2017年6月22日星期四

You're damn/damned right

標少一向讀書讀得好爛, 寫這一篇是向讀者討教。事緣是這樣, 港大尖子在宿舍偷拍女同學裸體, 有讀者在檢控拾紙皮阿婆一文留言批評, 惹了馬鹿對港大的辱罵, 我把其中一些對話貼出來作引子:


  • 港大畢業的共狗還少嘛

    馬鹿
  • 馬老大,

    這學生好明顯有心理問題, 他需要治療, 很多時我也覺得你也需要治療, 講真, 我不是黑心, 你的表現真教人擔心, 我怕你終有一天在法庭上出事。在你眼中, 周圍的都是豬和狗, 你這樣做人也好辛苦。遠離顛倒夢想喇!
  • Damned right, Billsiu...
  • its ”damn right“ 好心你啦 寫不來英文就少出來柒啦

    馬鹿
  • 馬鹿, You're damn right but grammar is not the issue here. Your observation is irrelevant
  • I can't add anything to definitions, as others have amply done so, but I will point out that to be grammatically correct it should be "damned right" or "damn right" and the shorter form is just another example of spoken slang making its way into the written form.
  • 我想討教的是究竟 'damn right' 還是 'damned right' 才對呢? 以文法的分析, 我會講 'You're damn right' 這個 'damn' 字是 adverb, 用來修飾 'right' 這adverb, 用起來就像 'You're quite right' 的意思一樣。很多香港人誤以為 'You're quite right' 是「你都講得幾啱」, 其實這個 quite 字是 absolutely, very 的意思, 即是「我絕對同意」/「你講得十分對」。'You're damn right' 的 'damn' 字既然是adverb, 就不應是 'damned' 了。如果你要抝 'damned' 在這句子裏是 adverb, 我不敢跟你抝, 因為同樣講得通, 也有字典確認這講法。所以應該兩個都合乎文法, 我覺得Peter Chan 沒有錯, 馬鹿的指責不見得是對的。我自己偏向講 'You're damn right', 雖然我慣於講 'You're quite right'。

    有另一個慣常聽到的講法: You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't。即是「做又死, 唔做又死」或者「做又畀人鬧, 唔做又畀人鬧」, 這個 damned 字是 adjective 不是adverb, 是被動式的 participle。

    關於上面那些留言的另一課題, 就是轉移視綫。在法庭上訟辯時常會遇到的, 就是對手不夠你講, 於是轉移視綫, 所謂搬龍門。馬鹿正是使出這種伎倆, 不正面回應論題, 牽引你去講離題的事情, 你給他牽住就會忘了他一直都沒有回應主題, 撐下撐下就到大海茫茫中, 迷失了。我把他帶回正題, 他就消失了。訟辯要記住頭腦清晰, 不要被人帶去遊花園, 牢牢抓住命題不放, 讓對手自己去漫遊太虛幻境好了。

    2017年6月21日星期三

    大狀執業被拒的判辭

    4天前我寫了大狀執業被拒一文, 司法機構今天上載了有關判辭: RE “A”。在《大狀執業被拒》一文的留言, 除了對A君不能執業的正反意見外, 也涉及對一些有刑事案底仍然能夠執業的大律師的評論。我剛看完判辭, 我同意陳官(Anthony KK Chan Esq)的判決, 除非A君可以上訴推翻陳官的判決, 否則他入行無望。我相信寫這篇也會引起議論, 其實這是好事, 看法無絕對的對與錯, 最緊要是有客觀抒發意見的平台。

    不少人舉了資深大狀Coleman及在平洲偷胸圍內褲的馬大狀曾被定罪, 之後還可以執業(馬大狀停牌30個月後復牌), 而A君卻連申請執業也被拒, 視之為不公平對待的例子(所謂大細超)。如果以此指責大律師公會大細超, 我覺得不公平, 因為大律師公會連A君申請執業也不反對。如果說大細超, 大概矛頭直指反對A君執業的律政司。如果原本已是大律師, 被紀律處分停牌, 停牌多久律政司沒有發言權, 停完就復牌, 恐怕律政司也插不到手, 以此推斷就不能指責律政司大細超了。極其量只能說A君不能執業, 是一件不公平的事。

