再談Epping謀殺案

有人問我是誰帶疑兇來打球的，那是無需考究的問題，就把它入我的帳罷。我從來都不問球友的職業，有些人在言談之間透露，有些人三緘其口。於我而言，管他甚麼行業，只是打羽毛球並非相親。法官又怎樣？牧師之怎樣？販夫走卒又如何？反正見微知著，學識教養和性格行為不一定成正比。地位尊崇如法官，這裏出了個Marcus Einfeld，聯邦高等法院法官，為了逃避交通告票而妨礙司法公正，身陷囹圄。香港也出了Miles Jackson-Lipkin，前高等法院法官，騙取綜援，鎯鐺入獄。牧師在地鐵非禮(牧師地鐵非禮 一文講述柴灣平安福音堂牧師吳漢超，在地鐵非禮，判監21天)，律師買兇傷人(從殺貪官說起一文提及外判主控Neil Mitchell遇襲，兇徒涉嫌受律師江漢銳指使)。誰能料在大陸是耳鼻喉專科醫生的人，一下子被控殺人。故此，怎能考究是誰把兇手帶來打球。

The Epping Murder

The brutal murder of 5 persons in Epping in July 18 2009 stunned the state if not the whole nation. It was said to be the largest single homicides in New South Wales' history. The reminiscences of the callous acts may still hang over our heads and the nausea feeling does not dissipate. When the picture of the suspected murderer, Robert Xie, appeared in SMH last week, I vaguely remembered seeing this face before. The name did ring a bell. Someone brought to my attention today that he played badminton with us two years ago. No wonder. I checked the attendance book. He played with us 5 times and the last of which was March 26 2009, 4 months before the atrocious murder.

Everyone is presumed to be innocent before the delivery of a guilty verdict. It is still too premature to comment whether circumstantial evidence suffices to establish guilt. The accused was said to be a successful ear, nose and throat specialist in China. The superintendant heading the investigation said greed and jealousy was the motive. I am not disturbed even if he is eventually convicted of all 5 counts. I have seen too many transgressors of the law before. In reality, you do not see salient features of a criminal. It can be a friendly neighbour or a respectable person. You can only hope it is not someone you trust and befriend or begrudgingly despise.

蕩婦上街 Slutwalk

標少用了充滿噱頭(gimmick)的標題，先向各位女士道歉。罵我之前，請看下面SMH新聞(10/5)的節錄。

The Slutwalk movement is coming to Australia.

Women in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide are grabbing their fishnets, stilettos and leopard print to march for the right to wear what they like and behave how they want without harassment in four separate slut walks.

Notices for the latest slutwalks only went up on Facebook on Sunday, but more than 3500 people have already registered for the protest marches Australia-wide, including 2500 in Melbourne alone.

Carmen Chan holds up a sign in front of police headquarters in Toronto, Canada

The Slutwalks started with one small protest march in Toronto on April 3, when women marched in defiance of a local policeman who told 10 college students that: "I've been told I'm not supposed to say this – however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised."

多倫多這警察侮辱性的說話，惹來抗議，掀起一場運動。我是不太懂衣着禮儀(etiquette)的人，對於這場運動不敢置喙。雖然每人都有衣着的選擇權，我總以為衣着得宜，恰如其份，最為重要。去游泳不會穿西裝，去吃喜酒不會穿泳裝，正經的人不穿使人覺得不正經的服裝。Slut walk也好，lady walk也好，適當的衣着，是對朋友、主人家以及自己的一種尊重。談吐亦然，不管外貌尊容，出口便粗鄙骯話，怎樣好的人也大打折扣。

窮富翁

香港電台電視部早前播放一輯叫《窮富翁》的民生探討專輯，大老闆，CEO及富家女一眾粉墨登場，一嚐做清潔工人，送外賣及擺街小販的工作。他們住板間房、露宿街頭或寄居公屋，體驗一下貧窮綫以下的人的生活。

澳洲的Live Below The Line (http://www.livebelowtheline.com.au/) 籌款運動，舉辦用澳元$10作5天的伙食運動，以喚醒國民關注全球14億生活於貧窮綫以下的人。世界銀行在2005年的計算，每天只能花$1.25美元(用於食物、棲宿、健康、教育、交通及一切生活所需)的人，屬於生活在極度貧窮綫以下。試想我們飲一杯capuccino都要$3.5，真的叫你用$2過一天，那種難度就算是自幼家貧的標少也難以想像。

