承上一篇討論, 趁今晚八點半睇Federer復出第一場波之前, 拿拿聲噏幾句。
上一篇有留言討論戴教授的「換票論」會不會干犯「公職人員行為不當罪」, 這普通法控罪在高級警司冼錦華免費召妓案被定此罪之後上訴至終審法院, 進一等釐清有關法律元素, 所謂進一步是指終院在此案之前已在產業署總產業經理岑國社案分析過, 而在冼錦華案之後的另一發展是在漁護處司機黃連基案再進一步釐清那一種級別的公職人員才會干犯這控罪。
這控罪源自普通法, 控罪在岑國社案確認了其適用及有效性, 公職人員的涵蓋廣泛, 不限於公務員, 也可包括公共機構(public body)的僱員, 香港大學是公共機構之一, 戴教授無疑屬公職人員, 無論叫public official或public servant, 中文都叫公職人員。上一篇的討論對此無異議, 對不能以「公職人員行為不當罪」來檢控戴教授的「換票論」也無爭議, 不能告的理由很多, 除了他的言論未能符合控罪的五大元素外, 他的言論欠缺實際舉動也未能符合一般構成犯罪的基本要求。
戴教授一方面因為是港大教授屬公職人員, 他另一身份是行政長官推選委員會的委員(選委), 這身份又是否屬公職人員呢? 這一點沒有類似的案例討論過。以前被檢控這控罪的主要是公務員, 譬如岑國社、冼錦華、許仕仁及待審的曾蔭權, 非公務員的公職人員我記憶中有前港大醫學院院長林兆鑫, 並非受薪職位像選委那種算不算公職人員呢? 我覺得應視作公職人員。不少公職都是沒有薪酬屬義務性質的, 關鍵在於這種是公職而被委以此任的人要為公眾利益履行公眾賦予的責任。這本身是普通法的控罪, 在介定方面未必一定可借助明文法訂明的講法。但歸根究底戴教授這選委身份就算也屬於公職人員, 也要視乎他所做出的行為是否構成該罪行, 我始終覺得他的想法粗糙, 根本連具體的構思也沒有, 所以甚麼法也沒有犯。
上一篇有留言討論戴教授的「換票論」會不會干犯「公職人員行為不當罪」, 這普通法控罪在高級警司冼錦華免費召妓案被定此罪之後上訴至終審法院, 進一等釐清有關法律元素, 所謂進一步是指終院在此案之前已在產業署總產業經理岑國社案分析過, 而在冼錦華案之後的另一發展是在漁護處司機黃連基案再進一步釐清那一種級別的公職人員才會干犯這控罪。
這控罪源自普通法, 控罪在岑國社案確認了其適用及有效性, 公職人員的涵蓋廣泛, 不限於公務員, 也可包括公共機構(public body)的僱員, 香港大學是公共機構之一, 戴教授無疑屬公職人員, 無論叫public official或public servant, 中文都叫公職人員。上一篇的討論對此無異議, 對不能以「公職人員行為不當罪」來檢控戴教授的「換票論」也無爭議, 不能告的理由很多, 除了他的言論未能符合控罪的五大元素外, 他的言論欠缺實際舉動也未能符合一般構成犯罪的基本要求。
戴教授一方面因為是港大教授屬公職人員, 他另一身份是行政長官推選委員會的委員(選委), 這身份又是否屬公職人員呢? 這一點沒有類似的案例討論過。以前被檢控這控罪的主要是公務員, 譬如岑國社、冼錦華、許仕仁及待審的曾蔭權, 非公務員的公職人員我記憶中有前港大醫學院院長林兆鑫, 並非受薪職位像選委那種算不算公職人員呢? 我覺得應視作公職人員。不少公職都是沒有薪酬屬義務性質的, 關鍵在於這種是公職而被委以此任的人要為公眾利益履行公眾賦予的責任。這本身是普通法的控罪, 在介定方面未必一定可借助明文法訂明的講法。但歸根究底戴教授這選委身份就算也屬於公職人員, 也要視乎他所做出的行為是否構成該罪行, 我始終覺得他的想法粗糙, 根本連具體的構思也沒有, 所以甚麼法也沒有犯。
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/misconduct_in_public_office/
回覆刪除剛找到上文。公職人員行為不當罪所指公職人員可能並不是cap 201 或cap 1 的public servants 或public officers.
