2013年6月8日星期六

再評古思堯的新燒區旗案

今早有讀者在古思堯的新燒區旗案 一文,留下這段說話及連結:

標少,你不應只讀明報,不同報紙會選取不同重點,會影響你對控辯雙方論點的掌握

且讀頭條日報
http://news.hkheadline.com/dailynews/content_hk/2013/06/05/240731.asp

古思堯圖燒區旗案候判
2013-06-05
社運人士古思堯(圖左)和社民連成員馬雲祺被控企圖燒區旗案,昨進入結案陳詞階段。代表古和馬的大律師詹鋌鏘重申,被告企圖燒區旗的意圖是為了表達民主訴求,若辯方日後上訴時,獲上訴庭接納其意圖,可構成合法或合理辯解,所以裁判官裁決時,亦應考慮其企圖侮辱區旗的動機。

不過,裁判官杜浩成駁斥,被告干犯的控罪不須考慮其犯案動機,裁判法院裁決也不須考慮辯方的上訴理據。案件押後至六月十三日裁決。


我把這留言登出來,旨在虛心求教。求教之處有三點:

第一,可能只有留言的匿名君才可答得到我,我在古思堯的新燒區旗案 一文的評論是否看漏了甚麼以致看法偏頗呢?

第二,被告企圖燒區旗的意圖是為了表達民主訴求,是否構成抗辯理由呢?我覺得控罪屬嚴格法律要求的(offence of strict liability),法庭無需理會被告毁旗的外在原因(ulterior motive)。吳恭劭案上訴致終審法院時,沒有明確提出犯罪意圖(mens rea)方面的論争,但他表達的政治訴求,在理念上跟古思堯類同。該判辭雖然沒有直接討論犯罪意圖,但整篇看,我的印象是ulterior motive is irrelevant。判辭的第60段是判辭主旨所在(nutshell):

60. In applying the test of necessity, the Court must consider whether the restriction on the guaranteed right to freedom of expression is proportionate to the aims sought to be achieved thereby. See Ming Pao Newspapers Ltd v Attorney-General of Hong Kong at 917D - E. As concluded above, by criminalising desecration of the national and regional flags, the statutory provisions in question constitute a limited restriction on the right to freedom of expression. The aims sought to be achieved are the protection of the national flag as a unique symbol of the Nation and the regional flag as a unique symbol of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in accordance with what are unquestionably legitimate societal and community interests in their protection. Having regard to what is only a limited restriction on the right to the freedom of expression, the test of necessity is satisfied. The limited restriction is proportionate to the aims sought to be achieved and does not go beyond what is proportionate. 
(HKSAR v. NG KUNG SIU AND ANOTHER FACC4/1999)

就算我在法律上理解錯誤,企圖燒毀國旗為了表達民主訴求,可以是成功抗辯理由,那就帶出第三點我向法律界朋友求教的地方。

第三,律師在法官席前為被告抗辯,法官尚未判決,還未清晰表達究竟會否把被告定罪,律師應否向法官講日後上訴的論據呢?這算是新一代的advocacy?算是恐嚇法官:你夠膽釘我個客,我就上訴,抑或是:你一定要把被告定罪,否則我無得上訴,不能藉此確立案例?

我第一次看這則新聞報導時只是搖搖頭,匿名君叫我看不同報紙,我看了不禁要吶喊。代表律師在2012年才called to the Hong Kong Bar,最多不夠18個月經驗,我不能過份責備他,希望他能經一事長一智。擺在眼前的事,難怪我擔心這團律師的能力。




 




10 則留言:

  1. Although I believe the statement by the CFA above amounts to a tautology and its logic on proportionality is rather twisted, there is no way to state "the defendant merely wanted to express his/her desire for democracy" as a defense.

    Freedom of expression or any type of freedom can be restricted if somebody actual gets hurt by the act. Hurting one's feeling about something isn't a recognizable damage, otherwise any criticism of religion or desecration of religious symbols would become a crime. And there are actual laws in theocratic countries that criminalize the criticism of religion; it's called blasphemy, which, of course, infringes the freedom of expression.

    If the desecration a symbol amounts to real damage, then the court is basically saying that such symbols are sacred and beyond criticism because the letters of the law says so. In other way words, it is blasphemy against the nation.

    Alternatively, the court would be equally or more right to say that the social fabric of a state does not rely on its symbols; the rule of law, a just political system, good social behaviors, stable institutions, good public education contribute much more to the wholeness of a society than a symbol on a cloth. The state is powerful and has numerous ways to maintain and strengthen the social fabric, thus desecration of the national symbols falls within the protection of freedom of expression.

    The test of proportionality goes both ways. I cannot simply kill a guy who breaks and enters into my house, even though he has the option not to.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. You are making a "political statement" here too. In law, I am unable to argue with CFA. I am not wise enough. Even if you are wiser, there is no room for argument or at least you cannot overrule its decision.

      I am still waiting for the anonymous reader to enlighten me why he/she asked me to read the news from more sources.

      刪除
    2. Well, it is a legal argument but one that is not accepted by this particular court (not sure if such case has been made though), while it is accepted by others (US for example). Same thing would happen if I made a case against blasphemy law in a religious court. The US Supreme Court ruled that corporations enjoy freedom of expression like a natural person, thus not subjected to regulations on campaign donation (I'm fuzzy about the details). Courts give "erroneous" decisions all the time. I may have to live with it, but that doesn't mean I have to like it, nor the court had employed good legal reasoning.

      What I'm saying, I guess, is that there are right ways and wrong ways to persuade the court, but the court doesn't have to see it your way, even if your way is the right (and correct) way.

      刪除
    3. True. I do not intend to discuss the law from what media report of what allegedly said. What you raised is a bigger question. I wrote in response to the anonymous comment. I have yet to see the argument in appeal. Presumably Koo would be convicted because he put up no defence apart from what was said about ulterior motive. which I see is irrelevant. Advocate should learn how to courteously make submission in court. Inappropriate submission can also be a very discourteous manner. A lawyer should not turn themselves into forum speaker style in court. It is something you can see people are doing today. Etiquette is not easy to learn if there is no good example to follow.

      刪除
    4. Ability of the advocate in this particular case aside. I am glad to see that new lawyers are not as 'courteous'. it is after all the intellectual rigidity of arguments that counts, and why should it matter if a good argument is made 'without respect' to the judges? Going to courts and seeing lawyers' submissive bows to the Lord and the Lord's condescending manner to the lawyers make me think I'm back to the middle ages!

      刪除
    5. I am not prepared to argue with you on this. It is a personal choice and point of view.

      刪除
  2. 今早古思堯和馬雲祺被判罪成,並需還押至6月27日判刑。古思堯還可以說是案底纍纍,「死不悔改」,但馬雲祺只有19歲,而且沒有任何案底,初犯之下也被即時還押,杜官似乎對社運人士頗辣手。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. If that is the case, I really fail to see the wisdom of the remand as far as Ma is concerned. If the magistrate intends to send them to prison, there is no need to remand Koo. He can be sentenced to prison right away. Ma as a first offender, how does this offence attracts a custodial sentence? If it does not, then Ma should not be remanded in custody pending reports, presumably background reports.

      刪除
  3. Any further final decisions on this case?

    回覆刪除