Sentencing Council判刑委員會

由水官判案引起爭論以來, 我一直撐她, 律政司已獲上訴庭批出判刑覆核, 我理應等待結果而不宜再講的, 但有網友提出香港應該成立判刑委員會來制衡法官的權力, 也有人認為就算對判刑上訴, 也難保證判刑公道, 這方面我不懂回應, 因為大家懂的事不同, 我不懂就不想亂講。

甚麼是判刑委員會? 別搞錯, 不是法官審案後由判刑委員會來負責判刑, 判刑的責任一直都屬於法官的。以英國為例, 判刑委員會只是訂立量刑指引的機構, 成員主要是法官, 其他成員包括刑事檢控專員、警方代表、犯罪學學者及感化官。他們定期開會, 更新判刑的指引, 目的是減低法官之間在刑罰上的分歧, 有系統地詳細列出各項元素, 並予以分類, 再因應個別犯人的因素再加減刑期。判刑委員會的指引具法律約束力的, 除了特殊原因或鑑於公眾利益, 否則法官必須跟隨這指引來判刑。

我借用水佳麗判少年縱火案為例, 採用英國判刑委員會的最新指引(1 October 2019)來比較結果。

Arson (criminal damage by fire)

Step 1 – Determining the offence category

Culpability demonstrated by one or more of the following

A – High culpability

• High degree of planning or premeditation
• Revenge attack
• Use of accelerant
• Intention to cause very serious damage to property
• Intention to create a high risk of injury to persons

B – Medium culpability

• Some planning
• Recklessness as to whether very serious damage caused to property
• Recklessness as to whether serious injury caused to persons
• Other cases that fall between categories A and C because:
  • Factors are present in A and C which balance each other out and/or
  • The offender’s culpability falls between the factors described in A and C

C – Lesser culpability

• Little or no planning; offence committed on impulse
• Recklessness as to whether some damage to property caused
• Offender’s responsibility substantially reduced by mental disorder or learning disability
• Involved through coercion, intimidation or exploitation

Harm

The level of harm is assessed by weighing up all the factors of the case.

Category 1

• Serious physical and/or psychological harm caused
• Serious consequential economic or social impact of offence
• High value of damage caused

Category 2

• Harm that falls between categories 1 and 3

Category 3

• No or minimal physical and/or psychological harm caused
• Low value of damage caused

***********************************************************************************************************************

Step 2 – Starting point and category range

In exceptional cases within category 1A, sentences of above 8 years may be appropriate.

Harm		Culpability
	A	B	C
Category 1	Starting point4 years’ custody	Starting point 1 year 6 months’ custody	Starting point9 months’ custody
	Category range2 – 8 years’ custody	Category range9 months – 3 years’ custody	Category range6 months – 1 year 6 months’ custody
Category 2	Starting point2 years’ custody	Starting point 9 months’ custody	Starting pointHigh level community order
	Category range1 – 4 years’ custody	Category range6 months – 1 year 6 months’ custody	Category rangeMedium level community order – 9 months’ custody
Category 3	Starting point1 year’s custody	Starting pointHigh level community order	Starting pointLow level community order
	Category range 6 months – 2 years’ custody	Category rangeMedium level Community order –  9 months’ custody	Category rangeDischarge – High level community order

Factors reducing seriousness or reflecting personal mitigation

• No previous convictions or no relevant/recent convictions
• Steps taken to minimise the effect of the fire or summon assistance
• Remorse
• Good character and/or exemplary conduct
• Serious medical condition requiring urgent, intensive or long-term treatment
• Age and/or lack of maturity
• Mental disorder or learning disability (where not taken into account at step one)
• Sole or primary carer for dependent relatives
• Determination and/or demonstration of steps having been taken to address addiction or offending behaviour

這少年屬Category A的嚴重性, 因為汽油彈屬 Category A裏的"use of accelerant", 半夜擲汽油彈在馬路上, 傷害(harm)屬Category 3, 破壞性低類別, 判刑屬A3類別, 即是6個月至兩年監禁。但這指引是應用在成人判刑身上的, 18歲以下要另作考慮, 英國判刑委員會也列出焦點:

Sentencing principles (Sentencing Children and Young People)

1.1 When sentencing children or young people (those aged under 18 at the date of the finding of guilt) a court must1 have regard to:

• the principal aim of the youth justice system (to prevent offending by children and young people); and
• the welfare of the child or young person.

1.2 While the seriousness of the offence will be the starting point, the approach to sentencing should be individualistic and focused on the child or young person, as opposed to offence focused. For a child or young person the sentence should focus on rehabilitation where possible. A court should also consider the effect the sentence is likely to have on the child or young person (both positive and negative) as well as any underlying factors contributing to the offending behaviour

.....

這少年承認控罪, 判刑時未夠16歲, 水官先索取勞役中心及感化報告, 勞役中心建議判他入去, 而感化官建議18個月感化。他已被收押了4個月, 入過勞役中心兩星期嚐了short sharp shock的滋味, 18個月的感化還要有一半時間住在屯門兒童及青少年院, 我相信律政司的上訴理據是要爭取判他入勞役中心, 水官判18個月感化犯了原則上錯誤嗎? 以本案而言, 採取英國判刑委員會的考慮準則, 也不見得水官犯錯。Why does DoJ all of a sudden become a wolf warrior too? 上週另一暴動案, 少年轉介區域法院審, 就算定罪, 也大有可能轉到少年庭判刑的。

