拉雜的討論

這一篇是為了上一篇一則留言而寫的, 但這不是回應該留言, 而是繼續討論法律。先讓我交待一下。在上一篇我說過在終審法院判詞提過控方擬爭論另一點, 「終審法院表明Campbell-Moffat批准永久終止聆訊是錯誤的, 所以不處理控方在這方面的論據, 故此控方的論據是甚麼我們也無從稽考, 我只能猜測」, 但讀者(我相信是律政司刑事檢控科中人)留言叫我看終審法院網頁, 裏面上載了控辯雙方的書面陳詞。我一向習慣看司法機構主頁上載的判詞, 而忽略了終審法院的網頁, 經該讀者指導下, 看了控方在本案的陳詞。高級助理刑事檢控專員的陳詞說就算Campbell-Moffat的voire dire(案中案)不批准whatsapp呈堂, 也不等如被告不獲公平審訊,  劉專員分析了不同情況下, whatsapp的內容也可以在辯方案情中引進, 譬如被告作供說出安排運行李的來龍去脈, 自然就會重提whatsapp展示的內容, 這一點我毫不置疑, 具實戰經驗的人不假思索都應知道的。但劉專員書面陳詞講到一些情況, 我有不同看法。就是這幾段:

48. It is entirely possible for the Respondent to assert that the relevant messages might have been sent or received on the Phone without going into the witness box himself. For example:

(1) he may cross-examine Officer Chan to elicit evidence from the officer that the relevant messages had been sent and received as the record shows;

(2) he may call his own expert(s) to comment on whether the relevant messages might have been sent and received on the Phone; or

(3) where the Prosecution does not dispute the WhatsApp data retrieved from the Phone, he may invite the Prosecution to consider agreeing with the Defence, by way of section 65C of the CPO, that the relevant messages had been sent or received as the record shows.

HKSAR v. MILNE JOHN (Printed Cases)

這幾段講被告不作供的情況下也可以在辯方案情引進whatsapp內容的證據, 當然可以, 但沒有用, 因為被告要講的是他不知道運送的是毒品,   單靠whatsapp內容也不足以反證, 被告不上證人台講自己的想法(state of mind and knowledge)是不夠的, 若果是足夠, 控方當初也不會肯同意在被告手機內找到的whatsapp對話呈堂。我只是不同意這部份的陳詞, 其他方面以前討論過的, 不再贅。

被告不作供是很難令人相信他不知悉毒品的存在的, 當然被告作供也不等如陪審團會相信他的講法。世上真的有那麼多drug mule unknowingly smuggles drugs? 另一叫法是blind mule, 揾鬼信喇。