📖 ZKIZ Archives

又講辱警罪

七警判監後, 又有人倡議為辱警罪立法了。

涂謹申：會否處理警「辱民」問題

立法會保安事務委員會副主席涂謹申表示，明白警隊初期對判刑或有情緒，但須冷靜分析辱警罪立法的利害，他認為就辱警罪立法存很大困難，「辱警定義如何肯定恰當？質疑執法是否辱警」；又指倡議辱警罪的同時，當局會否處理警員「辱民」問題，令法律公平對等，亦將是社會關注，囑警方冷靜思考可行性。另一立法會議員葛珮帆則認為，在社會撕裂氛圍下警隊已成「出氣袋」，「保持尊嚴方可執法」，她認為政府至少可先就立法展開研究。
(20/2/2017 明報節錄)

我以前為這題目寫過6篇(連結在此):

辱警
辱警二
辱警三————答民陣警權關注組召集人王浩賢問
辱警四
辱警和撐警
辱警罪訂立的簽名運動

我不想重複以前講過的說話, 真的不要花時間去立法, 訂立到也經不起違反《人權法》、《基本法》賦予的言論自由的挑戰, 拿捏平衡點不容易, 但言論自由會佔優, 英國在2014年2月也正式廢除了羞警罪, 皆因考慮言論自由的因素。涂謹申講當局會否處理警員「辱民」問題, 那是明顯的廢話, 警察對待市民不禮貌, 長久以來警察投訴課都有處理。真的立法, 就禁止任可人侮辱其他人, 但在立法會就未能通過了, 因為議員又怎肯放棄這種權利, 真的立到法, 到其時又要爭論那詞語是辱罵抑或問候呢。所以, 何必呢? 何必立法, 不如靜心等待社會的改變, 只要一場劇變, 大家就不會花心思在互相仇恨鬥爭, 當自身難保, 天災降臨時, 就沒有人去辱警了。或者我講得黑心咗, 但是我想不到解救辦法。或者咁講, 有無人發現家中有竊匪, 會打去報警, 然後話我屋企有賊, 快啲派黑警嚟, 或者救命呀! 黑警救我!
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=236079

胡亂論盡辱警罪

4參選人無一表態撐辱警罪

【明報專訊】對於有警察協會及建制派議員要求訂立「辱警罪」，4名特首參選人無一表態支持，其中日前出席撐七警大會的葉劉淑儀昨表明不贊成立法，指討論過程只會激化矛盾，不利和諧。另一參選人退休法官胡國興則指現有《公安條例》已能保障警務人員不受侮辱，毋須另立辱警罪。

葉劉：討論立法激化矛盾

葉太說，倘就辱警罪立法，反對派議員料會以「拉布」迫使政府撤回，辯論過程只會激化矛盾。她又說，香港採用普通法，原則是難以言入罪。

被問及有警員以納粹迫害猶太人與警員受辱相比，葉太說自己10多年前亦曾犯同類錯誤，當時她說「希特勒也是民選出來」，引來德國總領事提醒，因當地對相關事件很敏感，不要亂作比喻。她說這是源於對國際事務缺乏認識，「我都唔識喇，何况係警員」。至於有警員在大會講粗口，她說「講粗口的只是一個」，指對方太激動，強調自己也不喜歡粗口。

另一參選人曾俊華回應記者提問時則表示「對相關（迫害猶太人）言論不太認同」。至於辱警罪，他則稱處理爭議事情時要實事求是。

胡國興說明白警民對立令警隊受壓，但強調現時《公安條例》列明任何人在公眾地方使用恐嚇、辱罵等言詞，意圖激使他人破壞社會安寧，最高可判監12個月，這已足以保障警員，沒必要另立辱警罪。他又認為納粹迫害猶太人是歷史悲劇，與警民衝突相提並論非常不妥。

參選人林鄭月娥透過發言人稱理解現時警員面對巨大壓力，但指集會中有人以粗口及猶太人歷史的言論並不適合，她又指香港是法治社會，大家應尊重法庭判判。林太未正面回應辱警罪，指警民關係有需要修補。
(25/2/2017)

