早兩篇講暴動案在高院行將審理那一宗已有兩名被告棄保潛逃, 高院法官已發出拘捕令, 警方緊接下來要做的應該是通知國際刑警要求協助拘捕, 一旦拘捕了, 若然被告匿藏的國家與香港簽署了引渡協議, 就會展開引渡程序。打開法例第503章, 就可以看到香港和那些國家簽署了逃犯協議。引渡的先決條件是該國也有同等法例訂明被告在香港干犯的控罪在該國也是罪行。以本案而言, 即是在被告匿藏的國家, 暴動也是違法的, 才能夠啓動引渡的程序。

在早兩篇有法律界朋友提出, 對潛逃的被告加控「沒有按照法庭的指定歸押罪」(failing to surrender to custody)有雙重懲罰之嫌。在這課題上, 上訴庭也討論過。在盧錦輝案, 楊振權副庭長有以下講法:

4. It was suggested that when the appellant was given a sentence discount of less than one-third from the starting point when he pleaded guilty to the charge of burglary and at the same time was sentenced to an additional 4-month imprisonment on the charge of failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause, he was punished twice for the same facts. This is perhaps true, but there is a logical foundation for such an approach. As this court had observed in HKSAR v Ko Chun Hung (CACC 71/2007; unreported, 21 November 2007):

“ By absconding, the applicant had committed a fresh offence and had to be punished separately. By absconding, the applicant also rendered the administration of justice more costly and more time-consuming, and the judge was entitled to exercise his discretion by reducing the percentage of discount that he would otherwise obtained.”

(HKSAR and LO KAM FAI（盧錦輝） CACC 374/2014)

暴動案高院排了80天審訊日期, 潛逃的兩名被告要分案審訊, 單是這兩人日後審訊, 所涉的證人也不會少很多, 費用動輒要三幾百萬, 正正就是"rendered the administration of justice more costly and more time-consuming", 着草不是constitutional right, 受罰理所當然。現在講懲罰言之尚早, 說不定他們轉折的飛了去台灣, 不怕被引渡, 生活指數又較低, 又可以找那個先前逃了去的小妹互相照應, 同病相憐, 一起在夜市吃蚵仔煎, 看歌仔戲了。