話說回頭, 香港為何不成立判刑委員會? 我沒資格回答, 這問題不久前JA在立法會答了官腔的答法, 標少草民的答法是: 香港處境敏感, 成立一個律政司和警方有份的委員會來量刑, 頗有在3權合作聯手對付犯人的感覺。一個有經驗的法官, 理論上會在腦海中考慮一切量刑應該考慮的因素, 司法機構的內聯網也分門別類列出量刑的案例, 司法獨立抑或獨大, 可各自表述。

一再批評水佳麗就不太公平了, 所以我一再撐她。

Things gotta breathe

悉尼近日開始放寬防疫的限制, 但經過百日的孤獨, 已變成獨孤無敵, 提不起興趣會友了。這平台突然變成文宣集散地, 我開始省油, 不想交流, 誰想叫囂或誰想跟誰吵架, 你們隨便。對鹹豬手法官的指控, 越來越多的 Me too, 發展下去必定會see him in court。Sydney Morning Herald負責報導這事的記者, 經歷了幾年明查暗訪, 終於開花結果。對象是最高法院法官, 在處理報導的手法上份外小心, 以免惹上誹謗訴訟, 她們等到首席法官公佈性騷擾的獨立調查結果才同步發佈她們幾年來搜集的訊息。反觀香港, 總是快餐式譁眾取寵的報導。(想看鹹豬手法官的背景, 可以看這篇: Dyson's 'dirty deeds': the public v private face of 'sexual harasser'。)

今天有朋友告訴我水佳麗判掟汽油彈少年案而引發的投訴數量, 我聽到咋舌。判案無疑要顧及社會現狀, 但不是顧及市民情緒, 否則群情凶湧下, 很多人就會被判處死刑了。量刑引起爭端, 判刑的分歧(disparity)是否成立”判刑委員會"(sentencing council)就是最佳解決辦法, 其實也有2 schools of thoughts。水官加油。

看書看到悶我就最愛看美國新聞, 尤其是CNN。美國總統笑話特別多, 愛屋及烏, 我也愛看美國子民的風趣表現, these ones take the cake。Take the cake甚麼意思? 蠢到加零一。佛羅里達州通過某些縣強制市民戴口罩, 反對者在議會咆哮, 我錄取其中幾則:

“I don’t wear a mask for the same reason I don’t wear underwear: things gotta breathe.”

*************************************************************************

“I was born free, I will stay free. My rights come from God, not from you. I’m not wearing it. You’re gonna have to hold me down and put it on me.”

*************************************************************************

“We will get together and do a citizen’s arrest on every single human being that goes against the freedom of choice, OK? You literally cannot mandate somebody to wear a mask knowing that that mask is killing people. It literally is killing people, Every single one of you have a smirk behind that little mask. But every single one of you are going to get punished by God.”

所以呢, 由地洞鑽出來的總統, 首先爭取拍張手持聖經的教堂照, 爭取上帝支持, 意義重大, 連任失敗也在天堂先霸個位。以他這狀況, 死都不肯帶口罩, 開多兩場集氣大會就得償所願, 一命嗚flu了。而那位想透透氣的女士, 可能忘記了1932年Shirokiya Department Store火災的教訓了。

一個國家的墮落, 從領導人的氣度嗅得出來的, 靠吹牛渡日, 也招集到愚昧的die hard fans, 還不折墮嗎?

投訴法官

香港市民近年對法庭判決甚有意見, 於是有人鼓吹"監官會", 有人發起集體投訴。我都希望不滿的人要搞清楚究竟不滿的是甚麼, 然後提出怎樣去解決。可是, 我看不到具體建議。為了方便進一步討論, 我可以提供一些資料作為事實基礎, 掌握了一些事實, 討論才有意義。

首先, 讓我回應上一篇的一段貼文, 據稱是雷鼎鳴教授的文章:

...想深一層，其實國籍也不一定是最關鍵問題，在英美加澳等國家，當法官前要先經過嚴格的品格及安全檢查，由情報單位負責，倒是香港沒有這要求。...

雷教授真的知道香港法官任命的程序嗎? 面試入圍的法官, 在未正式被委任前, 除非是現職的公務員, 否則要填寫背景審查表(GF200), 要接受警方及廉署的背景審查, 以及由政府醫生負責的驗身, 再由「司法人員推薦委員會」投票通過 (而終審法院法官及高等法院首席法官的任命還須由行政長官徵得立法會同意)。我不知雷教授所指的「情報單位」是甚麼, 97前警察有政治部(俗稱邵氏的Security Branch, 縮寫SB, 跟Shaw Brothers的縮寫一樣, 是主要收集共產黨情報的單位, 回歸就解散了, 在SB當差的都自動獲英國護照), 但政治部以前基本上沒有參與公務/公職人員任命的背景審查的。轉貼雷教授講法的朋友請自己向他澄清他要甚麼「情報單位」來審查法官。

投訴法官先要搞清楚投訴甚麼, 不滿司法決定(定罪/脫罪及判刑), 途徑是去上訴, 我舉香港、澳洲新南威爾斯省、英國及紐約這4個地方的機制為例, 其他普通法地區推論也該是這樣。 資料顯示:

香港 (司法機構)

...

Principle of Judicial Independence

2.2...Since a judicial decision is made by the judge in the course of independence adjudication, a complaint against the decision cannot be entertained. Anyone who feels aggrieved by a judge's decision can only appeal (where this is available) through the existing legal procedures.

(https://www.judiciary.hk/doc/en/publications/complaintsjjoleaflet.pdf)

New South Wales (Judicial Commission)

The Commission cannot:
...
review a case for judicial error, mistake or other legal grounds

(https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/complaints)

United Kingdom (Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman)

You cannot use the complaints process to challenge a decision or sentence. You should get legal advice about how to appeal.

(https://www.gov.uk/complain-judge-magistrate-tribunal-coroner#:~:text=Contact%20the%20Judicial%20Appointments%20and,a%20judicial%20conduct%20complaint%20form.)

