故事一則

上一篇有網友留言, 不明白律師不論輸贏都有錢收, 為何要犯險。當一宗案件已進入司法程序, 尤其是有可能在高院審訊的, 我盡量不想講太多, 只能舉些假設性情況出來解釋一下。舉例卻又要貼近情節, 難免雷同, 必然要巧妙, 不會是巧合, 因為我講明解釋那宗案件, 但只是用我自己虛構的情節來講一股歪風, 要巧妙地講。故事是這樣的:

標少開鋪頭, 請了個伙計叫陳大文, 陳大文讀書不成, 學歷低, 所以只能做打雜, 工資不用說也是很低的, 所以有機會也想找點外快。標少有個不務正業的兄弟叫標森, 他也很想揾錢。請問現今最能揾錢又不犯法的是甚麼, 大概一切都與網絡有關, 不論是zooming, tick tock or Afterpay, 全部都食腦就揾到很多錢。沒有這種腦袋, 向女人埋手也賺大錢的就只有「哨牙通」一個, 但終歸太過貪心, 廿幾億也嫌少, 所以坐了十幾年監, 剛出冊不久。但「哨牙通」這件案的情節, 我一直都不相信庭上的一套, 但我無心在這裏講, 因為我要講陳大文, 不是講「哨牙通」。「哨牙通」這花名不是我改的, 是他閏密小甜甜改的。這仁兄哨牙, 原本叫Tony, 所以就叫「哨牙通」。

非法揾快錢又揾得多最典型就是販毒。 於是標森就開始糶灰, 糶字太難寫, 所以一般只懂寫跳灰, 到了今時今日, 恐怕都沒有人這樣講了。販毒當然要有貨源, 郵寄是成本和風險較低的方法, 風險最大是直接收貨, 所以要迂回減低風險。標森於是找了陳大文, 給他一些錢, 借他地址來收貨。萬一出事, 標森就不用直接上身, 除非陳大文指證他, 但這就增加難度, 因為陳大文要以證人身分才能指證, 但收件人是陳大文, 證據比較直接。話雖如此, 陳大文可以說他不知道寄來的東西是毒品, 他借出地址, 可以只懷疑包裹是一些非法物品而不知是毒品。最終兩人一起落鑊, 對標森的證據比較間接。這類案件一個認一個放也很平常的。於是標少就出錢為陳大文請律師,  誇大案件對他不利, 游說他認罪, 給他一些安家費來塞口。如果大狀不受擺佈, 就先會詳盡索取陳大文的指示, 包括他是否知道寄來的是毒品, 而不是任由師爺擺佈, 寫了一份陳大文攬上身的供詞叫他簽名。不論大狀是否有良知, 做這種事甘冒危害自己前途的風險, 為的就是搵食, 揾到其他正當的也不會做這些。若果不是陳大文攬上身, 而是兩人都不認罪, 標少就根本不會出錢為陳大文請律師, 為他請律師是要他認罪而自己的兄弟脫身。如果兩人都否認控罪要在高院審訊, 也不會請這種連jury trial都未必做過也未必敢做的大狀。所以輸贏都有錢收的講法不成立, 這大狀只是為了陳大文認罪才有錢收的。      

我講我的故事, 別跟真實案件的情節比較, sub judice的東西, 我盡量不沾的。真實案件的案情, 來日方長, 拭目以待。 

有網友說控方的責任是只要被告有可能定罪, 就交把陪審團去決定。《檢控守則》不是這樣講的, 檢控官的責任:

Role and Functions

 3.1  A prosecutor is required to comply with and promote the rule of law. A prosecutor acts on behalf of the community in an impartial manner and as a “minister of justice”. To this end, a prosecutor must fairly and objectively assist the court to arrive at the truth and to do justice between the community and the accused according to law. 

 3.2  In the Supreme Court of Canada, Rand J. stated in Boucher v The Queen [1955] SCR 16 at 23-24: “It cannot be over-emphasized that the purpose of a criminal prosecution is not to obtain a conviction, it is to lay before a jury what the Crown considers to be credible evidence relevant to what is alleged to be a crime. Counsel have a duty to see that all available legal proof of the facts is presented: it should be done firmly and pressed to its legitimate strength, but it must also be done fairly. The role of prosecutor excludes any notion of winning or losing; his function is a matter of public duty than which in civil life there can be none charged with greater personal responsibility. It is to be efficiently performed with an ingrained sense of the dignity, the seriousness and the justness of judicial proceedings.”

在馬家健案, 上訴庭在判詞第51段說出避免冤案的保障機制:

51. There are of course several safety mechanisms built into our system apart from the trial judge to ensure that miscarriages of justice do not occur: one is the prosecution; the other is the appellate courts. In an extreme case, there is the ultimate petitioning of the Chief Executive, which should not be necessary if the other mechanisms are functioning properly.

嚴格講"petitioning of the Chief Executive"當然不正確, 因為行政長官根據《基本法》第48條(12)也只能赦免或減輕刑事罪犯的刑罰,  而不是撤銷定罪。