我本來以為這課題已完結了, 已沒有討論的餘地, 因為律政司表示了在法律上不能為長毛案上訴, 殊不知有讀者在上一篇把陳律師鍥而不捨的討論連結給我看, 還要我評論。我猶豫, 因為我不想挑起筆戰, 要挑也要找個值得挑的課題, 否則只會浪費時間。反正以前為這課題寫過兩篇, 我就再寫這篇作結。
陳曼琪建議律政司基於該案判決對社會負面影響極大，需鍥而不捨地再次重新考慮。「其實，我覺得有一個法律觀點需釐清的。一個人以立法會議員身分收錢的法律定義是什麼？『個人』的法律定義是否包括與他立法會議員身份有連繫的第三者呢？associated third party ? 這是法律問題需釐清！」
如果陳律師講的是政治評論, 我就一定不答嘴。每個市民都可以對立法會議員的行為作出批判, 如果現行規管立法會議員不端行為的規則不夠, 而應加強堵塞漏洞, 以建立足夠公信力, 有誰會提出異議? 但以律師身分來提出需要釐清法律問題, 那就需要嚴肅正視了。陳律師提出來要釐清的法律問題在長毛這件案是其中一個課題嗎? 我恐怕不是。
長毛這件案的審訊過程中有不少法律爭議, 沒有一點涉及陳律師倡議律政司去上訴由上訴庭去釐清這一點。控辯雙方對於議員可以收取及「代收」捐款毫無爭議, 議員收取了捐款必須申報, 立法會已有清晰的「個人利益登記指引」, 如屬議員「代收」對政黨的捐獻, 卻無需申報, 控方對這些原則沒有爭論, 控方只是游說法官否定長毛收黎智英這250,000屬「代收」。判辭第78段介定了這些基礎:
“Accepting on behalf” (代收)78. There is one proposition raised by the evidence of PW1 which appears to be common ground, that is to say that if a Member received a donation which was in fact intended for someone else rather than the Member personally, in other words if the Member only received the donation on behalf of a third person (“代收”), then Rule 83 of ROP would not be engaged and there would be not a duty to make disclosure of that donation pursuant to that rule. PW1 in his evidence cited a precedent concerning LegCo Member Alan Leong to that effect. In that incident, it was accepted that Mr Leong had received a donation on behalf of Alliance for True Democracy and he had not made any disclosure of that donation as a Member. The CMI looked into the matter and resolved that the non-disclosure was not a breach. I say that the proposition appears to be common ground firstly because the prosecution has not asked the court to reject the proposition whilst the defence relies on the proposition in the defendant’s defence. The prosecution’s attack on that defence is on the factual level, submitting that the defence evidence in this aspect should be rejected. Secondly, I note that the prosecution has laid no charge and raised no question in respect of the 2nd Payment (HK$50,000) from Mr Lai through Simon, even though the defendant was named as the payee on the payment cheque, there being evidence that the defendant had subsequently withdrawn the money and paid it into the bank account of LSD. Thirdly, apart from PW1’s evidence, I also take into account the common stance of the parties. Lastly, as a matter of construction of the relevant rules of the ROP, I agree that if a Member receives a donation on someone else’s behalf, then he is not accepting the donation “as a Member” and in those circumstances Rule 83 would not be applicable. I note that there may an interesting legal issue which has not been addressed by counsel, namely “who is to decide whether an interest was required to be disclosed pursuant to Rule 83 of ROP, is it a matter for the court or is it within the exclusive cognizance of LegCo?” However, since my view on the proposition is the same as that of CMI, the point does not need to be resolved for the purpose of this trial.
我想陳律師提出要釐清的事項, 在上面這段判辭已講清講楚, 是一個事實裁斷的問題而並非法律問題(套用李官的原話: The prosecution’s attack on that defence is on the factual level)
。簡單講, 控方叫法官不要相信長毛在「代收」捐款, 控方認為長毛假借「代收」之名來「袋錢」。辯方卻叫法官接納長毛是「代收」捐款。整件案都沒有一個律政司可以以呈請方式提出上訴的法律事項, 上訴庭可以釐清一個在審訊過程中控辯雙方都沒有爭議過的法律議題嗎?上訴庭又怎樣可以釐清事實裁斷?
讀者問我陳律師的質疑站得住腳嗎? 我覺得陳律師除了要認真閱讀李官的判辭之外, 還要重新學習甚麼叫案件呈請式的上訴, 她在這方面的法律概念屬fundamentally faulted。
如果有人問我長毛扺唔抵釘, 我覺得條友呢件事根本係出古惑, 釘咗佢我就話你都有今日, 抵你死。但睇咗李官篇判辭, 寫到滴水不漏, 我又無話可說。咁講標少豈非搖風擺柳, 看風駛?。非也。法律的看法尚有案例可循, 事實裁斷卻沒有必然結論, 我會審視法官判案的心路歷程, 而不是看end result。昨天讀了女護士在迪士尼偷糖被定了盜竊罪而上訴得直的判辭(HKSAR and PANG Shuk-king (彭淑琼)
), 對於高院法官Campbell‑Moffat批評原審裁判官黃國輝的講法, 我向老伴講那是rhetorical nonsense, 我也不是在看end result。