2019年3月13日星期三

法院有權過問律政司不檢控的決定

今天全球觸目的新聞之一是樞機主教George Pell的判刑, 很罕有地電視直播, 77歲的他被判監6年, 至少要坐3年8個月才准假釋。他的定罪上訴排了在6月聽審, 相當快捷。我不去談定罪是否穩妥, 因為只憑傳媒報導, 加上我根本不懂, 所以我不評論。Pell的支持者對於可以成功上訴推翻控罪充滿信心, 也製造了不少輿論, 但奇怪的是樞機主教並無申請保釋等候上訴, 而直接入冊。論刑罰, 6年監也不算重手, 我在之前相關的博文估計是不少於5年, 畢竟他這把年紀可謂closer to hell than heaven, 他能否熬過這3個月等候上訴期也成疑。我不是教徒, 這heaven and hell的問題我可少擔心, 也沒有天主教徒面對的掙扎和迷惘。

在香港, 曾健成為律政司不檢控梁振英申請司法覆核, 誓要入刀山, 天下圍攻梁振英, 覆核理由包括針對檢控政策(不尋求外判獨立法律意見), 這一點我覺得站不住腳, 律政司不尋求獨立意見是走了蠢的一步, 但我不覺得可以覆核。陳文敏教授被明報問及這覆核案, 據明報的報導, 有此講法:

【明報專訊】曾健成申請司法覆核,要求法庭頒令撤銷律政司不檢控的決定,另要求頒令檢控梁振英及周浩鼎。法律學者陳文敏回覆本報記者查詢稱,決定起訴與否是律政司的權力,法院沒有權限過問,這是行政和司法的分別,故司法覆核無法挑戰律政司不起訴的權力。

陳教授這講法未必正確, 近年的上訴案例不是這樣講的, 最近期的案件是2015年的 D and Director of Public Prosecutions HCAL 88/2015。D這件案是由高院法官(當時官階)前刑事檢控專員薛偉成(Zervos J)聽審的。D是在香港打工的家庭傭工, 她的僱主石國藝在她背後取出自己陽具自瀆, 當初律政司認為不構成非禮而拒絕檢控, D申請司法覆核, 薛官討論了法庭究竟有沒有權干預律政司不作刑事檢控決定的權力, 最終認為司法覆核具可爭辯性的論據, 薛官引用了另一法官夏正民(Hartmann J)在RV v Director of Immigration [2008] 一案的判詞:
66.  But it seems to me that the judgment of the Court of Appeal recognises that today the power of the Secretary for Justice to control criminal prosecutions is a constitutional power.  It is a power bestowed by the Basic Law and defined by that Law.  As such, it must be exercised within constitutional limits.  In that fundamental respect, the source and nature of the power must be different from the source and nature of the power as it was exercised when the Court of Appeal gave its judgment in Keung Siu Wah v A-G.
67.  If the power must be exercised within constitutional limits, it seems to me that it must be for the courts, in any given case, to determine whether the exercise of that power has exceeded the constitutional limits or remained within them.  Put another way, the limits of the constitutional power are defined by the constitution itself.  Any definition of those limits must therefore require an interpretation of the Basic Law and that is a function of the courts.  In this regard, see Ng Ka Ling & Others v Director of Immigration (1999) 2 HKCFAR 4 (at p.25):
‘In exercising their judicial power conferred by the Basic Law, the courts of the Region have a duty to enforce and interpret that Law. ... In exercising this jurisdiction, the courts perform their constitutional role under the Basic Law of acting as a constitutional check on the executive and legislative branches of government to ensure that they act in accordance with the Basic Law.’
68.  In my judgment, it must therefore be the case that, since the Basic Law came into effect, this Court has the power to determine whether the Secretary for Justice, in his control of criminal prosecutions, has, or has not, acted within the limits of his constitutional power.  The means for that determination is judicial review.  To come to this conclusion is not a defiance of binding precedent, it is recognition of a new constitutional order and the duties of our courts in respect of that new order.
69.  The more difficult question, in my view, is the determination of what are the constitutional limits, remembering that the Secretary for Justice must be able to control criminal prosecutions free of judicial encroachment.
70.  In addition, any interpretation of the Basic Law, which requires a purposive approach, must recognise that continuity is integral to an understanding of its structure.  By way of illustration, art.8 provides that:
‘The laws previously in force in Hong Kong, that is, the common law, rules of equity, ordinances, subordinate legislation and customary law shall be maintained, except for any that contravene this Law, and subject to any amendment by the legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.’
71.  Clearly, the Secretary would act outside of his powers if it could be demonstrated that he has done so not on an independent assessment of the merits but in obedience to a political instruction.  Article 63 specifically forbids such interference with the exercise of his powers.
72.  Equally plain, in my view, is the conclusion that the Secretary would act outside of his powers if he acted in bad faith, for example, if one of his offices instituted a prosecution in return for payment of a bribe.
這些案例, 可謂訂立了司法干預律政司檢控權的新框架, 並非陳教授所講法庭無權過問律政司不檢控的決定。我相信曾健成的司法覆核許可是會批出的, 因為是reasonably arguable, 但最後司法覆核會被駁回, 因為在法律觀點方面證據不足以把梁振英定罪, 也難有證據顯示不檢控梁振英律政司是基於政治決定或acted in bad faith。

