毒菰案落幕

這一篇是應上篇一位網友寫的, 其實這網友比我更有資格寫毒菰案的評論, 我一直對此案的關注有限, 本案兩年前發生的時候寫過一篇, 一個月前被告上證人台作供時也寫了另一篇。我一向都很少評論澳洲發生的案件。本案引起我的興趣的原因有二, 其一是老伴茹素, 我們每週都吃幾次蕈菌類, 鮮冬菰及茶樹菰必吃, 有時加入雞腿菰、金針菰、鮑魚菰、磨菰及猴頭菰, 乾的就有冬菰、姬松茸、牛肝菌及羊肚菌。所以聽到毒菰就格外留神; 其二是案發後, 被告告訴警察有些用來做beef Wellington的菰在華人超市買的乾菰。華人超市買毒菰這講法呃鬼佬就可以, 大陸食品安全有問題也不致於有致命毒菰。案情我就不重複了, 只就以下幾點粗略講幾句。

殺人動機

本案沒有明顯的殺人動機, 謀殺罪而言, 控方無需證明殺人的動機, 可以提供被告的殺人動機予陪審團考慮當然最好, 陪審團在裁決考慮過程更有幫助, 本案並非謀財, 也沒有明顯的仇恨至非殺不能泄憤的理由。但人性很複雜的, 天曉得她動殺機的原因。

被告作供

被告作供有利有弊, 不能概括講, 總之被告沒有舉證責任, 責任在控方, 被告無需證明自己清白。控方證據顯示被告多處說謊, 對她不利, 她選擇作供試圖解釋, 兩害取其輕, 她作供希望陪審團相信她出於惶恐才說謊掩飾過失。從媒體的報導看, 控方資深大律師也不是「毒舌大狀」, 盤問得仔細, 但沒有甚麼歎為觀止的問題, 被告極之狡猾, 沒有被問到口啞啞。如果被告沒有天花亂墜, 如果有時表現得愚蠢一點, 即是蠢蠢哋, 反而會贏得較佳印象。牙尖嘴利未必有著數的。我舉個實例, 香港被譽為金牙大狀的清洪資深大律師(Cheng Huan, SC)(清洪只是藝名)是極少做jury trial的, 因為他的風格在jury trial一點也不殺食, 反效果很大, 所以他不接陪審團案。

謊言

被告向控方證人及警察說了不少謊言, 她作供時在不能圓謊抵賴處承認是說謊。被告說謊本身不能推論為犯罪, 說謊只影響被告證供可信性, 而不是「講咁多大話, 仲唔係你殺人!」Lie in itself cannot prove guilt. 這方面我依賴香港終審法院的案例:Yuen Kwai Choi v HKSAR (2003)

一致裁決(unanimous verdict)

謀殺的有效裁決是一致的裁決, 這當然是簡化的講法。澳洲幾個省對謀殺罪的定罪都需要12位陪審員一致的裁決, 除了新南威爾斯及北領地(Nothern Territory), 這兩省可接受majority verdict, 所謂majority並非8比4、7比5, 免生技節, 我不打岔講下去。本案在維多利亞省審訊, 所以法例上要求12位陪審員一致裁決方為有效。本案陪審員商討了7天才作出裁決, 若不能作出有效裁決, 過多三兩天法官可能會視之為懸案陪審團(hung jury)而把它解散下令重審。我不明白這陪審團為甚麼需要花7天商討, 3項謀殺及1項意圖謀殺是涉及同一案情, 都是同一餐吃beef Wellington, 結果只會4項都罪成或4項都罪脫。

上訴

上訴言之尚早, 因為審訊尚未完結, 是否上訴有待判刑之後才能提出。除非法官引導陪審團時犯下錯誤, 否則我看不到上訴的空間。本案建基於合理推論, 被告沒有招供, 化驗殘餘食物驗出death cap mushroom的毒素, 加上被告一連串的行為都指向她預謀行事, 若判她無罪就沒有天理了。她面對每項控罪都判終身監禁的, 相信法官會每項都判終身監禁不准假釋, 她會死在獄中。

外籍法官

今天明報報導了Constitutional Studies Journal訪問前終審法院非常任法官何熙怡女男爵(Brenda Majorie Hale of Richmond): 海外法官何熙怡指國安法凌駕基本法 港府批不符實。該法律學術期刋部份文章提供中、英、法及西班牙文版本, 本篇就有四種語文版, 我看了中、英文版, 現把英、中文貼在下面讓讀者判斷, 無需靠二手資料來猜測。訪問是本年2月3日進行的, 6月30日最新一期刊出。期刊的3位主編之一是台灣憲法教授張文貞, 本文的中文版也由她負責校對, 全文共11條問題, 「香港外藉法官」的問題並非主菜。不過, 用foreign judges也有欠準確性的問題, 這些都是海外法官, 外籍自不待言, 但終審法院的本地常任和非常任法官也有外籍的。Malagodi博士發問的問題應該把foreign judges改為 overseas non-permanet judges。

10. Foreign Judges in Hong Kong 

Mara Malagodi: When you were appointed as a foreign judge to Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal in July 2018, how did you anticipate your role as a judge would differ in Hong Kong given the different historical and political context? 

