洩題案判決之後

上一篇講洩露試題案的上訴裁決, 此案在未達終審裁決之前, 一定會產生一連串的問題, 尤其是已檢控上庭的案件。今天明報即時新聞有此報導: 的士司機涉上載乘客餵母乳照 被控「不誠實取用電腦」 控方申押後3月 官質疑為何不改控罪, 內文其中一段這樣講:

前年年底有的士司機涉將女乘客餵哺母乳的照片上載到facebook。事隔約一年半，該的士司機被控一項不誠實取用電腦罪，案件今於西九龍裁判法院再提堂。控方表示，由於相關法例受到爭議，要求將案件押後3個月，惟署理主任裁判官嚴舜儀質疑為何需要押後3個月，而不考慮修改控罪，以其他更合適的控罪起訴。控方稱，由於案件不涉及風化或不雅，已考慮最合適的控罪起訴。

辯方反對押後, 希望可盡快排期審訊或以其他方式處理，如撤控或修改控罪, 法官一於少理, 照正常排期審, 排了在11月8日。實際上看, 無論如何終審法院是無可能在今年審到這一件案, 控方若要等待終審上訴結果, 就必然需要在11月8日再度申請押後, 辯方一定繼續反對, 法官不批准押後的可能性極大, 夾硬開波就輸硬, 因為彭官的判決具約束力。若果我是主控, 我會修改控罪為「的士司機態度不文明」, 違反第374D章 《道路交通(公共服務車輛)規例》第45(1)(a)條:

45. 司機的一般操守
(1) 公共巴士、公共小巴或的士司機在作為該等司機時 ——
(a) 須有禮貌及守規矩；

英文版:

45. General conduct of driver
(1) The driver of a public bus, public light bus or taxi, when acting as such—
(a) shall behave in a civil and orderly manner;

這罪行一經定罪，可處罰款$5,000及監禁6個月, 以本案的嚴重性而言, 刑罰已足以處理。法例沒有對civil and orderly manner作出任何界定, 的士司機拍攝乘客餵哺母乳若如控方所言不涉及風化或不雅, 又算不算有違civil and orderly manner呢?

在HKSAR AND TSUI PING WING HCMA 857/1999一案, 高院法官Burrell以普通常識來看待這字眼, 該判詞第14段:

14. In this context, it is necessary to construe the Regulation. The appellant contends it is too vague to regulate his conduct. The argument is that the words "civil and orderly" are too broad to say that the expression used is prohibited by them. All that is required to refute this argument is common sense. Elaborate submissions complaining about the lack of any statutory definition of "civil and orderly" are misplaced. Neither is there any mileage in the argument that there is a grey area between what is orderly at one extreme and what is disorderly at the other. The Regulation is framed in positive terms. A failure to conform with the standard required by conducting oneself in a manner which is not "civil and orderly" is an offence. Taken in its context of the whole of Regulation 45 (which provides for a further 12 ways in which a public service vehicle driver shall behave), the purpose of (1)(a) is to promote a proper standard of manners and safety, to which every passenger is entitled.

從控罪層面看, 以此代替尚未釐清爭議的「不誠實取用電腦罪」又有何不可? 我想到唯一有可能有問題的是檢控時限的問題, 究竟這件案是何時揭發及開始刑事檢控程序的? 因為不誠實取用電腦罪是indictable offence triable summarily, no time bar, 而的士司機不禮貌及不守規矩是summary offence, time barred。根據終審法院的POON CHAU CHEONG AND SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE ([2000] 2 HKLRD 636; (2000) 3 HKCFAR 121)判詞第32段的講法: "If the substituted information is based on the same or substantially the same facts and would not have been time-barred when the prosecution was commenced" 就不能修改了。

歸根究底, 這件案為甚麼會延誤提控, 我百思不得其解。控方若可提出合理解釋, 押後申請才有機會獲得批准, adjourn sine die也可以, 畢竟是要等待終審法院釐清法律問題, 誰敢不批?