承上一篇討論, 看了上面有關其他3名特首參選人對辱警行為立法的取態, 我又有議論了。林鄭和曾俊華最醒目, 含糊其辭, 不置可否, 態度並不明確。葉劉我評了, 不重複。這一篇評胡官的看法。胡官曾是上訴庭副庭長, 他講法律有一定權威。 他認為「《公安條例》列明任何人在公眾地方使用恐嚇、辱罵等言詞，意圖激使他人破壞社會安寧，最高可判監12個月，這已足以保障警員，沒必要另立辱警罪。」With due respect, 我不同意這法律觀點。

這兩年警察倡議的「辱警罪」, 是針對「辱罵/侮辱」(insult)警察的情況, 在現行法例, 我看不到任何一條可以用來保障警員不被「辱罵/侮辱」。我反對立法, 當然不等同贊成任何人侮辱其他人。胡官所講的依據, 來自法例第245章, 《公安條例》第17B(2)條, 我貼出法例的中英對照, 方便引用案例來討論。

17B. 公眾地方內擾亂秩序行為

(1)任何人在為某事情而召開的公眾聚集中作出擾亂秩序行為，或煽惑他人作出此種行為，以阻止處理該事情，即屬犯罪，一經定罪，可處第2級罰款及監禁12個月。

(2)任何人在公眾地方作出喧嘩或擾亂秩序的行為，或使用恐嚇性、辱罵性或侮辱性的言詞，或派發或展示任何載有此等言詞的文稿，意圖激使他人破壞社會安寧，或其上述行為相當可能會導致社會安寧破壞，即屬犯罪，一經定罪，可處第2級罰款及監禁12個月。

17B. Disorder in public places

(1) Any person who at any public gathering acts in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business for which the public gathering was called together or incites others so to act shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine at level 2 and to imprisonment for 12 months.

(2) Any person who in any public place behaves in a noisy or disorderly manner, or uses, or distributes or displays any writing containing, threatening, abusive or insulting words, with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be caused, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine at level 2 and to imprisonment for 12 months.

驟眼看任何人在公眾地方使用辱罵言詞, 不論對其他人或對警察講, 都構成此罪。你諗下, 如果係咁, 警察仲使乜爭取辱警罪立法? 有無見過用這條來告人侮辱警察? 這樣講當然很多人會反駁我, 沒有告過不等如無犯法, 也不等如不能用17B(2)來檢控。當然, 那只是我提出來的一個判辨的角度, 只屬醒胃的頭盤, 吃過了就輪到主菜了。

相信大家對搶咪案還有點印象, 社民連的周諾恆和黃軒瑋, 於2011年4月趁時任運輸及房屋局局長鄭汝樺在港鐵活動致辭時，衝上台搶咪及撒溪錢, 被控17B(1)的「公眾地方內擾亂秩序行為罪」被定罪, 上訴輾轉去到終審法院釐清該項控罪的法律元素。胡官講得簡單容易, 這控罪的難處不是在於怎樣用恐嚇性、辱罵性或侮辱性的言詞, 而是在於「意圖激使他人破壞社會安寧」、「相當可能會導致社會安寧破壞」這部份, 也是使用這控罪來檢控最困難的地方。終審法院常設法官陳兆愷雖然不是撰寫主判辭的, 他當時署任首席法官, 他在搶咪案開宗明義講了這番話:

8. Unlike the position in New Zealand, it is not an offence in Hong Kong to behave in a disorderly manner in public. To constitute an offence under s.17B(1), an accused must have acted in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business of a public gathering and for an offence under s.17B(2), he must have behaved in a disorderly manner either with the intent to provoke a breach of the peace or that a breach of the peace is likely to be caused by his conduct. The reasons in the New Zealand cases for imposing a higher threshold including constitutionality considerations do not necessarily apply with the same force in Hong Kong.