    從判辭看, 判決本身講不上不公平。法官先以「公眾利益」(public interest)着眼, 這一點判辭第33是概覽:
    Public interest
    38. First and foremost, the admission of a member to the Bar involves a matter of public interest. Public interest is generally accepted as paramount, and there can be no exception in this case. I believe that there are 2 aspects under this head: (a) public confidence in the Bar; and (b) the trust and confidence which a member of the Bar commands from the court and fellow members of the legal professions (both the HKBA and the Law Society).
    繼而要看的是「改過自新」
    Reformation
    64. The second concern of the SJ is the total lack of remorse by the Applicant over the crime he committed.

    65. Whilst it may be said that the Applicant’s appeal to the High Court and the CFA were matters of exercising his constitutional right, the evidence before the court does not show that he has in any way accepted his responsibility. This is highly material on the question whether the Applicant has reformed from his past.

    先前有報章報導講A君對非禮罪一事已有悔意, 那其實只是A君3位師傅其中一位在推薦信所講, A君自己就自始至終都否認有犯罪, 這又引伸到陳官質疑他的悔意及誠信(因為他原先有些資料沒有披露)。陳官對大律師公會處理這件事的手法頗有微言, 對A君另一位批評非禮罪誤判的師傅就不止微言, 而是大不以為然, 判辭為證:

    68. However, looking at the material emanated from the pupil masters, one of them had provided a standardised letter of certification and a very short email confirming his view after the disclosure of additional material by the Applicant. One of them provided 2 letters in addition to the certification and confirmation. In those letters, the pupil master expressed the view that the Applicant has managed to rehabilitate himself. The third pupil master had provided 2 letters of “feedback” as well as the certification.

    69. I am much troubled by one of the feedback letters. In that letter, the writer stated that during the pupillage of the Applicant he had asked for and read the full transcript of the trial of his pupil. He had “always been persuaded that [the Applicant was] wrongly convicted”, and he formed the view (after reading the skeleton arguments for the appeals) that “the appeal courts failed to grasp the appeal points”. Further, the writer felt very sorry that the Applicant “had fallen victim to our imperfect criminal justice system”.

    70. The court would not attribute to the Applicant the view expressed by another person. On the other hand, it is highly unlikely for the Applicant not to have discussed his conviction with the writer, and it is inconceivable for him to have shown any acceptance of his conviction in the course of such discussion. Mr Grossman did not endeavour to suggest otherwise.

    71. The writer was free to express his view and to criticise the court. What is disturbing is that he might well have encouraged the Applicant to believe that he was wrongly convicted and not to accept the criminal justice system. That does not square with the rehabilitation of the Applicant.

    批評法庭錯誤定罪, 後果全部落在A君身上。從現實角度看, 被告不服定罪向高院上訴, 上訴被駁回, 繼而向終院上訴, 終院上訴委員會駁回上訴, 理由是it disclosed no reasonable ground of appeal, 去到那地步, 師傅還要白紙黑字講A君是不完善刑事司法制度的受害者(“had fallen victim to our imperfect criminal justice system” ), 豈不是由裁判官批評到終院法官, 大不敬的死罪啊, 你估寫blog, 你以為茶餘飯後吹水, 咁講咪即係對司法制度不滿 (馬鹿一定答嘴)。這一刀斬落嚟, 一撥就擘咗落A君度。我自己閱讀A君非禮案的上訴判辭, 我都覺得無釘錯。當然, 換了是個放官, 原審都可以acquit on benefit of doubt, factual finding, 點講都得, 有證據也可以無視證據存在。我能力有限, 我就看不到釘錯的地方。

