終審法院方國珊案的判辭今天頒佈了, 我看了一半, 只記住這兩段:

59. Such considerations flow from the existence of constitutional protections relating to private property and the right to privacy. Thus, BL 6 requires the Government to protect the right of private ownership in accordance with law; and BL105 mandates such protection for the rights of individuals and legal persons to the acquisition and use, etc, of property. Particular protection is conferred on the “homes and other premises of Hong Kong residents”, BL 29 stating that they “shall be inviolable” and prohibiting arbitrary or unlawful intrusion. Similarly, BOR 14 prohibits “arbitrary or unlawful interference with [a person’s] privacy, family, home or correspondence”. 

60. Consequently, where a limitation on the right to freedom of expression involves denial of access to private property, justification of the restriction as a measure necessary for the protection of the rights of others has to be given very substantial weight in the proportionality balance.

就跳了去看Press Summary, 實在太悶。

翻兩翻即時新聞報導吳文遠掟「臭魚三文治」案, 不明所以。吳文遠自辯作供, 炒了辯方大狀, 傳召前行政長官梁振英為辯方證人。擺到明是藉此羞辱梁振英, 自己傳召的證人, 竟然大肆盤問起來, 這算是那門的證據規則? 而且, 梁振英不用做敵對證人(hostile witness), 也只會作敵對證言。吳文遠就釘硬了。從先例看, 陳德章向財爺掟蛋, 入獄3周, 黃毓民向梁振英掟杯, 入獄兩周(還未聽上訴), 看來吳文遠未必逃得過鎯鐺入獄, 雖然the clang of the prison gates對他也沒有甚麼作用, 只會給他一個自詡為「政治犯」的機會。

另一邊廂, 盛傳廉政公署立案查何君堯。立案就會循法例第554章《選舉(舞弊及非法行為)條例》第26(2)(a)來調查:

26. 發布關於候選人的虛假或具誤導性的陳述的非法行為
......
(2) 任何候選人 ——

(a) 為促使他或跟他有關聯的候選人當選；或

(b) 為阻礙另一名候選人或另一些候選人當選，

而發布關於他或跟他有關聯的候選人或關於該另一名候選人或該等其他候選人且屬虛假達關鍵程度或具誤導性達關鍵程度的事實陳述，即屬在選舉中作出非法行為。

毫無疑問, 「達關鍵程度」是其中一個爭論點。何君堯在案情事實上很難爭論, 他只能打mens rea。呢條友咁乞人憎, 佢都有今日囉。有人把1992年戴展華案來比較, 那屬錯誤類比, 因為戴展華當年假冒律師, 控罪是兩項法例第200章使用虛假文書罪(Uttering a Forged Document), 三項管有虛假文書罪(Possession of a Forged Document)及一項作出虛假法定聲明罪(Making a False Statutory Declaration)。

各位中秋節快樂, 飲勝, 我滴酒不沾, 以茶相奉。