【立會選舉】政府或追究鼓吹港獨候選人 張達明憂人大釋法 嘆愈來愈不熟政府如何看法律 (14:40)
政府昨指，對個別鼓吹或推動「港獨」的立法會候選人，「保留依法採取跟進行動的權利」，但無提及可根據哪條法例採取跟進行動。港大法律學者張達明認為，唯一可能在法律上有基礎的是「虛假聲明」，不過他擔心，若將來爭論到「擁護基本法」問題，會引發人大釋法。
張達明又說，憂慮「港獨」爭議挑動中央神經，「中央會真係（有）個信息話『要法律我畀法律你』，成日都仍然擔心，會唔會有一日（中央）主動釋法補充而家法律無嘅嘢」。
張達明另慨嘆，「近呢幾年，有時自己愈嚟愈發覺，我嘅諗法同政府諗法，可能係南轅北轍嘅。愈嚟愈唔熟悉政府點樣睇法律基礎嘅嘢」，故現時只能基於自己認知分析今次事件。
袁國強前些時不是已聲明不會為此尋求人大釋法嗎? 梁愛詩在不同場合也講過無需向人大尋求釋法, 張達明何以一再擔心, 唯恐不去尋求人大釋法, 怕活得太寂寞, 缺乏評論的議題? 「擁護」這兩個字一則不涉人大釋法的範疇, 再者, 鼓吹港獨這「行為」怎樣牴觸「擁護」《基本法》, 也需要釋法?
入了閘的候選人擺明車馬鼓吹港獨, 用「作虛假聲明」罪來檢控真的很困難嗎? 首先讓我作陰謀論。當選管會突然提出要候選人簽署「確認書」, 我已經在2016 年立法會換屆選舉新增確認書的目的一文揣測其目的, 我當時講:
我看這確認書最明顯的目的是這樣。《基本法》只是一套憲法, 任何市民違反了它並不構成罪行, 這次要參選人作出法定聲明, 就明確地用這種方法使違反《基本法》刑事化, 凸顯其中三條, 使作此聲明的人難以抗辯有關法定要求, 因為聲明用了這種字眼:「明知在要項上屬虛假的陳述, 或任何人罔顧後果地在該等文件中作出在要項上不正確的陳述, 或任何人明知而在該等文件中遺漏任何要項」(makes a statement which that person knows to be false in a material particular or recklessly makes a statement which is incorrect in a material particular or knowingly omits a material particular from an election related document)......
若對鼓吹港獨的候選人提出檢控, 正如張達明所講, 只有下面這條:
Any person who knowingly and wilfully makes (otherwise than on oath) a statement false in a material particular, such statement being made-
(a) in a statutory declaration; or......
(任何人明知而故意在非經宣誓的情況下，在下列項目中作出在要項上屬虛假的陳述─
政府昨指，對個別鼓吹或推動「港獨」的立法會候選人，「保留依法採取跟進行動的權利」，但無提及可根據哪條法例採取跟進行動。港大法律學者張達明認為，唯一可能在法律上有基礎的是「虛假聲明」，不過他擔心，若將來爭論到「擁護基本法」問題，會引發人大釋法。
張達明又說，憂慮「港獨」爭議挑動中央神經，「中央會真係（有）個信息話『要法律我畀法律你』，成日都仍然擔心，會唔會有一日（中央）主動釋法補充而家法律無嘅嘢」。
張達明另慨嘆，「近呢幾年，有時自己愈嚟愈發覺，我嘅諗法同政府諗法，可能係南轅北轍嘅。愈嚟愈唔熟悉政府點樣睇法律基礎嘅嘢」，故現時只能基於自己認知分析今次事件。
(31/8/2016 明報即時新聞)
入了閘的候選人擺明車馬鼓吹港獨, 用「作虛假聲明」罪來檢控真的很困難嗎? 首先讓我作陰謀論。當選管會突然提出要候選人簽署「確認書」, 我已經在2016 年立法會換屆選舉新增確認書的目的一文揣測其目的, 我當時講:
我看這確認書最明顯的目的是這樣。《基本法》只是一套憲法, 任何市民違反了它並不構成罪行, 這次要參選人作出法定聲明, 就明確地用這種方法使違反《基本法》刑事化, 凸顯其中三條, 使作此聲明的人難以抗辯有關法定要求, 因為聲明用了這種字眼:「明知在要項上屬虛假的陳述, 或任何人罔顧後果地在該等文件中作出在要項上不正確的陳述, 或任何人明知而在該等文件中遺漏任何要項」(makes a statement which that person knows to be false in a material particular or recklessly makes a statement which is incorrect in a material particular or knowingly omits a material particular from an election related document)......
| Chapter: | 200  | Title: | CRIMES ORDINANCE | Gazette Number: | |
| Section: | 36 | Heading: | False statutory declarations and other false statements without oath | Version Date: | 30/06/1997 |
(a) in a statutory declaration; or......
