山中 跟我一樣不能同意鄧小宇的看法，因為鄧小宇的看法只是一廂情願的感性抒發。對於加重刑罰能否抑止地鐵非禮的猖獗情況，可能我因循，以一貫法律上的做法來推論。我在在地鐵及巴士上發生的非禮案 一文，提及
AG and Wai Yan Shun CAAR17/1990，上訴庭對日益猖獗的地鐵非禮，定下初犯者判監14至28日的阻嚇指引，第二次犯案則判監2至6個月。
In our view, given the prevalence, for a first offence the "clang of the prison gates" should now be the normal sentencing option. A period of imprisonment between 14 and 28 days, depending on the place in the scale warranted by the facts would not be interfered with. For a second offence, sentence could well be between 2 to 6 months' imprisonment. (paragraph 28)
這上訴庭的判刑指引不正是用加重刑罰來阻嚇犯案的人嗎？首先針對猖獗情況(prevalence)，以入獄作為震攝手段("clang of prison gates"牢門咔嚓關上)，再犯刑期就再增加，粗畧講這算是一貫的判刑原則。是否有一定邏輯性的因果關係，我不敢講。可是，當使用的是一貫的原則，本身也有邏輯性。可能我應該說，別無他法，只好加重判刑來遏止。
至於William兄講我pro-prosecution，那是不爭的事實。Pro-prosecution之餘，我自問看法相當持平。所謂pro-prosecution，我基本上是以控方立場作思考，而不是講控方所做的事一定正確。以前做檢控工作，也有阻止不應檢控的案件繼續檢控下去，我能力不高，但處事公正的聲譽很好，而且並非因為甚麼都concede而來。
William所舉的假設性例子，如果真的這樣發生，連警察都不會拘捕那作出淫笑的男子，遑論檢控。首先，是否摸屁股，抑或是意外觸碰呢？我不是提出無聊爭論，只是展示考慮的心路。假如受害人確實形容得到觸摸的感覺並非意外，那麼只能講她的確被非禮，但不知誰幹的，除非在她背後觸手可及之處只有被告一人。恐怕你所講冤案，在現在的香港不易發生。上一篇所講發電郵給我的讀者，他第一個電郵就告訴我簡單案情及打算認罪，我回覆他第一句就表明，不能把我的看法視為法律意見，第二句我就叫他想清楚究竟是有心觸碰抑或是意外。我pro-prosecution並非一面倒那種。另外，重溫一下我在在地鐵及巴士上發生的非禮案 一文的講法，證明我pro-prosecution是從檢控角度去看，而並不偏頗。
萬一成為受害者，應該怎樣處理呢？首先，不要反應過敏，請先弄清楚是否行車顛簸，引致意外的接觸，以免冤枉好人。若果在擠逼車廂，要看清楚是誰擠壓或摸你，否則不知是誰幹的，白白被非禮。肯定了真的被非禮，便應指責被告，叫其他乘客幫忙及報警，不要讓被告走掉。在那種情況下不能做淑女，羞愧畏縮。但千萬不要做潑婦，不能罵不堪入耳的說話，否則惹來其他乘客厭惡，不肯挺身相助。在現場對被告的指責要清晰，但不要過份詳盡。要搞清楚對方用左手抑或右手，左邊右邊等。在場的乘客有可能是證人，到場的警員必定是證人，他們都有可能覆述在現場投訴的對話。如果他們的講法與受害人的不一致，要把被告定罪便會增加難度。
William亦提到「覺得非禮是眾多嚴重罪行中，唯一容易被冤枉的控罪」，有心誣捏或冤枉，何只非禮？我想William所擔心的是，非禮無贓無證，只靠受害人的指控。摸屁股摸胸不致於脫皮或瘀傷，所靠的當然是證人的可信性，如果沒有獨立證人，被告又沒有招認，確實增加審案難度，裁判官會格外留神。但沒有任何規則講「單對單」不能定罪，也不能訂下這種規則，否則很多受害人會投訴無門。我在再談非禮 一文留言爭論，寫過這樣一段說話：
There should be a finality to any discussion. I am not knowledgeable and I really want to put a halt to any further discussion. To agree or disagree is so easily said. Then what? I am glad people know the law so that I can learn something with substance rather than rhetorical embellishment of language or foreign language. Let me quote a Court of Final Appeal case here to end the discussion. I will not make further reply no matter how wise or otherwise the comments are. A 9-year-pupil alleging the teacher indecently assaulted him 3 times resulting in the teacher facing 3 charges of indecently assault. It is in nature the words of the boy's against the teacher's.There was no other witness seeing the assault. The teacher was convicted of all charges and sentenced to 5 months' imprisonment by the magistrate. The case ended up appealing to the Court of Final Appeal, the highest court of HK. The Chief Justice, Andrew Li, delivered the judgement and confirmed the convictions. The ratio of the case may not be summarized by the paragraph I cite here but suffice it to say addressing the central issue of the controversy here.
