悉尼隨筆

初秋南洲熱似火, 今午36度, 焚風吹人醉。

今天談兩封信。

一般寫信給我尋求意見的人在案件完結後就銷聲匿跡的, 起碼有一半的案件怎樣發展下去我也不清楚, 十分罕有地會有人在過時過節寫來問候, 偶然會有人在案件完結後寫來問升學、轉工及移民的問題, 都是有關簽保守行為或定罪對簽證、背景申報及申請良民證方面的影響。這方面我也不太清楚,  尤其是有關移民方面, 不同國家對「品格良好」的要求和定義不同。

今早收到一個發自悉尼的電郵,  看了很感動。一個香港高中生去年在香港犯事, 在網上找尋資料,  眾說紛云,  把他嚇得半死。他後來寫給我, 我說了意見和預測結果, 他最後獲得撤銷控罪簽保守行為。一般這些人在事後都會說已汲取了教訓, 以後會重新做人。我都只會聽了就算,  事實上也有人沒好好珍惜機會而再犯法的。這小子寫給我告訴我他已在悉尼一間大學修讀法律, 還參與大學設立對社區的免費法律輔導服務,  他立志發揚助人精神。(原文不能照錄,  以免暴露所屬大學。) This is a ripple effect of positivity. 這宗是一直以來我看到給予犯錯的人一個自新機會最具體及正面的結果。

另一封是兩天前讀者來函,  付上前終審法院法官烈顯倫去年對羊村繪本案的評論文章, 問我會不會評論:

The case of the wolf and the sheep in Hong Kong

我自問屬於dead on arrival之流, 沒有資格評論一向擁護《國安法》的烈老, observations就有些少。烈老宏文擲地有聲, 把主審此案的區院法官郭偉健狠狠批判一番, 說他判詞寫得又長又臭(68頁), 還加了很多不必要的注腳(47處), 烈老形容"dead on arrival for the average reader", 烈老認為寫5、6頁判詞就足夠。這樣講有點不公平。印象中以前烈老執筆的判詞確實短小精簡, 但身份地位不同, 坐在神殿上講幾句足以交差, 下級小吏豈能仿效。況且過去十年Judiciary吹着「一股歪風」, 鼓吹撰寫又長又臭的判詞, 尤以下級法院為甚, average reader像貓有九命也不夠死。所以烈老要體諒郭官。烈老這篇評論的主菜是本案證據不足以定罪。烈老此段, 可見一斑:

The criminal act (actus reus)

As the judge himself said, section 10(1)(c) “qualified as an offence endangering national security” (para 61).

Sedition is not an offence against the person or property. It is a crime against the state. The judge never asked himself this question: had the prosecution shown by evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the state was harmed or, at the least, there was a high likelihood of harm? This was another core issue. It was not satisfied by simply saying that the defendants intended to excite disaffection against the government. What is more, the matter must be weighed against the constitutional right to free speech and free expression, and values such as tolerance and moderation inherent in the common law system.

愛國如烈老者, 認為本案對香港的形象造成double whammy:

As things stand, Hong Kong’s image overseas has been doubly tarnished, by convictions which no one can understand, and by a judgment which was wrong.

烈老對定罪的批評, 提供了一些彈藥給被告上訴。但本上訴的preliminary issue是這控罪是否合憲, 烈老對此也提出批評:

Furthermore, over the past 25 years, there has been much agitation and turmoil in the community over the fact that the provisions of Article 23 of the Basic Law have not been met by the Hong Kong government: this required laws to be passed prohibiting, amongst other crimes, “sedition”. And here is s.10 of the Crimes Ordinance criminalising sedition, existing in the statute book when the Basic Law took effect. How could it possibly be unconstitutional?

廢老標少對烈老這一點的邏輯不敢苟同, 《基本法》生效之後,  一切以前訂定的香港法例全部都合憲嗎? 講法之粗疏, prima facie並非法律思維。此法是否合憲, 是具爭議的, 須由上級法院仔細審視的。別忘記, 這法例是六七暴動期間用來對付共產黨的, 之後數十年都沒採用過,  直至2019暴動後才復活的。這法例明顯用來鞏固殖民地宗主國權益的, 能否搖身一變成為萬能匙呢?