有討論指七警案應控以使用酷刑，我寫這一篇擺明是胡謅，因為這條例在香港沒有使用過，連法律權威典籍Archbold也只列出法例條文及起訴必先要律政司長同意，才能啓動檢控程序(一般會向法庭呈上Secretary for Justice Consent to Prosecute的表格)。這控罪在其他普通法國家也沒有使用過，沒有案例，故此，討論就欠奉了。
法例第427章《刑事罪行(酷刑)條例》是1993年制定的，條例的制定是因為1984年12月10日聯合國通過了《禁止酷刑和其他殘忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或處罰公約》(United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment)。英國是該條約的簽訂國，條約也延續到身為殖民地的香港。公約的第二條敦請協約國自行立法防止酷刑的發生。法例第427章第3條的條文，寫得比公約第一條的條文廣闊。先看法例第3條：
(4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section in respect of any conduct of the person to prove that the person had lawful authority, justification or excuse for that conduct.
(5) For the purposes of this section lawful authority, justification or excuse (合法權限、理由或解釋) means-
這法例沒有對「酷刑」一詞釋義。聯合國公約第一條就先下定義：
套用(a)(ii)的介定在七警案，會演繹成他們知道或懷疑曾健超在天橋上面，向天橋下面的軍裝警員淋潑不明液體，所以處罰他，打他一鑊。以此作依據來檢控七警使用酷刑可行嗎？
以酷刑條例作檢控史無前例，爭論空間較多。何謂劇烈疼痛(severe pain)? 在有其他選擇的情況下，控以「有意圗而導致他人身體受嚴重傷害」罪會直接了當，較為穩妥。反正兩條罪最高都可處終身監禁，就無需選一條門檻極高的控罪來自找麻煩了。
另一考慮是，警察在執行職務期間打人，沒有一個政府會提升到國際層面，違反聯合國公約的程度。就算以人權立國的大佬，對付恐怖份子嚴刑逼供外，國內黑人受到虐打個案無數，也不肯背負這種惡名對執法者作這種罪名的檢控，香港不這樣做當然可以理解。反正現在確實提出檢控，沒有姑息任何人，也不見得有何不公義。
寫這一篇開宗明義講是胡謅，走筆至此，不再亂講下去，有勞讀者點化了。
法例第427章《刑事罪行(酷刑)條例》是1993年制定的，條例的制定是因為1984年12月10日聯合國通過了《禁止酷刑和其他殘忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或處罰公約》(United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment)。英國是該條約的簽訂國，條約也延續到身為殖民地的香港。公約的第二條敦請協約國自行立法防止酷刑的發生。法例第427章第3條的條文，寫得比公約第一條的條文廣闊。先看法例第3條：
| Chapter: | 427  | Title: | Crimes (Torture) Ordinance | Gazette Number: | E.R. 2 of 2014 |
| Section: | 3 | Heading: | Torture | Version Date: | 10/04/2014 |
(1) A public official or person acting in an official capacity, whatever the official's or the person's nationality or citizenship, commits the offence of torture if in Hong Kong or elsewhere the official or the person intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another in the performance or purported performance of his or her official duties.
(2) A person not falling within subsection (1), whatever the person's nationality or citizenship, commits the offence of torture if- (Amended L.N. 28 of 2013)
(2) A person not falling within subsection (1), whatever the person's nationality or citizenship, commits the offence of torture if- (Amended L.N. 28 of 2013)
- (a) in Hong Kong or elsewhere the person intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another at the instigation or with the consent or acquiescence of- (Amended L.N. 28 of 2013)
- (i) a public official; or
(ii) any other person acting in an official capacity; and
(4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section in respect of any conduct of the person to prove that the person had lawful authority, justification or excuse for that conduct.
(5) For the purposes of this section lawful authority, justification or excuse (合法權限、理由或解釋) means-
- (a) in relation to pain or suffering inflicted in Hong Kong, lawful authority, justification or excuse under the law of Hong Kong;
(b) in relation to pain or suffering inflicted outside Hong Kong-
- (i) if it was inflicted by a public official acting under the law of Hong Kong or by a person acting in an official capacity under that law, lawful authority, justification or excuse under that law;
(ii) in any other case an authority, justification or excuse which is lawful under the law of the place where it is inflicted.
