2016年4月29日星期五

何君堯法庭拍照

何君堯在高院法庭門外拍照惹起一場小風波, 任憑他自圓其說, 犯不犯法, 其實沒有爭論的餘地, 我在2014年7月14日, 曾經寫過這一篇: 法庭拍攝。嚴格來講, 何君堯拍攝的地方在法庭建築物範圍內, 如果檢控他, 我看不到抗辯理由。當然, 檢控與否, 是律政司的權力, 運用酌情權不作檢控, 也不為過。畢竟也不是拍攝法官、與訟雙方的律師、證人或者陪審員, 我會當他無知, 警告幾句就算了。我曾經討論過這條文產生的含糊, 如果是一座純法院的建築物, 不准在內拍照容易理解, 若果是多用途的建築物, 法院只佔其中一些樓層, 那麼就不能把整座建築物視作法院(building or precincts)了, 我舉了東區法院大樓為例, 這大樓有民政事務署、香港郵政東區派遞局、勞工處勞工視察科香港東特別視察組、運輸署、醫療輔助隊非緊急救護車服務總部、社會福利署東區感化辦事處等, 和法庭有關的樓層只是3至10樓, 講到法庭一詞, 所指何物是清晰的, 講到building or precincts就較為含糊了。如果我在11樓拍照, 你就不能說我違法, 但在地下大堂就相當含糊。我們時常看到影片或照片拍攝被告進出大樓的正門, 而沒有在大堂內拍攝, 就是為了遵守《簡易程序治罪條例》第7條「禁止在法庭內攝影等」, 有幾多人知道在大堂這地方以前曾經鎂光閃過不停, 拍攝過不少影片, 原因是大樓11樓曾經是婚姻註冊處, 不少新入註冊完畢就由樓上影到樓下, 還在正門影大合照。當法院混合了其他政府部門或以前有些審裁處設於商業大廈內, 法院的建築物或範圍的概念就較為含糊了。無論如何, 何君堯在高院法庭外拍照毫無合理辯解。

《簡易程序治罪條例》第7條其實是從英國的Criminal Justice Act 1925第41條搬過來的, 我把兩條在下面貼出來, 就可以清楚看到大同小異之處。

41 Prohibition on taking photographs, &c., in court.

(1)No person shall—

(a)take or attempt to take in any court any photograph, or with a view to publication make or attempt to make in any court any portrait or sketch, of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal; or

(b)publish any photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in contravention of the foregoing provisions of this section or any reproduction thereof;

and if any person acts in contravention of this section he shall, on summary conviction, be liable in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.

(2)For the purposes of this section—

(a)the expression “court” means any court of justice, including the court of a coroner:

(b)the expression “Judge” includes . . ., registrar, magistrate, justice and coroner:

(c)a photograph, portrait or sketch shall be deemed to be a photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in court if it is taken or made in the court–room or in the building or in the precincts of the building in which the court is held, or if it is a photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made of the person while he is entering or leaving the court–room or any such building or precincts as aforesaid.

Section:7Heading:Prohibition on taking photographs, etc., in courtVersion Date:30/06/1997

(1) Any person who-
      (a) takes or attempts to take in any court any photograph, or with a view to publication makes or attempts to make in any court any portrait or sketch, of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceeding before the court, whether civil or criminal; or (Amended L.N. 7 of 1979)
      (b) publishes any photograph, portrait or sketch taken or make in contravention of the foregoing provisions of this section or any reproduction thereof,
shall be liable to a fine of $250.
(2) For the purposes of this section-
      (a) the expression "court" (法庭) means any court of justice, including any place in which an inquiry is being held by a magistrate;
      (b) the expression "judge" (法官) includes registrar and magistrate; (Amended 47 of 1997 s. 10)
      (c) a photograph, portrait or sketch shall be deemed to be a photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in court if it is taken or made in the court-room or in the building or in the precincts of the building in which the court is held, or if it is a photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made of the person while he is entering or leaving the court-room or any such building or precincts as aforesaid.
(Added 11 of 1949 s. 6)
[cf. 1925 c. 86 s. 41 U.K.]

8 則留言:

  1. 正想跟你分享此新聞但你已早看到更寫了文章。如果是一般人就算了,身為律師和律師會前會長,是連這麼簡單的法律常識也不知道,還是要知法犯法? 他還「堅持自己沒錯,認為任何人未定罪之前,都應假定無罪」說得好像社會不應該批評他一樣。法律上他當然仍然無罪,但是如果真的要上庭,還有甚麼可以給他抗辯? 真不要臉。劍

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 他可以說這法例違反《人權法》、《基本法》, 香港最後的抗辯理由。

      刪除
  2. 根本無證據告佢,張相佢自己影,誰可以將這張相呈堂?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Download + his admission + eye witness.

      刪除
  3. 回覆
    1. 如果何君堯去找數,那麼班佔中律師走去非法集結又會否一齊找數?

      否則,又玩搬龍門??

      刪除
    2. 沒有必然關係, 其他案件不會因未檢控佔中而停滯。

      刪除
  4. 夏蟲不可語冰呀

    回覆刪除