今天上載了終審法院拒絕批出控方就吳文遠向梁振英擲三文字案申請上訴許可的判詞。3人組成的上訴委員會(Appeal Committee)較罕有地包括一名非常設法官, 而且由他寫判詞。雖然不批出上訴許可, 實際上是肯定了原審裁判官把吳文遠定罪的決定正確, 即是推翻了高院法官邱智立判吳文遠上訴得直的看法。有判詞為證:
4. The Magistrate received all the evidence at first-hand. There was evidence on which he was entitled to find, as he did, those facts proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was open to him to feel sure, as he did, that the exculpatory parts of Mr Ng’s evidence were properly to be rejected. On his view of the facts, the Magistrate was entitled to convict Mr Ng of a common assault upon Chief Inspector Lau. As a thrown object speeds in a person’s direction, there is a range of courses which it would be natural for him to take. One such course is to use his hand to ward off the thrown object. The physical consequences of contact between the thrown object and that person’s hand may be far less serious than the physical consequences of contact between the thrown object and, for example, that person’s eye. But in law contact between the thrown object and that person’s hand would suffice for the purposes of a common assault charge just as would contact between the thrown object and that person’s eye. While contact with Chief Inspector Lau’s hand would so suffice, it is to be noted that some parts of the sandwich which broke into pieces upon contact with Chief Inspector Lau’s hand ended up landing on his torso.
5. In the circumstances of this case, the far more obvious course would seem to have been to bring a charge of common assault by Mr Ng upon Mr Leung. Be that as it may, it was open to the prosecution to bring a charge of common assault by Mr Ng upon Chief Inspector Lau.
(HKSAR and NG MAN YUEN AVERY (吳文遠) FAMC No. 15 of 2019)