    如果A君在上訴至終院失敗之後曾經表示及表現悔意, 這次申請執業的結果可能會改寫。又如果他真是寃枉的, 所以他堅持自己無做過, 這刑事司法制度真的不完善……我不懂再講下去了。衡量一個人的誠信, 靠日常觀察, 鑑貌辨色, 其實都不足夠。有些極度狡猾的人, 會把自己包裝得誠懇和善, 笑容可掬, 沒有特別事發生就完全露不出狐狸尾巴來, 看人是高深學問。我最後講這些並不是講A君, 我根本無興趣知他是怎樣的人, 我只在講人生閱歷。我寧可對着個為正義而面黑的人, 好個笑裏藏刀, 道貌岸然, 滿口天主上帝的人。面黑的未害你你都預先知道, 笑面的害了上帝上帝也懵然不知。

    2017年6月19日星期一

    檢控拾紙皮阿婆

    食環署執法的手法時常成為社會焦點, 我不想一窩蜂人云亦云, 而用實際執法的角度去看阿婆賣紙皮獲$1利潤這一件事。

    評論這件事先要作假設, 假設事實上阿婆在賣紙皮, 那$l收入不是饋贈, put the prosecution case to the highest, 否則要纏擾於是否足以構成無牌販賣的法律爭拗了。作這假設也不是沒有事實基礎的, 雖然我很少返香港, 香港的現況還是相當清楚的。每逢假日, 在外傭聚集的地方, 紙皮有一定需求, 用來墊在地上來坐, 所以提供紙皮也成為一門小生意。當然, 那種提供的模式並非阿婆這一種, 而是有客貨車運送摺疊好的紙皮, 大量提供給外傭用的。

    那麼, 阿婆賣紙皮犯了法, 食環署執法拘捕檢控她, 有沒有做錯呢? 今年農曆新年, 無牌熟食小販擺賣幾天, 食環署只在附近監視而沒有採取行動, 相對於阿婆賣$l紙皮, 孰輕孰重? 我不是直接比較, 否則會變成被抄牌的人罵警察的口脗: 捉賊又唔見你咁叻。我想講的是酌情權。農曆年縱容熟食小販擺賣, 是因應對上一年同類事件引發的暴動及顧及社會氣氛而作出忍氣吞聲的酌情。75歲阿婆賣這些撿回來的廢紙皮, 對社會或在現場造成多大的滋擾而驅使食環署的職員誓要把她繩之於法不可? 假如我是食環署職員, 我會問候阿婆, 勸她不要在街上賣紙皮, 還會給她一點錢請她吃飯。一個人怎能沒有憐貧惜苦之心? 如果有條友揼煙頭, 兇神惡煞, 左青龍右白虎, 食環署啲友分分鐘弱視乜都睇唔到。

    我時常在街上觀察食環署的人執法, 事實上也見不少對老人家擺賣只勸籲驅趕不作逮捕檢控的。你可能覺得奇怪, 我怎會特別對他們感興趣, 無他, 以前罵得他們多, 罵到上頭條, 在街上遇上也被不少人怒目而視。鬧人唔使本, 但鬧也要肯定鬧得啱, 胡亂罵只自損公信力, 所以我會觀察他們的工作態度。

    我們不時在街上見那些乞丏行乞, 警察行過也多數對他們視若無睹, 行乞不犯法嗎? 起碼犯了法例第228章《簡易程序治罪條例》第26A條,警察也只是在行使酌情權,除非是假乞丏, 否則你拘捕個老弱傷殘返去, 也會給上級罵, 這就是人之所以為人, 惻懚之心總要有些嘛。丁點惻懚之心也沒有, 就枉為人了。

