Virus 與 vires

Virus這個字在過去兩三年出現率高到連英語水平不高的人都不會陌生, 拜coronavirus所賜, 連繫的詞語就有viral infection, antiviral drugs等。另一個讀音和串法都相似的字是vires, 是拉丁文, 常見諸法律討論, 意思是權力, 連繫的詞語就有intra vires(權力範圍內), ultra vires (越權)。郭卓堅的司法覆核申請, 就是針對政府宣佈針紙(medical exemption certificate)無效的vires, 法律條文沒有訂出這種權力, 政府就經不起被指越權的挑戰。考慮的時候就不必考慮新冠病毒有多猖獗, 有多少人染疫, 疫情有多嚴重, 政府可以對不肯接種疫苗的人設限, 權力都有訂立了的條文作依據, 立法遺漏、疏忽或考慮不周, 就不能越權硬來。表面看20,000針紙大部份都是未經斷症而「賣」出去的, 警察一時三刻都沒有這種人力和資源去徹查, 就算立即修例賦予政府權力取消豁免打針的醫生信, 也需要甄別真偽而不能一刀切, 要甄別就涉及調查分析, 又要花上極多人力, 否則20, 000個案中因身體狀況真實不能接種疫苗的人申請司法覆核, 就可以挑戰政府一刀切的做法是否合理。在郭卓堅案就無需考慮政府的做法是否合理, 因為政府越權已不合法, 這一關都過不到就不用考慮是否合理了。   

Coleman J在判詞中提到郭卓堅是否有standing, 他考慮以下元素: 

149. Mr Chan submits that Applicant thus lacks standing. Mr Pun submits that the Applicant does have standing under the now holistic approach towards standing. I agree with Mr Pun.

150. The applicable principles have been helpfully summarized by Chow J (as he then was) in Kwok Cheuk Kin v Commissioner of Police & Anor [2017] 6 HKC 93 at §34. In short, whilst having a personal right or interest over and above that of the general public would normally be sufficient to establish standing, the absence of such a personal right or interest is not fatal. In these circumstances, the Court adopts a holistic (or more liberal) approach by taking into account a host of relevant considerations including the merits of the application, the importance of vindicating the rule of law, the importance of the issue raised, the existence and absence of any other challengers who have a greater interest in the matter, and the nature of the breach of duty against which relief is sought.

151. Relevant to the nature of the breach is that a vires challenge is traditionally viewed by the Court as directed at the core of rule of law. If a meritorious vires challenge is brought, the Court is unlikely to shrink from protecting the rule of law by insisting that the applicant must prove standing by showing a particular personal interest. The present challenge is no doubt the type of challenge which strikes at the core of the rule of law. As an aside, that the Government openly stated that it would obey my grant of interim relief might be thought to be an example of the rule of law in action in Hong Kong.

法官採取整體考慮(holistic approach), 不聚焦於郭卓堅是否持有豁免接種疫苗的醫生紙, 認為就算他沒有自身利益, 也不致命, 法官聚焦於政府權力(vires)及申請論據的全面考慮, 政府越權會影響法治核心價值, 驅使法庭的干預。

疫情發展至今, 以寬以嚴應對還是爭論不休, 打針有沒有用, 打了也染疫, 不打會否死得更快, 我們都只能作出個人抉擇, 科學數據也可以造假的。有病求醫很正常, 正如惹官非會請律師, 但也難保不會遇上庸醫或劣質的律師。最近也有研究說Molnupiravir這antiviral藥跟placebo成效相差不大 (‘Not having a big impact’: COVID drug fails to beat placebo in major trial)。疫症爆發, 你可以選擇不打針, 選擇求神拜佛, 各安天命。起碼就算怎樣極權的政府, 也沒捉人強行打針。法制較完善的社會, 容許國民挑戰政府的決定。郭大俠也偶有佳作, 雖然希望他高抬貴手, 放過大家的時候居多。他也要訴諸權威, 申請法援由資深律師出戰, 他也打了3針, 而並非走去黃大仙求神保佑。說到底就是信賴專業, 才是智慧的開端。

也有網民在醫生濫發醫生紙被捕的時候寫給我, 因為此君幫襯了其中一個醫生, 他怕惹上官非所以寫來問我意見。我的意見得簡單, 如果你看自己的家庭醫生, 有紀錄病歷, 獲得豁免打針的醫生紙一定不會惹官非, 若「慕名」而去找個賣醫生紙的, 完全沒有診斷, 那就等差人拉喇。Virus也把人變成virus。