9. Further, not only is disorderly behavior by itself not an offence, s.17B(2) refers also to other types of behavior such as using, distributing, displaying writing containing threatening, abusive or insulting words. These other types of behavior do not necessarily involve a serious disruption of public order. Also, neither s.17B(1) nor 17B(2) requires proof that there is an actual serious disruption of public order, only that the disorderly behavior was done with the intent to provoke a breach of the peace or had the likely effect of causing a breach of the peace. It is unlikely and I do not believe that the legislature intends by “acts/behaves in a disorderly manner” in s.17B to mean conduct causing a serious disruption of public order.
(HKSAR and CHOW NOK HANG（周諾恆）and WONG HIN WAI（黃軒瑋） FACC 14/2012)

戲肉就是: 「意圖激使他人破壞社會安寧」、「相當可能會導致社會安寧破壞」。如果有人在街上侮辱警察, 除了口舌之外, 沒有其他, 怎樣能夠證明「意圖激使/相當可能導致」破壞社會安寧?

撰寫主判辭的李義(Ribeiro)法官, 說明了這元素在法律上的要求:

79. However, a person may provoke a breach of the peace without any violence or threat of violence on his part: “... it suffices that his conduct is such that the natural consequence of it is violence from some third party”.[55] That third party need not be the person provoked or a by-stander, it could, for instance, be a member of the provoker’s group.[56] The actual or feared harm must be unlawful[57] and, where the harm is anticipated, there must be a real risk and not the mere possibility of such harm.[58] Moreover, the anticipated harm must be imminent.[59]

80. As appears in the passage from R v Howell cited above, a breach of the peace or reasonable apprehension of an imminent breach of the peace gives rise to a common law power of arrest without warrant. It also gives rise to a power to take measures short of arrest to prevent such breach.[60]
......
83. But section 17B(2) is not designed to penalise persons who simply commit breaches of the peace. That is of central importance to the disposal of this appeal. The appellants would only be guilty of an offence under that section if their disorderly behaviour was either intended or likely to cause a breach of the peace by someone else. It is not enough to show that they were guilty both of disorderly behaviour and of committing a breach of the peace. This is a conclusion dictated by the language of section 17B(2) and reflected in the Hong Kong authorities and the authorities on section 5 of the United Kingdom’s Public Order Act 1936 from which section 17B(2) is derived and which is structured in the same way.

如果辱罵警察的人的言詞語調, 不會激使或導致第三者有所行動, 不會給人一種第三者會訴諸武力引致即時危險的印象/感覺, 這條控罪不會成立。終審法院的演繹是, 就算辱罵別人的人行為不檢, 破壞了社會安寧, 也不犯法, 辱罵人的人要激使別入破壞社會安寧才屬犯法(The appellants would only be guilty of an offence under that section if their disorderly behaviour was either intended or likely to cause a breach of the peace by someone else. It is not enough to show that they were guilty both of disorderly behaviour and of committing a breach of the peace. )。這條控罪又怎能有效地對付侮辱警察的人呢? 我斗膽問, 胡官是否熟讀上訴案例的? 

有個不用訂立辱警罪, 也不用新訂侮辱公職/公務員的法例的折衷辦法, 就是把17B(2)裏面, 「意圖激使他人破壞社會安寧，或其上述行為相當可能會導致社會安寧破壞」這句刪除, 就可以達致保障人人免受侮辱的目的了。修改法例不會激化社會矛盾, 也不限於保障警察, 仇警者便無話可說了。代價是在某程度上收窄了言論自由, 會不會違反人權, 只能在修改法例後, 由殿堂級的法官去決定了。
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=236891

呃like的辱警罪草案

上一篇有讀者把3位建制派議員的「辱警罪」草案連結給我看:



在上一篇的留言和連結, 已有不少人評論了這不合格的草案, 我不想再重覆。梁美芬教授牽頭, 夥同另外兩位律師, 3個臭皮匠, 可惜都不是搞法律草擬的, 加上又不闇刑事法, 所以搞了這些不倫不類的東西出來。昨天還見到警察員佐級協會對草案表示歡迎, 在我看就有點像祈褔黨在街頭欺騙阿婆的金銀首飾, 偷龍轉鳳的手法, 一時騙得警察好開心, 信以為真, 以為為他們度身訂造了法律草案。左睇右睇, 這草案怎能稱得上「辱警罪」, 極其量只能叫「侮辱執法人員罪」。真的旨在呃like嗎? 我一向反對訂立「辱警罪」, 所以也從沒有仔細去考慮這條文應該怎樣去訂立。草擬法例並非每一個律師都有能力去做的, 更並非有個教授銜頭的人就一定懂的。上面這草案已不證自明了。

