今天非常忙碌，適值終院頒布搶咪案的判辭，兩位法律界朋友立即給我留言，大概我不寫點評論，他們不會收貨。大老爺講了很多上訴得直的道理，我這草民那有能力評論，這篇只寫一些零碎的感想。
我在5月26日，應山中之邀，寫了評戴耀廷教授所寫評戴耀廷教授所寫「和平佔中」所犯何法？一文，批評教授魯莽，在終審法院對搶咪案還沒有聽審之前，就依賴高等法院的上訴判辭作為論據。終審法院一致推翻了高等法院的判決，對於佔中人仕藉公民抗命行事，這判辭由處理首席法官陳兆愷所講的第一段，可以解讀為法庭對這種行為的看法，尤其要留意最後的3句。
1. The freedom of expression may take many forms. As was involved in the present case, they include the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly and the freedom of demonstration. The right to the freedom of expression is guaranteed by art 27 of the Basic Law and art 17 of the Bill of Rights. This is a fundamental right to enable any person to air his grievances and to express his views on matters of public interest. In a free and democratic society, there are bound to be conflicts of interest and differences in opinion. It is important that those who purport to exercise the right to the freedom of expression must also respect the rights of others and must not abuse such right. Conflicts and differences are to be resolved through dialogue and compromise. Resorting to violence or threat of violence or breach of the peace in the exercise of this right will not advance one’s cause. On the contrary, this will weaken the merits of the cause and result in loss of sympathy and support. The means to achieve a legitimate end must not only be peaceful, it must also be lawful. Violent or unlawful means cannot justify an end however noble. It may also attract criminal liability. (HKSAR and Chow Nor Hang and another FACC14/2012)
一般人對「在公眾地方作出擾亂秩序行為」(Disorderly Conduct)的概念並不正確，法律上的意思是擾亂秩序行為的人，要意圖激使其他人破壞公眾安寧，才會犯法，他本人的擾亂秩序行為卻不犯法，極其量屬處以簽保守行為或視乎案情可控以襲擊罪。這條法例充滿矛盾，如果要把在公眾地方作出擾亂秩序行為的人繩之於法，恐怕要修改法例，剔除意圖激使其他人破壞公眾安寧這元素。另外，對偷拍裙底控以「在公眾地方作出擾亂秩序行為」罪，以後就未必行得通，另外要有證據顯示會激使其他人破壞公眾安寧的即時危險才行，判辭第79段這様寫：
79. However, a person may provoke a breach of the peace without any violence or threat of violence on his part: “... it suffices that his conduct is such that the natural consequence of it is violence from some third party”.[55] That third party need not be the person provoked or a by-stander, it could, for instance, be a member of the provoker’s group.[56] The actual or feared harm must be unlawful[57] and, where the harm is anticipated, there must be a real risk and not the mere possibility of such harm.[58] Moreover, the anticipated harm must be imminent.[59]
套用於偷拍裙底行為可以激使途人對偷拍者施以武力（這是控方以在公眾地方作出擾亂秩序行為罪來檢控的基本論據），將來缺乏這方面明顯的證據，就難以再説服法庭接納這十分牽強的講法了。
我在5月26日，應山中之邀，寫了評戴耀廷教授所寫評戴耀廷教授所寫「和平佔中」所犯何法？一文，批評教授魯莽，在終審法院對搶咪案還沒有聽審之前，就依賴高等法院的上訴判辭作為論據。終審法院一致推翻了高等法院的判決，對於佔中人仕藉公民抗命行事，這判辭由處理首席法官陳兆愷所講的第一段，可以解讀為法庭對這種行為的看法，尤其要留意最後的3句。
1. The freedom of expression may take many forms. As was involved in the present case, they include the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly and the freedom of demonstration. The right to the freedom of expression is guaranteed by art 27 of the Basic Law and art 17 of the Bill of Rights. This is a fundamental right to enable any person to air his grievances and to express his views on matters of public interest. In a free and democratic society, there are bound to be conflicts of interest and differences in opinion. It is important that those who purport to exercise the right to the freedom of expression must also respect the rights of others and must not abuse such right. Conflicts and differences are to be resolved through dialogue and compromise. Resorting to violence or threat of violence or breach of the peace in the exercise of this right will not advance one’s cause. On the contrary, this will weaken the merits of the cause and result in loss of sympathy and support. The means to achieve a legitimate end must not only be peaceful, it must also be lawful. Violent or unlawful means cannot justify an end however noble. It may also attract criminal liability. (HKSAR and Chow Nor Hang and another FACC14/2012)
一般人對「在公眾地方作出擾亂秩序行為」(Disorderly Conduct)的概念並不正確，法律上的意思是擾亂秩序行為的人，要意圖激使其他人破壞公眾安寧，才會犯法，他本人的擾亂秩序行為卻不犯法，極其量屬處以簽保守行為或視乎案情可控以襲擊罪。這條法例充滿矛盾，如果要把在公眾地方作出擾亂秩序行為的人繩之於法，恐怕要修改法例，剔除意圖激使其他人破壞公眾安寧這元素。另外，對偷拍裙底控以「在公眾地方作出擾亂秩序行為」罪，以後就未必行得通，另外要有證據顯示會激使其他人破壞公眾安寧的即時危險才行，判辭第79段這様寫：
79. However, a person may provoke a breach of the peace without any violence or threat of violence on his part: “... it suffices that his conduct is such that the natural consequence of it is violence from some third party”.[55] That third party need not be the person provoked or a by-stander, it could, for instance, be a member of the provoker’s group.[56] The actual or feared harm must be unlawful[57] and, where the harm is anticipated, there must be a real risk and not the mere possibility of such harm.[58] Moreover, the anticipated harm must be imminent.[59]
套用於偷拍裙底行為可以激使途人對偷拍者施以武力（這是控方以在公眾地方作出擾亂秩序行為罪來檢控的基本論據），將來缺乏這方面明顯的證據，就難以再説服法庭接納這十分牽強的講法了。
標少 ，
回覆刪除又一單影空姐美腿被控擾亂公眾秩序。http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20131123/00176_097.html
雖然未判，但表證成立己經奇怪。唉，法律的規則永遠是有權有勢(包括有政治背景)的可以上訴至終審，一般小市民則要硬食冤屈。