(a) 法定聲明；或......)
「確認書」凸顯《基本法》其中三條目的有兩個, 首先注意控罪的 "knowingly"(明知) 及"material particular"(要項)這兩個詞語。其一, 要求候選人簽署確認書, 不論肯簽或不肯簽, 候選人都會清楚這三條《基本法》條文的要求, 而不單只是籠統講擁護《基本法》(符合了法律上「要項」的要求)。同時, 填寫有關提名表格時, 也明知香港是中國不可分離的部份, 既然是擁護, 即是接受這些重要事項, 否則擁護甚麼? 所以「確認書」這風波, 凑巧地強化了提出檢控的成功機會。至於怎樣才算「擁護」(或者不擁護), 是難度不高的事實推斷。在這背景下, 我相信在選舉後, 某些候選人會被檢控。有人為他們開脫, 強調言論自由, 指他們只講「港獨」, 又沒有實際行動。真的有點可笑, 虛假聲明, 都係齋噏咋!
有趣的是這控罪「一經循公訴程序定罪，可處監禁2年及罰款」, 以公訴程序進行也只可判兩年, 為乜要公訴程序進行? 原來條例是九十幾年前所訂。順便考下啲law students, 公訴控罪, 裁判官有無權審?
「確認書」凸顯《基本法》其中三條目的有兩個, 首先注意控罪的 "knowingly"(明知) 及"material particular"(要項)這兩個詞語。其一, 要求候選人簽署確認書, 不論肯簽或不肯簽, 候選人都會清楚這三條《基本法》條文的要求, 而不單只是籠統講擁護《基本法》(符合了法律上「要項」的要求)。同時, 填寫有關提名表格時, 也明知香港是中國不可分離的部份, 既然是擁護, 即是接受這些重要事項, 否則擁護甚麼? 所以「確認書」這風波, 凑巧地強化了提出檢控的成功機會。至於怎樣才算「擁護」(或者不擁護), 是難度不高的事實推斷。在這背景下, 我相信在選舉後, 某些候選人會被檢控。有人為他們開脫, 強調言論自由, 指他們只講「港獨」, 又沒有實際行動。真的有點可笑, 虛假聲明, 都係齋噏咋!
有趣的是這控罪「一經循公訴程序定罪，可處監禁2年及罰款」, 以公訴程序進行也只可判兩年, 為乜要公訴程序進行? 原來條例是九十幾年前所訂。順便考下啲law students, 公訴控罪, 裁判官有無權審?
https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E5%90%91%E5%BE%8B%E6%94%BF%E5%8F%B8%E9%95%B7%E6%8A%95%E8%A8%B4%E4%BD%95%E5%90%9B%E5%A0%AF%E5%BE%8B%E5%B8%AB%E7%9A%84%E7%88%9B%E8%8B%B1%E8%AA%9E/
回覆刪除any comment on this?
lol. I don't want to be nasty. Maybe when Junius Ho wrote the letter, he had S.7(2) Cap 1 in mind when singulars and plurals are intertwined. My English leaves a lot to be desired. I better say no more.
刪除我來應試但不太熟行。。。
回覆刪除- 常任裁判官有權 （MO s92）
- 如果MO附表2第II部的 “在宣誓下作假證供” 專指 CO s31 而非 Pt.V，那特委裁判官也有權 （MO s91)
- subject to 控方申請移交至區域法院 （MO s88)
你入唔到閘, 你不是學生。
刪除終身學習
刪除我們誰不是。
刪除Thanks for the quiz, perhaps we have tested you enough before. I'll answer yes: s.92, MO, not in Part I of Second Schedule. One question though, is it not possible to transfer / commit after taking plea in Mag Ct? Eg. Pending trial, further enquiry reveals greater gravity of offence.
回覆刪除For criminal prosecution for "false declaration", I cannot agree with your subscription to the gov't view. The idea of upholding is different from strict compliance of letter law, and in any event a constitution is not meant to constrain individual's actions. If that sort of compliance is required, then there must not be selective enforcement: he who has no respect for independence of judiciary, advocate for the summary execution of protestors, permanent incarceration of refugees, a deficit budget, denial of right of abode for double-nos, should all be prosecuted. Perhaps those unfaithful husbands and wives who broke their oath as well. That would be a ridicule to our law.
I think the prosecution can transfer the case even in the course of trial before it has reached a decision. That said, the maximum for this crime is only 2 years imprisonment, however grave it may be, the venue remains in the Mag court.
刪除The constitution of course is not stipulated to put constraint on individual citizen, it is to protect individual rights instead. Yet, we are talking about the breach of the declaration itself rather than the breach of the constitution. It is best for the court to interpret what constitutes "uphold" and I believe DoJ will proceed to institute proceedings shortly after the election. My dear friend, unfaithful spouses who break the solemn vow is not an offence because when the vow is made, it is only part of the ritual. With respect, I don't agree with this analogy. Thank you for your contribution.
