香港法庭正在審訊35歲男教師非禮17歲女學生案，曾經是女事主班主任的被告，約了這女孩到家中燭光晚餐，沒有其他人在場，發生非禮。辯方的盤問指出兩人單獨吃飯多次，也否認當晚有身體接觸。女學生的女性朋友(PW2)作供，覆述女事主事發翌日哭訴被非禮的經過，並向她展示手臂上遭被告咬的紅腫牙齒印。

 

案件還沒有審結，小弟不宜評論，那是所謂sub judice。從報章報導得到的印象是控方證據不弱，被告應當作供，主控官盤問他是輕而易舉的事，真的心癢難耐呀！

 

這件案涉及的法律觀點，殊不簡單。並不是相信證人抑或被告那麼容易作出的裁決。女事主的朋友事發時並不在場，她覆述女事主哭訴被非禮一事，屬於傳聞證供(hearsay evidence)。覆述內容脗合女事主的講法，屬previous consistent statement,。一般案件，不能傳召她作供。以這件案而言，PW2的證供有三個作用。第一，從她覆述女事主所講的事發經過，來判斷女事主證供的一貫性。A well known common law exception to this rule is evidence of recent complaint in a sexual case.  If a complaint was made at the first reasonable opportunity after the offence, the evidence of the person to whom it was made of the fact that it was made and as to its terms are admissible.  But such evidence of recent complaint is admissible not as evidence of the facts complained of but only as evidence of the consistency of the complaint’s conduct with his or her testimony.(英文引文取自Leung Chi Keung and HKSAR FACC10/2004 香港特別行政區訴梁志強終審法院的案例)。本案的主審法官裁決時，必定要考慮這案例。PW2證供的第二個作用是，女事主的哭訴狀況(distressed state)可作為被非禮的佐證(corroboration)。第三個作用是女事主向她展示手臂上遭被告咬的紅腫牙齒印，也是一種佐證。非禮罪在法律上無需佐證，但佐證可以加強控方的證供及事主的可信性。如果要把被告定罪，法官熟讀梁志強案例，便可安寢無憂。定罪的話，被告應判監不少於6個月，這是嚴重違反師長誠信的案件。