2015年10月17日星期六

七警案的法律意見之二

昨晚寫這課題的第一篇時沒有留意即時新聞,不知事件的發展,所以寫得籠統,今早看明報就看到一些有關審訊的評論,剛才又收到下面這一則的留言,我想進一步講下。

標少,有兩個問題想請教:
曾健超和七警是分開兩個案件,曾健超案件中的證人也不是七警而是另外的11警,當證據和證人都不一樣,是否可以不一同審理呢?不一同審理的話,為甚麼會是交叉檢控(cross charging)呢?
因為有電視台的影片和醫療報告的獨立證據,曾健超可信性的疑問會是否重要?


以下的兩段是明報今天報導張教授的看法:

張達明說,兩件刑事案件於兩個空間發生,「必然分開處理」,他解釋,律政司一般會基於兩案的證據考慮檢控的先後次序。對於假如曾健超案件先審及被裁定罪成,會否對七警案的審訊造成影響方面,張認為這無可避免會令曾健超的證供可信性受到質疑,法官對七警裁決時亦會考慮相關因素,但強調這不會是法官的唯一考慮,故不能說若曾健超被定罪,他在七警案的證供必然不被接納。

反之,張達明說,若七警首先被定罪,除非他們於曾健超的案件中擔任控方證人,否則他看不到對其案件有何影響。張說,無論哪一宗案件首先審結,其中一宗案件的庭上證供,都不能直接用於另一宗案件當中。


教授是學者,標少是二打六,斗膽對學者的看法持異議。兩件案雖然不是同一時間發上,但屬closely proximate and inter-related, 兩件案的案情互相交織(interwined), 在兩件案分别審訊時,同一案情都會出現。舉個簡單例子,當曾健超被控襲警及阻差時,除非他認罪,否則怎會不盤問警察(七警以外的警察)有關他被七警帶到暗角的過程,不要說這叫irrelevant, 這種問題的目的是discredit控方證人的可信性,如果控方證人說看不到,盤問就容易得手。你怎會讓襲擊你及阻差的人走掉而置之不理?我不想在此詳細講我的盤問方法,始終這件案還未審。如果曾健超認罪,對七警案會更不利。但不要忘記,這是影片年代,找到一些影片來contradict證人的講法一點也不難,尤其是時常上鏡及見報的人。假如曾健超否認控罪,審訊後被定罪,他的credibility會構成一定問題,那就帶出文首匿名留言的問題。

首先,匿名問的第一個問題是對交叉檢控有誤解。最容易理解的交叉檢控例子是長毛在城市論壇和保衛香港運動那婆娘互毆事件。同一件事,兩人分别被控,如果雙方都否認控罪,就要靠獨立證人的證供才足以穩妥把他們定罪。他們是分開兩件案來審的。曾健超和七警兩案,是同一事件時間上密切關連,曾既是證人也是被告,所以是交叉檢控。七警就算目睹曾襲警和阻差,也不能成為證人,因為他們不是受襲及阻差的受害者,加上身分角式的衝突,就不可能傳召他們做證人。

有醫療報告和影片的證據,但曾健超可信性存疑的話重要嗎?

我舉一個簡單例子,七警被控「有意圖而導致他人身體受嚴重傷害」(GBH with intent),影片可以獨立顯示他被毆打,傷勢有替他檢查的醫生作供,但甚麽時候及由誰做成的傷害就要靠曾健超了。他的傷有無可能是較早前其他事導致?或者是舊患?Credibility咪好重要囉。唔信佢,七警就算有打人,都可以convict common assault, AOABH, 就不一定是GBH with intent了。

10 則留言:

  1. 可以預見的是: 這兩單案件將在未來幾年纏繞着香港的司法系統。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 不用幾年,兩年內可審結啩。

      刪除
    2. 如果上訴後重審,來來回回,可以拖延多過兩年。

      刪除
  2. 標少您好,多謝您這幾篇關於七警的文章。
    呢兩單"交差"案件精彩在控辯雙方的陣容:
    曾健超後台是各個公民黨的資深大律師,實力不容置疑,且看他們如何應對這場官司。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 應該找黨外人士,公民黨內不是刑事大狀,萬一輸了,也不會連黨一起輸。

      刪除
  3. 之前有單新聞講印度有人姦殺少女, 印度律師集體唔肯幫佢辯護.
    香港律師可否唔幫私刑黑警辯護?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 律師當然有權唔接,這件案好多人肯接。

      刪除
  4. I guess ID would be an issue in the prosecution against the 7 policemen. Mr Tsang may not able to ID all the accused.

    Please allow me to ask few questions and I do apologize if you have covered them in your previous blogs:

    1. From the news, the accused were not co-operative in the ID parade. In this case, can a dock ID be done even the victim is not able to ID the accused previously?
    2. If the previous conviction record(s) of the victim is being asked by the counsel of the accused, then the accused is taking issue about the character of the victim. In this case, can the counsel ask the previous conviction records of the accused if they elect to testify?
    3. If the victim cannot ID some or all of the accused, can the accused still be convicted based on the collaborative evidence, namely the VDO recording, assuming the chain of evidences can be proved and the recorder is willing to testify? Or will this be a "no case to answer" case?

    Many thanks.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. I try my best to comment though amateurishly now after out of the arena for umpteen years.

      I don't think the prosecution can safely rely on Tsang to identify all the defts. The ID should rely on the TV crew's recording before, during and after the alleged assault. Dock ID should not be allowed if Tsang was unable to point out the defts during the ID parade. If allowed, it bears little evidential value. I should elaborate on this. Even if Tsang was able to ID the defts during the ID parade, he would be cross examined on this vigorously since the TV film was widely circulated after the incident. The defence may say Tsang was affected by the film. What prosecution should do to establish the ID is to call the TV camera crew to produce the film and then call the policemen involved in the arrest and taking statements from the defts. These policemen should be able to relate the images in the film and the defts. There should be sufficient evidence to establish ID.

      As for your second question, please read S.54(1)(f)(ii) Cap 221, when an imputation of character is raised, prosecution can cross examine the previous record of the deft's. But, please bear in mind prejudicial value may outweigh the probative value. It is safe to seek leave from court before venturing on this expedition. I vaguely remember there were appeal cases on this issue. As for the defts, since they are policemen, I suppose they will not have any criminal record. The only other area the prosecution can canvass is to find out if there is any CAPO complaints of assault. Yet, I doubt if prosecution can make use of them.

      No case is unlikely in this case. Defts are not likely to testify.

      刪除
  5. Much grateful for your detailed analysis and explanations. Yes, it is highly likely that the Defendants will testify.

    回覆刪除