2016年11月27日星期日

公眾利益

在上一篇討論到應否檢控梁國雄普通襲擊因為他掟午餐肉擊中馬逢國, 產生了「公眾利益」(public interest)這概念的分歧, 1哥(以1仔署名)認為公眾利益屬尚方寶劍, 不應輕易出鞘, 言下之意, 這普通襲擊案只需考慮案情本身是否屬於嚴重的, 而無需講公眾利益。1哥的留言我一向尊重, 他這次的看法使我有點茫茫然, 因為我一向對公眾利益的概念是看得很平凡簡單的, 不會視之為尚方寶劍級別的東西, 是平凡得經常會考慮的因素, 尤其是遇上plea bargaining的時候。律政司的《檢控守則》(以前叫檢控政策)一直都有公眾利益這用詞, 刑事檢控在考慮有足夠證據之後, 繼而會考慮是否合符公眾利益而提出檢控。對於何謂公眾利益, 《檢控守則》的第5.9點列出a至n項考慮理據:
  1. the nature and circumstances of the offence, including any aggravating or extenuating circumstances;
  2. the seriousness of the offence: more serious offences, including those where a victim has suffered significant harm or loss, or where there have been multiple victims, are more likely to be prosecuted in the public interest;
  3. the effect of a prosecution on Hong Kong law enforcement priorities;
  4. any delay in proceeding with a prosecution and its causes;
  5. whether or not the offence is trivial, technical in nature, obsolete or obscure;
  6. the level of the suspect’s culpability;
  7. the involvement of other suspects in the commission of the offence;
  8. any cooperation from the suspect with law enforcement or demonstrated remorse: the public interest may be served by not prosecuting a suspect who has made admissions, demonstrated remorse, compensated a victim and/or cooperated with authorities in the prosecution of others;
  9. any criminal history of the suspect;
  10. the attitude, age, nature or physical or psychological condition of the suspect, a witness and/or a victim;
  11. the likely final disposition of the case;
  12. the prevalence of the offence and any deterrent effect of a prosecution;
  13. special circumstances that would affect the fairness of any proceedings;
  14. the availability and efficacy of alternatives to prosecution, such as a caution, warning or other acceptable form of diversion.
單是e)項, 已是基於公眾利益而不檢控長毛的理據, 所以公眾利益並不一定是重大、厲害、霸道的東西, 可以是因為涉嫌犯事者的年齡及心理狀態的考慮, 單一理據也足以作出不提出檢控的決定。英國的Code for Crown Prosecutors也同樣會在刑事案考慮證據充足之後繼而考慮提控是否合乎公眾利益, 而英國的守則就包括以下的考慮:

The Public Interest Stage

......
4.12 Prosecutors should consider each of the following questions:
  1. How serious is the offence committed?

    The more serious the offence, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required.
    When deciding the level of seriousness of the offence committed, prosecutors should include amongst the factors for consideration the suspect's culpability and the harm to the victim by asking themselves the questions at b) and c).
  2. What is the level of culpability of the suspect?

    Culpability is likely to be determined by the suspect's level of involvement; the extent to which the offending was premeditated and/or planned; whether they have previous criminal convictions and/or out-of-court disposals and any offending whilst on bail; or whilst subject to a court order; whether the offending was or is likely to be continued, repeated or escalated; and the suspect's age or maturity (see paragraph d) below for suspects under 18).
    Prosecutors should also have regard when considering culpability as to whether the suspect is, or was at the time of the offence, suffering from any significant mental or physical ill health as in some circumstances this may mean that it is less likely that a prosecution is required. However, prosecutors will also need to consider how serious the offence was, whether it is likely to be repeated and the need to safeguard the public or those providing care to such persons.
  3. What are the circumstances of and the harm caused to the victim?

    The circumstances of the victim are highly relevant. The greater the vulnerability of the victim, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required. This includes where a position of trust or authority exists between the suspect and victim.
    A prosecution is also more likely if the offence has been committed against a victim who was at the time a person serving the public.
    Prosecutors must also have regard to whether the offence was motivated by any form of discrimination against the victim's ethnic or national origin, gender, disability, age, religion or belief, sexual orientation or gender identity; or the suspect demonstrated hostility towards the victim based on any of those characteristics. The presence of any such motivation or hostility will mean that it is more likely that prosecution is required.
    In deciding whether a prosecution is required in the public interest, prosecutors should take into account the views expressed by the victim about the impact that the offence has had. In appropriate cases, this may also include the views of the victim's family.
    Prosecutors also need to consider if a prosecution is likely to have an adverse effect on the victim's physical or mental health, always bearing in mind the seriousness of the offence. If there is evidence that prosecution is likely to have an adverse impact on the victim’s health it may make a prosecution less likely, taking into account the victim's views.
    However, the CPS does not act for victims or their families in the same way as solicitors act for their clients, and prosecutors must form an overall view of the public interest.
  4. Was the suspect under the age of 18 at the time of the offence?

