看了今天明報報導, 才知道吳文遠在掟臭魚三文治案開審前, 曾經要求前行政長官梁振英錄取口供被拒, 而且, 在昨天審訊時曾經申請列梁振英為敵對證人被拒。一句講晒: 自己攞嚟衰。

吳文遠要用三文治掟梁振英, 卻誤中副車擊中保鏢, 保鏢成為受害者, 既然梁振英不是受害者, 控方就沒有像上一次掟水杯案一定要傳召他了。不傳召他, 吳文遠就缺乏羞辱梁振英的機會。這種機會千載難逢, 成功傳召的政治宣傳效果大, 論刑事案的證據價值, 吳文遠傳召梁振英等同自殺, 試問有誰會傳召一個你根本不知道會怎樣作供的證人,  而且這證人表面上是敵對的。吳文遠投訴梁振英拒絕會面讓他錄取口供, 這投訴應該怎樣看待呢?

明報的報導這樣講:

吳文遠遂稱，其代表律師曾至少3次約見梁振英會面，但梁只表示「有咩要講，庭上先講」，即使會面只需一小時也拒絕。吳聲稱，梁曾親自致電其律師，並於通話中稱會控告吳的一名義務律師；惟吳在庭上未有提及原因。吳續稱，梁亦曾在通話中向其律師表示「（吳文遠）為咗補選押後（本案），佢玩嘢」，又稱會「投訴所有人」。

雖然梁振英在立場上一定站在控方那一邊, 假設在本案發生後, 警方已為他錄取口供, 辯方同樣可以要求他錄口供, 法律原則可參考此案: Harmony Shipping Co SA v Saudi Europe Line Ltd [1979], 終審法院也曾經引用過:

23. A lawyer approaching a witness or potential witness who may be called by the other party in a court proceeding, be it civil or criminal, sometimes runs the risk of being accused of improperly influencing the witness and attempting to pervert the course of justice. Perverting the course of justice consists of “the doing of some act which has a tendency and is intended to pervert the administration of justice”. (R v Vreones [1891] 1 QB 360, Pollock B at 369. See also R v Rogerson 107 ALR 225; and R v Meissner [1994-95] 184 CLR 132.) Two matters often arise for consideration: the means employed and the intended purpose for such exercise. (See R v Kellett [1976] 1 QB 372.) Where an act (i.e. the means employed) by its nature has a manifest tendency to pervert the course of justice, the intention to commit the offence (i.e. the intended purpose) can readily be inferred; but where the tendency is not manifest, a specific intent to pervert the course of justice has to be proved (Brennan and Toohey JJ in Rogerson at 232.)

24. As Lord Denning MR said in Harmony Shipping Co SA v Saudi Europe Line Ltd [1979] 1 WLR 1380, 1384, “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.” There is no general prohibition against approaching a witness or potential witness “from getting the facts from him and from calling him to give evidence” (Lord Denning, at 1384). But the cardinal principle which must always be borne in mind before attempting to approach a witness or potential witness is that such an approach must not be for an unlawful purpose and unlawful means must not be employed. Improper or unlawful means include bribes, the use of force, improper pressure or threat. (See e.g. R v Kellett [1976] 1 QB 372, Connolly v Dale [1996] QB 120.) Such acts would have the tendency and effect of improperly influencing the administration of justice and this is so even if it is done for a lawful purpose. Seeking to persuade a witness to give false evidence, or to dissuade a witness from telling the truth would be an unlawful purpose.
(HKSAR and KEVIN EGAN FACC 3/2009)

與訟雙方對證人沒有擁有權, 在上庭前都有權要求會面錄取證供, 律師會也有通告這樣講。二十多年前就有警察幫辦打電話給我, 說辯方律師給他看律師會通告, 要求與受害人會面錄取口供, 問我怎麼辦。我說十分簡單, 告訴受害人, 律師有權提出要求, 那是符合法規的, 但受害人有權拒絕會面,  受害人可以留待上庭作供時才被盤問。梁振英就是採取這態度, 但換轉是我, 我就廢話少講, 不會像他那樣致電辯方律師。

當梁振英不肯錄口供時, 吳文遠根本不應傳召他為辯方證人, 傳召一個你預先不知會怎樣作供的證人是極愚蠢的事, 證人講對你不利的說話, 你根本就不能申請把他列作敵對證人, 除非證人預先錄取了口供, 上庭作供時嚴重偏離了原本口供的講法, 否則就沒有申請列作敵對證人的基礎。

如果吳文遠想仿效黃毓民盤問梁振英, 他就搞錯了。在掟杯案, 梁振英是受害人, 是控方傳召的證人, 黃毓民身為被告, 當然有權盤問他。在吳文遠案, 梁振英是辯方證人, 吳文遠根本不能盤問他。官大人看來是任由他去盤問, 無他, 到時咪釘到冚囉。吳文遠可能想, 反正都釘硬, 玩盡啲囉, 攞番啲彩, 日後講掌故, 起碼都可以吹噓一下, 如何如何羞辱過梁振英, 問到佢口啞啞。這種把法庭變作政治舞台的伎倆, 上大人有機會又要發聲, 去糾正這股歪風了。