寫在定罪之後

3司會審黎智英的判詞一出, 有人額首稱慶, 有人大肆批評, 標少作為一個毫無影響力的blogger, 為甚麼會一早認定黎智英是必釘無疑, 我相信很多人一早也沒有懸念, 只不過抱着有極渺茫的一絲希望, 像金多寶也有人中獎一樣。我一向都不是這樣看的, 同意裁決與否, Is the court entitled to reach the conclusion it has reached? 很久以前, 我回應讀者在本blog貼下左媒的見解, 認為可引用煽惑罪行檢控港獨倡議者,  9年多前, 我寫了這一篇文: 煽動港獨違憲, 必須依法嚴懲? 可是我認為極荒謬百年前作維護殖民統治的法例, 在23條未立法前近年已多次被引用作檢控, 包括黎智英被控的串謀發布煽動刊物罪。這控罪在其他案件上訴時也獲法庭確認是合適的, 我死抱着原本的批評也沒有, 只能客觀看法律新思維, 反正任憑你怎罵怎批評, 也只能接受新思維。可能有人批評新聞自由收窄了, 既成事實, 只好慎言。在新常態下, 做新人類。好像我勸人投票, 其實投不投關我屁事, 但我不能呼籲別人不去投票, 犯法的事我從不做, 所以我安慰大家從壞蛋中挑較好的, 不這樣講我就會去賣咸鴨蛋了。

在新時代做新香港人, 包括新香港法官, 所以不要用舊的一套標準來批評你接受不到的新常態。我看陳教授在綠豆批評本案的判詞, 雖然只是很粗畧的批評, 譬如有關未訂立國安法之前黎智我英呼籲制裁官員, 陳教授認為當時未有國安法, 所以不違法。但法庭接納控方的論述, 在判詞第36段粗略解釋了:

36.  Lastly, we agree with the submission of the prosecution that a defendant would be criminally liable even though the agreement in question was not illegal at the time he joined in but was subsequently rendered illegal by a change in the law, provided that the agreement remained in existence after the change of the law and that the defendant remained a party to that agreement with one or more persons with the necessary intention. Whether or not this is in fact the case is a fact-sensitive issue: see Agius v R[11]; HKSAR v Ng Gordon ching-hang & Ors[12]. See also R v Boyle[13], where it was held by the English Court of Appeal that a charge of conspiracy to defraud could be brought under s.12(1) against conspirators who, before that section came into force, agreed to pursue and after that date did pursue a course of conduct which amounted to or involved the commission of specific criminal offences which would have been charged as a statutory conspiracy contrary to the Criminal Law Act 1977. This case shows that the making of a new agreement is not necessary for the Criminal Law Act 1977 to be applicable. It is sufficient that the parties simply continued to pursue their agreement as before. One thing clear though is that a defendant is not to be punished in respect of things done before the change in the law, but in respect of things done after that.

關於何謂「勾結」, 法庭同樣有交代, 雖然看似不成比例,1800多段的判詞, 交代這些概念的篇幅實在太少。Again, is the court entitled to reach the conclusion it has reached?

本案最致命的是從犯證人(accomplice)指證黎智英, 法官是有耳聞目染之利,  可決定信納他們誠實可靠, 相反地認為黎智英言詞閃礫不可信, 這屬事實裁斷, 上訴也難以推翻。我當初看到一大堆從犯作供, 就可斷定黎智英無運行了。Again, the ultimate question is: Is the court entitled to accept the evidence of the accomplice and reject that of the defendant's?

有一點我要批評的是在156日的審訊中, 黎智英竟然上證人台52日, 佔了3份1時間, 我找不到究竟他被盤問了多少天, 但肯定超過52日的一半, 以76歲健康有毛病的老人來講, prima facie oppression, 法官應加以制止。

至於預測量刑, 我怎計算出來? 首先, 煽惑罪最高可判兩年監, 勾結罪案情嚴重的可處不少於十年至終身監禁。若勾結罪每條判十年, 煽惑罪判兩年, 總刑期是二十二年, 關鍵是勾結罪要只判十年, 而且沿用普通法的totality principle, 能否打折扣呢? 就算不打折, 年事已高的被告, 勾結罪判超過十年也不合情理, 所以我預測是不應超過二十四年的。

很多人只把主觀意願視為合理準則, 總是忘記審視客觀事實。我多次預測難以預測的判刑, 誤差都不大的。