新州政府資料顯示，平均每個家庭每年扔掉價值$1,000的食物，那種浪費是道德的問題。其實吃得太多也可以是一種浪費，加重了身體機能的負擔。所以我不太喜歡上館子，在家自己烹調食物，無論用糖、鹽及油的份量都可以控制得宜。

到了我這把年紀，飲食健康是一種儲蓄，不要把長壽變成長期吃藥等待死亡的降臨，生活才有意義。何必在驗血驗身的時候才收斂不良飲食習慣，蒙騙自己呢！我從來都不羨慕那些時常吃生蠔、龍蝦及鮑魚的人，牛嚼牡丹的人居多，連吉品也沒吃過根本談不上鮑魚好吃。

寶石魚

香港漁農自然護理署發新聞稿，宣布去年在人工孵化寶石魚魚苗技術上取得突破，首次大量培育出本地出產的魚苗。寶石魚源自澳洲昆士蘭省，營養價值高，肉多骨少，不飽和脂肪酸Omega-3，較大部分魚類高，與三文魚相若。有朋友問我寶石魚的英文名稱，其實大家都認識，那就是我們叫玉鱸的Jade Perch。香港自己孵化的魚苗成本是港幣1元1條，從澳洲引入要澳幣1元1條，那也是parity。

曾蔭權需要上庭嗎？

4月28日標少在《特首遇襲之二》一文講過，辯方可能傳召曾蔭權，在黄俊杰被控在公眾地方作出擾亂秩序行為案作供，今天明報報導了辯方這方面的意圖，大律師Albert Luk發表了他的看法，我完全不同意。

社民連青年涉撞特首
辯方或傳特首作證

執業大律師陸偉雄表示，辯方亦可向法庭申請證人傳票，傳召特首作辯方證人，只要他與案有關便可。陸指出，特首當時在場，目睹整件事件發生，亦是控罪關鍵人物，「因為他才會導致有保安及官員護駕」，若法庭滿意辯方證據，特首或需要出庭作供。(明報5/5/2011)

從近日報章所見，曾蔭權從沒有為這件案錄取口供，這是關鍵所在。把一個人列作證人，首先要知道他看見甚麼及會怎樣講，然後錄取口供，才有理由傳召他作供。不能因為他置身現場，就以為他目睹整件事的經過，他說甚麼也看不見，如何？

如果要傳召曾蔭權，首先要替他錄口供，控辯雙方都有權這樣做。(Harmony Shipping Co SA v Saudi Europe Line Ltd [1979]裏面所講“There is no property in a witness. The reason is because the court has a right to every man’s evidence. Its primary duty is to ascertain the truth.” )我相信警方為免曾蔭權成為證入，要面對盤問，故此刻意不替他錄取口供，否則控方不傳召他，辯方也可傳召。如果辯方向法庭申請證人傳票，曾蔭權可以委派律師提出反對，理據充分。

辯方可以怎樣做呢？唯一可以做的是要求為曾蔭權錄口供，曾蔭權一定會拒絕。在這種情況下，辯方毫無辦法，最後曾蔭權一定無需做證人。故此我不同意陸大狀的看法。

一罪兩審 Double Jeopardy

OVER the past four years, Philip Leung has wept many times for his dead lover, Mario Guzzetti. But on Thursday, after he was acquitted for a second time of his partner's killing, he wept for himself.

Mr Leung, 50, is the first person in NSW legal history to be tried twice over the same homicide investigation. The case was only possible because of the state's controversial double jeopardy laws, introduced in 2006. Now he wants the legislation reversed to prevent anyone else being tried for the same death twice; what he calls the ''ultimate injustice''.

''My life will never be the same,'' he told The Sun-Herald. ''Not only did I lose the man I love, I was accused of killing him. Before I knew it, I was locked up in jail. Nobody cared that I missed Mario's funeral, or that I had as many questions as anyone.''

Mr Leung, a jeweller, began dating Mr Guzzetti in 2001. The pair shared common interests, including opera, and by 2004 they were living together.

''We loved each other unconditionally. Like everyone, we argued occasionally and always over silly things.''

On the morning of April 7, Easter Saturday, in 2007, a row erupted over a tiler's bag of cement that was obstructing access at their home in Alexandria. About the same time, neighbours heard a loud noise, like a shelf falling. After several minutes' silence, Mr Leung was heard wailing hysterically.

