法庭雜碎

有些朋友對肥佬黎脫罪還是憤憤不平, 我費了一些唇舌。我想憤憤不平實在太容易, 大家隨便上網都可以看到事件的過程和一大堆的評論, 尤其是來自立場鮮明別具用心的媒體, 以及為事件搖旗吶喊的一些人, 包括某大狀。某大狀不是指梁副教授, 而是指那位充滿愛心曾經在社團為老人家獻唱的她, 我當時想: 咁都揾唔到食架。積點厚德, 姑隱其名。大眾看到事發過程, 卻看不到法庭審訊過程, 更未必了解有關法律, 憤懣又怎會平息。

開這標題為了談三宗沒關連的案件, 第一宗是刑事恐嚇, 用來解釋一下有關法律元素。昨天司法機構上載了一宗刑事恐嚇案的上訴: 香港特別行政區 訴 馮楠迪(原名馮維龍)。這類案件涉及案情事實及法律, 案情事實因案而異(facts specific), 案情的爭議會包括有沒有講過某些恐嚇的說話, 當然就要衡量證人的可信性。而此控罪的法律元素十分簡單, 證人有沒有受驚及被告所用的恐嚇言詞是不是一時之氣的爆發, 會不會付諸實行。刑事恐嚇很多時都與黑社會關連的, 有沒有執行恐嚇內容的意圖是事實的裁斷。

在上述的上訴案, 上訴方提出3項上訴理由:

(a) 上訴理由一：原審裁判官錯誤接納PW1為誠實可靠證人。PW1證人口供與他庭上作供有關鍵性不吻合，而PW1解釋不吻合之處亦是不合情理或十分牽強。原審裁判官亦錯誤拒絕接納DW1蘇文浩之證供;

(b) 上訴理由二：即使根據PW1的證供，明顯地，當時雙方只不過是虛張聲勢互相指罵吹噓，所謂威嚇是並不會付諸實行的威嚇：R v Lo Tong Lai [1977] HKLR 193; Chan Chi Kwong，CACC 1144/1977 [陳詞時沒有倚賴]; R v ChanKai Hing，HCMA 364/1997; 及

(c) 上訴理由三：若原審裁判官正確及充分考慮案情及證供，即使上訴人真有作出如PW1聲稱的“威嚇”，明顯地上訴人所作出的只是“瘋狂及吹擂” [wild and whirling words] 的用詞。PW1其實亦沒有受驚。

從這些理由, 也可看出這控罪的爭論點。所以肥佬黎一案, 原審裁判官從事發影片及受害人被盤問下的表現, 裁定他不可信, 我看不到這裁判官犯錯的地方, 這決定是完全沒有上訴空間的, 事後看醫生來確認受驚, 並非可依靠的佐證。

另一宗是危險駕駛的刑期上訴: HKSAR and MUHAMMED RAMZAN, 是練官未升上區院之前處理的案件。我要為練官抱不平。案情相當簡單:

1. The appellant pleaded guilty before Principal Magistrate Ernest Lin (as he then was) on 14 May 2019 to a single charge of Dangerous Driving contrary to section 37(1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap 374. He was fined $7,000, disqualified from driving for 15 months and required to take a driving improvement course within the last three months of his disqualification. By his notice of appeal dated 27 May 2019, the appellant appeals that sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive.

The prosecution case

2. The appellant approached a zebra crossing with two vehicles ahead of him, which had stopped to allow a group of pedestrians to cross. The appellant failed to stop and overtook both of the stationary vehicles and crossed the zebra crossing whilst it was still being used by an elderly lady. The gravamen of the prosecution case was that this was a busy mixed residential and commercial area with many pedestrians. The offence involved overtaking two vehicles, manoeuvring into the opposing traffic lane and crossing the zebra crossing whilst it was still in use. The situation was aggravated by the medium goods vehicle operated by the appellant.

The grounds of appeal

3. The appellant maintained that the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances given that there were no aggravating circumstances. Mr Thomas Martin, on behalf of the appellant, submitted various authorities on the range of sentence previously given for dangerous driving including those where injury or damage had occurred.

高院法官Campbell-Moffat把停牌15個月改為6個月, 我極有意見, 中型貨車用對頭綫超越二輛在行人過路綫停下來讓行人過路的車的危險行為, 被罰停牌15個月也不算很嚴苛, 但批准上訴的其中一個理由就有點那個, Campbell-Moffat這樣講:

The magistrate correctly applied the relevant legal principles. The mandatory minimum disqualification was six months. However, no one brought to his attention the fact that the appellant had not been previously disqualified and, over a 24‑year driving career, had only been dealt with for minor traffic offences...

"No one brought to his attention..."這高院法官大概連藍色的交通案底也看得少, 任何稍為處理過交通審訊的人一看就知“F"代表甚麼, "C"又代表甚麼, 一眼就看到被告有沒有停過牌, 何須brought to his attention? 言下之意是指練官考慮上的疏漏, 其實Campbell-Moffat純屬無知。要引證我這批評其實也不難, 讀者總有做警察的朋友, 找個處理交通案的問下交通案底是否一目了然便知。坐在上面的並非甚麼都懂的。

第三宗講以下明報報導的這一宗:

【明報專訊】示威者去年11月11日發起「黎明行動」號召堵路，29歲小學男教師被指當日清晨慢駛私家車，被截查時以腳踢警員腹部一下，早前被裁定襲警罪成，同時遭裁判官質疑人格有潛在障礙，下令還押小欖精神病治療中心，其後獲高等法院批准保釋，案件昨日在粉嶺裁判法院判刑。裁判官質疑教師沒向醫生透露其妄想思想，沒悔意和反省，判囚9個星期，成為反修例案件中首宗教師罪成入獄的案件。

把被告還押小欖索取報告要份外小心, 因為這做法的恰當性是有案例可循的, 可參考香港特別行政區 訴 陳樹雄 及 HKSAR and SU WEI。我9年前評論過這兩宗, 其中幾句這樣寫:

...高院最近兩件案的判法，會改變以後裁判官索取被告精神報告的傾向，如果沒有明顯證據顯示被告有精神問題，裁判官會傾向不索取報告，以免受到批評，連給予被告擔保索取報告也不用考慮，到頭來有否維護社會和被告的利益呢？...

男教師案我不宜多講, 因為尚未聽上訴, 到了上訴的時候, 就可以看到上訴法院的評論。若當時審結即時判監, 對原審法官的保彰會更大, 至於9周刑期是否恰當, facts sensitive, 沒有定論, 判坐12周也可以是恰當的, 視乎由誰聽審, 由誰決定誰聽上訴呢? 當然是其中一位負責排期的法官, 別胡思亂想, 這是正常程序。

互聯網發達擴大了言論的傳送, 無遠弗屆, 不論張三李四都可以發表意見, 所以湧現出一堆法律專家來, 但硬知識是需要浸淫的。肥佬黎脫罪不能上訴, 說的是法律原則, 我印象中近年有宗控方為案情事實而被駁回的上訴, 我想找出來給大家看, 但速看了一千多宗都找不到, 時間花了不少, 卻是徒勞無功。都是隨口噏好, 賺不至五毛也可賺兩毛, 不費吹灰之力。