這法例沒有對「酷刑」一詞釋義。聯合國公約第一條就先下定義：
Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
公約對酷刑的介定列了幾種前置條件，首先是為了逼供。法例第427章卻沒有清晰列出逼供的元素。縱觀香港其他法例，只有兩處對酷刑釋義。一處是《入境條例》第37U條：
章： 115 標題： 《入境條例》 憲報編號： E.R. 1 of 2013
條： 37U 條文標題： 第VIIC部的釋義
酷刑 (torture) 指—
公約對酷刑的介定列了幾種前置條件，首先是為了逼供。法例第427章卻沒有清晰列出逼供的元素。縱觀香港其他法例，只有兩處對酷刑釋義。一處是《入境條例》第37U條：
章： 115
標題： 《入境條例》 憲報編號： E.R. 1 of 2013條： 37U 條文標題： 第VIIC部的釋義
酷刑 (torture) 指—
(a) 為—
(i) 向某人或第三者取得情報或供狀；
(ii) 某人或第三者所作或被懷疑所作的行為，處罰該人；或
(iii) 恐嚇或威脅某人或第三者；或
(ii) 某人或第三者所作或被懷疑所作的行為，處罰該人；或
(iii) 恐嚇或威脅某人或第三者；或
(b) 基於任何一種歧視的理由，蓄意使該人在肉體或精神上遭受劇烈疼痛或痛苦的任何作為，而這種疼痛或痛苦是在公職人員或以官方身分行使職權的其他人所造成的，或是在其唆使、同意或默許下造成的(純因法律制裁而引起或法律制裁所固有或隨附的疼痛或痛苦則不包括在內)；
以酷刑條例作檢控史無前例，爭論空間較多。何謂劇烈疼痛(severe pain)? 在有其他選擇的情況下，控以「有意圗而導致他人身體受嚴重傷害」罪會直接了當，較為穩妥。反正兩條罪最高都可處終身監禁，就無需選一條門檻極高的控罪來自找麻煩了。
另一考慮是，警察在執行職務期間打人，沒有一個政府會提升到國際層面，違反聯合國公約的程度。就算以人權立國的大佬，對付恐怖份子嚴刑逼供外，國內黑人受到虐打個案無數，也不肯背負這種惡名對執法者作這種罪名的檢控，香港不這樣做當然可以理解。反正現在確實提出檢控，沒有姑息任何人，也不見得有何不公義。
寫這一篇開宗明義講是胡謅，走筆至此，不再亂講下去，有勞讀者點化了。
想請問標少現時控罪 "有意圗而導致他人身體受嚴重傷害" 中的嚴重傷害有沒有定義？
回覆刪除曾先生所受的傷似乎並不嚴重？控罪適合嗎？
ho
不論在法律條文或案例都没有定義，用common sense approach.
回覆刪除I respectfully disagree for the two reasons below:
回覆刪除(1) the elements of the "Torture" offence is in s. 3(1) - (i) public official, (ii)causing/inflicting severe pain and (iii) in the (purported) performance of official duties. I would find the threshold of severe pain lower than that of GBH, because pain expressly includes mental pain, and severe pain can possibly be caused without GBH but not the reverse.
(2) For sentencing purpose, despite the same max sentence there should still be a difference as the "Torture" offence is apparently more serious than wounding 17, and the sentence imposed would reflect not only the seriousness as seen in the facts, but also nature of the offence convicted of. For example, AOABH and wounding 19 carries the same max penalty of 3 years' imprisonment, but a wounding 19 conviction being a more serious one would certainly attract a higher sentence.
Good point. Public official is to be construed as the officer of the disciplinary force (per Schedule of Cap 427). The police officers indicted fall within the meaning. Severe pain or suffering include physical and mental. There is a mens rea issue here. Could the defts foresee (or being reckless) the victim would suffer severe pain and/or suffering? That is why I said it would be more difficult to prove beyond all reasonable doubt.
刪除What about the political consideration I lightly touched on? You think HK wants to set a precedent for such a crime? Tactic wise I would prefer GBH with intent.
To: CF
刪除For the sake of discussion, if the proseuction proceeds with the offence of torture, it may not be open for the judge to find the "7-police" guilty of other alternative charge, e.g. Wounding 19, AOABH or Common assault. To be prudent, I also agree to proceed with "Wounding 17".
That said, having looked at the photo about TSANG's injury, I am not persuaded that such injuries amount to GBH or severe pain.
Law Student
Re Bill: I agree that the mens rea part is the tricky part, just as in wounding 17. However, intention to cause severe physical pain can possibly be inferred from the repeated and forceful kicking. Alternatively it can be mental pain in the extreme fear of being restrained and surrounded by police officers while being kicked, not knowing if the violence would escalate or continue. I don't know the facts clearly and these are just possibilities.
刪除And for the political consideration point, I would agree that it would be scandalous for HK to have the first(?) torture conviction in the common law world. But just a technical point, I would find a torture conviction a signal of faithful implementation of CAT rather than its violation, because as far as I understand it, what CAT requires is to take effective measures to prevent torture and does not by itself prohibit torture.
Re Law Student: Wounding 17 can be included as an alternative charge to torture, then the alternatives of wounding 19 etc. will also be available. For the injuries, let's leave them to medical experts for their professional opinion.
Thanks for the contribution.
刪除The torture conviction or acquittal is a two edged knife. The institution of such a proceeding is scandalous enough.
I am puzzled when you said this "what CAT requires is to take effective measures to prevent torture and does not by itself prohibit torture". Article 4 of the Convention begins with this " Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law". Anyway, I have drifted away from the issue.
Indeed, so the state's obligation under Art. 4 is already fulfilled when it has legislated to criminalise acts of torture. While it may sound technical, I think there's a difference between contravening CAT itself and contravening domestic criminal law made in fulfillment of CAT.
刪除True.
刪除你也不算亂噏，
回覆刪除因為真係有人提議用酷刑條例。(笑)
https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E4%B8%83%E8%AD%A6%E8%A2%AB%E8%B5%B7%E8%A8%B4-%E4%B8%8B%E9%80%B1%E4%B8%80%E6%8F%90%E5%A0%82/
可惜看不到詳细分釋的文章。
刪除