官囑只需看呈堂證供 勿另蒐資料
【明報專訊】主審法官麥機智昨告誡陪審團，審訊期間不應就案件自行蒐集資料，舉例指兩三年前曾有一宗毒品案件，有陪審員「過分盡責」，擅自以「Google Map」地圖程式查證證人供辭，發現證人對涉案街道長短的形容與事實不符。但由於陪審員只能考慮已呈堂證供，事件揭發後，法官即時解散陪審團，下令重審。
稱曾有陪審員查證證供致重審
經過兩小時遴選，9名陪審員昨終於誕生，並隨即逐一宣誓，法官講解陪審員須注意事項。他表示，若陪審員有特別需要或遇到困難，應該及早通知法庭，又笑說「但願明天不會有陪審員突然說已懷孕」。
法官特別叮囑陪審員，裁決只需要考慮所有已呈堂證供，毋須理會與本案相關的報道，因為傳媒未必能獲取所有呈堂證供，報道時亦會選取特定的角度以吸引讀者，部分沉悶的法律爭議或案情未必會報道。
法官又稱，現今互聯網非常普及，提醒陪審員上網時要小心，不應向他人透露本案資料或看法，亦須避免接觸與本案相關的資訊或報道，以免影響對案件判斷，對控辯雙方都不公平。
法官又請陪審員緊守誓言，以「不懼、不偏、無私的精神」，盡其所知所能聆聽證供，作出真實裁決。若陪審員未能依從指示，最終只會浪費法庭時間和金錢。
(27.5.2014)
【明報專訊】主審法官麥機智昨告誡陪審團，審訊期間不應就案件自行蒐集資料，舉例指兩三年前曾有一宗毒品案件，有陪審員「過分盡責」，擅自以「Google Map」地圖程式查證證人供辭，發現證人對涉案街道長短的形容與事實不符。但由於陪審員只能考慮已呈堂證供，事件揭發後，法官即時解散陪審團，下令重審。
稱曾有陪審員查證證供致重審
經過兩小時遴選，9名陪審員昨終於誕生，並隨即逐一宣誓，法官講解陪審員須注意事項。他表示，若陪審員有特別需要或遇到困難，應該及早通知法庭，又笑說「但願明天不會有陪審員突然說已懷孕」。
法官特別叮囑陪審員，裁決只需要考慮所有已呈堂證供，毋須理會與本案相關的報道，因為傳媒未必能獲取所有呈堂證供，報道時亦會選取特定的角度以吸引讀者，部分沉悶的法律爭議或案情未必會報道。
法官又稱，現今互聯網非常普及，提醒陪審員上網時要小心，不應向他人透露本案資料或看法，亦須避免接觸與本案相關的資訊或報道，以免影響對案件判斷，對控辯雙方都不公平。
法官又請陪審員緊守誓言，以「不懼、不偏、無私的精神」，盡其所知所能聆聽證供，作出真實裁決。若陪審員未能依從指示，最終只會浪費法庭時間和金錢。
這件案有些陪審員申請豁免的理由的確可笑，有位匿名讀者在偷一塊意大利薄餅坐年25年一文問我哪些理由法官會接受，當然有，但不想講。主審法官提醒陪審員不要自行搜集資料，以免影響審訊，還舉了一例。我想舉另一例，去年英國就有陪審員因此坐監的案件。我講的是HM Attorney General v Davey [2013]EWHC2317(Admin)(29 July 2013)，所涉的是兩個在不同案件的陪審員藐視法庭罪，一個叫Kasim Davey, 另一個叫Joseph Beard。Davey在孌童案做陪審員，第一天審訊完畢，他在自己facebook留言，
"Woooow I wasn't expecting to be in a jury Deciding a paedophile's fate, I've always wanted to Fuck up a paedophile & now I'm within the law!"
他的朋友翌日發電郵到法庭告發他，他矢口否認有在facebook發表意見，最後都撤消了他的資格，把案件轉交警方調查！之後告他藐視法庭，判監兩個月。他違反了陪審員指引"Your Guide to Jury Service"：
"Important – The judge will tell you that you DO NOT discuss the evidence with anyone outside of your jury either face to face, over the telephone or over the internet via social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter or Myspace. If you do this, you risk disclosing information, which is confidential to the jury."
Beard在串謀詐騙及洗黑錢案當陪審員，審5、6週後被其他陪審員揭發他用google搜尋案情，以獲詳細資料，他這樣做導至解散陪審團，案件重審。他也干犯了藐視法庭罪判監兩個月。
印象中英國的Law Commission在研究針對這種行為的新法例，但我再沒有跟進這發展。這是棘手的問題，資訊科技發達，搜尋工具又多，陪審員不動聲息去google案件報導的細節而影響了審訊的規則，防不勝防。就像英國這件藐視法庭案，我依稀有印象看過，在英國法律網尋找了很久都找不到，反而google下juror contempt of court這些字，就在BBC新聞找到，然後把Beard的名字輸入British and Irish Legal Information Institute的網站，就把判辭找了出來。陪審員罔顧法官的告誡，在網上搜尋資料，我都不知有甚麽方法防範。
Hi
回覆刪除Mind if I ask what's the rationale behind the prohibition of gathering own info. for the case?
The google map examples demonstrated that even professional barristers omitted some details, and such discrepancies would undermine the creditability of the witness. Isn't that closer to true justice?
AT
AT,
刪除The trial is not a quest for truth. The jurors are there to listen and decide the guilt or otherwise of the defendant. Even if they acquit the defendant, it does not mean the defendant is innocent. Jurors have to think within the parameters of the case presented to them. They should not themselves usurp the function of the investigator. One simple rationale is there may be evidence from different sources. Not all the evidence is admissible in court. Admissibility is governed by some rules. It is the duty of the court to decide what evidence the jury can hear and accept. In the end the court has to direct the jurors as how to think.
Thank you for replying, I understand the point but there is a gut feeling that it is not right.
刪除Wouldn't there be risks of coercion between prosecution and defending counsel, to present only limited facts to the court, so as to acquit the defendant?
It seems that the jury hands are tightened and wouldn't be able to serve its function.
May I ask whether Jury can raise question during the trial?
and why could the jury discharge themselves of their civic duty in the on-going Hui's case. Isn't it compulsory to perform jury duty? I wonder why would travelling to Korea an excuse to discharge themselves.
AT
It is difficult to imagine why the prosecution and defence should conspire to acquit the defendant by producing limited evidence. If this happens, it would only be rare occasions. To maintain impartiality, the jurors should have no role in the investigation process.
刪除Jurors can ask questions but not directly and should be rare. Jury duty is compulsory subject to reason for exemption. The reason for avoiding jury duty is obvious because in a lengthy case, it is tedious. People can put up all sorts of reasons just to give it a try.
最大的原因是負方，可以是控方，因為不知陪審員受到那些對負方不利的不明因素影響，沒機會反駁或辯解，造成不公。
回覆刪除