    食環職員大可以講自己只是按本子辦事, 地位低微, 無權酌情不執法。我想, 打個電話請示上级一下, 也不是甚麽艱難的事。假設請示上級後也誓要去馬, 真的要公事公辦, 那麼, 帶了阿婆返警署落案及保釋(那是正常程序), 發覺阿婆全副身家只有$34, 竟然可以拿走$30作保釋金, 點解唔可以畀佢自簽擔保? 如果怕阿婆着草就咪畀佢擔保囉, 否則都要用腦想下阿婆使唔使搭車返屋企先, 留番4蚊畀佢就夠晒?由拘捕到叫車運阿婆同車仔返警署, 繼而處理落案文件及保釋, 閒閒地搞幾個鐘, 阿婆肚餓想買個最cheap嘅麵包都唔夠呀。盗竊及非法集結的被捕人士, 身上無足夠現金也會准予自簽保釋, 阿婆這件是甚麽大案, 只把$4發還給她回家? 事發在中環, 阿婆家住柴灣, 4蚊, 跌係地好多人都嫌污糟唔會拾, 你班友咁涼薄, 抵畀人鬧。你做食環前線人員, 也不是大富大貴的, 自處民間疾苦之中, 理應具備同理同情之心, 若有絲毫「仁」性, 這件事就不會成為新聞焦點了。處理這些事情的方法, 無需高深學問, 無需法律常識, 只需發揮人性的本質, 就無懈可擊了。到頭來勞師動眾, 還要索取法律意見, 根本是勞民傷財的浪費。上到法庭, 這件案一定撤銷控罪。早知今日, 何必當初。香港有好多好巴閉的成就, 也有好多病入膏肓的事例。究竟是甚麼出了問題? 沒有「人」性是其中一個原因。

    2017年6月17日星期六

    大狀執業被拒

    這是明報今天的新聞: 高院拒案底見習大狀執業, 高院的判辭還未上載, 本來不想評論, 引起我注意的是明報這一段報導;

    A其後轉為攻讀法律,畢業後他完成實習,他的3位師父皆知悉其案底,3人指A已改過自新,認為對方適合成為執業大律師。其中一人在信中表示,他閱畢原審時的謄本後,認為A是被錯誤定罪,對於A成為「不完善的刑事法律制度下的受害人」感到可惜。

    這報導本身是矛盾的, 「3人指A已改過自新」、「…A是被錯誤定罪」。這矛盾驅使我去翻東方及蘋果來看, 他們只講錯誤定罪, 而沒有講改過自新。誰誤導讀者, 就只好等待HCMP 2079/2016在司法機構網上載才會知道。A的其中一個師傅指責非禮案的原審裁判官及聽審上訴的高院法官出錯, 指這宗非禮案是冤獄, 我不得不找當年這宗非禮案的上訴判辭來看。為免暴露A的姓名, 我不打算登出上訴案的編號, 因為我不是lengua larga, 而是想看指控法律制度不完善的基礎。非禮案的控方案情是這樣的:

    14歲女生(第一證人)早上7時10分上學途中行經一行人隧道時,她留意到上訴人(A)跟隨在其身後約1呎距離,第一證人沒有理會對方,繼續步往附近的港鐵站。第一證人穿過此行人隧道後進入第二條行人隧道。在這時候上訴人突從她右後方接近,以左手手肘撞向第一證人胸部,再使勁捏其臀部後急步離去。

    兩天之後的早上, 第一證人在警察暗中監視下行同一路線上學, 她穿越第二條行人隧道後重遇上訴人, 於是通知警察拘捕上訴人。在現場警誡下上訴人聲稱當日趕時間不小心碰到女生。

    辯方的講法是, 當日早上7時10分, 當上訴人離家行經第二條隧道前往港鐵站時,因行程匆忙曾不小心撞向一身穿校服的女童,但不肯定女童便是控方第一證人。

    我在這裏長話短說, 不覆述上訴人原審時仔細的爭辯, 他被定罪並判監14天。這件案主要打ID, 以及其他有關違反《查問疑犯規則和指引》的爭論。從上訴判辭看, 幾個證人作供時講法存在一定的差異, 原審及上訴都處理了。沒有機會看到原審謄本, 不能評論A君的師傅對法庭的批評是否合理。就算看到原審謄本, 也未必人人有相同結論, 起碼當時的高院法官與A君的師傅就不一樣了。更何況我沒有資格判上判。報導說本案曾申請上訴至終院但被拒絕, 我找不到有關申請的判辭, 我猜是當時向聽非禮上訴的陳官申請被拒, 而沒有進一步直接向終院申請。