真的只為保障警察執勤時不受侮辱, 草案就應指明叫「辱警罪」, 加入法例第232章《警察條例》裏。像上面這草案, 涵蓋廣於警察, 要包括一切執法人員, 那就先要介定甚麼叫「執法人員」了。「執法人員」一般泛指執行法律及具逮捕權的人, 也有擴得較闊的介定, 以新南威爾斯州為例, 連主控官也包括在內, Crimes Act 1900的釋義, 是這樣講的:
"law enforcement officer" means:

(a) a police officer, or

(b) the Commissioner for the Independent Commission Against Corruption or an Assistant Commissioner for that Commission, or

(c) an officer of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, within the meaning of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 , who performs investigation functions, or

(d) the Commissioner for the Police Integrity Commission or an Assistant Commissioner for that Commission, or

(e) an officer of the Police Integrity Commission, within the meaning of the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996 , who performs investigation or confiscation functions, or

(f) the Commissioner for the New South Wales Crime Commission or an Assistant Commissioner for that Commission, or

(g) a member of staff of the New South Wales Crime Commission, within the meaning of the Crime Commission Act 2012 , who performs investigation or confiscation functions, or

(h) the Commissioner of Corrective Services, or
(i) governors of correctional centres, correctional officers and probation and parole officers, within the meaning of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 , or

(j) an officer of the Department of Juvenile Justice who works with children who have, or are alleged to have, committed offences and who is employed at or works from a community centre or children’s detention centre, or

(k) an officer of the Department of Juvenile Justice who is involved in the conduct of youth justice conferences, or

(l) a Crown Prosecutor or an Acting Crown Prosecutor, or
(m) an Australian legal practitioner who is employed as a member of staff of the Director of Public Prosecutions, or

(n) a sheriff’s officer, or

(o) a recognised law enforcement officer within the meaning of the Police Act 1990 , or

(p) a special constable within the meaning of section 82L of the Police Act 1990.
相對而言, 在香港的法例裏, 「執法人員」這一詞是使用得比較罕有, 只在第627章 《啟德郵輪碼頭條例》出現, 該條例只是局限性採用「執法人員」一詞, 只有以下的介定:
執法人員(law enforcement officer)指 ——

(a)警務人員；

(b)由《入境事務隊條例》(第331章)第3條設立的入境事務隊的成員；或

(c)擔任《香港海關條例》(第342章)附表1指明的職位的人；

如果這3位議員真心想保障警察執行職務時不會受到胡亂侮辱, 真的要提出一套(其實那有一套, 只是很簡單的一條)刑事罪行的建議, 至少也找個真的懂得刑事法的大狀過目, 才好公開。若有這樣做, 就不會弄成啼笑皆非, 失禮死人的草率法案出來。

教授, 你不害羞嗎?
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=248128

最大公僕工會　曾撐辱警罪

1 : GS(14)@2017-07-09 12:11:01

【本報訊】香港政府華員會於1914年5月成立，目的是凝聚各部門、各職級本地公務員同事，宣導聯誼、互助、團結、合作。1940年代初期，日軍入侵香港，部份華員會會員流亡至內地，在內地成立臨時會所，提倡並協助會員間互相關懷、互相幫助、共度難關。


霍震霆任名譽贊助人


1949年，華員會正式登記為職工會，為全港最早登記的職工會之一，並於1952年設立京士柏衛理道體育場館（即現會所）。華員會為本港最大的公務員工會，一直在薪酬趨勢調查委員會為公務員發聲。該會所出版的《華員報》不時就政府施政及各部門發表評論。華員會過去曾公開表態支持辱警罪。現任華員會會長為黃河，名譽贊助人包括全國政協霍震霆，行政會議成員廖長江則是該會名譽法律顧問之一。■記者張文鈴




來源: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20170709/20083759
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=338685
Next Page
ZKIZ Archives @ 2019