New York ( the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct)

To File a Complaint about a Judge

---

1. COURT DECISIONS:

If you disagree with the decision of a judge, the appropriate remedy is to appeal the decision. Please contact the relevant court clerk’s office to obtain information on how to appeal a court decision.(https://www.nycourts.gov/ip/judicialconduct/index.shtml)

從而可見, 不是我在耍官腔, 而是若涉司法決定, 一般是不滿判刑的輕重, 去上訴喇。只有法官的行為、操守及語言等並非司法決定, 就可以向相關機構投訴。從香港司法機構去年的年報看到(下列), 對法官行為方面的投訴是0宗, 判刑過輕的不滿應由律政司負責監察採取行動, 若覺得這機制無效就請提建議出來討論。

Complaints against Judges and Judicial Officers

Number of Complaints Disposed of by the Chief Justice and the Court Leaders	Nature of Complaints				2019 Total
	Judicial / Statutory Decision	Judicial Conduct	Both Judicial / Statutory Decision and Judicial Conduct	Dissatisfaction with the Court Leader’s handling and / or findings of the original complaints

Chief Justice	4	0	0	5	9
Chief Judge of the High Court	38	0	2	NA	40
Chief District Judge	14	0	2	NA	16
Chief Magistrate	2971	0	6	NA	303
Sub-total	353	0	10	5	368

Notes:
1.Includes 240 complaints relating to the judicial decision of one court case. 2.The total number of cases filed in 2019 is 513,148. 3.Complaints related to judicial conduct can be broadly classified according to their nature. Among complaints on judicial conduct above, 2 cases are related to attitude and behavior in court, 4 cases are related to handling of actual proceedings in court, and 4 cases are related to mixed nature. 4.There is no justified case among the complaints above.

鹹豬手法官"Handsy" Heydon及其他

上一篇留言已很多, 要開新一篇了。

鹹豬手法官事件繼續發酵, Sydney Morning Herald翻了他到牛津法學院作為訪問學人那兩年的舊賬 : 'Dirty Dyson': former judge Heydon's nickname at Oxford amid fresh harassment claims, 除了賺來Dirty Dyson外, 另一花名是Handsy Heydon。事件又有另兩個發展, 坎培拉總檢控官公開呼籲聯邦警察調查此事, 我相信在上一篇講述坎培拉律師會女會長的遭遇, 已足以檢控非禮; 另一線發展是, 聯邦最高法院首席法官向100名曾與鹹豬手法官共事的女性職員發問卷調查性騷擾, 我相信是補鑊行動。事發至此應該直接交警方調查才對, 這司法界的國際醜聞已爆得燦爛了, 包也包不住。幸好此君未被香港終審法院委任過做非常任法官, 否則就多一條理由不能老外審國安法的案件了。

上一篇有網友質疑法官權力不受制衡, 坦白講我不知道要制衡甚麼。如果講三權分立的制衡, 香港基本上已有, 司法一直強調獨立, 獨立會否變成獨大, 我不能說不會, 但先要搞清楚社會人士不滿法官那方面, 是他們的操守抑或是判刑。印象中近年都沒有爆甚麼醜聞出來, (發生了沒爆出來的若我知也不會告訴你), 我相信最大爭議的應該是判案, 譬如講以胸襲警, 被告被判有罪時, 社會有一撮人譁然, 可是, 一個法律問題無論怎譁然也不會改變的, 定罪上訴也駁回了。法官對社會事件衍生出來的罪行判刑, 爭論會比較大, 因為社會撕裂, 水火不容。更何況判刑這東西由街市賣魚的至大學教法律的都有看法, 因為這些看法太容易發表了, 就算行內人都可以有差異很大的論述。政治性質引發的案件在判刑方面實在是個很困難的司法決定, 就算有量刑指引, 也可因個人因素而致判法上產生差異。 個人因素包括兩方面, 一是法官本身的嚴寬差異, 二是被告行為的嚴重程度不一, 個人求情因素也很不一樣, 判刑結果分別就大了。如果是其他專業事情, 就較少會惹起爭議, 譬如在某個面積起屋, 要用多少鋼筋和落多少石屎, 一般人根本不懂發表意見。判刑卻很不同, 一般人對案例及考慮原則不認識, 也一樣可以熱烈討論。當這股議論與法庭判決落差很大的時候, 就可能有人會覺得法官犯錯、專橫、獨大, 不是藍就是黃。可是, 當律政司覺得刑罰不足, 就可以申請覆核, 本身也是一種監察, 具備上訴機制已是一種監察, 如果連上訴庭及終審法院的判決也不滿, 其實也沒有其他方法了。就正如不滿人大釋法也沒有太上皇去規管, 就算有太上皇的候, 仍然不滿呢, 還可怎樣? 講到底要先搞清楚不滿的是甚麼。

上一篇有人提問守行為有沒有案底的問題, 我重新講一次, 希望會清晰一點。首先應該這樣看, 有沒有留下刑事案底, 要看有沒有被定罪, 定罪後判守行為就有刑事案底。這種守行為的判處來自3條法例:

第227章《裁判官條例》第36條;
第212章《侵害人身罪條例》第41條;

第221章 《刑事訴訟程序條例》第107條。

沒有案底的守行為來自普通法Justice of  the Peace Act 1361及227章《裁判官條例》第61條。最常出現的就是被告被控告上庭, 辯方律師與主控商討, 控方撤銷控罪, 被告同意案情及願意守行為, 通常發生在小額的店鋪盜竊案、公眾地方打架案, 甚至反修例集結的襲警案, 也有部份撤銷控罪讓被告守行的, 都是先予檢控, 然後控辯商討達成的。一般來講法官判被告守行為之餘另外要賠償訟費予控方, 通常是$500-$1000。也有一些情況是警方沒有把被告落案, 而直接向法官申請判被告守行為的。

