 |
|
|
|
回應 : 0
|
控告謀殺罪, 法律上最精簡的界定是:
如果某人非法殺死另一人，而他這樣做的時候意圖殺死那人或者意圖使那人身體受嚴重傷害，他便犯了謀殺罪。
具體一點的指引是:
.....
因此，你們必須肯定下列事情每項都是真確，才可以裁定被告人謀殺 [ X ]女士罪名成立： —
1. 被告人作出的某個或多個行為導致死者死亡；
2. 殺死死者是非法的；及
3. 被告人作出導致 X 女士死亡的某個或多個行為時，被告人意圖殺死她，或意圖使 X 女士身體受嚴重傷害。
謀殺當然有人死掉, 意圖謀殺當然對象沒死, 甚至連受傷也未必有, 但意圖謀殺卻不是簡單地把「意圖」兩個字加進謀殺罪的界定裏, 意圖謀殺需要證明意圖殺死那人, 意圖使那人身體受嚴重傷害是不足夠的。 這當然不是我有資格講的, 講法來自Archbold Hong Kong。Archbold是甚麼? 一本標少這類窮等人家買不起的刑事訴訟手冊, 「真」貴的一本書, 想買本嗎? 盛惠港幣$9990, 2020年版暫時賣斷市。我手頭的一本是2007年的, 約七、八年前化緣回來的, 我的老友好像花了$150郵費把書寄給我。Archold 20-40A段這樣講:
For attempted murder the prosecution must prove the specific intent to kill, intent to cause serious bodily harm is not enough.
連它漏了個逗號我也不敢加回去, 恭恭敬敬原文照錄。
我講這些是想指出許智峯眾籌300多萬提出私人檢控, 涉及西灣河警察槍擊黑衣示威者(我姑且不叫暴徒)意圖謀殺, 在法律上站不住腳, 因為申請私人傳票一方是無法證明或推論「意圖殺人」的, 法律入門的門檻也跨不過, 只會是一齣政治戲, 有份捐錢的人受騙了或者是一場美麗的誤會, 除非目的是政治捐獻, 否則科款是浪費金錢。受委託的律師連這都不知嗎?
我寫上一篇最有興趣想引伸的討論是在律政司不介入下這私人檢控有沒有可能發展到高院審訊, 及實際的程序是怎樣的。感謝律師Terry的留言告訴我兩篇文章的連結, 尤其是前刑事檢控專員江樂士資深大律師的評論, 使我認識到若裁判官批出私人傳票, 律政司一定無可避免要介入本案, 律政司一旦介入, 就只會撤銷控罪, 許議員就可大造文章了, 這才是真正目的, 檢控意圖殺人只是幌子, 是明知不可能的煽情手段, 在香港社會盲流充斥之下一定有市場的。
撇開江樂士的政治立場不講, 他在法理上的分析給我提供了學習的機會。
......
Under the Basic Law (Article 63), the Department of Justice retains the ultimate control of prosecutions, whether public or private. Once a private prosecution starts, the secretary for justice, Teresa Cheng Yeuk-wah, may, under the Magistrates Ordinance (Section 14), “intervene at any stage of the proceedings”, and either prosecute the case herself, if it has substance, or, if it is frivolous, end it, by withdrawing it or offering no evidence. Although Hui, when he attended court last month to initiate his private prosecution, warned the secretary not to intervene, claiming this risked damaging her department’s reputation, he is clearly unaware of Cheng’s legal obligations.
If the Department of Justice has already decided that no prosecution is justified, Cheng will have to stop the case, unless Hui has significant new evidence of which her department was unaware. The public interest obviously requires that unmeritorious trials should be avoided, and that mischievous cases are nipped in the bud. Quite clearly, the legal system can have no truck with private prosecutions which the courts have called “an abuse of legal process” (Dyson v Attorney General, 1911).
Of course, in the unlikely event that the private prosecution was found by the magistrate to have substance, the case, given that the offences carry life imprisonment, would have to be transferred for trial to the Court of First Instance. It would then be necessary not only for Cheng to finalize the charges and sign the indictment, but also to assume the conduct of the prosecution.
......
(Private prosecution: A citizen’s right but capable of grave abuse)
這樣講除非私人檢控的控罪可以在裁判法院審理的, 超過裁判法院權力的公訴控罪就一定要律政司介入了。當本案在東區法院再提訊時, 結果只有一個: application dismissed, facts disclosed do not support the issue of summons, the application being unmeritorious and misconceived. 律政司當然最想見這結果, 無需介入本案, 更無需解畫。
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