    The criminal justice system treats children and young people differently from adults and significant weight must be attached to the age of the suspect if they are a child or young person under 18. The best interests and welfare of the child or young person must be considered including whether a prosecution is likely to have an adverse impact on his or her future prospects that is disproportionate to the seriousness of the offending. Prosecutors must have regard to the principal aim of the youth justice system which is to prevent offending by children and young people. Prosecutors must also have regard to the obligations arising under the United Nations 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child.
    As a starting point, the younger the suspect, the less likely it is that a prosecution is required.
    However, there may be circumstances which mean that notwithstanding the fact that the suspect is under 18, a prosecution is in the public interest. These include where the offence committed is serious, where the suspect's past record suggests that there are no suitable alternatives to prosecution, or where the absence of an admission means that out-of-court disposals which might have addressed the offending behaviour are not available.
  5. What is the impact on the community?

    The greater the impact of the offending on the community, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required. In considering this question, prosecutors should have regard to how community is an inclusive term and is not restricted to communities defined by location.
  6. Is prosecution a proportionate response?

    Prosecutors should also consider whether prosecution is proportionate to the likely outcome, and in so doing the following may be relevant to the case under consideration:
    • The cost to the CPS prosecution service and the wider criminal justice system, especially where it could be regarded as excessive when weighed against any likely penalty (Prosecutors should not decide the public interest on the basis of this factor alone. It is essential that regard is also given to the public interest factors identified when considering the other questions in paragraphs 4.12 a) to g), but cost is a relevant factor when making an overall assessment of the public interest).
    • Cases should be capable of being prosecuted in a way that is consistent with principles of effective case management. For example, in a case involving multiple suspects offenders, prosecution might be reserved for the key main participants in order to avoid excessively long and complex proceedings.
  7. Do sources of information require protecting?

    In cases where public interest immunity does not apply, special care should be taken when proceeding with a prosecution where details may need to be made public that could harm sources of information, international relations or national security. It is essential that such cases are kept under continuing review.

毫無疑問, 公眾利益一詞會給人一個涉及重要決策及涉及廣泛重要性的印象, 我想指出一切視乎怎樣去介定這概念。昨晚有人遊行到旺角警署, 要求拘控朱經緯。這件案拖延得極不合理, 一早就應有定奪。我一貫主張是, 不檢控朱經緯, 可以從《檢控守則》找合理理由, 以前為朱經緯案寫過六篇, 不再重覆了。正是逃得了和尚逃不了廟, 真的要拖延到特首換屆乎?

28 則留言:

  1. 個人觉得,公眾利益不是尚方寶劍,而是好大頂帽。
    尚方寶劍應該一出必勝,然而公眾利益只是一個論點。
    又因為公眾利益沒有特殊性,題目好大,變左邊個把口夠权威,邊個話事,所以我話係一頂大帽。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 當然要有權才能話事, 解釋決策卻要使人信服, 否則權威變成淫威, 行使權力變濫權。

      刪除
    2. 身為一個公眾人物,唔會有公眾利益是常識吧。。。
      容乜易俾人話有特權呀。。。

      刪除
    3. 甚至同一頂大帽也有分別,對我來說是一籃子的common sense.
      其實好多律師都會”捐洞捐拿”一個理據化成三個再加多兩倍寫得出便寫去列出10項申辯。
      呢咋檢控守則變成有用check list, 不需案件特殊性,打左先講。

      B'J (some B grade Justice, a new comer)

      刪除
    4. 律師為當事人的權益去爭取無可厚非喎。

      刪除
    5. Sorry, 律師一段只是obiter dictum, 主旨是感嘆博主鴻文, 公眾利益不是尚方寶劍, 不是一出必殺。 反而有時用得不得民心, 更似你話齋「無可厚非的爭取」, 欠缺力量的 side argument.

