長毛脫罪, 無得郁

昨日律政司發聲明, 表示長毛收受黎智英250,000萬捐款沒有申報一案, 脫罪後律政司不能上訴, 解釋十分清楚, 我是看明報這報導的: 長毛收款案 律政司棄上訴 稱裁決基於法官考量事實證供。其中一段這樣講:

律政司發言人指，根據《區域法院條例》第84條，對區域法院法官就某裁定無罪的裁決，律政司長只能以案件呈述方式上訴，而該類上訴只限法律事宜（matters of law）。

在另一段, 明報這樣報導:

香港大學法律學院首席講師張達明表示，一般而言，刑事檢控案件的被告被判無罪後，除非律政司發現裁判官錯誤演繹法例，否則一般不能上訴，故今次律政司不能上訴亦屬「正路」。

我在《長毛脫罪, 郁個官!》一文已評論過, 現在再講是提出案例出來印證。Happy Zenith在該文的留言引用了大公報的一篇評論來問我, 我寫這一篇是順便回應該文的看法, 而並非對號入座。

《區域法院條例》第84條, 跟《裁判官條例》第105條都涉及案件呈請式的上訴(appeal by way of case stated), 雖然兩條例所用的字眼不相同, 目的及背後的法律理念卻是一樣, 都是涉及法律觀點(point of law)才可以用呈請的方式來上訴。法律觀點其實也可以包括案情事實, 如果法官在案情事實方面作出有悖於常理的看法, 也屬犯了法律上的錯誤。這看法當然不是我講的, 而是殿堂級的法官的看法。終審法院在李民偉(音譯)一案, 在這方面作了分析, 請看判辭這兩段:

18. An appeal by way of case stated under s.105 of the Magistrates Ordinance is not an appeal by way of rehearing. (See Lord Widgery CJ in Harris Simon & Co. Ltd v. Manchester City Council [1975] 1 All ER 412, 417b dealing with a similar provision in England.) It is a review by the appellate court on the limited ground that there is an error of law or an excess of jurisdiction.

19. Where a magistrate has come to a conclusion or finding of fact which no reasonable magistrate, applying his mind to the proper considerations and giving himself the proper directions, could have come to, this would be regarded as an error of law. Such a conclusion or finding is often described as "perverse" (See Lord Goddard CJ in Bracegirdle v. Oxley [1947] 1 KB 349 at 353; Lord Widgery CJ in Harris Simon & Co. Ltd v. Manchester City Council at 417d; and Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ in R v. Mildenhall Magistrates' Court, ex parte Forest Heath District Council (161) JP 401 at 410 E-F.) This is the case where the court is satisfied that the magistrate, in reaching his conclusion or finding, has misdirected himself on the facts or misunderstood them, or has taken into account irrelevant considerations or has overlooked relevant considerations. (See Lord Denning MR in Re D J M S (a minor) [1977] 3 All ER 582 at 589c-e.) In such a case, the court is entitled to intervene and the magistrate's conclusion or finding would not be allowed to stand.

LI MAN WAI AND SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE   FACC No. 6 of 2003

李運騰法官在判辭中詳細分釋了判長毛無罪的理據, 我在先前的評論也引用了該判辭中李官所指的疑點所在, 李官的結論並非“perverse”, 並無違反常理, 所以不屬法律犯錯(error of law), 控方就不能上訴了。

如果控方在不悖於常理的事實裁斷上可以上訴, 就等同叫法庭介定甚麼叫合理疑點, 合理疑點是從來都沒有人介定過的一種虛無的法律概念, 這概念與寧縱無枉的刑事舉證責任息息相關。但李官在判辭裏清楚分析了法理及案情, 理由並不虛無。那位中小型律師會會長, 恐怕只用了中小型的智慧, 沒有全面理解判辭及刑事法的法律理念, 就大聲疾呼叫律政司上訴, 豈不是在自暴其醜。我覺得律政司也應該常規性地多發一些訊息, 使大眾更清楚了解法庭的判決, 以免那些盲毛胡亂鼓動幾句, 市民就熱烘烘起來。The blind leads the blind....As the lost lead the way, another heart is led astray.