My recent article😎😎😎

https://apps.orangenews.hk/app/common/details_html…

Opinion | LegCo Member Ted Hui Chi-fung may be liable for malicious prosecution

HK Current

2020.08.24 16:41

By Athena Kung

In June 2020, Magistrate Lam Tsz Kan sitting in Eastern Court allowed LegCo Member Ted Hui Chi-fung (hereinafter referred to as "Hui") to press ahead with 2 firearm-related counts, including "discharging ammunition with reckless disregard for other's safety" and "dealing with arms in a way likely to injure or endanger other's safety". Maximum sentence for both of the above firearm-related offences is 7 years imprisonment. In addition, another count of shooting with intent which is an offence punishable by life imprisonment was added to the case.

Hui's such legal action was initiated by private prosecution, which was against the police officer who opened fire during a riot in Sai Wan Ho on 11th of November 2019. At common law, like prosecuting authorities, all citizens have the same right to institute proceedings. As time goes by, subject to certain restrictions, private prosecution continues to enjoy a respectable position in modern schemes of criminal justice. In any event, the right of private prosecution is not absolute. A private prosecutor has 2 hurdles to surmount. Firstly, he must persuade a magistrate to issue a summons. Thereafter, so long as he wishes to retain control of the case, he may have to persuade the Department of Justice not to take it over.

When deciding whether to issue a summons, the magistrate who has a discretion should consider at least the following factors:
(1) whether the allegation is of the offence known to law, and if so, whether the essential ingredients of the offence are prima facie present;
(2) that the time limits have been complied with;
(3) that the court has jurisdiction;
(4) whether the informant has the necessary authority to prosecute;
(5) whether the allegation is vexatious.

Once the summons has been issued, like the case initiated by Hui, it is open to the Secretary of Justice to intervene, which may be with a view to continuing or terminating such private prosecution. To prevent the abuse of private prosecution, it is thus necessary to seek to achieve a balance between the citizen's right to prosecute and the responsibility of the Secretary for Justice so as to ensure that unworthy prosecutions do not proceed. Under section 14 of the Magistrates Ordinance, Cap 227, Laws of Hong Kong, the Secretary of Justice enjoys wide power of intervention and "may at any stage of the proceedings before the magistrate intervene and assume the conduct of the proceedings."

What has really happened on the day of incident on 11th of November 2019? According to "The footage of the shooting" which was a broadcast live in the Facebook by a bystander, an officer drew his sidearm in the district of Sai Wan Ho while trying to detain a masked man at a blockaded junction. Then, another masked man attempted to liberate the other, appearing to take a swipe at the officer's pistol before being shot in the midriff. After all, police could successfully detain both men onto the ground. The first man had a pool of blood next to him. His body limped as police officers moved him around. Apparently, the officers tried to tie his hands. The second man appeared to be conscious.

No doubt, according to the above footage, Hui's private prosecution is misconceived. Hui has completely turned a blind eye to the imminent danger confronted by the officer at the particular moment. With ulterior motives, Hui intentionally and wrongfully misled both the court and public by alleging that the police officer's such dedication and discharging his duty to maintain law and order during the riots amounted to abusing of police power and police brutality.

Obviously, Hui's private prosecution should have no prospect whatsoever of success. On the contrary, Hui's such an action even constituted an abuse of prosecution process. Justice can only be achieved by the Secretary of Justice's termination of Hui's private prosecution. It explains why the Department of Justice has applied to the court to intervene the case. A hearing date between 24th to 28th of August 2020 has been applied for the Department's making formal application to terminate the case in open court. Indeed, according to Article 63 of the Basic Law, the Department of Justice shall control criminal prosecutions, free from any interference.

May the police officer wrongfully prosecuted by Hui seek any legal remedy? Historically, the tort of "malicious prosecution" in English law refers to an unreasonable criminal prosecution. All along, malicious prosecution has been generally brought as an aftermath of unsuccessful criminal proceedings.