Terry
http://www.doj.gov.hk/sc/public/pdf/pd2011/Feature_Articles.pdf
回覆刪除Interesting article on the meaning of public officials. Terry
Terry,
刪除My salutation to you for your attitude in examining the issue. I should learn from you. I wrote the blog after dinner before Federer started to play. I did not do any research. Things just came out from memory. I have some observations to make in response to your two comments.
I disagree with your first comment. I think the UK "Prevention of Bribery Act" is pretty new and not as comprehensive as our Cap 201. There is no definition of public body, public official etc in the Act. There is not even an ICAC in UK. UK only sent policemen to HK to see how our ICAC combats corruption. Therefore, we cannot get support from the UK statue when we examine whether Prof Tai is a public official/servant.
2. Gerard McCoy, SC is no doubt an elite counsel. He was briefed to represent the HK govt in numerous occasion. He prosecuted on fiat to appear before the Court of Final Appeal in the Wong Lin Kay case. That was why he presented this paper, I guess. It is like a second bite of the cherry. That said, I have no disrespect of him. He has in a way given us a summation of what "public officials" are from precedents. In our discussion about Prof Tai's second hat, a Selection Committee, is he a public official when there is no continual term of office? This is the only doubt I have.
In the last but one paragraph of McCoy's article, he conveyed his worry/argument that a humble Govt messenger may divulge top govt secret and cannot be prosecuted because of his low position ( as per Wong Lin Kay's ruling), I can dismiss his worry easily because such a messenger will not be delegated to deliver some confidential stuff as he said though I agree the demarcation line is blur as to who is humble and who is not in terms of position. Still, I think we can dispel such worry when we have to decide whether the humble servant is within the category to be prosecuted for the offence of Misconduct in Public Office. We can rely on the 5th element of the offence (as stipulated in Sin Kam Wah) as a yardstick.
為你鍥而不捨的思考態度再致敬。
哎吔。當然不是什麼鍥而不捨，只是開始時沒做好research功夫而已。
回覆刪除不好意思，我不是說英國的法例bribery act 可直接套用, 該文CPS misconduct in public office 指出common law 對 public officers 的説法，R v Whitaker, R v Durham, 都是比較原則上的說法。 我在想，既然misconduct in public office 係common law offence, 我們只好看case law 對public officer 的原則上的說法作為依據。Cap 1 及cap 201 中對public officers 的定義，只好作參考而已。同意prof tai 係公職人員
我估McCoy 認為法院不應說政府司機不是公職人員的原因his employment position is so modest that as a driver he did not have any power to affect the public interest. Public officer 的定義如Henly v Lyme corporation 所指應該係everyone who is appointed to discharge a public duty。一個比較廣的定義。不然的話就很難分什麼職位係modest. 這亦符合五大元素第一元素。當然如果個人根本很明顕不是公職人員，如一般文員，misconduct in public office 既第一元素都不成立了。
就算係public officers 亦要看其他四個元素。 其他元素二及元素四可分開modest post and the officer has no power to affect the public interest.
多謝agreeing to disagree. 不知道其他網友有沒有看法可以分享。Terry
就算係public officers 亦要看其他四個元素。 其他元素二及元素四可分開modest post and the officer has no power to affect the public interest.
回覆刪除It should be 就算係public officers 亦要看其他四個元素。 其他元素二及元素五可分開modest post and the officer has no power to affect the public interest.
Terry
鍥而不捨 I used with a good connotation, about your perseverance attitude in pursuit of knowledge. It is not in any way derogatory. Forgive my poor language if I give you an opposite impression.
刪除當然知你係敬意啦。只真係我自己嘅思路想同人分享下，錯嘅對嘅都無妨，起碼多想係好事。反而係我寫得不好，令標只唔會了。Terry
刪除http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/nextplus/豪語錄/article/20170103/2_466172_0/-壹經典-93歲-老夫子-之父王家禧病逝-王澤談老豆的堅持-不涉政治暴力色情
回覆刪除老夫子瓜咗。。。 Terry
唔係你年代睇嘅嘢。
刪除小學時都有睇啦。一本可能有幾回「耐人尋味」！哈。唔通你以為我後生。嘻嘻。Terry
刪除不是小豬, 是中豬、
刪除https://www.am730.com.hk/amvideo/字言字語/無貝點「贏」？-6824
回覆刪除最後一句好抵死。我都希望佢可以出嚟選特首。Terry
時代不同了, 不是用貝殼作貨幣了。槍打出頭鳥, 頭兩隻瓜梗。
刪除