4參選人無一表態撐辱警罪
【明報專訊】對於有警察協會及建制派議員要求訂立「辱警罪」，4名特首參選人無一表態支持，其中日前出席撐七警大會的葉劉淑儀昨表明不贊成立法，指討論過程只會激化矛盾，不利和諧。另一參選人退休法官胡國興則指現有《公安條例》已能保障警務人員不受侮辱，毋須另立辱警罪。
葉劉：討論立法激化矛盾
葉太說，倘就辱警罪立法，反對派議員料會以「拉布」迫使政府撤回，辯論過程只會激化矛盾。她又說，香港採用普通法，原則是難以言入罪。
被問及有警員以納粹迫害猶太人與警員受辱相比，葉太說自己10多年前亦曾犯同類錯誤，當時她說「希特勒也是民選出來」，引來德國總領事提醒，因當地對相關事件很敏感，不要亂作比喻。她說這是源於對國際事務缺乏認識，「我都唔識喇，何况係警員」。至於有警員在大會講粗口，她說「講粗口的只是一個」，指對方太激動，強調自己也不喜歡粗口。
另一參選人曾俊華回應記者提問時則表示「對相關（迫害猶太人）言論不太認同」。至於辱警罪，他則稱處理爭議事情時要實事求是。
胡國興說明白警民對立令警隊受壓，但強調現時《公安條例》列明任何人在公眾地方使用恐嚇、辱罵等言詞，意圖激使他人破壞社會安寧，最高可判監12個月，這已足以保障警員，沒必要另立辱警罪。他又認為納粹迫害猶太人是歷史悲劇，與警民衝突相提並論非常不妥。
參選人林鄭月娥透過發言人稱理解現時警員面對巨大壓力，但指集會中有人以粗口及猶太人歷史的言論並不適合，她又指香港是法治社會，大家應尊重法庭判判。林太未正面回應辱警罪，指警民關係有需要修補。
(25/2/2017)
承上一篇討論, 看了上面有關其他3名特首參選人對辱警行為立法的取態, 我又有議論了。林鄭和曾俊華最醒目, 含糊其辭, 不置可否, 態度並不明確。葉劉我評了, 不重複。這一篇評胡官的看法。胡官曾是上訴庭副庭長, 他講法律有一定權威。 他認為「《公安條例》列明任何人在公眾地方使用恐嚇、辱罵等言詞，意圖激使他人破壞社會安寧，最高可判監12個月，這已足以保障警員，沒必要另立辱警罪。」With due respect, 我不同意這法律觀點。
這兩年警察倡議的「辱警罪」, 是針對「辱罵/侮辱」(insult)警察的情況, 在現行法例, 我看不到任何一條可以用來保障警員不被「辱罵/侮辱」。我反對立法, 當然不等同贊成任何人侮辱其他人。胡官所講的依據, 來自法例第245章, 《公安條例》第17B(2)條, 我貼出法例的中英對照, 方便引用案例來討論。
17B. 公眾地方內擾亂秩序行為
(1)任何人在為某事情而召開的公眾聚集中作出擾亂秩序行為，或煽惑他人作出此種行為，以阻止處理該事情，即屬犯罪，一經定罪，可處第2級罰款及監禁12個月。
(2)任何人在公眾地方作出喧嘩或擾亂秩序的行為，或使用恐嚇性、辱罵性或侮辱性的言詞，或派發或展示任何載有此等言詞的文稿，意圖激使他人破壞社會安寧，或其上述行為相當可能會導致社會安寧破壞，即屬犯罪，一經定罪，可處第2級罰款及監禁12個月。
17B. Disorder in public places
(1) Any person who at any public gathering acts in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business for which the public gathering was called together or incites others so to act shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine at level 2 and to imprisonment for 12 months.
(2) Any person who in any public place behaves in a noisy or disorderly manner, or uses, or distributes or displays any writing containing, threatening, abusive or insulting words, with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be caused, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine at level 2 and to imprisonment for 12 months.