The first witnesses at the scene found him at the foot of the stairs, rocking back and forth while cradling his blood-stained partner, who had sustained head injuries. Mr Guzzetti , 72, had stopped breathing by the time ambulance officers arrived. Later that morning Mr Leung was charged with murder, accused of killing Mr Guzzetti with a juicer the couple owned.

He spent more than five months in jail before being released on bail. At his trial, in May 2009, prosecutors alleged that Mr Leung had inflicted the injuries. Medical and scientific evidence was inconclusive, stating that the injuries were consistent with both a physical attack and a fall downstairs, followed by unskilled attempts at resuscitation.

Before Mr Leung could give evidence, Justice Stephen Rothman delivered a directed not-guilty verdict, ruling that the Crown had failed to properly establish how Mr Guzzetti had died. However, prosecutors leaned on the controversial double jeopardy laws, which allow for appeals and retrials in homicide cases that are settled by a judge's directed verdict to the jury. As a result, Mr Leung was charged again, this time with manslaughter.

''I can't describe how that felt,'' he recalled. ''I was so relieved to be walking out of court for the final time [after the murder verdict]. ''They had 28 days to appeal and on the last day I received word that I would have to fight all over again.''

On Thursday, after Justice Michael Adams directed a second jury to return a not-guilty verdict, four years of emotion spilled from Mr Leung. He had just become the first person in Australian legal history to be found not guilty twice by a judge's directed verdict. ''I felt him [Mario] alongside me always,'' Mr Leung said.

''I still miss him. Only now can I finally begin to grieve the most beautiful, loving person I ever met.'' Mr Leung said he intended to sue the police for compensation.

上面這段新聞，選自5月1日的悉尼晨報，因為它具新法律概念的歷史意義，故此我需要作出評論。普通法的刑事法律制度一向都不容許用同一案情來檢控被告兩次，所謂一罪兩審。(檢控謀殺引用1年零1日的規則除外。1年零1日的規則是古舊的法律規則，香港在2000年廢除了有關規則。)時移世易，2006年新省修改法例，定下三種情況下，容許一罪兩審：

1.someone acquitted of a ‘life sentence offence’ (murder, violent gang rapes, large commercial supply or production of illegal drugs) where there is ‘fresh and compelling’ evidence of guilt;

2.someone acquitted of a ‘15 years or more sentence offence’ where the acquittal was tainted (by perjury, bribery or perversion of the course of justice); and,

3.someone acquitted in a judge-only trial or where a judge directed the jury to acquit.

本案符合第3點第2部份的準則，而並非第1點的原則，以致被告再次被檢控，而且是新法例施行之後的第一宗檢控。A judge directed the jury to acquit即是控方舉證完畢，法官覺得證據不足，無需答辯(no case to answer)，直接叫陪審團裁定被告無罪。這件兇殺案兩次的審訊，結果都是一樣，法官引導陪審團裁判被告無罪。從報導所見的案情來看，我不明白為何提出檢控，死因有可疑之處，但沒有定論，絕對存在合理疑點。

那麼一罪不能兩審是甚麼理念呢？理念是已受刑事審訊之苦的人，在最終裁決之後不應再受困擾，若被判無罪便應可重過正常生活，若被定罪則應面對適當懲罰，不應沒完沒了地一再受審訊所困擾。相反而言，若然在某人獲判無罪之後，控方獲新的強而有力的證據顯示此人有罪，此人仍可逃過法律制裁，則從社會大眾的角度來看，公義不能彰顯。又或者證人受到賄賂或威脅而不指證被告，使其得以脫罪。再者，是法官不明所以地引導陪審團判被告無罪，剝奪控方上訴機會，讓被告無端脫罪。從這些角度來看，一罪可以兩審用以保障公義。以佳寧案為例，如果一罪可以兩審，當年Barker不合理地引導陪審團判陳松青無罪的結果，便可以扭轉。(Barker因佳寧案罷官，之後在法國死於交通意外。是否意外，天曉得。牽涉在這件案的人死於非命的，難以置信地多。)

香港法律改革委員會在2010年3月11日也就一罪兩審發出諮詢文件，建議類似新省的做法，採用一罪兩審的原則，至今尚沒有定論。

前面提過1年零1日的規則，有興趣看這法律規則的歷史發展的朋友，可以登入香港法律改革委員會的網頁，搜尋Report On The Year And A Day Rule In Homicide來看。