Bill,
回覆刪除http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/legis/ord/542/s61.html
I do not think prosecution for false declaration is the only option available...
S.61 Cap 542 only relates to elected members which covers a limited scope of people. If the candidate advocating HK independence is not elected, this section has no application.
刪除一對已達談婚論嫁的情侶，於2014年7月以特價500元購入原價5,000元的床褥，並將床褥送到女友家中。惟兩人於去年3月分手，男方要求女方討回床褥不果，同年8月入稟小額錢債裁判處，要對方賠償床褥原價、運費等共6,200元。男方最後被判敗訴，不服結果再向高院申請上訴許可，但被法官拒絕受理。
回覆刪除上訴人胡文亮，控告前女友丁躍雁，而被告曾表示已將有關床褥處置，並向申索人歸還400元運費。
高院法院今頒下判詞，透露原審審裁官裁定，床褥是上訴人無條件的饋贈，而上訴人亦承認結婚大床理應由男方支付，故下令撤銷男友申索。而高院法官亦提及，無論如何，申索也只應限於兩人購買床褥時的特價500元，上訴人不能索取原價5,000元，況且他承認當時因家中沒有空間，才將床褥存放於被告家中，故被告不用承擔400元運費。 ----------遇到喊3聲
結不成婚尚且如此, 結了要離婚, 嗰條數就有排計。講到尾, 真金白銀也不過是$900, 要入禀上庭, 加加埋埋花咗幾多時間? 反轉豬肚……
刪除請問，如果候選人冇簽署確認書而宣揚港獨，政府可唔可以檢控佢呢？
回覆刪除Ron
可以。我會先看提出「作虛假聲明」的檢控需要甚麼證據:
刪除候選人在參選前曾經鼓吹/提倡過港獨言論。
候選人提交提名表格簽署了擁護《基本法》的聲明。
交了表入了閘後繼續鼓吹/提倡港獨/香港立國等言論。
「確認書」有助駁斥被告的申辯講法: 並非故意/《基本法》160條並非每條都支持不能修改/對「擁護」這詞語個人理解等。簽了確認書即是認同凸顯出來的3條, 拒絕簽也即是知道那3條是講甚麼的, 所以才拒絕。故此, 簽不簽都不說違反聲明是非故意的。
當被告簽署擁護《基本法》聲明時, 法官怎能判斷在簽署那一刻被告不是真誠的? 被告大可以說他簽完之後才改變主意, 所以定罪要靠推論。如果被告在呈交提名表之前及之後都鼓吹/倡議港獨, 要推論他在簽署聲明時是「明知而故意」(knowingly and wilfully)作出屬虛假的陳述, 就容易得多了。 餘下的問題是, 何謂擁護, 行使言論自由的程度和限制等一連串釋義和憲法權利等法律問題。
「確認書」的出現, 無疑對虛假聲明的檢控帶來幫助。當然, 這純粹是個人看法, 律政司怎看我不知。
para 3, last sentence should read
刪除故此, 簽不簽都不"能"說違反聲明是非故意的。
涉屈青年強姦
回覆刪除http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20160901/bkn-20160901170915279-0901_00822_001.html
裁判官在被告作供期間，突搖頭嘆氣表示：「我都唔知點講好，呢個小女孩，咁公開咁講晒啲情節，咁多人聽到，不過佢揀作供無辦法。」被告明天繼續自辯。
Is it appropriate to make such a comment ?.?
I cannot comment.
刪除she was convicted later this afternoon and remanded into custody til Sept 19 on which day she will be sentenced pending reports from various govt agencies.
刪除馬鹿
I read that. 三個禮拜遊星馬泰。The magistrate criticised the deft for putting forward 8 versions. Why did she have to testify then?
刪除inadequate legal representation comes to mind.....
刪除how is everything 阿大？ me busy with the election affairs.
马鹿
From the news, the deft was represented. I don't know whether it was the duty lawyer or private. I have been ill for a few days. Flu is rampant these days in Sydney. That is why I have written less. On the other hand, three shop theft cases dropped this week. I am happy to see these people given the chance. Then 3 new ones appear.
刪除Why are you so keen about the election? You are happy to see the turmoil. By the way, did you see the comment posted yesterday in the preceding blog by Matthewtam100? I did not want to waste time to reply to amateurish comments so I did not teach him the correct approach to look at the evidence. He must be one of your gang of hot headed folks.
http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=105629&currpage=T
回覆刪除似乎本案對刑事案的律師日後如何advise客人有非常深遠的影響。日後Court 1會不會多了很多adjournment application呢？
我昨晚看了, 還未寫評論。
回覆刪除https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_HOwCsF-dw&app=desktop - 容海欣大律師差到唔識形容...
回覆刪除單看這片,又確係幾差喎, 思路不清。
刪除容海恩大律師 (Barrister Eunice Yung) is horrible!
回覆刪除