早幾天從留言連結牽引下, 我看了港台節目《左右紅藍綠》, 由馬恩國大律師評論七警案的判刑。馬大狀自從在立法會用粗口罵長毛給人留下惡劣印象後, 近年我看過他幾次對社會事件的評論, 印象改觀了。是否同意他的看法是一回事, 起碼他表現得條理分明, 論述較以前持平。在這一輯的《左右紅藍綠》, 馬大狀認為七警判刑上訴, 理應可以大幅減刑, 他提出兩宗警察打人的案例支持他的論述。第一宗是沙展甘天寶(音譯)案, 是一宗一隊便裝警察上門查案, 戶主多番延遲及打四、五次電話報警, 直至軍裝到場才肯開門, 開門之後便裝對戶主鎖上手銬拳打腳踼, 這些便裝最後被控「襲擊致造成身體傷害罪」, 聽畢控方證供後, 甘天寶把罪名攬上身, 一人認罪, 其他同僚脫罪, 在那種情況下他被判監七個月, 判刑上訴駁回。(
THE QUEEN and KAM TIN-PO (D2) CACC 122/1985). 這判辭簡單易明, 只有一頁。另一宗馬大狀提出的案例是衝鋒隊六名警員嫌三名海關關員多管閒事, 挺身為被打市民作證而被毆打案, 打人的警員因為犯案嚴重程度不同, 而被控「普通襲擊」和「襲擊致造成身體傷害罪」, 六人經審訊後定罪, 判刑由緩刑到判監七個月不等, 這件案只提出定罪上訴, 並無為判刑而上訴, 上訴駁回。(
The Queen and Cheung Kin Tak and 5 others HCMA 416/1994). 我恐怕這兩件案的判刑未必幫到七警, 同情歸同情, 法理就是講法和理。我用了一個晚上搜尋案例, 也找不到實際對題的案例。重看Dufton對七警判刑的理據(
DCCC 980/2015), 基本上除了引用許文泰案有關警察犯罪的判刑原則之外, 其他一點也沒討論。反而是練官在署任區域法院暫委法官審理三名懲教署職員「對他人身體加以嚴重傷害」罪(台灣男子陳竹南被毆打後死亡案)的判刑討論得較詳細。驗屍顯示陳竹南有117處外傷, 頭及大脾有深層瘀傷。三名懲教署職員面對的控罪和七警的雖然不一樣, 但都是最高可處三年監禁的。練官引用了英國的警察逼供打犯人的判刑案例, 該案判監兩年。考慮求情因素後, 三名懲教署職員判監十六個月。練官的判刑理由這樣講:
Authorities
16. The maximum sentence under section 19 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212, is three years. The offence is included in Schedule 3 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 221, as an “excepted offence”, for which a suspended sentence of imprisonment was not an option: see section 109B(1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance.
17. As has been pointed out by the learned editors of Archbold Hong Kong 2012 (at paragraph 20-221), there is no guideline sentence for such an offence,‘although the courts have consistently indicated that custodial sentences of some length are the normal means of dealing with such cases’.
18. In my view, the most aggravating factor in the present case is the fact that the defendants as Correctional Services Officers had abused their positions and abused the trust of the society by using excessive force on an inmate, thereby causing him serious injuries.
19. Although there must be plenty of instances of violence within the confines of the penitentiary, the cases that made their way to the courts were usually concerned with violence amongst inmates and violence on the officers. While they are grim and serious in their own ways, they could offer little assistance for the present purpose. Despite the joint effort of the prosecution, the defence and the undersigned, I can find no sentencing authority on facts similar to the present case.
20. The most approximate authority came from England: R v. Lewis [1976] Crim LR 144:-
The defendant was a police officer with 24 years of service. In the course of questioning a suspect who he suspected to be not forthcoming, the defendant struck him twice in the face, causing his nose to bleed, banged his head against a wall and on a table and kicking him.
He also incited his colleague to do the same. The victim suffered a broken nose, a perforated ear drum, bruising and cuts. Finally, he had to make up some false information in order to stop the beating. The defendant’s sentence of two years’ imprisonment on a plea to charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm was upheld and the view of the Court of Appeal was reported thus:
“the court appreciated the tragedy of the matter in the light of (the defendant)’s excellent record. However the public interest must be served. Police officers were in a position of great trust and if that trust was broken the results for them must be serious. The sentence was correct in principle and not excessive”.
(
HKSAR v. Leung Shing-chi (D1) So Kai-wai (D2) Tang Yuk-po (D3) DCCC280/2012
三名被告不服定罪及判刑提出上訴, 上訴被駁回, 上訴庭對該案的量刑作出以下的觀察:
70. I turn to the sentences of 16 months’ imprisonment. The maximum sentence for an offence contrary to section 19 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance Cap 212 is three years. The judge took a starting point of two years and reduced that by one third to reflect the mitigating circumstances that he identified.
71. As can be seen from his reasons for sentences the judge was well aware of the implications of his sentences upon men of good character who had made positive contributions to society. However, he rightly said that they had to be balanced against the interests of the victim and society.
72. It was argued that the sentences were excessive “as it was impossible to tell which bruises and contusions on the deceased were inflicted during the legitimate attempts to control and subdue him and which were inflicted illegally”.
73. Whilst, of course, it was right to say that some bruises may have been occasioned in lawful restraint, it is also right to say that one can look at the extent of the bruising and conclude that the deceased received the bulk of them in excess of such restraint. After all, that was the basis of the convictions.
74. I do not agree that the sentences were excessive. Indeed, it can be said that the judge was merciful in the discount he gave for the mitigating factors. I find no ground to interfere with the sentences.
(
HKSAR and Leung Shing Chi (梁盛志) So Ka Wai (蘇嘉瑋) Tang Yuk Po (鄧旭波) CACC 382/2012
相比於馬恩國在《左右紅藍綠》提出的的案例, 我始終覺得梁盛志案更具參考價值。如果引用馬恩國提出的案例, 恐怕上訴庭未必會接納。若果是這樣, 馬恩國提出會大幅減刑的講法就會是一種false hope了。