驟眼看任何人在公眾地方使用辱罵言詞, 不論對其他人或對警察講, 都構成此罪。你諗下, 如果係咁, 警察仲使乜爭取辱警罪立法? 有無見過用這條來告人侮辱警察? 這樣講當然很多人會反駁我, 沒有告過不等如無犯法, 也不等如不能用17B(2)來檢控。當然, 那只是我提出來的一個判辨的角度, 只屬醒胃的頭盤, 吃過了就輪到主菜了。
相信大家對搶咪案還有點印象, 社民連的周諾恆和黃軒瑋, 於2011年4月趁時任運輸及房屋局局長鄭汝樺在港鐵活動致辭時，衝上台搶咪及撒溪錢, 被控17B(1)的「公眾地方內擾亂秩序行為罪」被定罪, 上訴輾轉去到終審法院釐清該項控罪的法律元素。胡官講得簡單容易, 這控罪的難處不是在於怎樣用恐嚇性、辱罵性或侮辱性的言詞, 而是在於「意圖激使他人破壞社會安寧」、「相當可能會導致社會安寧破壞」這部份, 也是使用這控罪來檢控最困難的地方。終審法院常設法官陳兆愷雖然不是撰寫主判辭的, 他當時署任首席法官, 他在搶咪案開宗明義講了這番話:
8. Unlike the position in New Zealand, it is not an offence in Hong Kong to behave in a disorderly manner in public. To constitute an offence under s.17B(1), an accused must have acted in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business of a public gathering and for an offence under s.17B(2), he must have behaved in a disorderly manner either with the intent to provoke a breach of the peace or that a breach of the peace is likely to be caused by his conduct. The reasons in the New Zealand cases for imposing a higher threshold including constitutionality considerations do not necessarily apply with the same force in Hong Kong.
9. Further, not only is disorderly behavior by itself not an offence, s.17B(2) refers also to other types of behavior such as using, distributing, displaying writing containing threatening, abusive or insulting words. These other types of behavior do not necessarily involve a serious disruption of public order. Also, neither s.17B(1) nor 17B(2) requires proof that there is an actual serious disruption of public order, only that the disorderly behavior was done with the intent to provoke a breach of the peace or had the likely effect of causing a breach of the peace. It is unlikely and I do not believe that the legislature intends by “acts/behaves in a disorderly manner” in s.17B to mean conduct causing a serious disruption of public order.
戲肉就是: 「意圖激使他人破壞社會安寧」、「相當可能會導致社會安寧破壞」。如果有人在街上侮辱警察, 除了口舌之外, 沒有其他, 怎樣能夠證明「意圖激使/相當可能導致」破壞社會安寧?
撰寫主判辭的李義(Ribeiro)法官, 說明了這元素在法律上的要求:
79. However, a person may provoke a breach of the peace without any violence or threat of violence on his part: “... it suffices that his conduct is such that the natural consequence of it is violence from some third party”.[55] That third party need not be the person provoked or a by-stander, it could, for instance, be a member of the provoker’s group.[56] The actual or feared harm must be unlawful[57] and, where the harm is anticipated, there must be a real risk and not the mere possibility of such harm.[58] Moreover, the anticipated harm must be imminent.[59]
80. As appears in the passage from R v Howell cited above, a breach of the peace or reasonable apprehension of an imminent breach of the peace gives rise to a common law power of arrest without warrant. It also gives rise to a power to take measures short of arrest to prevent such breach.[60]
......
83. But section 17B(2) is not designed to penalise persons who simply commit breaches of the peace. That is of central importance to the disposal of this appeal. The appellants would only be guilty of an offence under that section if their disorderly behaviour was either intended or likely to cause a breach of the peace by someone else. It is not enough to show that they were guilty both of disorderly behaviour and of committing a breach of the peace. This is a conclusion dictated by the language of section 17B(2) and reflected in the Hong Kong authorities and the authorities on section 5 of the United Kingdom’s Public Order Act 1936 from which section 17B(2) is derived and which is structured in the same way.
如果辱罵警察的人的言詞語調, 不會激使或導致第三者有所行動, 不會給人一種第三者會訴諸武力引致即時危險的印象/感覺, 這條控罪不會成立。終審法院的演繹是, 就算辱罵別人的人行為不檢, 破壞了社會安寧, 也不犯法, 辱罵人的人要激使別入破壞社會安寧才屬犯法(The appellants would only be guilty of an offence under that section if their disorderly behaviour was either intended or likely to cause a breach of the peace by someone else. It is not enough to show that they were guilty both of disorderly behaviour and of committing a breach of the peace. )。這條控罪又怎能有效地對付侮辱警察的人呢? 我斗膽問, 胡官是否熟讀上訴案例的?
有個不用訂立辱警罪, 也不用新訂侮辱公職/公務員的法例的折衷辦法, 就是把17B(2)裏面, 「意圖激使他人破壞社會安寧，或其上述行為相當可能會導致社會安寧破壞」這句刪除, 就可以達致保障人人免受侮辱的目的了。修改法例不會激化社會矛盾, 也不限於保障警察, 仇警者便無話可說了。代價是在某程度上收窄了言論自由, 會不會違反人權, 只能在修改法例後, 由殿堂級的法官去決定了。