      B'J

      刪除
    6. 長毛和快必在立法會上演的例行公式鬧劇不只浪費公帑,且神憎鬼厭,無益、無建設!唔使錢執到英國佬留下的議會制度都睇下有無埋下陷阱,用左咁多年都仲未改好,實在難辭其咎!再唔改,立法會很大机會淪落為垃圾會。

      Standing Orders of the House of Commons:-

      1. Rules of Debate #28~37;

      2. Order in the House, #42~47;

      3. Standing Order #44:—
      (1)Whenever a Member shall have been named by the Speaker, or by the chair, immediately after the commission of the offence of disregarding the authority of the chair, or of persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House by abusing the rules of the House or otherwise, then if the offence has been committed by such Member in the House, the Speaker shall forthwith put the question, on a motion being made, ‘That such Member be suspended from the service of the House’; and if the offence has been committed in a committee of the whole House, the chair shall forthwith suspend the proceedings of the committee and report the circumstances to the House; and the Speaker shall on a motion being made forthwith put the same question as if the offence had been committed in the House itself.Proceedings in pursuance of this paragraph, though opposed, may be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business.
      (2)If any Member be suspended under paragraph (1) of this order, his suspension on the first occasion shall continue for five sitting days, and on the second occasion for twenty sitting days, including in either case the day on which he was suspended, but, on any subsequent occasion, until the House shall resolve that the suspension of such Member do terminate.
      (3)Not more than one Member shall be named at the same time, unless two or more Members, present together, have jointly disregarded the authority of the chair.
      (4)If a Member, or two or more Members acting jointly, who have been suspended under this order from the service of the House, shall refuse to obey the direction of the Speaker, when severally summoned under the Speaker’s orders by the Serjeant at Arms to obey such direction, the Speaker shall call the attention of the House to the fact that recourse to force is necessary in order to compel obedience to his direction, and the Member or Members named by him as having refused to obey his direction shall thereupon and without any further question being put be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of the session.
      (5)Nothing in this order shall be taken to deprive the House of the power of proceeding against any Member according to ancient usages.

      4. Standing Order #45:—
      (1)Members who are ordered to withdraw under Standing Order No. 43 (Disorderly conduct) or who are suspended from the service of the House shall forthwith withdraw from the precincts of the House.
      (2)Suspension from the service of the House shall not exempt the Member so suspended from serving on any committee for the consideration of a private bill to which he may have been appointed before the suspension.
      Suspension of salary of Members suspended 45A.—
      The salary of a Member suspended from the service of the House shall be withheld for the duration of his suspension.

      刪除
    7. Standing Orders of the House of Commons - 2016 ( UK Parliament )

      http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmstords/0002/body.htm#43


      刪除
    8. 長毛唔係現正痞係監倉咩?
      聽日先開立法會, 咩"立法會上演的例行公式"??
      UK SO posted here, your point being????

      刪除
    9. 長毛保釋等候上訴喎。

      刪除
    10. 英國議會都有訂立規矩應付搞事的議員,但香港的立法會就無。如有的話,就唔使下下勞煩警方介入處理長毛和快必等人的公式搗亂鬧劇,如掟午餐肉、掟紙飛機、搶官員手上的文件、霸佔主席位等

      刪除
    11. 上兩位, 明白, 謝謝.

      香港立法會對比下係弱左少少, UK可扣人工、停賽5天。
      但設下難度, 要經動議通過。
      其實香港並唔係無, 不過門檻是「極不檢點」, 主席一人話事, 命令退席。

      刪除
  2. 單是trivial一詞, 平常大量的店舖盜竊, 或是打交都不應該告, 但現實告訴我們, 對比寫數頁紙給一個不告的理由, 還是說疑犯們PG罰款500在是省時省力

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 店鋪盜竊或公眾地方打架一點也不trivial, 接納撤銷控罪/簽保守行為在《檢控守則》10.6及10.7列出考慮的元素, 公眾利益只是其中一個元素(10.7(a))。

      刪除
    2. 我相信1:27的 language modifier「平常大量」不可省去,「平常大量的打交都不應該告」我是同意的, 尤其香港地的自衛辯解很難開脫, 一還手警方「識做」: 一係你地和解、一係兩個都告, 唔好煩到官大人。
      店鋪盜竊我便不同意了, 因起因的確是單方犯罪, 並不是dispute的發展。

      B'J

      刪除
    3. Fighting in PP很多不嚴重的都沒有檢控, 除了你所講的情況外, 就是有人報警, 無人做證人。Fighting in PP的自衛多數都用了過份武力, 有些Fighting in PP近乎Affray, 在澳洲的門檻較近, 不用使途人terrified.

      刪除
    4. 較低不是較「近」、

      刪除
  3. Hong Kong ‘sorry law’ to resolve disputes moves a step closer
    http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-crime/article/2049865/hong-kong-sorry-law-resolve-disputes-moves-step-closer

    回覆刪除
  4. 道歉法例、調解、公眾利益。標少高見? KKC

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 我未睇, 我相信是道歉而在民事法方面並不等同承認責任。

      刪除
  5. 【彭定康】在香港大學講座上答梁天琦:港獨不可行!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dc1VoJUVLA

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 好多人講呢班友唔信, 又要歸英, 人哋唔要你, 再講多一次你知獨不可行, 睇你班友點。想做英國佬stooges, 人哋話多謝夾盛惠, 唔使。請問班友仲有乜依靠?

