上一篇有留言引用了「巴士的報」的文章:
匿名2017年6月16日 下午4:08
法律界人士話，CY與周浩鼎並無涉及金錢利益，只是政治互動，是否合乎政治道德可以商榷，但如果講到公職人員行為失當罪，在較早前許仕仁案中，許收受巨額金錢利益，法庭判案時提到，如果公職人員收受金錢等「甜頭」，就可能會觸犯公職人員行為失當罪名。問題是在調查委員會這件事裡面，完全看不到CY或周浩鼎有任何金錢利益，看不到犯罪元素在哪裡。......
金錢利益是公職人員行為失當罪的元素嗎? 蟻民界的標少當然不能跟法律界爭論, 尤其是我花不起這種時間和精神。有報導講廉政公署要立案調查梁振英與周浩鼎私通事件, 引發了上面這些評論。雖然公職人員行為失當罪很多時會跟貪污行賄有關連, 可是, 我粗淺的法律常識記憶所及, 金錢利益從來都不是該罪行的其中一項元素。「冼錦華」案已清晰列出五大元素, 許仕仁案只是釐清及進一步闡釋這些元素的涵蓋性。「冼錦華」案所列的元素:
(1) a public official;
(2) in the course of or in relation to his public office;
(3) wilfully misconducts himself; by act or omission, for example, by wilfully neglecting or failing to perform his duty;
(4) without reasonable excuse or justification; and
(5) where such misconduct is serious, not trivial, having regard to the responsibilities of the office and the officeholder, the importance of the public objects which they serve and the nature and extent of the departure from those responsibilities.”
哪一點講金錢利益?
終審法院在許仕仁案的判辭第84段, 把以前幾宗上訴至終院不同型式的公職人員行為失當案的犯案模式羅列出來:
84. Thus, the following acts and omissions have been held to constitute the offence: failing to disclose a relationship with a company and showing preferential treatment to that company by permitting it to tender for Government contracts despite lacking the requisite experience;
[73] accepting free sexual favours provided by prostitutes controlled by the owner of a nightclub;
[74] obtaining and using the personal particulars of patients of a public hospital to advertise the commencement of a private medical practice.
[75] But these are merely specific instances of the offence and they are illustrative rather than definitive of the ways in which it can be committed. As Sir Anthony Mason NPJ said in Shum Kwok Sher v HKSAR, the offence “is necessarily cast in general terms because it is designed to cover many forms of misconduct on the part of public officers.”
[76]
其中包括公院醫生下海, 把病人資料帶走以招徠生意, 那種犯罪模式, 誰用金錢利益去賄賂誰? 終院(在上面這段)也說明了所舉的犯案模式只是一些例子, 而並非在窮盡犯案的手法。講到底這是一條涵蓋極廣的控罪。在另一案例, 漁護署司機黃連基在停牌期間繼續駕駛政府車輛而沒有上報, 也被控公職人員行為失當罪, 終院是因為他地位太低, 職權不符罪行第五元素的要求, 才駁回政府的上訴。政府司機為了逃避紀律處分而隱瞞定罪, 完全不涉一般金錢利益輸送那類公職人員行為失當罪。所以, 涉及金錢利益的公職人員行為失當罪, 只是該罪行的其中一種犯案模式。該罪行的涵蓋面可以有幾闊, 許案的判辭第82段也重申了:
82. The decided cases show that a broad range of different acts and omissions can constitute the relevant conduct element of the offence. In Shum Kwok Sher v HKSAR, Sir Anthony Mason NPJ observed (at [69]):
“The difficulty which has been experienced in defining with precision the elements of the offence stem not so much from the various ways in which they have been expressed as from the range of misconduct by officials which may fall within the reach of the offence. This is because, to quote the words of PD Finn, ‘Public Officers: Some Personal Liabilities’ (1977) 51 ALJ 313 at p.315:
The kernel of the offence is that an officer, having been entrusted with powers and duties for the public benefit, has in some way abused them, or has abused his official position.
It follows that what constitutes misconduct in a particular case will depend upon the nature of the relevant power or duty of the officer or of the office which is held and the nature of the conduct said to constitute the commission of the offence.”
坊間有人對廉署立案調查梁周私通事件不以為然, 要談法律, 恐怕要在案例中找答案; 要展示政治立場, 就應乾脆講清楚。當然也許是我對案例理解錯誤而胡謅了。