47. The case turned solely on the credibility of the complainant. It is very clear from the magistrate’s oral verdict and written reasons that he was overwhelmingly impressed by the complainant’s testimony. He believed the truth of the complainant’s evidence beyond reasonable doubt. This was because he concluded that the complainant’s description of the incidents was extremely particularised and detailed, clear, impossible to fabricate without experiencing them personally, vivid and unequivocal. These are strong phrases which the magistrate chose to use in his oral verdict and written reasons. (Leung Chi Keung v HKSAR FACC10/2004)
47. The case turned solely on the credibility of the complainant. It is very clear from the magistrate’s oral verdict and written reasons that he was overwhelmingly impressed by the complainant’s testimony. He believed the truth of the complainant’s evidence beyond reasonable doubt. This was because he concluded that the complainant’s description of the incidents was extremely particularised and detailed, clear, impossible to fabricate without experiencing them personally, vivid and unequivocal. These are strong phrases which the magistrate chose to use in his oral verdict and written reasons. (Leung Chi Keung v HKSAR FACC10/2004)
新州上訴庭法官Rothman J 在Zany Wong v R [2012] NSWCCA 39 (5 April 2012)一案，重申一對一足以定罪的看法，並駁回上訴，判辭第65段這樣寫：
- I reiterate my comments in Brendon Singh v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 100, in which I said:
走筆至此，冒昧講一句，William兄的前提假設冤案根本不會發生，「令「寧縱毋枉」成了一個空口號」這結論便成謬誤，跟練乙錚所犯的錯相似。
最後，香港不會產生冤案嗎？我沒有下過這結論。但各位可以放心，這可能性很低。坦白講，我也檢控過一單看過擋案之後，覺得「釘」官也「釘」不下手的案。最後把被告定罪，我卻心安理得，箇中因由，不宜在此談論，總之我在法律及證據規則框架內做事，違法的事我不幹。
Bill,
回覆刪除Yes, following the legal precedents is the logic of the law, but the thing is that the matter is largely outside the competence of the law.
More and more sociology/psychology and criminology studies have shown that severe penalties, from death penalty to 3-strike rules really do not help to reduce the prevalence of crimes, in fact they can be deemed a factor that increases crimes. Take the 3-strike rule for example, an offender got arrested and thrown into jail for a certain days, this experience will bring his identity closer to that of a criminal; longer sentence for the re-offender would serve to reinforce his criminal identity.
Norway has been running resort like "prisons" and the program is largely successful. Granted, we are not talking about law anymore and have ventured into the realm of social-psychology. Just thought it would be interesting to bring it up.
I don't know. The court just works within its parameter. The court plays its role in the whole spectrum. The court at times call for psychologist/psychiatrist/probation reports but we cannot expect to equate it with the realm of social-psychology. At least, the HK court is not an avant garde on these matters.
刪除Bill,
刪除Note that I'm not criticising the court. It was operating within it perimeters as you said. The point was that many societies (esp. the US) tend to leave some matters completely in the hands of the judicial system without actually questioning the core of the issues. Social sciences prove some useful insights in actually solving some of the problems that the judiciary cannot solve. It requires the society to understand the subject before we can try some innovations.
On a side note, HK judges have never been progressive so far as I concern. Interpretation of the constitution require some progressive thinking and HK is lacking in that department.
montwithin,
刪除Thank you for correcting my typo. Nothing wrong even if you criticise the court. No one is unassailable. There are quite a number of reforms implemented to make the court resources more user friendly. To find a poison is easy. To find a panacea is difficult.