我們常聽到的簽保守行為, 要簽的是第227C章 《裁判官(表格)規則》第34至36的表格, 譬如:

表格34	[條例第28、36、41及61條]

須作出擔保以保證遵守法紀或保持行為 良好的命令

香港

裁判法院

由香港裁判官 先生於上述法院審理。

19 年 月 日。

現經 作出申訴，指稱 (以下稱為被告人)[述明令申訴人取得此令的事實依據，包括事件發生的時間及地點]；被告人已出庭，而在聆聽上述申訴事項後，本席今日判決並命令被告人須立即以一筆 的款項作出擔保，並須有 擔保人 擔保，擔保金額[每人] ，以保證由現時起計的一段 期間，被告人會遵守法紀或對申訴人保持行為良好；而倘被告人不遵從本命令，則須將被告人監禁於香港的一所監獄，監禁期為 ，除非被告人較早遵從本命令。

[如命令繳付訟費，則接下文] ——

此外，本席亦判決及命令被告人須立即(或在19 年 月

日或該日之前或按分期付款方式等) 付予上述

一筆 的款項作為訟費；倘被告人未有依照本判決及命令付款，則須[下文內容一如判處罰款並以扣押財物方式徵取的定罪書所載者]。

這篇不再談國安法了, 等人大立了法才再討論。再次拜託留言別用粗言穢語。

終審級法院的猥瑣佬

這篇要轉話題, 國安法只看到「說明」而未見條文, 關注的事都講了, 算是反映了個人意見, 沒有其他可以做了。今天明報頭條, 撐訂立國安法的李大法官也表達了他的關注點 (李國能：「指定法官」「管轄權」損司法 鄭若驊：應指一個名單 並非指定某官審某案), 這些憂慮大概不是空穴來風的陰謀論嘛。 不論撐不撐國安法都好, 香港人都no say, 連批評和提出異議也不敢就by all means, 隨便做歌德。上一篇有人說內地陽光司法比香港好, 真的感到欣慰。香港應造福市民, 開放司法管轄權, 讓市民多一項選擇, 在香港犯法, 可選在內地審訊和坐牢, 便得償所願了。

今天講法官性騷擾, 雖然五、六年前寫過一篇案情很奇特有趣的非禮案的副產品: 法官性騷擾？, 而該非禮案的定罪在上訴時也駁回了, 我又另外寫了一篇: 舔腳非禮的上訴, 但到了今天, 我仍是覺得怪怪的。昨天, 澳洲司法界爆出大醜聞。澳洲的高等法院相等於香港的終審法院, 坐在上面的法官當然是法律翹楚, 品格要求極高也不在話下, 社會對這類人也期望高。年多前悉尼一位前裁判官被裁定7項非禮罪成, 控罪發生在80年代, 受害人是一名與他相識的男童, 幾天前這裁判官上訴成功脫了兩罪。這事無疑使司法界蒙羞, 但比起昨天爆出的醜聞就相形見拙了。這事涉及已退休高院法官Dyson Heydon, Sydney Morning Herald這標題已說出不少驚人案情: 'The judge’s hands became very busy under the table': lawyer says Heydon groped her。"The judge"當時剛退休, 出席坎培拉大學法學院舞會兼演講嘉賓, 而事主當時是坎培拉律師會會長, 手在枱底下面不是摸枱腳啊, 事主這樣描述:

Following his speech, Mr Heydon sat down next to Ms Blumer for dessert, and told her she was "the sexiest woman he had ever met in his entire life".

"I was pretty dumbfounded by this extravagant and inappropriate statement ... from such an eminent person," she wrote.

After that, "the judge's hands became very busy under the table, on my lap, feeling up the side of my leg", she wrote.

這事主只是6位投訴人的其中一位, 其他5人是法官在任時共事的書記及律師。接獲投訴後高院首席法官委派了非法律界人士進行秘密調查, 昨天公佈了6位女士被性騷擾投訴成立。以香港舔腳非禮案作比較, 這枱底摸腳行為又何止性騷擾, 根本就符合R v Court所列的非禮元素。女律師會長回家後向老公投訴, 翌日向教授複述事發經過, 她做得更精明的是做了詳盡文字紀錄(took a lengthy contemporaneous file note of the evening)。

另一位出席宴會的學生這樣描述她的遭遇:

"He stared at my breasts the whole time and then he made a remark about my breasts and the dress I was wearing," she said.

"It made me so uncomfortable that I got up from the conversation and left."

The former student, who did not wish to be named, said it was a "really uncomfortable situation".

"I remember [Heydon] being intoxicated and I remember feeling angry that he was there as a guest and the audacity of a person to do that."

The young woman was not a law student, but was aware of "who he was" because Mr Heydon had given the keynote speech.

"That's what shocked me the most and why I recall it, because of who he was and his title," she said.

"I told my friends, 'That guy is a grub'."