上面所講D案, 最後律政司改變初衷, 檢控石國藝4項非禮及1項襲擊罪, 最後定了一項企圖非禮罪名成立, 之後上訴也駁回: HKSAR and SHEK KWOK NGAI HCMA 261/2016。

42 則留言:

  1. Billsiu, I agree that leave to commence judicial review proceedings against the Secretary for Justice should be granted to the applications, for the reasons you have identified. I am not so sure about the outcome. The evidence against Mr CY Leung (for the crime of misconduct in public office) seems strong to me.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. My knowledge of the case only came from the media report. The evidence cum legal issues suffice to say has created a lot of suspicions which render public outcry. I doubt whether there is any chance the jury will convict. It is, of course, my sheer speculation.

      刪除
    2. 水清則無魚,是故香港只有廢材庸材高官和垃圾議員。
      香港這種通過全霉揭來揭去互相抺黑,小事化大的遊戲,大家玩夠了沒有呢?

      刪除
    3. 1:23兄,
      部份同意兄台說社會有小事化大風氣盛行。但起因是做高官愚鈍到不懂避風頭,對政治觀感的敏感度是零疍,自招是非。由此顯示他的工作能力有多小,大衆心中自然有數(現實上他的能力,早有公論)。 故此社會出些指责,是可以避免更多這類人加入政府。
      Bill hk

      刪除
  2. 撇開高院案例, 司法機構應否有櫂干預律政司的檢控決定?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. BBTW在下面答了你。如果撇開案例, 只有更高級法院的新判決才能說有沒有權干預。

      刪除
  3. 案例就係回答左你個問題, (咁你仲撇唔撇開佢好?)
    事情唔係字面「司法干預檢控」咁簡單.
    這個學術興趣題, 可以試下咁睇 : 假如律政司傻左, 違憲亂來, 跟住會發生乜野事、機制如何.

    首先撇開阿爺出手, 或慢吞吞未出手前, 先看看如何...
    根據高院講法 : 是司法機構有權釋法, 包括基本法, 律政司傻左/違憲行為被理解為超出基本法第六十三條.
    而口在司法機構, 手在政府及司法機構, 雙方嗌交? 阿爺未出來主持公道前, 司法勝.
    BBTW

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. BBTW兄,
      解釋清楚直接,我這個廠佬又學到嘢了.佩服
      Bill hk

      刪除
  4. http://hd.stheadline.com/news/realtime/hk/1454754/

    我想知點解甩,其實作為蟻民,
    有無方法知?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 除了在現場聽審, 就只有看傳媒報導, 又或者你是其中一個陪審員。

      刪除
    2. 按另一篇報導,個被告話個袋是問男友人借來的,不知有暗格和暗格內有毒品。
      https://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20190314/00176_077.html

      啲毒品成兩公斤咁重,拎個袋上手都知唔正常啦,但偏偏陪審團相信,無計。不過天網灰灰,如果佢真係毒犯,相信佢必有下次,到時如果係菲律賓這類國家被捉到只怕要打靶,無今次咁好彩了


      刪除
    3. 這世界乜都有人信, 睇開啲。兩K重, 咁都唔知, 仲要一致判無罪, 好佩服。

      刪除
    4. 所以陪審團制度雖有其好處,但也並非完美。

      刪除
    5. 暫時沒有更理想的制度可取代。

      刪除
    6. 3:26
      如果你有被告嘅天使面孔同模特兒身型應該會甩到

      刪除
    7. 標少,
      沒法上訴嗎?
      Bill hk

      刪除
    8. 有邊個人會主動認販毒……

      刪除
    9. jury nullification?