Baroness Hale: I actually never sat in Hong Kong. When I was appointed in July 2018, I said I would not sit until I retired in 2020 as I needed to devote my full attention to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The chief justice of Hong Kong was perfectly happy with that. So I was due to sit for the first time in February 2020. That was before the National Security Law: there was the Basic Law, a tradition of an independent judiciary in Hong Kong, and the rule of law seemed reasonably secure. A case I was going to sit on was absolutely perfect for me. It was a case in which the prison authority had insisted that a male prisoner cut his hair but didn’t insist that the female prisoners cut their hair. Of course there is a certain political significance to cutting hair in that context. So the prisoner was alleging that it was discrimination. Clearly it was discrimination, the only question was whether they could think of a good reason for it. That would have been a perfect case for me, just up my street, the sort of thing I would deal with here, the considerations being very similar. There would be no reasons that it would be materially different from sitting here, and of course there was a very long common law tradition in Hong Kong. 

Mara Malagodi: What was on your mind when you decided not to seek reappointment。 in June 2021? 

Baroness Hale: Then came covid so I could not go, then came the National Security Law and I thought now it is the time quietly to bow out. In 2021, they did offer to reappoint me. I did not want to suggest that the Hong Kong judiciary was fatally compromised, because it was not. I did not want to suggest that I did not want to be part of that system. I certainly did not want any announcements made, so I decided not to seek reappointment and we put it down to personal reasons. 

I am now all the more convinced that it was the right thing to do because, as things have developed, the National Security Law has taken over the Basic Law. Even though the foreign judges are not likely to be asked to sit on national security cases, they are being asked to give respectability to a system that despite the best efforts, I’m sure, of people I know in Hong Kong . . . they are not going to succeed. The case where Tim Owen was not allowed to represent Jimmy Lai—probably it wouldn’t have done any good any way—but nevertheless that was a case of Beijing’s interference with a decision in which the Hong Kong court had said yes he could act, and Beijing said no. So you don’t want to be part of a system like that, you just don’t. I feel very sorry for them, very sorry.

我以前不同博文也發表過類似觀點, 所以現在看到何熙怡的講法一點也不會訝異。海外法官其實就只有終審法院的非常任法官, 由高峯期18個跌剩現時6個, 基本上是《國安法》訂立之後的事。The fact speaks for itself. 如果不稀罕這些殿堂級的普通法法律專家可對香港的貢獻, 那就不要也罷, 或者找另類普通法律人何君堯, 梁美芬等去試試填補空缺, 不要嫌他們太普通, 說不定他們會賺得很多鼓掌。

我對社民連的解散沒有特別感覺, 我一向對這組織沒有好感, 對他們的存在也沒有惡感, 社會需要不同聲音的, 有人抬花轎, 也有人抬棺材。政府強調香港人有結社自由, 只要不危害國家安全就可以了, 這一點我真的相信, 證據確鑿。香港十幾萬黑社都沒有因為不可抗力的因素而解散, 他們的大佬都沒被召去照肺叫他們自行解散, 可能他們的存在價值比那些民主派呀、社會搞事派呀更大, 所以社團可以搞宴會, 批評政府的就找不到場地, 可能黑社會經營書屋才不會遭到不同政府部門上門巡查。社會新常態真的使吾等舊時人適應不到, 所以我都很少回去了。

軟對抗

軟對抗這詞是一個不明所以的詞語, 既不是法律用詞語, 邏輯上也有問題, 是十分混淆的概念, 是把一切政府不想看到的事情炒埋一碟, 像濕炒牛河大兜亂。一些法律人和政治人都試圖對軟對抗一詞界定及闡釋, 其實, in the first place, 為甚麼不質疑這用詞的恰當性? 就因為上大人用了這詞就要拍馬屁式的黃河大合唱了! 除了對黑暴上腦, 連軟對抗都上腦了, 因為沒事找事, 才顯示存在的價值嗎?

有論者把2014年的公民抗命也視作軟對抗, 那些已涉及違法行為的舉動, 如堵路等, 最清楚不過的叫法就是違法行為, 而不是叫軟對抗, 公民抗命英文叫civil disobedience, 所disobey的是法律, 而不是對抗甚麼。軟對抗在英文媒體的報導直譯作"soft resistance", 同樣地不知所謂。有soft landing (軟着陸), 相對於hard landing (硬着陸); soft power (軟實力) 相對於hard power (硬實力); software v hardware, 講到底就是沒有軟對抗和硬對抗, 只有對抗。有人創了一個詞, 其他人就奉若神明地不斷發揚光大, 穿鑿附會, 亂七八糟地套用在政府不同部門的範疇中, 而忘記思考一下, the ultimate question, whether this term connotes any substance.

如果有人在網上散播假消以誤導市民仇恨政府, 已觸犯現行法例, 根本不用瞎扣一頂軟對抗的帽子。北上消費或去日本消費, 而不留港消費, 極其量只是一種消極抵抗, 以腳投票, 而不是對抗。批評施政, 不論有沒有建設性的意見, 都只是在表達不滿, 連對抗也稱不上。掌權者只懂自吹自擂, 沾沾自喜, 一切諉過於人, 打敗一堆「軟」對抗的稻草人, 就可以功德圓滿地交差了。

今天七一授勳, 獲金紫荊勳章其中兩人是上訴庭法官潘敏琦和彭寶琴, 我對兩位法官沒有意見, 雖然兩位都是當權者喜歡的釘官, 我沒有自由聯想。而且Maggie自私人執業開始我已認識, 她一向表現都十分一致, 與施行國安法無關, 我跟她也沒私交, 本博以前評論過她的判詞, 但評價都是正面的。一般對在任司法人員授勳至為謹慎, 以免損害司法獨立的形象。江湖傳聞兩位會離開司法機構, 這反而使我十分驚訝, 兩位都只是63歲, 還可以多做十年八載, 為何急流勇退? 我希望Maggie並非因健康理由引退, 官階越高我就越不高攀, 所以不會發電郵問候她。這次授勳, 大概證實她們會離開司法機構的傳聞。