每天都是非禮案

我不知寫了多少篇有關非禮的文，也不打算數一下，這課題對上一篇是Indecent Assault and the City非禮之城？ ，往後肯定還可以寫，這種事情，無日無之。今天報導了醫務委員會對干犯非禮的外科醫生鄧文俊，處以停牌6個月的懲罰。有時我不太明白醫務委員會的理據，停牌6個月的懲罰足夠嗎？是非常難答的問題。明愛急症室醫生楊珏峰，在街上非禮陌生女子，判監4個月，之後被罰終身停牌。我不是想替他呼寃，這兩件案相比之下，停牌的差異不太大嗎？鄧文俊摸女病人的胸，比之楊珏峰在街上非禮一個素不相識的人更加嚴重，鄧文俊違反了病人對醫生的信賴，停牌6個月懲罰不足，相反來講楊珏峰終身停牌卻不合理地嚴苛。譬如是超市職員偷取自己工作的店鋪的東西，和一個顧客在超市偷東西，兩案作比較，你說那一件較嚴重？

今天司法機構上載了兩宗非禮案向終審法院申請上訴許可(HKSAR and Fok Ka Shing FAMC 60/2013 & HKSAR and Tsang Hing Lun FAMC 61/2013)，提出的法律問題是 “Is intention of an accused an essential ingredient in considering whether the conduct(s) amount to indecency per se?”終審法院把上訴一方提出的法律觀點修正為 "given that intention to commit an assault which is indecent is an essential ingredient of the offence of indecent assault, the learned magistrates ought to have expressly found that the applicants had such intent."最後終審法院裁定裁判官無需公式化地講明被告有心非禮，講到尾都是 R v Court [1989] 1 AC 28；

“ ... the vast majority of the cases … , (where) there is no question that the accused is alleged to have done to the woman was indecent unless he had her consent. If the plea is not guilty, the defence is almost invariably either, ‘I did not do that which the prosecution alleged,’ or, alternatively, that ‘I did it with the woman's consent.’...” R v Court, at 34E.

當然不要斷章取義，這裏的討論並不包括意外觸碰。