    我近年心軟了, 對於給人自新機會心寬了。自新的機會究竟可以給予甚麼人及寬容到那程度, 真的不好說。A君這件案申請執業被拒, 衡量的標準不可能是原審的定罪是否穩妥, 可以採用的上訴程序都採用了, finality prevails。考慮是否容許有刑事定罪紀錄的大狀執業, 並非一刀切但凡有刑事紀錄就一概不批, 因非禮而判監在觀感上確實難以接受讓他執業。另一大狀在偷胸圍被定罪後一直上訴至終院也失敗了, 停牌30個月後已回復執業, 我對此有點猶豫, 非禮這一宗的決定, 我是支持拒絕他執業的判決的。


    附注: 上一篇有留言把A君非禮案的上訴判辭部份登出來, 我把它刪掉了。請寬以待人, 不要披露他的名字。

    2017年6月16日星期五

    梁振英周浩鼎私通, 是否構成公職人員行為不當罪?

    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。

    2017年6月15日星期四

    公職人員行為不當罪的最高刑罰

    在上一篇我舉了前新南威爾斯省礦產資源部長Ian MacDonald*, 因Wilful Misconduct In Public Office罪判監10作例子, 留言有人間接問「公職人員行為不當罪」最高刑罰不是7年嗎? 這普通法控罪近年在香港見得多了, 傳媒也多次報導最高刑期是7年, 另可加罰款。香港對普通法罪行的判刑依據來自法例第221《刑事訴訟程序條例》第101I條----可公訴罪行(包括串謀及煽惑他人犯罪)的懲罰

    101I.  可公訴罪行(包括串謀及煽惑他人犯罪)的懲罰

    (1)在不抵觸第(2)及(5)款的條文下,任何人被裁定犯了一項可公訴罪行,而除此處外,並無任何條例訂定該罪的刑罰,則可處監禁7年及罰款。
    (由1986年第12號第2條修訂;由1991年第50號第4(1)條修訂;由1996年第49號第6條修訂;由2008年第10號第15條修訂)

    ......

    監禁7年及罰款這講法當然沒有錯, 但新省最高法院卻認為此罪判監並無上限, 所以判Ian MacDonald坐10年監。澳洲每一個省對於公職人員行為不當罪的最高刑罰都不同, 昆士蘭省判監7年, 維多利亞省10年。控方要求主審法官參照其他省份的刑罰, 被主審法官所拒, 法官的看法是:

    ...I am not persuaded that it is appropriate to have regard to the choices made by legislatures other than the NSW Parliament or the Commonwealth Parliament...

    法官參照了新省類似的法律條文, 得出以下看法:
    1. As referred to above, there is no maximum penalty for this offence. The usual approach is to have regard to statutory analogies and to use them as a reference point: R v Hokin, Burton and Peisley [1922] NSWStRp 19(1922) 22 SR (NSW) 280 at 292; Jaturawong v R [2011] NSWCCA 168 at [6]–[7] per Beazley JA, Hall and Harrison JJ agreeing. There is no rule that the sentence imposed for the common law offence cannot, as a matter of law, exceed the maximum imposed for the statutory analogy: Blackstock v R [2013] NSWCCA 172 at [10] per Campbell J, Macfarlan JA and Barr AJ agreeing.
    法官認為此罪屬嚴重可公訴控罪(serious indictable offence), 可處終身監禁, 或最少判監5年, 故下令Ian MacDonald至少要服刑7年才可以假釋。許仕仁那7年半監, 服刑期間行為良好加假期, 大概刑期是5年。

