另一件澳洲人要知道的案

上兩篇講李少校，該案在10月31日審結，聯邦最高法院押後裁決至11月1日，可是網上遍尋也找不到結果，判辭相信要一段時間才會頒佈，屆時再寫跟進評論。從10月31日上訴雙方陳辭的幾十頁謄本(transcripts)來看，一如我之前的評論，上訴只涉及create disturbance 在法律上的釋義及犯案意圖（mens rea）方面，一句有關種族歧視的陳述都沒有。真的去法院聽審打氣支持李少校的人，肯定瞓到流口水，如果對過去審訊紀錄及涉及法律觀點並無深入認識的人，根本不會明白5個大老爺不斷質詢打斷雙方陳辭究竟葫蘆裏在賣甚麽藥。

對上一篇提及另一宗有關因工受傷索償案，終於抽時間速讀了判辭，希望沒有理解錯誤，也在此寫點小評。這件案由第一次上訴至最近終審裁決都有朋友發電郵問我，坦白講屬問道於盲，我根本不懂。可能自己吹牛吹得多，一句不懂朋友不肯收貨，我只好硬啃，讀這160段判辭，希望沒有講錯重點理據。這件案叫Comcare v PVYW [2013] HCA 41 (30 October 2013)，Comcare是聯邦政府的部門，掌管員工的職業安全，權責來自Work Health and Safety Act 2011。與訟人基於案發的背景及私隱所以不具名，只用了代號PVYW。

女事主PVYW受僱於聯邦政府，事發時出差往新州（NSW）南部海邊小鎮Nowra觀察有關財政預算事宜，晚間入住僱主為她預訂的旅館過夜，期間與相好在旅館交歡，也不能確定兩人是誰把床頭壁燈扯了下來，砸傷了女事主的臉和鼻，女事主向聯邦政府索償，所持的理由是她屬於因工受傷，因為她身處旅館，乃僱主工作上的安排。行政上訴審裁處（Administrative Appeals Tribunal）判她敗訴，女事主上訴，單一法官（primary  judge）推翻原判，政府不服，上訴至聯邦合議庭（Full Court of the Federal  Court），合議庭3個法官一致判政府敗訴。合議庭引用Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation  Ltd 一案的判例，認為雖然女事主不是在實際工作時受傷，也屬因工作而引致的工傷（to state the circumstances in which injuries to employees, which did not occur during periods of actual work, would nevertheless be treated as arising in the course of employment）。合議庭認為只要在僱主要求或鼓勵下，僱員處身於某地方，僱主便要為僱員受傷負責，僱員無需證明在僱主鼓勵下從事某種活動才引致受傷。以本案而言，即女事主在旅館與人交歡並非受聯邦政府鼓勵下進行的，但她身處旅館卻是政府工作上安排的一部份，所以政府要為她受傷負責。

政府最後上訴至聯邦最高法院，法院以4比1判政府勝訴。最高法院認為合議庭曲解了Hatzimanolis案的精神，最高法院認為僱員的活動就算不足以構成嚴重不當（gross misconduct）（嚴重不當的話會是工傷不獲賠償的理由），也需要與工作有關連，否則僱主會變成受保的保險公司（insurer），這種法律闡釋方法會帶來畸形後果。最高法院認為Hatzimanolis案的論據旨在訂立僱主責任的規範。Hatzimanolis確認這種工傷索償考慮的一個重要元素，就是在實際工作以外的時間的活動，（譬如午飯時間的活動）僱主有沒有授權、鼓勵或容許僱員在某地方進行某些活動，就無需負責。(In reformulating the principle, Hatzimanolis identified as a striking feature of these cases that, where an injury occurred in an interval between periods of actual work, "the employer has authorized, encouraged or permitted the employee to spend his time during that interval at a particular place or in a particular way.")

最高法院認為PVYW工餘在旅館進行的性行為並非政府誘使或鼓勵的（induced or encouraged），故此判她敗訴。不過這次訴訟，政府掏腰包替女事主請律師並承諾不向敗訴的她索取訟費，雖然這是重大法律觀點的釐清，我總覺得納稅人好像在資助她工餘偷歡，有點豈有此理，一開始她根本就不應索償。經此一役，下次她要午間小敘，對象應該找她的上司，上司在某程度上代表僱主，搞到地動山搖，床崩屋塌而受傷，便可以説是僱主誘使或鼓勵下的活動，成功索償機會大大提高。


（下面貼了兩段Hatzimanolis案的撮要）

17. In Hatzimanolis, an employee who resided in New South Wales obtained a job with his employer at Mt Newman in Western Australia. He was told by the employer's supervisor, before leaving for Mt Newman, that he would be working for three months in the area. He would work some Sundays. Whilst at Mt Newman he was accommodated in a camp. On the third Sunday, some employees, including the employee in question, were not required to work and the employer organised a trip to Wittenoom Gorge for anyone who cared to come along, and provided vehicles for that purpose. The employee was seriously injured when the vehicle in which he was travelling overturned.
18. The employee's appeal was allowed. In the joint reasons the conclusion was stated: "that the appellant sustained injury during an interval occurring within an overall period or episode of work and while engaged, with his employer's encouragement, in an activity which his employer had organized." The approach reflected in this conclusion represented something of a departure from tests which had been stated in earlier cases. Nevertheless, it reflected much of what had been said in them.