氣數已盡的陳振聰

昨晚速讀加略讀陳振聰的上訴，判詞162頁長，我沒有耐性仔細看冗長沉悶的理據，寫這篇也不敢胡亂批評，只能談粗略的印象。

判詞由倫明高(Michael Lunn)上訴庭副庭長執筆，潘兆初(Jeremy Poon)及彭偉昌(Derek Pang)兩位做配角，畢竟這兩位新貴論資排輩在上訴庭資歷最淺，在9月16日才晉升上訴庭。這樣重要的案件，控辯雙方都用英國御用大律師對壘，找個洋官押陣也頗應該。原審法官麥機智(Andrew Macrae)也是從上訴庭下降去審這件案，目的就是押陣。坦白講這豬頭骨不是很多人肯啃的，就算肯，都未必有能力。除了能力外，麥機智之前審奶昔謀殺案(Nancy Kissel)的重審，表現出色，判詞寫得滴水不漏，無懈可擊。奶昔謀殺案重審，辯方一開始就申請終止聆訊(stay of proceeding), 所持理由是審前媒體偏頗報導(pre-trial prejudicial publicity) , 麥機智拒絕申請的判詞，讀了使人拜服。陳振聰案原本也打算以同樣理由申請終止聆訊，後來撤回，我不清楚箇中原因及策略，也因此把原定60天的審訊減至31天。不過，就算提出終止聆訊申請，也不見得會成功。

陳振聰得到公平審訊嗎？

假如梁振英犯法由陪審團決定他是否有罪，公眾對他印象極差，都總有一部份建制派撐他，陳振聰嘛，難找到一個不先入為主，潛意識裏未蓋棺前已有定論的陪審員。法官當然懂得講冠冕堂皇的漂亮話來引導陪審團，本案開審前麥機智對陪審團叮囑一番：

54. As Mr Perry reminded the Court, in his pre-empanelment remarks to the jury panel, the judge had warned the jury panel of the dangers of having regard to matters that they knew of through the media, directing them to disregard that information and to take into account only evidence in the courtroom. Having observed to the jury, “… you will probably, if not almost certainly, recognise the defendant and know in general terms what the allegation is in this case”, the judge said:[26]

“ Now, can I make it clear that it is not necessary that jurors are completely ignorant as to the identity of the person they are about to try. If that were so, the famous could never be tried. However, when a case involving a particular defendant who has been in the public eye comes before the court, what is necessary and of fundamental importance is that jurors be and remain fair and impartial when they hear the case. That means that they must put out of their minds whatever they may have seen or heard about the case and concentrate only on the evidence they hear in the courtroom. They must not be prejudiced about a case because that would be to prejudge it.

Our system of law is careful to ensure that cases are decided on evidence only and, by that, I mean evidence produced in a courtroom. Things that are reported or gossiped about outside a courtroom are often second, third or fourth-hand hearsay and may well be inaccurate.

…..

In a courtroom, on the other hand, we hear directly from witnesses about events and the accuracy of what they say can be tested.  So you will, I am sure, understand why I stress that is only the evidence you hear in this courtroom which will determine whether the defendant in this case is guilty or not guilty of the charges alleged against him. Whatever you may have seen or heard is irrelevant to the decision you must ultimately make if you are chosen to be a juror and which you must make on the evidence you hear in this courtroom alone.” [Italics added.]

(HKSAR and CHAN CHUN CHUEN (陳振聰) CACC 233/2013)

陳振聰這件案追溯到1997年開展的龔如心、王廷歆爭產案的起碇，公眾人士對王德輝四張粗糙拍紙簿紙的所謂遺囑，One Life One Love那肉麻的承諾，及小甜甜最後勝訴，都充滿疑惑。接受那是終審裁決，但不接受那是事實真相。然而，那都只是他們一家人的事，沒有不義之財流入他人之手的感覺。到了陳振聰登場，有誰不對他鄙夷，一個江湖術士，除了笑容，那副尊容，也可一夜之間捧走20幾億，更要覬覦800多億。如果是青靚白淨的帥哥，起碼都有長相吸引，正如男人被美女所騙那種理所當然。見到陳振聰，男人會對著鏡子左照右照，嘿！我比他帥，我幾百萬也騙不到，女人會對著陳振聰的照片左看右看，呸！反正被騙財騙色，幾大都找個帥哥。700萬香港人擠在一個小地方，茶餘飯後，這件案可以不是閒聊題目，不深入人心嗎？怎樣去摒除對他的偏見？

可能有人會講，呢條友one way or another都無釘錯，就算這是不公正的審訊，也是公正的結果，佢死有餘辜。真正理性講法律當然不能以這種思維去判決。可是，法官也是人，也有自己的看法，在審訊過程及上訴過程的對答，可以顯示頗多針對性的地方。單從上訴判詞看原審的部份過程，麥機智不准代表陳振聰的簡定濤大律師發問之處甚多，時常見到：I am against you的裁決。通常這種不准發問的情況會成為上訴的部份彈藥。到了上訴，倫明高也對代表陳振聰的James Wood QC毫不客氣，充滿挑戰。這上訴可謂由頭「炳」到尾，連申請上訴的延誤也罵了。陳振聰在2013年7月4日被定罪，2013年7月10日提出上訴，但到了2014年12月10日才正式呈上上訴理由，而當時倫明高以不符規定而拒絕接納，到了2015年3月13日才呈上修改後的上訴理由，正式聽審上訴，已是定罪的26個月後。

我不去判斷陳振聰是怎樣一個人，不論他是信主前的Tony, 抑或之後的Peter, 都只是江湖術士一個，之前頭頭是道講風水，講挖洞種生機，講天圖佈局，到了民事爭產案作供時就說自己不懂風水，和小甜甜是情和慾的關係，解釋這是小甜甜把整副身家相贈的原因。生性是行騙的人，對自己的行為充滿合理解釋，渾然不覺自己的講法不妥之處。我都算見過不少這種人，很明白這種心態，誠信兩個字不會存在這些人的腦海之中。女人還好，可以扮作楚楚可憐，弱不禁風，或嬌嗲風騷，會較易得償所願，Nancy Kissel上訴到終審法院時，終院法官對原審時主控的猛烈盤問大肆批評，認為不應這樣對待女人。陳振聰在民事爭產案作供的下場，卻多次被評為騙子，證供不可信，連申請上訴到終院的許可也不批准。這件刑事案審訊時陳振聰不敢再上證人台，現在上訴庭這關過不到，看來申請上訴到終院的許可也不會批。講到騙人，我始終覺得女人較著數。

講到陳振聰這件案，我自始至終看法如一。He is not guilty of the offences charged but guilty of something else. 真相除了天之外，還有地下的小甜甜及地上的龔陳兩家inner circle的人才知道。讀者在這篇留言就小心言詞，胡亂講的話我只好刪除，免招麻煩。