A grub, 曾是終審級法院的法官是猥瑣佬一名, 都好得人驚。總理被問到此事, 他只能說disturbing。6名投訴成立的當事人中3人已提出要求賠償的訴訟, 因為涉及work place sexual harrassment, 所以聯邦政府也牽連了, 這種司法蒙羞比國家領導人玩女人更加stormy。Oh! 又聯想到大國總統的紅顏禍水Stormy Daniels起來。所以大法官呀, 玩女人咪好囉, 可以做一國元首, 做乜折墮到性騷擾! It is so revolting。噢! 陳勝吳廣別搞錯, revolting 不是revolt呀, 我表示憎厭並非叫你去起義, 別會錯意, 顛覆政權也入我賬。

掩耳盜鈴

特朗普今天在Tulsa出席競選宣傳活動, 吹牛是他的常態, 這當然不用我去做fact check, 美國政治是美國人的事, 我看他其實只想找點笑料。他花了14分鐘重新演譯在西點軍校走下檢閱台被指患上柏金遜症的一幕(I read the full transcripts)。他今天對着群眾説, 減少檢測新冠病毒, 少人去測個案就必然會少。

"You know testing is a double-edged sword...Here's the bad part ... when you do testing to that extent, you're going to find more people; you're going to find more cases. So I said to my people, slow the testing down please."

掩耳盜鈴的手法, 大陸疫情初期爆發的消息封鎖, 澳洲初期口罩不足呼籲國民無需帶口罩, 道理都一樣。我這一篇不是講疫情, 是講國安法。

保障國家安全的法例絕對有需要訂立, 香港23年來都不能為《基本法》第23條立法, 造成顛覆國家方面的法律空隙(lacuna), 港獨份子氣焰囂張, 所以訂立國安條例來應對, 這屬逼不得已的方法, 這一點我也可以接受。因為泛民議員在立法會中玩弄手段抗爭, 擾亂立法會功能, 所以國安法不能一如過往在列入《基本法》附件三後, 再由特區自行立法, 這一點我也逼不得已接受, 因為再由本港自行立法就一定再擾釀一番。這樣做明顯削弱特區作為兩制之下施行普通法的司法獨立性。出現這情況我都接受, 純因為反正在闡釋有關條例最終都會走上釋法的一步。可以怪誰, 反修例後貪勝不知輸的自食其果。我難以接受的是有關在特別情況下, 由中央手執司法管轄權這一點。

我們回帶到去年2月, 政府推出修訂逃犯條例時, 泛民反對的焦點在於要先確保特區法庭對被引渡犯人要有足夠保障, 連保皇黨表面忠心也同樣尋求相同的保障。當時中聯辦講有名有姓的大陸經濟犯逃到香港的有三幾百個, 而當時修例所針對的百份百香港人也只有現在逍遙法外的陳同佳一個而已。一直以來強調一國兩制, 未知50年不變在餘下的27年怎樣銜接大陸的一套, 或者在50年之後會否商討出另一方案, 在過渡期間有幾多人希望立即變成一國一制呢? 現在一下子竟然會有很多人對國安法可以把犯人送返內地審而欣然接受! 

假如23條老早就立了法, 在香港違反的人就只會在香港審訊, 定罪後在香港服刑, 《基本法》沒有一條提及港人在港犯法會送內地審的, 所以這次訂立的國安法是改變小憲法的大突破。這種突破我認為是明顯違反《基本法》的。我明白很多人目睹過去一年香港的動亂及破壞, 恨不得把暴徒嚴懲, 所以接受國安法可以對付他們, 加上看到不少擲汽油彈的被告沒有被重囚而誤以引用國安法送他們往內地受審是最佳殺手鐧, 若你真的這樣想就表明你骨子裏都不受落內地的刑法。另外, 若你認為國安法可以對付暴徒, 我認為你想錯了。真的勾結外部勢力、搞顛覆的人, 有幾多個自己落手去擲汽油彈、藏炸藥及致命武器? 這種暴行就算通過國安法都未必可以告到這些暴徒, 暴動及相關行為都只是違反本地的法例。

國安法訂明駐港國安人員須遵守香港法律, 若違反香港法例, 譬如未獲法官批准的竊聽搜證, 在香港審訊這些證據就不能呈堂, 但押被告返內地審就不成問題了。而且, 國安法具凌駕性, 凌駕的程度要到立法後才知。另外, 國安人員在港違規可以怎樣處理? 打報告告訴國務院嗎?我不是危言聳聽, 只是不想一廂情願把一切都想得美好。Hope for the best but prepare for the worst。把頭埋在沙堆裏可能安然渡過預期會出現而沒有出現的危險, 最好的保障是法律上清晰的保障, 而不是自己幻想或幻得幻失的保障, 或像特朗普掩耳盜鈴的自欺欺人式的安慰。

一國一制邁出一大步

粗略看了新華社公布國安法法律草案主要內容, 部份應驗了我一個月前所寫的: 國安與心安一文的憂慮, 由人大立法, 法律的解釋權就不用說歸人大常委, 這就是無需經立法會立法所產生的問題。若經香港自行立法, 起碼會經香港一審、上訴及終審的3級釋法, 才至人大釋法, 現在的情況大有可能是, 在一審階段出現法律闡釋問題時, 直接提請人大釋法, 連上訴庭也不用嘗試釋法。新華社所報導說「危害國家安全犯罪案件的審判循公訴程序進行」, 那就起碼都是區域法院審了, 在判刑方面, 若律政司不滿過輕, 是否向中央人民法院上訴呢? 反正在某些情況下, 管轄權屬中央的, 一切由中央決定好了。

（五）明確規定案件管轄、法律適用和程序。

（1）除特定情形外，香港特別行政區對本法規定的犯罪案件行使管轄權。

(明報的報導)

「特定情形」太多空間, 太多不確定性, 這句說話很明顯顯示這類案件的偵查、搜證、以至檢控及定罪的準則, 都不會跟香港沿用普通法的一套。不是嗎? 都這樣講了:

草案在附則中規定：香港特別行政區本地法律與本法不一致的，適用本法規定；本法的解釋權屬於全國人民代表大會常務委員會。

中央人民政府在香港特別行政區設立維護國家安全公署, 這公署的人員, 當然用國內的搜證方法, 用特別法庭來審訊, 這特別法庭在考慮證據時又要不要特事特辦呢? 更有趣的是:

（4）香港特別行政區行政長官應當從現任或者符合資格的前任裁判官、區域法院法官、高等法院原訟法庭法官、上訴法庭法官以及終審法院法官中指定若干名法官，也可以從暫委或者特委法官中指定法官，負責處理危害國家安全犯罪案件。

既然起碼是區院審理, 為甚麼連前任裁判官也合資格? 而且, 講法也排除了以前未做過法官的人審理這類案。

國安法的訂立, 改變了香港的法律制度, 以往人大釋法是基於《基本法》所列的狹窄議題, 現在的國安法卻操控了香港本地發生的違法行為的管轄權, 向一國一制邁出一大步。

撤銷私人檢控案的準則

對於律政司司長應否介入私人檢控案, 又掀起爭論, 這普通法的私人檢控傳統, 在普通法施行的地方一直都保留着。我們聽慣了「普世價值」這講法, 所以我盡可能參考香港以外的例子。香港方面, 撇開律政司司長鄭若驊昨天在網誌的講法, 在律政司的《檢控守則》裏就有這描述:

7.4 決定是否接管私人檢控，有其考慮因素，其中包括以下各項︰

維護社會公義；
罪行的嚴重程度；
有利害關係一方的意見；
訴訟是否重複；
與律政司的決定是否一致；
是否有機會進行公平審訊。

律政司司長可同時考慮原來檢控一方的行為操守。

標少所處的新南威爾斯省, 也訂了相關的守則:

10 Taking over Proceedings [Furnished 20 October 2003; amended 1 June 2007] 

The Director may take over a matter pursuant to section 9 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986. Although the right of an individual to prosecute in the Local Court survives, the object of having a Director of Public Prosecutions is to ensure manifest integrity, neutrality and consistency in the making of prosecutorial decisions and the conduct of prosecutions.

Proceedings may be taken over if:

(i) the police officer-in-charge of the investigation so requests and there is a sound basis for doing so;
(ii) there is no reasonable prospect of conviction; 

(iii) they appear to be frivolous or vexatious or brought for an inappropriate ulterior purpose; 

(iv) they appear to have arisen out of a conflict of a predominantly civil nature and/or a civil legal remedy may be available; 

(v) they have been brought contrary to advice or a decision by the Director not to proceed; 

(vi) they have been instituted by police or a private person and there appears to be a conflict of interest or the risk of unfairness arising from their conduct of the prosecution; 

(vii) the public interest otherwise requires it, having regard (for example) to the gravity of the offence, its connection with another offence being prosecuted by the ODPP and all the surrounding circumstances; and/or 

(viii) an ODPP officer holding specific delegation pursuant to the Consolidated Instrument of Delegation and Orders approves the takeover. 

If such a decision is made the notices required by section 10 of the Act must be given expeditiously and before the next court appearance. Nevertheless, the mere act of appearing before a court in a prosecution or proceeding (including an appeal) in respect of an offence will constitute the taking over of that matter by the Director. In any such case an original informant disappears from the record (see Price v Ferris (1994) 34 NSWLR 704). Accordingly, after a matter has been taken over it cannot be returned to or conducted by or in the name of the original prosecutor. 

Before any matter is taken over other than in accordance with (viii) above and if time reasonably permits, it must be assessed and a decision made by the Director as to its future course (eg to continue or discontinue the proceedings).

ODPP Prosecution Guidelines (Office of Director of Public Prosecutions)

至於香港的殖民地老宗主的一套是這樣講的:

When to take over a private prosecution in order to stop it

A private prosecution should be taken over and stopped if, upon review of the case papers, either the evidential sufficiency stage or the public interest stage of the Full Code Test is not met.

There may be particular circumstances which would affect either the evidential or public interest stage of the Full Code Test that are peculiar to the private prosecution. Furthermore, there may be factors which would be damaging to the interests of justice if the private prosecution was not discontinued. Examples may include the following:

• cases where the prosecution interferes with the investigation of another criminal offence;
• cases where the prosecution interferes with the prosecution of another criminal charge;
• cases where it can be said that the prosecution is vexatious (within the meaning of section 42
• Supreme Court Act 1981, as amended by section 24 Prosecution of Offences Act 1985), or malicious (where the public prosecutor is satisfied that the prosecution is being undertaken on malicious grounds);
• cases where the prosecuting authorities (including the police, the CPS or any other public prosecutor) have promised the defendant that he will not be prosecuted at all (a promise of immunity from prosecution): Turner v DPP (1979) 68 Cr App R 70. This does not include cases where the prosecuting authorities have merely informed the defendant that they will not be bringing or continuing proceedings;
• cases where the defendant has already been given either a simple caution or a conditional caution for the offence (which remains in being), and the simple caution was appropriately given in accordance with the Adult Offender Simple Caution Scheme, or the giving of the conditional caution was in accordance with the Director's Guidance on Conditional Cautioning.

The Supreme Court in R (on the application of Gujra) v CPS [2012] UKSC 52 held that the CPS' approach to taking over a private prosecution with the intention to discontinue it, unless the evidential stage of the Full Code Test was met, was lawful and did not frustrate or emasculate the objects underpinning the right to maintain a private prosecution in section 6 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The case settled the matter following a series of cases including - R v DPP ex parte Duckenfield, R v Same ex parte Murray, R v South Yorkshire Police Authority and Another ex parte Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [2000] 1 WLR 55, Raymond v Attorney General [1982] 75 Cr App R 34.