    我上一篇講梁振英看到終院昨日的裁決會手震, 其實沒有先入為主對他作出審判, UGL事件發展至今, 從各方跡象看並不容易立案作出檢控。儘管終院判辭對公職人員行為不當罪的涵蓋性進一步擴大了, 始終要看每一件案的案情事實, 而並非因為你憎恨某某宜得他落鑊就會變得鐵證如山。暫時見得到對梁振英最強的指控只是他沒有申報與UGL秘密協議的這筆收入, 而並非許仕仁那種極明顯的Golden Fetters。不申報一事, 本身已具爭議性。我不知梁振英看到昨天頒佈的判決是否真的會手震, 不少厭惡他的人卻已在心中認定了他一定逃不過被檢控的厄運。正確理解這判辭應該知道, 不同案件的案情差異大, 未必可以像緊身衣那樣套用法律觀點入去。不如省點氣別興奮討論, 靜心等待立法會調查的結果。

    *R v Macdonald; R v Maitland [2017] NSWSC 638 (2 June 2017)

    2017年6月14日星期三

    曾蔭權在滴汗, 梁振英開始手震了

    許仕仁案終審判決今天頒佈了, 除了控辯雙方、法律界人士、傳媒等會關注結果, 細心閱讀判辭外, 有兩個人會份外關心。我在上一篇留言的回應: 「曾蔭權在滴汗, 梁振英開始手震了」。不是嗎, 公職人員行為失當涵蓋性廣, 有些行事隱晦的行為, 枱底交易, 利益輸送, 都難以證實收了「利」怎樣作出輸送去「益」對方, 尤其是延後利益, 控方無可能呈遞明確證據來證明用了那筆錢來換取那種利益, 或者某些不作為而作出有利對方的決策。許仕仁案就像派了卧底進入政府決策層, 通風報訊, 或運用決策影響力而作偏倚的決定, 使對方得益(判辭引用了控方在原訟庭結案陳辭的一句話: those who were paying Rafael Hui that sum were not “running a charity”)。這一次的裁決, 進一步解釋了在「冼錦華」案對公職人員行為失當罪訂出的5大元素, 也擴闊了控罪的涵蓋面。判辭這樣講:
    46.  In R v Boulanger[33] the Supreme Court of Canada, having pointed out[34] that the Canadian statutory offence of breach of trust by a public officer can be traced to the common law offence of misconduct in public office, said[35] that the actus reus of the offence “defies precise definition because of the range of conduct that it is designed to cover”.  That it may include solicitation or acceptance of a bribe is clear.  Professor Finn, in his article on “Official Misconduct”[36] gives “entering into secret commission agreements while acting in an official agency capacity” as an example of the “fraud in office” type of misconduct, and notes that it may also constitute an offence under secret commissions legislation.  It can be said that the receipt of bribes is a quintessential example of misconduct in public office.
    47.  For behaviour to qualify as relevant misconduct it may, but need not, involve a contravention of a statute.  It must, however, have the necessary link to official powers, duties or responsibilities.  Yet, not every breach of the law by a person when he or she is a public official is in the course of or in relation to the office held.  In Sin Kam Wah and Anor v HKSAR[37] the relevant conduct was not in the performance of the police officer’s duties, but was found to have such a relation with his public office as to bring that office into disrepute.  In R v Quach[38] Redlich JA, with whom the other members of the Victorian Court of Appeal concurred, approved[39] Professor Finn’s statement that “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”, and said:[40]
    “In my opinion the relevant misconduct need not occur while the officer is in the course of performing a duty or function of the office. Certain responsibilities of the office will attach to the officer whether or not the officer is acting in the course of that office. Where the misconduct does not occur during the performance of a function or duty of the office, the offence may be made out where the misconduct is inconsistent with those responsibilities. It may be connected to a duty already performed or to one yet to be performed or it may relate to the responsibilities of the office in some other way. The misconduct must be incompatible with the proper discharge of the responsibilities of the office so as to amount to a breach of the confidence which the public has placed in the office, thus giving it its public and criminal character.”
    48.  The characterisation of the misconduct alleged may involve both a descriptive element (of the facts of the transaction) and a value judgment (of its effect).  For example, the Australian case of R v Boston[41] concerned a conspiracy to make a corrupt payment to a member of the New South Wales Parliament to induce him to use his official power in an improper way.  The criminality of the alleged agreement lay in its tendency to produce a public mischief.[42]  Members of the High Court characterised the public mischief.  Knox CJ said:[43]
    “Payment of money to a member of Parliament to induce him to persuade or influence or put pressure on a Minister to carry out a particular transaction tends to the public mischief in many ways, irrespective of whether the pressure is to be exercised by conduct inside or outside Parliament. It operates as an incentive to the recipient to serve the interest of his paymaster regardless of the public interest, and to use his right to sit and vote in Parliament as a means to bring about the result which he is paid to achieve. It impairs his capacity to exercise a disinterested judgment on the merits of the transaction from the point of view of the public interest, and makes him a servant of the person who pays him, instead of a representative of the people.”
    This, of course, is a reference to a specific transaction. But Isaacs and Rich JJ put the public mischief in wider terms in the following passage:[44]
    “[The member] has … placed himself in a situation embarrassing and inconsistent with that independence to criticize or censure which he is bound to preserve; he has fastened upon himself golden fetters which preclude his freedom of action. The natural fear of exposure or reproach, or the sense of personal obligation, must inevitably operate to dissuade him from fearlessly pursuing the path of true service …”.
    49.  The public mischief that was the object of the conspiracy in Boston did not lie either in the bare financial transaction involved in the payment or in the making by a parliamentarian of representations about government action.  It lay in the connection between the two: the representations were to be made in return for the payment.  The payment took its character from the purpose for which it was made, and by accepting it the recipient placed himself in a situation incompatible with the responsibilities of his office.
    在第46段所講 "...Professor Finn, in his article on “Official Misconduct”[36] gives “entering into secret commission agreements while acting in an official agency capacity” as an example of the “fraud in office” type of misconduct,..." 若果套用入UGL事件, 梁振英不會開始手震嗎? 梁振英曾經反駁梁繼昌, 說後者的指控在誹謗UGL, 梁振英可能不知道, 澳洲是一個出名政商勾結, 利益互送的地方。上星期, 前新南威爾斯州礦產資源部長Ian MacDonald, 正正因公職人員行為失當罪而判監10年。所以, 好心咪用這些毫無說服力的論據, 騙到不知底細的香港人也騙不到在這裏住了十多年的標少。你話梁生兩公婆係咪開始有啲驚, 係咪要搵法律顧問睇吓呢篇判辭先。