      刪除
    10. No basis to do so. I think they acquitted the defendant on benefit of doubt as to her lack of knowledge.

      刪除
    11. 雖然唔想咁講,
      但如果同一事情發生響內地大媽身上,
      結果可能截然不同……

      刪除
    12. 發生過喇, 我不記得案件號碼, 審完釘咗上訴得直重審幾次, 最後不再要求重審而脫罪。

      刪除
    13. https://hk.news.appledaily.com/local/daily/article/20160906/19761664

      https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=98153

      刪除
    14. 多謝標少,很多人对香港法律有偏,但說成香港法律对他有偏見.
      Bill hk

      刪除
  5. 其實陳文敏非常直接講出,律政司享有憲法的權利,只係解釋基本法在法院,所以法院有權監察律政司,但在立法原意方面,好明顯係陳文敏的講法,因為1984年時,香港的司法覆核案少之又少,無人會想過用法律程序去干預律政司的決定。

    回覆刪除
  6. https://skypost.ulifestyle.com.hk/article/2294138/修例移交逃犯%20李家超:須符「雙重犯罪」原則
    請教標少有什麼漏洞?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. "缺陷"?
      如果你是指「保安局長李家超指,台灣殺人案暴露了本港制度缺陷」, 我都覺得好奇怪.
      李家超代表政府, 無可能咁樣措詞講說話, 有可能報章有立場斷章取義, 整篇報導已經沒再提及甚麼缺陷.
      同樣地...
      李家超說修例後「政治、種族、宗教」等案件不適用, 然而有提到「若只是無心之失商業行為,不會被移交」我認為例子不算好.
      及後, 報導可能借葉劉打對台 : 修例不應該豁免商業罪行,否則香港成為罪案天堂.
      小心閱報, 報導手法不無可疑. 需要與其他報導對照佐證.
      BBTW

      刪除
  7. 標兄,請問上訴還可以打ID麼?

    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10215531187485725&id=1020548405&anchor_composer=false&ref=content_filter

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 何止ID, 乜都打得, ID是重點。你幫佢上訴咩?

      刪除
    2. 我不在庭上聽審, 不知詳細情況, 但從報導看, 扺釘同釘硬。

      刪除
    3. 唔判佢去小欖算執到。。。

      刪除
    4. 我都覺得此君心理問題嚴重, 但小欖不能醫得好, 搏出位、標奇立異是無得醫的。

      刪除
    5. 怎看此君都是儍仔,儍仔怎博上鏡博出位還是儍仔!

      刪除
    6. 他被人打了一身被釘書機釘恐怕是真, 就是私人恩怨罷了, 正正經經報警驗身等結果就好嘛
      那知他大話西遊什麼國產007, 被控報假案, 只能說活該

      刪除
    7. 若是被人打釘, 不是自己落手, 那人只是幫他做假。

      刪除
    8. 林子健嫌裁判官判得過輕,要求上訴庭再加刑??呵呵!!

      刪除
  8. 搶刀向經理報復 勇警一槍擊斃斬人狂漢
    https://yns.page.link/9ui5h?soc_src=unv-sh&soc_trk=wa

    呢哟新聞。
    如果講一句
    支持警方强力執法。清除社會垃圾。
    是否恰當呢。

    有人講返。 好似係TVB既記者問左警方一句
    點解甘快開槍。

    回覆刪除
  9. https://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20190317/bkn-20190317145302845-0317_00822_001.html

    "曾有多次襲警案底的前終審法院非常任法官包致金姪女Amina Mariam Bokhary,今年一月底涉嫌停牌期間駕駛被警方拘捕,她原須於上月中向警方報到,但一直未有現身。據悉,至今日(17日)下午1時許,Amina在跑馬地肇輝臺被警方拘捕。"

    連棄保都玩埋...今次老爺仲放唔放佢走?

    回覆刪除