2013年5月12日星期日

陳玉峰事件之三

本來不打算再評論陳玉峰事件,但讀者留言,只好寫最後一篇作結。

拘捕及檢控陳玉峰,是否具政治目的,可以各說各的,誰是誰非,難下定論。我沒有在任何公開論壇駁斥別人的看法,我只批評政治人物的見解,提出我了解的程序作判斷。有讀者提出相反意見,我也表示尊重。希望讀者不必考究標少以前是甚麼東西,抑或不是東西。我一向都呼籲不要膜拜權威,不要看到是某人所講便視作金科玉律。讀者C君曾經私下發電郵給山中 和我,問我們以前幹甚麼的,我們都強調以前和現在做甚麼都不重要,我們文章的內容不會因為加入履歷而提升。言歸正傳。

陳玉峰現在已被正式落案檢控上庭,如果她認為最近的拘捕是基於政治目的,請問她除了可以在法庭外面對傳媒講,在自己的網誌或facebook寫,她怎樣用這理由來抗辯呢?這是一個務實的問題。讀者可以不去想,因為你極其量在茶餘飯後,在某些討論平臺一抒己見。但對代表陳玉峰的大律師而言,這是抗辯策略的問題。

公義得以彰顯,是老生常談,法官及控辯雙方都要榷守的原則。實際上怎樣做呢?

陳玉峰對警方基於政治目的檢控可從兩方面提出,一,就2011年7月1日非法集結的控罪本身的抗辯而提出,當然是法律及案情事實方面的爭論,在這方面提出政治目的檢控的論據比較單薄,主要是在陳辭時作評論,很難提出實質證據,也不能跟「佔中」扯上關係。二,申請終止聆訊(stay of proceeding),所持的理由是延誤(delay)做成審訊不公。藉著這終止聆訊的申請乘機指責警方一直不拘捕陳玉峰,直至她積極参與佔中義務工作才拘捕她,如果她真的採取這策略,公眾就有機會了解在這件案所採用的程序及嚴重性的級別,怎樣叫高調低調就更加清晰。與其空洞的指責,不如實際去印證,討論才有意義。

警察打電話給陳玉峰及上門次數,能否說明重視的程度呢?當然不能夠,在某程度上只是例行公事。首先,陳玉峰可能對警察有沒有打電話給她及次數提出争論,我相信控方會向法官申請搜查令(search warrant),向有關電訊公司索取通話紀錄,至於上門造訪,多數叫行beat軍裝警員去做。如果OC Case著緊一點,一早就拘捕了陳玉峰,而不致延誤到今天。我相信在檔案裏多數寫着BU 4 weeks phone suspect and visit suspect's address之類的話,這就是我講玩忽職守的原因。有不少法庭因為找不到被告而派不出的傳票,經執達主任上門十多次,包括非辦公時間造訪都找不到被告,經歷十幾個月,警方才申請撤銷,那是比陳玉峰所面對控罪輕微得多的案件。故此造訪次數並不能量度案件的嚴重性。

讀者也提出其他被告相繼落網,其實可以訪問一下他們「落網」的經過,我相信他們大部人都和警察合作,應警察要求到警署接受落案,所以他們的案件可以審結。如果同案被告可以一次過審,當然十分理想,既合乎法則,也節省時間。如果大部份被告都已歸案,還欠一個,你排期審抑或無了期等?叫歸案的被名無了期等,對他們也不公平。楊匡便是一例。如果有被告審訊中途棄保,絕大多數的情況下都會在他缺席的情況下續審下去。況且陳玉峰還未被檢控,怎會等她一個。

講到無案底市民干犯summary offence被通緝,法庭發拘捕令阻止他們出境,而陳玉峰面對indictable offence triable summarily反而不受限制,我不想長篇大論去講。我只舉一種情況來說明。假如我開車衝紅燈,警察截停我發告票,我21日內沒有交錢,警方會郵寄一份繳款通知書給我,我可以交罰款或者抗辯,抗辯的話可寄回條給警方,以便排期上庭。如果我沒有交錢,警方又收不到回條,控方會向法庭申請缺席聆訊,法庭在我缺席下把我定罪,雙倍罰款加堂費,然後發信通知我繳款。我在限期過後又沒有交錢,法庭便發拘捕令拉我,並訂下擔保金額,拉到便保釋上庭。警察同樣嘗試打電話找我,叫我約時間帶錢到警署辧擔保,絕對不會爆門入屋拉人,法庭拘捕令進入常設系統,所以我在出入境時可能被捕。整個程序有法可依,在裁判官條例(Cap 227)及定額罰款(刑事訴訟)條例(Cap 240)可以找到。這就是summary offence的一例。

我不是在替警察辯護,你罵他們與我何干?同一件事,都可以產生不同看法,與其人云亦云,不如看一下另類看法,看不入眼,索性不要看。我寫了500多篇文,大部份是評論文章,不乏評論社會公義的,單寫一篇龔如心争產案就為公義不彰看了2000頁判辭,寫了13000字的評論,還要給讀者用Lord Hewart CJ來教誨,也相當有趣。我批評覃有方不合理判古思堯9個月監,古思堯上訴減了刑;我叫搶咪案被告上訴至終審法院,終院正排期聽這上訴。