    上一篇有人問: 「梁振英會坐牢嗎?」這問題問得太早, 到了現在, 還未有足夠證據指控梁振英, 若指控他, 也要看陪審團是否信納他的收款解釋。如果法律顧問把判辭第63段解釋給他聽, 他可能會減少手震。(...Furthermore, the trial was conducted on the basis that if the defence explanation of the reason for the payment of HK$8.5m were accepted (at least to the level of raising a reasonable doubt), then the prosecution must fail;..)

    郭炳江在上訴期間獲終院批准保釋, 我記不起在之前那一篇有人留言問, 批出保釋是否意味會上訴得直, 我當時說先別高興得太早, 上訴結果跟保釋獲批是兩碼子事, 我舉了楊家誠案為例, 批了保釋終歸也要入去受靶6年。曾蔭權也獲保釋等候上訴, 獲得保釋本身並非一定是上訴成功與否的指標, 加上今天這判辭把公職人員行為不當罪的範疇擴闊了, 曾生怎不滴汗。

    也許第三個要驚的是長毛, 因為公職人員行為不當是一條漁翁撒網式的大包圍控罪。判辭講到, 究竟許仕仁在那階段才和其他被告串謀作出不當行為, 控方不能明顯指出。(However, the timing in this case was such that this could not be alleged.)(para 94). 不過長毛不至於會手震滴汗, 他見慣這些場面也坐過牢嘛。