立法會對湯顯明的報告

立法會調查前廉政專員湯顯明事件的專責委員會終於發表了報告，不管結論怎樣，都不影響廉署日後對湯的刑事檢控考慮。儘管建制派對湯的醜行搽脂盪粉加以掩飾，廉署的調查不一定跟立法會下同一結論，湯顯明大鑼大鼓的喊無貪的結論，他清白嗎？看你用甚麽標準。假設真的不能循第201章《防止賄賂條例》控告他貪污受賄，也可以考慮普通法的「公職人員行為不當」罪(Misconduct in Public Office)來告他。這控罪的元素，在高級警司冼錦華一案已由終審法院釐清了，包括5個元素：

(1)	a public official;
(2)	in the course of or in relation to his public office;
(3)	wilfully misconducts himself; by act or omission, for example, by wilfully neglecting or failing to perform his duty;
(4)	without reasonable excuse or justification; and
(5)	where such misconduct is serious, not trivial, having regard to the responsibilities of the office and the officeholder, the importance of the public objects which they serve and the nature and extent of the departure from those responsibilities.

(Sin Kam Wah and ano and HKSAR  FACC14/2004 )

冼錦華是高級警務人員，接受免費召妓，是收了甜頭(sweetener)，也不是貪污或者包庇甚麽色情場所，而是基於這些妓女是由林春葉非法操控的，冼錦華對此置若罔聞，還接受招待，無疑是使警隊蒙羞的行為。定罪的基楚在判詞第47及48段簡述了：

The scope of misconduct in public office

47.  As it was argued in the courts below that the conduct complained of was not in the course of or in relation to the 1st appellant’s public office and was neither culpable nor serious, it is appropriate to say something about these matters.  To constitute the offence of misconduct in public office, wilful misconduct which has a relevant relationship with the defendant’s public office is enough.  Thus, misconduct otherwise than in the performance of the defendant’s public duties may nevertheless have such a relationship with his public office as to bring that office into disrepute, in circumstances where the misconduct is both culpable and serious and not trivial.  In the present case, if the charges as particularized are made out, there can be no doubt that the misconduct had the necessary relationship with the 1st appellant’s public office and that it was culpable and serious because it involved his participation in the acceptance of free sexual services with the knowledge that they were provided by prostitutes over whom the 2nd appellant exercised control, direction or influence, that being a serious criminal offence. 

48.  In order to reach this conclusion, it is unnecessary to call in aid s.21 of the Police Force Ordinance.  This section provides:

“Every police officer shall for the purposes of this Ordinance be deemed to be always on duty when required to act as such and shall perform the duties and exercise the powers granted to him under this Ordinance or any other law at any and every place in Hong Kong where he may be doing duty.”

I agree with the interpretation placed upon the section by the Court of Appeal, namely that it deems a police officer to be on duty when circumstances exist requiring him to exercise the powers he has as a police officer, for example, when he observes a crime being committed.  I share the Court of Appeal’s view that the application of this section was not an essential step in the prosecution case. 

把這些元素套用於湯顯明的行為，他貴為廉政專員的時候，負責肅貪倡廉，對酒當歌，猛灌黃湯，用公帑酬酢饋贈，何以履行清水衙門打貪之責，只憑在立法會專責委員會聽到的證供，不就已經足以控告他嗎？建制派可以用較溫和的字眼來譴責他，這是純包庇的無恥行為，最微妙之處是委員會嘗試要求廉署提供刑事調查資料，廉署拒絕了繼而對廉署做法表遺憾。表面看以為議員要查過水落石出，骨子裏是否這樣，我看可能别有圖謀。如果真的在聽證會披露這些資料，最終惹起的法律問題，表面看對湯顯明名譽不利，但萬一刑事起訴，反而有利，因為到時就會有pre-trial publicity的問題，在聽證會披露了的證供，可能對被告不公而不為法庭接納。情況就會像新南威爾斯州ICAC的公開聽證一樣，新州當然更甚，因為被傳召作供的人並無緘默權(right of silence)，到了審案時就因為褫奪了這種緘默權使很多貪污證供不能呈堂，被告得以脫罪。

我和湯顯明無仇無怨，但早過審計署十八個月揭發他的醜行，也寫了一大堆批評他的文章，連結在此：

歷來最不適合做廉政專員的湯顯明
廉政專員湯顯明的操守
廉政專員的廢話
湯顯明……審計署遲來的鞭屍
湯顯明黃湯長灌
湯顯明……何只歷來最不適合的廉政專員
廉政專員公署=曾蔭權謀私署
湯顯明出席立法會之黃湯對話
湯顯明的一則笑話
湯顯明——到了結賬的時候