標少回應神速，是我的學習對象！你說你做過釘官也釘不下手的案件，但另有原因令你「心安理得」，證明你和我都是「上一代」的人，做事講求良知。但新一代的警察是否都是這樣，我便很懷疑了。我和親人都從未惹過官非，我又只做民事，沒經驗，很難說；但自己被交通警冤枉倒試過一次，由於只是扣分和罰幾百元，當然不會「小事化大」，否則去見 "Mag 仔"，都是去見自己 HKU 師弟妹，無謂！但我不禁問自己，處理非禮案的警察會否像我遇見的那位交通警一樣，唯一考慮的因素，是「只要阿 Sir 難以被投訴」便去落案呢？很難說。記憶中新聞曾報道，香港有人在某 theme park 玩萬聖節鬼屋，被扮鬼的工作人員告非禮 (鬼屋咁黑都認到人？)，也有女人在公眾泳池被他人的腳非禮，幾分鐘後才叫非禮，單靠泳褲式樣便一口咬定是某人所為 (當時一個低頭向左游，一個低頭向右游，公眾泳池百幾人游水，都認到人？)。這些案件的結果是什樣，我沒有跟，而且單靠新聞報導的內容，很可能不準確，因此也不宜繼續在此討論，但即使假設這些都只是 hypothetical cases for discussion only, 也值得叫我們反思，非禮的冤案是否真的「可能性很低」？
回覆刪除「非禮」是容易被冤枉的控罪，是因為正如你說得很對，摸屁股摸胸不致於脫皮或瘀傷，其他的嚴重罪行，不論是傷人還是商業罪案，如要固意冤枉人 (不是一定說是警察做，更大可能是商業或政治對手所為)，要「製造」證據，難度很高。
香港報紙也報道過，有多宗女人誣告男人非禮案件，其實是勒索，反被警方發現及起訴。香港警方精明，值得大贊；不過話得說回來，該幾件案中的少女都是無業��妹，警方當然容易分辨，但如果是商業或政治對手精心設計的冤案，警方未必可以容易分辨，就算最後告不入，只要煩到你死，都已經達商業或政治對手的目的了。
我百份百同意你說，絕不能訂下規則，說「單對單」不能定罪，否則許多受害人會含冤。我也百份百認同，裁判官會格外留神，但「格外留神」的定義，各人有各人不同的想法。在香港，我估計正直的裁判官佔絕大多數，但也不排除有害群之馬可能會認為，「格外留神」的意思只是，在判案的 oral verdict 和 written reasons 中跟足 CFA 的「指引」說： "... I am overwhelmingly impressed by the complainant’s testimony. I wholly believe the truth of the complainant’s evidence beyond reasonable doubt. I conclude that the complainant’s description of the incidents is extremely particularised and detailed, clear, impossible to fabricate without experiencing them personally, vivid and unequivocal." 「總之無可上訴便可以了，究竟有沒有冤枉好人，反正只有天知道，誰叫你車廂咁迫，企滿少女都上車咩？」今天有沒有裁判官抱這種心態，我不知道；但十年、二十年、三十年後，會否有 Mag 仔抱這種心態，很難說。
要受害人含冤，我實在不忍心，我也有妻女姐妹；但這正正是這種心態「令「寧縱毋枉」成了一個空口號」。我不是完全反對這種心態，否則香港會變成女性人人自危的地方，對(好)男人而言也是壞消息。我只是說，我們應該承認，起碼在理論上，非禮案是比較上容易構成冤案，好讓我們在實踐上，在處理這些案件時也會更謹慎。
-- William
William,
刪除You are faster than I can cope with. I don't know how to answer your questions. My impression about cases with victim other than the police, the police are not very zealous. They often turn away the report of cases they think there is not enough evidence so that they do not have to spend time on.
Whatever legal system we adopt, I suppose there are loopholes for people to explore. In the appeal cases, I can see convictions overturned quite commonly. As long as there is a system to provide safeguard against error, what else can we do? May be I am really pro-prosecution to the extent that every acquittal is unfair too. I could see in quite a number of appeals, the guilty like hell defendants were acquitted unconvincingly.
Though we cannot accept a single case of defendant being wronged, after all, rare incident of such is not commonly seen. Newspaper reports are generally unreliable. They normally flare up sentiment. We live in a different era now. We need to receive information with caution.
Certainly many acquitted defendants are indeed guilty, but are acquitted on technical grounds. Lawyers should treat every such acquittal as a sign of "fairness". There must be loopholes in every legal system, as you have rightly pointed out. You can't have a system where every offender can be convicted and every innocent defendant acquitted. There must be a tolerance of errors built into every system. In a system tilted towards giving the benefit of doubt to defendants, there are bound to be acquittal of guilty offenders. On the other hand, if we don't see any guilty offender being acquitted in a jurisdiction, we must conclude that there are bound to be some innocent people being convicted. It's just simple logic, and I don't think an experienced player in the legal field like you won't understand that. The only danger is that some prosecutors choose to ignore it. The appeal system is not an answer to it at all---Just see the Shanghai Land Holdings case in the Court of Final Appeal, where some zealous prosecutors have ruined three solicitors' career, who spent a few years in jail before being acquitted by CFA. I don't know any of people involved in that case personally, but solely by reading the CFA judgment and the judgments of the "pro-prosecution courts" below, I don't believe that the prosecution can be fairly seen as morally flawless in this particular case. Anyway, I am not pinpointing HK DOJ. We've all seen things even worse on the prosecution side in the Western world like the US and England, from textbooks on jurisprudence, not from the sentimental news reports.
刪除- William (sorry, forgot to identify myself in the message above)
回覆刪除