creates 2 limbs. In the instant case, neither limb applies. The deft was acquitted, not convicted and there was no order made under Cap 227 (e.g. applying to bind over deft under S.61, Cap 227). S. 11(b) relates to review. The instant case was not a review. That was why I could only consider S.17 and S.18.

      D. Kwok might have repeated his stance but in different cases. It could not be said to be a repetitive argument. If both cases go on appeal, they can be heard together but stand alone as individual cases. I do not say if a point is not taken on the magistracy level, the point cannot be raised on appeal. If I take the point at the magistracy level and adopt the same argument on appeal, what is wrong with that? What Kwok did may appear to be repeating, but on record in the individual cases, each point was taken afresh.

      If I were the lay client and were acquitted of the charge, what further point did I need to take? I fail to see why the lay client would give approval to Kwok to put forward the argument. The only conclusion I can make about cost is wasted cost on the unmeritorious point raised, i.e. S.18. But still, looking at the individual case, it is still within the ambit of "just and reasonable"(S.15(c))course to take in defending the case. If S.18 was the reason for awarding costs, then was Kwok invited to show cause (S.18(2))? May be the media did not report the case with clarity but I can only rely on the reports in different newspapers. How I wish I could be there to hear verbatim.

      刪除