      刪除
  6. 標少, 見到標題及提到小弟個名, 即刻打醒精神睇清楚學野。
    發覺越睇越陌生, 我都有份茫茫然感覺了。
    我會分開兩個角度作答, 呢一個post, 以當事人角度回應, 先抄出來龍去脈, 再理一理分歧。
    我睇番上一個 blog, 與標少呢個 blog第一段帶出來既感覺分別都幾大...

    來龍去脈:
    1. 1仔2016年11月25日 下午2:58 長毛擲午餐肉呢d case初犯連定罪都唔得, 一般簽保證金$2000守行為兩年。長毛不是初犯咪判刑緩刑囉。
    2. 標少2016年11月25日 下午5:14 受害人有權堅持投訴, 也要過律政司這一關, 真的告長毛就不合符公眾利益了。
    3. 1仔2016年11月25日 下午5:37 普通襲擊本身已是一條statutory刑事, 不必考慮公眾利益吧? 控罪沒有這附帶條件。
    4. 標少2016年11月25日 下午8:18 1哥, 控罪是否statutory不影響公眾利益的考慮吧, 在檢控手則裏也列出檢控決定的其中一個考慮, 也引用了《刑事程序條例》第15(1)條
    5. 1仔2016年11月25日 下午9:50 標少, 此15(1)條是介定律政司的絕對權力, 唔係立亂用喎。 (註: 尚方寶劍醞釀中!)
    (並提及: 基本法63條 律政司不受任何干凡的刑事檢察特權、基本法第48條 特首特赦權力)
    ....
    a. 標少2016年11月25日 下午11:18 我一直認為不會告, 不應告, 告了也不會定罪。
    b. 1仔2016年11月25日 下午11:37
    純粹你這一行我會和議。我背後原因剛才未說出, 不外「輕微」; 你原因是公眾利益。
    個人來說: 出動公眾利益/社會公正(s15(1))而不告這一點, 怎也對不上。
    尚方寶劍係利, 但太霸道, 可以「不會告、不應告」, 但若告了, 不能facilitate「也不會定罪」@@

    與此 blog分歧, 來自兩個 keywords: 公眾利益、尚方寶劍
    事後看來, 1-5當中藏有不對咀的誤會, 其中是我對公眾利益的理解不同 (會在另一個post討論), 其二是標少很快由公眾利益進入15(1)條。
    因為控罪的確沒公眾利益這附帶條件, 若標少不打"公眾利益", 打"檢控守則"便完全不同, 我不能不對咀一定要審視檢控守則這必經一關。
    但討論發展是15(1)條, 起碼在我而言是如此。況且小弟習慣有條文有案例有得argue, 否則各舒己見而止。
    請留意我很快拿著三條並駕齊驅: 條例15(1)、基本法63、基本法48, 以此才論及「尚方寶劍」, 四字出現唯一一次。
    就這情況而言, 後來的 blog撇開了三條並駕齊驅的尚方寶劍(我承認), 第一段的描述尚方寶劍是指(我不同意)檢控前的檢控守則的公眾利益,
    尚方寶劍是指法定條例, 不是行政守則。況且我同意上面有討論指出的尚方寶劍特性是一出必殺, 而不是一個普遍論點。
    你明白我這份茫茫然感覺嗎?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 1哥, 言重了。有時這些留言雖然已interactive, 始終都不是面對面的對話, 容易產生不必要的分岐和誤會。我一向先看《檢控守則》, 在裏面鑽, 原因是處理那些申請撤銷控罪/簽保守行為求助信, 我因應個別情況會引用《檢控守則》裏所列的元素來凸顯申請理據, 所以採用pragmatic approach, 而不會討論到尚方寶劍那層面。我的是屬於低層次的應用, 所以沒有回應你講《基本法》相闗條文。我會有先入為主的思維, 就是先看《檢控守則》, 你我討論有些內涵是一樣, 但名稱不同而已。你也試想下, 有足夠表面證據的案件律政司不予檢控, 有那次不是在《檢控守則》裏找理由來解釋?

      刪除
  7. 好像檢控前的公眾利益,與審訊時的公眾利益,討論上有很大分別吧?
    前者除非有統計數字,否則不能有效討論。
    原因很簡單,無資料。勉強講,流於酒樓師奶吹水。
    為什麼無資料?(你拿绐我看),因為是行政,no comment. When there is comment on a case, 小心是政治立場。
    你睇袁國強最旱被問兩個問題「你與689用咩身份告?」時,施施縮縮長篇大論(為政治正確好聽)隐藏大話(”選民”而法庭文件是”特首”)。

    回覆刪除