(Private Prosecutions)

以上守則來自英國The Crown Prosecution Service 2019年10月的更新版。

上述3地的檢控守則來介入並撤銷私人檢控案件的準則作參考比較, 可見介入的準則大同小異。 若律政司司長介入撤控(甚至正在眾籌的「天下為公」的梁振英案), 律政司司長都有責任在立法會解釋清楚決定的理據。至於入稟申請私人檢控的申請人就需要格外留神, 因眾籌的私人檢控費用足以支付自己一方的律師費, 也要預留敗訴後要賠償對家的訟費, 還有可能再被被告一方索取惡意檢控的賠償, 到其時要考慮檢控的動機及有沒有向執法機構報過案等。

香港一直以來有多少私人傳票檢控是很難找到實際數字的, 但在Ng Chi Keung and Secretary For Justice(HCAL27/2013)一案, 李翰良法官處理的私人傳票司法覆核案其中一段提供了一些數據:

83. The statistics submitted by the respondent demonstrated this clearly. From 1996—2000, there were 30 applications for private prosecutions allowed by the magistrates, about 65 summonses were issued. From 2001 to 7 September 2013, there were 21 applications for private prosecutions allowed by the magistrates. There were 24 applications refused or withdrawn. A total of 41 summonses were issued. Throughout these years, the DPP took over and discontinued only two private prosecutions.[48]

參考該案時有一點要注意的是, 該案考慮的《檢控守則》是2013年修訂前的守則, 現在的守則(2013)在介入撤銷控罪的準則比以前訂得較寬鬆。畢竟當律政司司長介入, 考慮是否繼續檢控的準則會無異於一般的刑事案。舉西灣河槍擊案的私人檢控為例, 律政司司長介入就只能有一個結果, enter nolle prosequi。許議員若提司法覆核, 覆核許可不會批出, 上訴也會駁回, 屆時律政司提控的同一案情的另一案也會審完, 更無可能以同一案情進行二次檢控。

最近幾宗私人檢控, 看來只有陳志全提出的一宗律政司司長不會介入。

秘密審訊

當我們看到將要頒佈的國安法議論紛紛時,  可以見到意見是兩極的, 有人鼓掌歡迎, 有人憂心忡忡. 立法還會發展成這樣:

【明報專訊】「港區國安法」立法在即，至今仍無具體條文。港澳辦副主任鄧中華昨日在一個研討會上表明，國安法推行時，中央應當保留對香港發生的「嚴重危害國家安全的犯罪案件，實行管轄的權力」，又指需要賦予維護國家安全機構「必要的執法權和司法權」。鄧中華強調中央管轄權是「極其特殊的情况」、「少之又少」，但民主派憂慮這意味港人或被「送中」、送往內地法院受審。

這說法無疑是對某些嚴重危害國家的行為, 除了由國家介定怎樣叫嚴重外, 一口氣連修訂逃犯條例失敗的問題一併解決了, 逃到香港的大陸經濟犯也可被視為嚴重危害國家安全的犯罪案件, 不用引渡, 不怕被指越境執法, 因為國安人員可名正言順在港執法, 用合法渠道把罪犯帶回大陸審訊, 方便快捷, 不用大飛, 無需脅逼, 直接以囚車押解回去。到了現在, 有人後悔當初反對第23條立法, 也應有人後悔反修例了。可惜, 據上面報導的講法, 國家全權操控這類違反國安行為的介定、拘捕、檢控及審訊, 香港已沒有話事權。曾經奮力抵抗23條立法及反修例的人, 究竟為香港造福抑或製禍, 日後自有公論。

除了把嚴重案件送內地審訊外, 國安條例也可能訂立在香港閉門聆訊的條文, 以國家安全及機密免於外泄為理由而不准旁聽和不准任何人披露內容, 更能配合以特別法庭處理的講法, 為了配合守密, 連收押囚犯也可能另有安排。閉門聆訊(in camera)在香港並非新事物, 現行法例已存著這類條文。法例221章《刑事訴訟程序條例》第122條是相關條例:

122. 不准公眾進入刑事法庭的權力

(1) 任何法官、區域法院法官或裁判官，如認為為了司法公正、公安或安全有所需要，可指示任何人不得身處該法官、區域法院法官或裁判官行使刑事司法管轄權時開庭的法庭內，或身處該法庭開庭的建築物內或身處該建築物的範圍內，但如屬第(3)款所規定者，或獲得根據其指示行事的公職人員的許可，則屬例外。

(2) 終審法院首席法官如認為為了司法公正、公安或安全有所需要，可指示任何人不得身處任何聆訊刑事法律程序的法庭內，或身處該法庭開庭的建築物內或身處該建築物的範圍內，但如屬第(3)款所規定者，或獲得根據其指示行事的公職人員的許可，則屬例外。
......

別胡亂說這是惡法, 這法例存在已久, 也普世通行。別罵我為政府做打手, 先看澳洲正在秘密審訊的案件:

......
Bernard Collaery is being prosecuted for revealing national secrets — specifically, that Australia bugged East Timor's government building in 2004 to gain advantage in crucial oil and gas negotiations.

He faces two years in jail, but the details of the case against him, and the details of his defence, cannot be reported.

In court in Canberra earlier this month, Mr Porter used his national security powers to have the hearing held behind closed doors.

Mr Collaery said Christian Porter has chosen to pursue the prosecution.

"In a really deep sense, I think it was pretty ordinary of this young attorney to do that to me," said Mr Collaery of Mr Porter.

He is also highly critical of the secrecy provisions.

"I want to defend myself in public," he said.

"That's the hallmark of our democracy, a public trial.

"There's never been an issue of techniques being disclosed, there's never been an issue of identities being disclosed. If they were issues, there might be other charges.

......

