2013年5月15日星期三

陳玉峰事件終結篇

本來沒有打算再寫陳玉峰事件,以第三篇作結,讀者卻把莊耀洸律師在獨立媒體發表評論的文剪貼過來問我,我只好寫最後這一篇,在這件案審結之前不再評論。我不打算評論,有幾個原因,首先是sub judice的問題,自己掌握資料有限,評論可能偏頗。其次是我不想任何人和任事都評論,有些看法沒有絕對結論,各抒己見,無需執着自己看法一定正確。所以我除了在山中雜記 外,並無在其他網頁或討論平台留言。再者,我寫獨立評論,抒發淺見,不希望因這件事,被誤認是律政司或警方的發言人,我不做這義工。最後,讀者把莊律師的文章衝着我來問,我這次的評論並非衝着他來答,我沒有筆戰的閒暇,也不喜歡給人牽着鼻子去論争。故此,這篇寫過之後,我未必會再回覆留言。

律政司的檢控政策文件在1994年以前叫Prosecution Manual,是硬皮活頁folder,1994年印了單行本公諸於世,到了現在,在律政司網頁http://www.doj.gov.hk 的首頁,可以見到左邊的編目,其中一章叫《檢控相關政策》(Prosecution Related Policies),裏面包含四個項目,其中一項叫《檢控政策及常規》,就是讀者留言引文的出處。我從Prosecution Manual 至今天的《檢控政策及常規》都看過。如果你懷疑我為了寫這一篇才去看,大可以看我A先生申請覆核 阻止文件披露 一文(這篇文我提及《檢控政策及常規》第20.12段的校對問題,到現在還沒有改正過來)。

這份《檢控政策及常規》,討論得詳盡,所有涉及檢控的考慮都羅列其中,並無遺漏之處。不過,先不要過份天真,怎樣闡釋(interpret)這份檢控政策的權力,掌握在律政司長手中,這就是我在非禮簽保守行為之三 一文所講Attorney General's prerogative。你可以去看《檢控政策及常規》2.4節講甚麼。

講到訪問莊律師文章的戲肉,有幾方面值得討論。莊律師講警方在同案其他被告已經審結多時後才拘捕陳玉峰,本應事先徵詢律政司意見。恐怕我不懂這句說話根據甚麼來講,所以我在回覆陳玉峰事件 一文的留言,這樣答:「讀者可以先問莊律師上過幾多次法庭,用過檢控政策來申辯過嗎?我自問根基不穩,故此寫評論盡量研究法理依據,權力來源,而不敢隨便講。刑事案的被告在同案的人審結後才拘捕到,必定要事先徵詢律政司意見的,只有區域法院及高等法院的案件,因為要準備transfer paper 及 committal proceeding。裁判法院的基本上無此需要。有時我沒有興趣深入討論,因為要費太多唇舌跟這方面亳無知識的人講。

另一點是全篇文最主要論據-----違反檢控政策。引用《檢控政策及常規》9.2節來講是正確的引文,不過怎樣闡釋裏面的字眼,才是關鍵所在。怎樣才算「如果某罪行情況並不特別嚴重」,在政策中都沒有列出準則,陳玉峰面對循簡易程序處理的公訴控罪(indictable offence triable summarily),嚴重嗎?這篇文講延誤檢控陳玉峰,不符公眾利益,這一點我在陳玉峰事件之三 有關申請終止聆訊,已討論過,不再聱。以我看,這論據才是整件案正審之前的折子戲。

莊律師這篇訪問最可笑的是舉胡仙案來解釋不作檢控的公眾利益考慮,不檢控胡仙,是公義不彰,置公眾利益於不顧的決定。如果這篇訪問出自民建聯的大律師馬恩國之口,我不會感到奇怪,但莊律師是人權監察副主席,竟然這樣無知,荼毒學生的思想。90後當然不認識胡仙事件,去網上搜尋便會知道。當時的律政司是梁愛詩,刑事檢控專員是江樂士,不對胡仙檢控是近20年刑事檢控科最大的汚點,大律師公會發聲明指責,吳靄儀動議罷免梁愛詩,連自由黨的夏佳理也離埸抗議,莊律師用此作為不應檢控陳玉峰的論據,是否認賊作父。陳玉峰我不想再講了,莊耀洸更加不想講,他根本不夠班。有很多本來想進一步討論的事,犯不着浪費時間再講。

覺得我立場偏頗的讀者,不要再看我的文。把莊耀洸那篇訪問作留言的讀者,也許應該把我這500多篇文看一次,認識甚麼叫公義。

8 則留言:

  1. 以我的理解,莊耀洸應該不是以胡仙事件作為不應檢控陳玉峰的論據,而是以此突顯律政司在作出檢控決定時對於與北京方面關係密切的商人及社運人士採用雙重標準。明明「會導致大量人士失業」不應是衡量檢控是否符合「公眾利益」的考慮因素,卻以此來放生胡仙;反之陳玉峰一案(在莊耀洸眼中)符合《檢控政策及常規》9.2(a)和(b)明文指出的考慮因素,卻在長時間延誤後繼續檢控。

    SL

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. SL,

      Thank you for the comment. How can he used a bad example to make a justifiable comparison? I want to point out, the use of Public Interest is a 2 edged sword. The same reason is employed to drop a case and conversely to proceed with a case. The interpretation is not in the hand of the public or the defence or the court. The Secretary of Justice has the prerogative to decide.

      刪除
  2. Bill, I understand that both the Attorney General before the handover and the Secretary for Justice now have a wide prosecutorial discretion. However, whether it is still a 'prerogative' is dubious. In RV v Director of Immigration (http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=60390&currpage=T), Hartmann J (as he then was) ruled that the Secretary for Justice's power to control criminal proceedings is now a constitutional power coming from the Basic Law. It has to be exercised within constitutional limits. He did not follow Keung Siu Wah v AG and held that the discretion is no longer absolute in the sense that the Court has the power to judicially review prosecution decisions, though it would only be exercised in the rarest cases like when such decisions are made under political instruction, made in bad faith or fettered by a rigid policy. I personally think that Hartmann's judgment is a bit liberal and may probably be overruled by higher courts in future challenges. What do you think?

    SL

    回覆刪除
  3. SL,

    I am not learned at all. You can see my comments concentrate on criminal cases and the very easy ones in daily life. I am not a thinker though incidentally hit a "windfall" by pinpointing at the heart of an issue. I have not thought about what you said here. I really don't know. I need to read the judgement. I don't know if Hartmann is blurring the separation of power here. Apart from challenging the prosecutorial discretion of the AG in a judicial review, there is existing avenue to put forward such a challenge by applying for stay of proceeding. Though Hartmann says the power should be sparingly exercise, how are we going to reconcile the fundamental principle of separation of powers?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. SL,

      In the prosecution policy, the Secretary for Justice did not mention Hartmann's case. Only that it highlighted Article 63 of the Basic Law. I quote,

      1. The Independence of the Department of Justice
      1.1 The Department of Justice is responsible for the conduct of criminal proceedings in Hong Kong. In the discharge of that function the Department enjoys an independence which is constitutionally guaranteed. Article 63 of the Basic Law of Hong Kong stipulates that the Department ‘shall control criminal prosecutions, free from any interference’. That the notion of prosecutorial independence enjoys an entrenched status enables prosecutors to discharge their duties to the public within secure parameters. Prosecutors act independently without the fear of political interference or improper or undue influence. At the same time, the Secretary for Justice is accountable for their decisions and actions.

      刪除
    2. SL,

      Thank you for bringing to my attention Hartmann's case. I believe DoJ will challenge this liberal interpretation of Article 63 of the Basic Law when a suitable case comes about. I guess that is the reason why in paragraph 1.1 of the prosecution policy, Article 63 is mentioned instead of Hartmann's case. It may mean DoJ does not agree with the Hartmann's interpretation of the Basic Law.

      Even if Hartmann's case is good law i.e. under the Basic Law, the Secretary for Justice's prerogative of criminal prosecutions is amenable to judicial review but to a very limited extent, the suggestion that Ms Chan can apply for judicial review for her being arrested and charged does not fall within that ambit. Quite contrary to the suggestion, if there is any political pressure mounted resulting in the dropping of the charge, it would be subject to judicial review because it just falls within one of the criteria accorded judicial review i.e. political interference of the Secretary for Justice's decision.

      Bill

      刪除
    3. I searched the case name in google and found some documents prepared by the DoJ. These may give some indication of their positions.

      http://www.doj.gov.hk/chi/public/basiclaw/cbasic11_2.pdf
      In this "基本法匯粹" published by the DoJ, the idea of prosecutorial independence was introduced. RV was mentioned in p.12 with a rather neutral tone.

      http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr10-11/chinese/panels/ajls/papers/aj0627cb2-2154-1-c.pdf
      In this reply to the LegCo, DoJ seems already accepted that prosecution decision is amenable to judicial review. [see para 15(1)] They are using it as an argument against the suggestion for the DPP being independent from the SJ.

      SL

      刪除
  4. 標少你好,請教一下在這案件,警方可以申請傳票以傳召陳玉峰上庭,而不用拘捕、擔保然後釋放她?

    回覆刪除