馬大人牛長官

吳秋北罵終院判決的言論, 越演越烈, 林鄭也開腔。我相信吳秋北自以為佳句的是「道立不立，不是馬老爺、牛長官說了算。終審又如何？公道自在人心！」(我引文來自明報, 並沒有去他的fb看)。把大馬爺的名字套入去, 自鳴得意一番。想深一層也不能盡怪吳秋北, 社會吹着這一股風氣(不講歪風了, 太陳腔濫調), 肆意批評法庭判決, 已成為近年的習性。早幾年因為不滿法庭裁決而辱罵, 都只限在較低級的法庭, 只圍繞事實裁決方面(factual findings), 一講到法律觀點, 絕大部份人都不得不收口, 原因就是沒有專業知識作出評論。況且大部份的評論都偏向無知的胡謅, 隨便講句「公道自在人心」, 就以為是理據, 就以為法庭的判決大逆不道。回想上訴庭對東北13子加刑時, 也有不少律師, 包括資深大律師, 大談法官在履行政治任務。兩者的心態是完全相同的----以政治來鬥爭法治, 批鬥建基於自己的立場。對法庭裁決作大膽評論的人, 又有幾多個先看過判詞才議論? 我肯定吳秋北未看過(因為東北13子的判詞還在酙酌, 還未寫好), 在現階段要評論13子案, 只可以參考雙學3子案在年初頒佈的判詞, 因為兩案所考慮的法律原則類同, 也應一脈相承。故此我在上一篇及留言, 也引用該案作評論。

終審法院肯定了上訴庭的判刑原則, 但沒有肯定15個月監禁作為量刑的標準。連量刑的起點應為多少個月的監禁也沒有講, 只講了判監的大原則。

125. It should be noted, however, that the culpability of the offender may vary depending on his degree of participation in the unlawful assembly and the violence in question. In this regard, the “Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly”[103] quoted by Tang PJ in his judgment in HKSAR v Chow Nok Hang(2013) 16 HKCFAR 837 at [141] are relevant. A distinction must be drawn between a participant in an unlawful assembly who remains peaceful and one who himself engages in or encourages violence. But cases in which the defendant is shown to have actually participated in violent acts, or to have incited others to commit the offence (as in the case of the 2nd appellant here), will justify increased sentences. Similarly, where the offender is shown to have encouraged, if not actually incited, the unlawful assembly, for example by virtue of his status or leadership of others joining the assembly, this may justify attributing to him culpability for the actual violence involved.

126. In accordance with the principles discussed in Section D.3 above, it would not, however, have been appropriate to apply the Court of Appeal’s guidance to the appellants here. The increase in sentences intimated by the Court of Appeal represented a sentence significantly more severe than the range established by the courts’ existing sentencing practice and so, to avoid retrospectively imposing a more severe sentence based on a new sentencing guideline, the new level of sentence should not have been applied to them.

所以, 有人認為以後就會重判, 只是一廂情願的想法, 歸根究底要考慮暴力的嚴重性及個別被告所扮演的角色。上訴庭覆核刑期時沒有這樣做, 只是一刀切。終審法院推翻上訴庭的判決, 批准即時釋放被告, 其實也是一刀切。可能張三延遲了申請保釋等候上訴會比一早就保釋在外的李四坐多一個月監, 實際上李四可能扮演較嚴重的角色, 在刑事紀錄上反而獲輕判, 天曉得。

資訊發達了, 卻不等如盲目的人減少了, 因為不少人只圖方便, 朋友隨便用whatspapp/fb傳來一大堆資訊, 臭味相投, 看得順眼就採納了, 根本不會因為資訊搜尋方便而更有知識, 反而變得更盲目。而且, 把時間都花在接收這些重複又重複的訊息裏, 只加深了盲目, 消化和思考的空間也沒有。

連甚麼才是正確的訊息也不懂分辨, 公道自在人心是甚麼? 道理都分不出, 那種人心, 豈不是在講一眾盲毛的想法。與其花心思把終審法院首席法官馬道立的名字嵌入佳句而沾沾自喜, 不如花點時間實際理解判刑的法律理念好過。這就是知識型和無知型評論的分別。