(Christian Porter and a secret trial have destroyed my practice, Witness K lawyer Bernard Collaery says)

民主大國, 以間諜手法竊聽落後的友好鄰國攫取經濟利益, 也以國家安全法例打壓泄密的國民, 這算是普世的價值吧! 擴闊眼界, 就知道利益是凌駕在一切吹牛主義的頭上的。所以特朗普絕對可與金正恩同眠, 斷袖分桃也可以啊! 那些勇武的阿哥阿姐, 真希望他們認清政治面具才去犧牲, 別一味無知, 坐監也要坐得有價值, 也別一味啃老, 讓老人家吃幾口安樂茶飯。

我不是在發牢騷, 今早看SBS傳來的新聞(澳洲民俗電台), 有這一篇訪問:

This Hong Kong student protester fled to Australia. Now he's seeking asylum

......
Jay fled to Australia before the coronavirus travel ban came in and is now waiting to hear if he will be granted a protection visa.

"It was a very urgent decision [to leave Hong Kong]. I told my parents I was leaving just 10 hours before my flight was due to take off," he says.

Since fleeing, police have been to his house to look for him.

Jay says he felt he had no choice but to leave because he has no confidence he would be treated fairly by the Hong Kong judicial system.

"I don’t think I would get a fair trial in Hong Kong because I believe it is no longer one country, two systems. I think the legal system has been destroyed by the [Hong Kong] government and the Chinese Communist Party."

......

這位年青人只是無數逃來申請政治庇護的其中一個, 共產黨對這些人都不感興趣, 只要澳洲政府不要大鑼大鼓就可以, 否則又再掀起宣傳戰。這位阿哥說今生無悔, 今生還長久, 現實頗殘酷, 歲月流金, 到時可能Look Back in Anger。

反對轉院

上一篇Jack留言, 敘述今天這案:

法庭文字直播台tg
#西九龍裁判法院第三庭
#羅德泉主任裁判官

民陣副召集人陳皓桓
社民連梁國雄及吳文遠
工黨李卓人及何秀蘭
民主黨楊森

被控去年10月20日在港島組織未經
批准的集結及明知而參與未經批准的集結

D7將申請司法覆核挑戰檢控轉交區域法
院的決定，挑戰的基礎為控罪的性質與審
訊法庭不成正比，因而申請押後4星期

控方引用Archbold指檢控決定，律政司選
擇由哪一級法庭審訊為行使憲法權力，不
受干預，不用就決定解釋，故反對押後。
本案牽涉的被告數目、證人人數、複雜程度，
有需要移交區域法院

辯方回應指檢控決定並非不可挑戰，審
訊法庭應與控罪嚴重性成正比，為
unprecedented decision

以前也有被告被轉介區院審訊案件要求控方交付高院審, 控方拒絕下而申請司法覆核, 司法覆核失敗, 繼而上訴至上訴庭也失敗, 再向終院申請上訴許可但終院不批准。我講的是蔣麗莉案。我引用上訴庭的幾段判決:

22.  The effect of section 88, which was at the centre of the Applicant's submissions, is this: where the Secretary for Justice applies to a magistrate for the transfer of a charge or complaint made against an accused person to be dealt with in the District Court, the magistrate must make an order to this effect; in other words, there is no discretion to refuse an order for transfer.

23.  The decision of the Court of Appeal in David Lam Shu-Tsang v Attorney General, unreported, CACV 42 and 43 of 1977, 7 November 1977 confirms that the machinery under section 88 is a mandatory one. As Pickering JA said at page 6 (when addressing the background and effect of that provision) : ‑

“  When a community, through its Legislature, radically alters the structure of its Courts and, as a corollary to so doing, provides by a new section of an established enactment, the exclusive machinery whereby criminal cases shall reach a newly constituted Court itself obviously the subject of a wholly new contemporaneous enactment, it is idle to attempt to construe that transferal section of the existing enactment without reference to the all-pervading shift in juridical competence enshrined in the new legislation.  The scheme of the legislation was clear and fragmentation of interpretation has no part in that scheme.  That, I believe, must be the principle and applying it to the facts of the present case, whereas in 1953 the former Magistrate's Courts, the Supreme Court and the Full Court remained in existence there came into being, at a level between the Magistrate's Courts and the Supreme Court, a completely new jurisdictional tier in the form of the District Court in which, by the very constitution of the Court, there was no room for a jury.  It was to this Court that transfer of cases from the Magistrate's Courts was contemplated and the section providing for mandatory transfer of indictable offences upon the application of the Attorney General contained no saving clause, nothing to the effect that the Attorney General must consult the wishes of the accused and nothing giving the accused any right of objection to the transfer.  The discretion as to whether to apply for transfer was invested solely in the Attorney General and, upon his exercising that discretion by electing for transfer, the obligation to transfer lying upon the Magistrate was absolute.  The scheme of the legislation was clear beyond a peradventure and it entailed, with equal clarity, the deprivation of the former common law right to trial by jury.”

24.  The final part of the quoted passage makes a reference to the right to trial by jury. There is no such right in Hong Kong and it was not contended on behalf of the Applicant that there was any right to a trial by jury that belonged to an accused.

(CHIANG LILY and SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE)

我不敢說這次辯方申請司法覆核一定失敗, 不能抹殺可能有可爭辯的空間, 譬如可能提出憲法的爭拗, 但我不懂拗。有的裁判官實在太容易揸doubt, 審不來就benefit of doubt, 而且本案複雜, 由能力較高經驗較豐富的區院法官審也很公道。4星期後控方準備好轉介區院文件, 就可轉介了。辯方反對, 最大原因是區院釘官多, 這件案上區院, 就算定罪也只會判一年半載, 陳淑莊掮住個啷啷就麻煩啲。