再補充幾句就收筆,用蒙恬筆來寫實在太花時間。

我講警方以寬鬆及低調手法處理陳玉峰,其實也不單只她一個,而是近年對社會運動性質的檢控手法寬鬆了,寬鬆並不等如告少了,而是在拘捕之後,有些只是登記個人資料,等待索取法律意見才聯絡被控人士,這是近年才這樣做的。一反過往拉人帶返警署辦擔保的做法。一則這些人並非真正「罪犯」,並不是殺人放火鼠竊狗偷之流,對社會沒有實質危險,另一方面拘捕人數多,他們又不肯擔保,警方被逼以寬鬆手法處理。如果是反罪惡的黎庭掃穴行動,對逮捕到的人就嚴苛很多。何謂高調手法拘捕?舉一個10年前的例子,藝人梁思浩被打,O記在飛機抵港停在停機坪的時候,上機拘捕律師康寶駒來殺威。寫到這裏,陳玉峰事件也寫夠了。

11 則留言:

  1. Bill,

    I believe this is a shift of social mentality, not an issue with the law enforcement. It's just that people haven't realised it. It probably takes an alien from outerspace, like myself, to spot it.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. If I do not mistake your view, I would say the trendy Hong Kong is suffering from social lunacy.

      刪除
    2. Yes, you can even call it a political madness, assuming that they weren't mad before. This is bound to happen since we are at a political disequilibrium. That's why you have conservative figures like Anson Chan coming out to condemn the DoJ and the police; I would like to think she would say the opposite if she was the CE.

      Or to think of it historically, it happened to the 13 Colonies as well. It was the tax hikes that sparked the American Revolution, but the taxes were collected to pay for the French and Indian War, which the British engaged to protect its colonies.

      刪除
  2. 問題核心是為什麼要為一個罪行咁輕微, 而又已經審結, 而結果又係罰得咁輕. 點解要浪費公帑去又審一次?
    "
    為何在去年同案八名被告上庭之前,警察不把陳玉峰拘捕並一併起訴?根據目前已知的資料,陳玉峰在過去一年並沒有匿藏,要拘捕她是輕而易舉的事。警察在案件判決多月後才拘捕及檢控陳玉峰,代表控方要為了陳玉峰一人而重新傳召廿一名證人,這是浪費公帑和損害公眾利益的做法,違反《檢控政策及常規》。

    《檢控政策及常規》9.2(a)和(b)指出:「如果某罪行情況並不特別嚴重,而法庭又可能只會判處象徵式的刑罰,則檢控人員必須慎重考慮是否有其他處理方式,例如(如適用者),警誡或警告會較檢控更符合公眾利益。這特別適用於可循公訴程序審訊的罪行,而檢控人員亦須權衡法庭可能會判處的刑罰及法律程序可能要耗用的時間和訟費……如罪行經長時間而未予審理,則檢控人員須慎重考慮提出檢控是否符合公眾利益。」"

    回覆刪除
  3. I used to agree with Bill when I first read this post as I had the chance to read a no. of files stating something similar to "BU 4 weeks phone suspect and visit suspect's address".

    However, after seeing what the police did when some people visited the Wanchai police station in enquiring whether they were on the police wanted list but to no avail, I start to have doubts.


    While the 2 incidents are separate, the issue is a person is either on the police wanted list or not. However, the police did not gave an affirmative answer but instead issuing a statement of "law abiding citizens should not worry...."

    I cannot ready understand the logic....

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. (quite a number of police divisions/patrolling officer, probably after receiving advice from the 'top', did answer the people's requests for checking if they are on the wanted list. i read that in the Next Magazine. )

      刪除
    2. Not to answer such truculent request to confirm whether one is on the wanted list is a good tactics to avoid people queuing up at the police station. I see no wrong so to do. Obviously, the people going to the police station without a genuine purpose to find out whether they are really wanted. The ploy adopted is causing wasteful employment of the police. If someone is wanted by the police in the normal sense means the person must have allegedly committed a crime. No one should walk into the police station and make such a request for no reason cause of concern. I do not change my view about the matter. If I am the Commissioner, I would also instruct my subordinates not to accede to such a request to avoid opening the floodgate to this silly venture.

      刪除
  4. Based on the reading of the newspaper, it is not a "without cause" case. They specifically referred to the assembly for anti national education outside the HK Govt Office and pointed out that they did not obtain the "no objection" permit from the Hong Kong Police.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. David,

      I don't agree. I can understand some of the social activists involved themselves in "illegal" activities and they have concern whether they may be wanted like Ms Chan. If they have been contacted by the police and have been dodging, then there is a good cause of concern. If they have not been contacted by the police, there is no good cause to be concerned being put in the wanted list. The recent actions were nothing more than a show.

      刪除
  5. Bill

    By reading your recent postings, your previous profession becomes obvious to the readers of the blogs.

    DAVID

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. David,

      I was nobody. I reveal nothing. I am obviously nobody who just writes interesting stories.

      刪除