- Joined
- Feb 20, 2010
- Messages
- 2,818
- Points
- 48
三文治襲擊罪被推翻 高院給律政司兩巴掌
眾新聞
115 人追蹤
2019年3月6日 下午10:45
查看相片
請支持《眾新聞》，成為訂戶
2016年9月立法會選舉投票日，社民連主席吳文遠涉嫌向時任特首梁振英投擲三文治，誤中在旁的署理總督察劉泳鈞，吳文遠早前被裁定普通襲擊罪成，判囚3星期。他不服定罪及判刑，提出上訴，高等法院周三（6日）裁定他上訴得直，獲撤銷控罪和刑期。高等法院原訟法庭法官邱智立在判詞指出，從新聞片段所見，劉泳鈞輕描淡寫，態度從容地前行，沒有憂慮當場被即時襲擊，認為不構成普通襲擊，原本的定罪裁決是不安全和不穩妥。法官對證據提出質疑，向律政部門先打一巴掌。
查看相片
高等法院原訟法庭法官邱智立。
法官向律政司打更大的一巴掌是針對整個控罪決定；法官說，他大惑不解的，是為甚麼控方不直接控告上訴人普通襲擊梁振英而選擇劉泳鈞，案中有充足證據證明上訴人觸犯普通襲擊梁振英的罪行。法官在判詞說，如果因為梁振英是當時的特首， 檢控當局為要避免傳召他作為控方證人而這樣選擇，那麼檢控當局就是因為一個人的原故或要遷就一個人，作出表面看來不合常理的檢控決定，做法明顯地是值得商榷和令人不安，法官不知道真正的原因亦不會作出揣測。
法官認為檢控決定不合常理，說法很客氣，他質疑律政署非針對事件，而可能是為遷就一個人（筆者按：可理解為一男子），說令人不安 ，亦頗為溫和，他指出的檢控問題性質嚴重，令人對政府檢控政策失去信心。
律政司理應作獨立檢控，不受政治干預，不作政治考慮，這是香港法治制度重要的一環。檢控當局為「一男子」而扭曲「三文治襲擊」 檢控決定，究竟是自己作的「不專業的」專業決定？是揣摩時任特首的政治選擇？抑或是有人向檢控部門施壓的結果？判詞對檢控決定提出的質疑嚴重，律政司有責任回應和澄清。
政治人物在公開場合出現，甚至發表演說期間，被反對者擲物，是常見現象。不少人仍印象深刻的擲物抗議事件，包括有美國前任總統布殊在2008年尾在伊拉克一個記者會上遭伊拉克記者宰迪掟鞋抗議一幕。當日布殊避過，幽默加一句對方穿10號鞋，宰迪其後被定罪監禁；小布殊從容回應，贏得公眾好感；2009年，前國務院總理溫家寶在英國劍橋大學演說時，亦遇上英學生向他掟鞋抗議，溫總促劍橋大學原諒該名掟鞋者，回應時把公眾焦點轉到中英兩國人民關係。政治人物如何回應，反映其政治胸襟；一個政府視一件三文治為威脅，令人感到荒謬可悲。
向政治人物擲物，往往是一種發洩不滿的方式，當然有人並不接受、認為過激；特首辦和警方將這些行為視作刑事襲擊，交律政司進行檢控，決定本身已頗有爭議；吳文遠準備的三文治明顯是衝著梁振英，他失了手，變成襲擊「路人甲」總督察，檢控決定問題更大，罪成被推翻。整件「三文治襲擊」事件，本是小事一樁，梁振英政府硬要玩控告，又告得不清不楚，最後造成「醜醜醜」的三輸局面：警方醜，檢控部門醜，「一男子」醜醜。
The crime of sandwich attack was overthrown. The High Court gave the Attorney General a slap
[public news]
Public news
115 people tracking
March 6, 2019, 10:45 PM
View photos
Please support "News" and become a subscriber
On the polling day of the Legislative Council Election in September 2016, the Social Welfare Company Chairman Wu Wenyuan was suspected of throwing a sandwich to the then Chief Executive, Leung Chun-ying. The Chief Inspector, Liu Yongkun, who was in the wrong position, was previously convicted of a general assault and sentenced to three weeks. He refused to accept conviction and sentence and filed an appeal. The High Court ruled on Wednesday (6th) that he had appealed and was revoked and sentenced. Qiu Zhili, a judge of the Court of First Instance of the High Court, said in his verdict that Liu Yongzhen was understated from the news footage. He was calmly moving forward and did not worry about being attacked on the spot. He did not think that it would constitute an ordinary attack. The original conviction was unsafe and unsafe. The judge questioned the evidence and slapped the law department first.
View photos
Judge Chiu Zhili of the Court of First Instance of the High Court.
The judge’s slap in the face of the Attorney General is against the entire charge decision; the judge said that he was puzzled because the prosecution did not directly accuse the appellant of attacking Leung Chun-ying and chose Liu Yongying. There was sufficient evidence in the case to prove the appeal. The man violated the crime of ordinary attack on Leung Chun-ying. The judge said in the verdict that if Liang Zhenying was the chief head of the time and the prosecutor chose to avoid calling him as a prosecution witness, then the prosecution authorities would have to make a seemingly unreasonable prosecution because of one’s own reasons or to accommodate a person. The decision is obviously debatable and disturbing, and the judge does not know the real reason and will not make any speculations.
The judge considered that the prosecution decision was unreasonable. The argument was very polite. He questioned that the Legal Department was not targeted at the incident, but it might be to accommodate one person (I can understand it as a man). It is disturbing and quite moderate. He pointed out that The prosecution problem is of a serious nature, which makes people lose confidence in the government prosecution policy.
The Attorney General should be an independent prosecution, free from political interference and without political considerations. This is an important part of the rule of law system in Hong Kong. The prosecution has distorted the "three-man attack" for "one man". Is the prosecution decision made by himself a "unprofessional" professional decision? Is it the political choice to try to be the chief executive? Or is it the result of pressure from the prosecution department? The verdict raises serious questions about the prosecution decision, and the Attorney General has the responsibility to respond and clarify.
It is a common phenomenon for politicians to appear in public, even during speeches, when they are thrown by opponents. Many people still impressed the throwing protests, including the former US President Bush’s protest at the end of 2008 at a press conference in Iraq by Iraqi journalist Zadi’s shoes. On the same day, Bush evaded, humor added one to wear the No. 10 shoes, and Zaidi was later convicted and imprisoned; Xiao Bushu responded with ease and won public favor; in 2009, former Premier Wen Jiabao also met at the University of Cambridge in the UK. The English students protested to him, and Wen urged Cambridge University to forgive the sneakers. In response, the public focus shifted to the relationship between the Chinese and British people. How politicians respond and reflect their political ambitions; it is ridiculous for a government to regard a sandwich as a threat.
Throwing things into politicians is often a way of venting dissatisfaction. Of course, some people do not accept and think that they are too aggressive. The Chief Executive and the police regard these acts as criminal attacks, and the Department of Justice conducts prosecutions. The decision itself is quite controversial; Wu Wenyuan is ready The sandwich was obviously directed at Leung Chun-ying. He lost his hand and became the chief inspector of the attacking passers-by. The prosecution decision was even more problematic and the crime was overturned. The whole incident of "sandwich attack" was a trivial matter. The Leung Chun-ying government had to play a complaint and it was unclear. In the end, it caused a "three ugly" situation: the police were ugly and the prosecution department was ugly. The man is ugly.
