這是一篇遲來的評論, 上星期三(17.5.2017)上訴庭的判辭上載了, 我卻忙於「不務正業」, 只能斷斷續續看完這157頁, 共286段的判辭。一宗簡單的在戲院裏摸鄰座女士大脾的非禮案, 審前覆核上了3天法庭, 正審用了18天:
HKSAR AND HARJANI, KISHORE MOHANLAL, HKSAR AND MARK RICHARD CHARLTON SUTHERLAND HCMA 685/2013 AND HCMA 425/2014(有興趣可以click入這連結來看)。
我寫這一篇有兩個目的, 一為受害人抱不平, 二為了臭罵大律師Mark Sutherland(MS)使專業蒙羞的行為。我相信香港開埠以來, 上訴法院從未試過批評辯護律師比這件案批評得更嚴厲, 我也從未見過比這件案更無理拖長審訊會拖得這樣無恥地長的律師。一宗可以一兩天之內審結的簡單案件, 審了18天, 審訊過程的錄音謄本長達2181頁。審訊時間長, 盤問詳盡仔細, 絕對不是反映虛耗法庭時間的指標, 只要對題, 有目的, 有需要, 就算要花更長時間, 也不應受到批評。不過, 簡單不過的案情, 主要爭議在於有摸/無摸, 抑或是意外觸碰, 無論怎樣天花亂墜, 也無可能盤問受害人四、五天, 荒謬之處, 我不想重覆, 判辭中所舉例子已不勝枚舉。拖長這件案的元凶當然是這個不知廉恥、嚴重專業失當的大狀, 拖長案件是為了自身利益, 因為上庭收費斷日計, 不單止虛耗了被告的金錢, 更嚴重浪費了法庭時間。我以前也評論過原審裁判官也有不能推卸的責任。這位裁判官展示了無限的容忍能力, 也沒有發火, 卻無形中縱容了大狀的奸計得逞。有些法官可能認為, 你下下阻止他發問, 在過程中會花更多時間爭論應否發問那些問題(這件案無出其右), 不如索性任他離題發問, 反而減少爭論而浪費的時間。我絕不同意這種處理方法來對付無恥拖長審訊的人, 我覺得給他三幾次解釋盤問離題的理據後, 就不應再給他機會繼續纏擾, 應該不怒而威地講: “question disallowed, move on”。這件案的審訊過程, 提供不少反面例子, 看得我火起。MS這種劣質的律師, 確實難得一見。你不對付他, 無形之中變成助長了他的惡行。只有那些假難民的Torture Claim的人才會喜歡他, 因為MS這種手段, 幫助他們可以藉詞拖長留在香港的時間, 讓他們留得越久對他們越好。
本案受害人不單只受害於被非禮, 也受害於法律制度。被告上訴得直, 撤銷了非禮定罪, 並非受害人作供出了甚麼問題, 也並非原審裁判官審訊的判決犯錯, 而是劣質大狀的表現對被告造成不公才驅使上訴得直。這受害人在作供的過程中受到不必要的欺凌, 隨便在判辭找一段也足以反映:
162. It is clear, on MS’s own concession before the magistrate, that it was not until the fifth day of PW1’s testimony that he embarked upon putting his case to her and “taking the witness through various matters that happened on the evening in question based on her answers in-chief”[1]. It seems to us, and we have had difficulty in avoiding the use of hyperbole, that most of the first four days of cross-examination of PW1 were taken up with page after page of obtuse, pointless and irrelevant cross-examination. Counsel’s questions appeared to have no sensible direction or purpose whatsoever other than to badger or bully the witness and prolong her ordeal. It ought to have been obvious to counsel when PW1, a respectable and obviously intelligent woman, complained of her frustration, as well as her feelings of being insulted, by questions of no discernible consequence being repeatedly asked of her, that a more restrained, delicate and sensible approach, which would have been entirely consistent with his instructions, was required. Instead, she was met with an obdurate, relentless and remorseless cross-examination which displayed neither skill, restraint nor sensitivity, and which went on for days on end; despite the valiant efforts of the magistrate to control it.
上訴庭也要坦白承認, 受害人也因為法律制度感到沮喪:
218. We have arrived at this conclusion with profound dismay because the magistrate’s evaluation of evidence and reasons for convicting the defendant are in themselves unimpeachable, and we are acutely conscious that the defendant is the only beneficiary (albeit indirectly) of his counsel’s antics. Conversely, the unfortunate complainant, who was subjected to counsel’s extraordinary forensic machinations for days on end, had every right to expect that she would be treated respectfully and that justice would be done on the merits of the case according to law. From her perspective, justice has manifestly not been done to her. She could be forgiven for thinking that she has been sorely let down by the legal system; and by the legal profession in particular, which should play an integral and important part in ensuring that the system works properly, fairly and efficiently.
這無恥的大狀在庭上放映受害人在戲院看的那齣由羅拔迪尼路主演的電影"RED LIGHTS"的DVD, 離題萬丈, 受害人很迷惘地爆出這一句使我搖頭爆笑的話:
“It’s annoying. Now it’s not Robert De Niro who indecently assaulted me.”
這件上訴案的判決之後, 我希望司法機構可以採用行政手段, 指導法官加強case management的正確態度, 對於MS這類行為加強約束, 除了MS, 也有一些慣於拖長審案的律師, "Woody Allen"就是另一例, 當然沒有一個會像MS這樣離譜的。
唯一值得安慰的是, MS會面對大律師公會的紀律聆訊, 最嚴重的指控不是他嚴重失職, 而是他講大話, 接了區域法院案件而假稱自己離港休假, 三番四次拒絕裁判官安排押後續審本案的日子, 到了續審當日索性去了區域法院而不出席續審, 這反而是應該受到嚴厲制裁的行為。我去年評論本案時預測非禮案的被告會因為MS的失職而上訴得直, MS被罰虛耗訟費的上訴會被駁回, 而他應被停牌18個月, 當時不知他假稱離港休假這欺騙法庭以便自己吃兩家茶禮的行為, 現在重新審視, 我認為他應被大律師公會停牌5年, 希望大律師公會不會縱容這使大律師聲譽蒙羞的人繼續得逞。