In Hong Kong, in the decisive authority of Pathak Ravi Dutt v Sanjeev Maheshwari [2015] HKCA 595, the Court of Appeal had summarized that in an action for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove 4 essential elements:
(1) The Plaintiff was prosecuted by the Defendant, that is to say, the law was set in motion against the Plaintiff by the Defendant on a criminal charge ;
(2) The prosecution was determined in the Plaintiff's favour ;
(3) The prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause ; and
(4) The prosecution was malicious.

On the facts of the Hui's private prosecution case, following the intervention of the Department of Justice at the end of August 2020, it will be a case terminated by the Secretary for Justice instead of being ruled by the court with a verdict in favour of the police officer. Thus, it is advisable for the police officer to commence a tort of malicious prosecution action against Hui once the male shot by the police officer has been found guilty by the court. Then, the police officer may rely upon the male's conviction to support the assertion that his shooting under the particular circumstances was necessary and secure his civil claim against Hui.

The author is Barrister-at-law.

The views don't necessarily reflect those of Orange News.

責任編輯：CK Li
編輯：Whon

權力者以訟止謗的可恥惡行

【摘要：一個撒謊成性、失去公信力，而對提出合理質疑的新聞從業人員或看不下去的知識分子動輒以刑事毀謗訴訟大刑伺候的政客，值得信任嗎？ 如果這種政客告訴你司法改革是其執政的最偉大的職志，你會傻到相信嗎？別把大家都當白癡了？！】

正文：

江建祥律師：戕害司法者能主導司法改革嗎？

選舉期間，刑事毀謗罪的案子如雨後春筍。謀求大位的政治工作者常常採取所謂的「以訟止謗」的選舉策略，企圖利用擾人的訟爭，讓新聞工作人員或其他在公共論壇上經常發表言論者為了避免耗時耗費的訴爭而三緘其口，並依此達到充分的寒蟬效應。

公眾人物以訟止謗的可恥惡行

訴訟勞民傷財是屬凶事，對訟爭當事人往往造成無可彌補的金錢和身心耗費。筆者從事訴訟凡三十餘載，親眼目睹不少當事人因不堪訟擾和其所引發的精神折磨，而因此罹患癌症或其他不治重症的例子。

訴訟權屬於 「特別權利」（privilege）的一種。訴訟權和駕駛車輛的行車權同屬非絕對的權利。一個時常違規的駕駛者，他的執照在特定狀況下得以被中止或撤銷。同樣地，訴訟權也不得濫用，在特定情況下一個人的訴訟權可以被合理地限制。在英美法，一個經常濫用訴訟騷擾他人行使正當權利的人稱為Vexatious Litigant （訟棍）。加州民事訴訟法第391 條對這種訟棍有明文的處置。加州法院得主動地或經過系爭對手的動議，限制訟棍的訴訟的權利。這些訟棍的名字通常會被造冊列管，除非經過首席法官的同意，他們無法遞送案件，違者並受藐視法庭的嚴厲處罰。

政治人物擁有特權，本來就處於較一般民眾有利的地位。他們可以利用自己掌控的論壇和充分的話語權對批評者的言論做有效的反駁。握有這種優勢的政客，不思在公共論壇上做公平合理的論辯，竟然濫用訴訟，挾著他們強大的經濟實力和政治權勢對相對弱勢者進行精神和肉體的壓迫。這種美其名「以訟止謗」的政治手段，對這些擁有特權的政治人物而言，是一種極端可恥的無賴惡行！ 誰是此類的無恥政客，他們心知肚明，社會大眾也可以很輕易地指認。（歡迎對號入座！）（賀德芬教授、林環牆教授、彭文正教授、黃光芹女士、張雅琴主播、安幼琪主持人還有最近的陳東豪主編等等， 你們辛苦了！）

法律不完善造成司法敗壞

造成刑事毀謗罪濫訴充斥的原因，在相關的法律曖昧不明，讓當事人和法曹有過大的不當操作空間。司法院大法官解釋釋字第509針對刑法第三百十條刑事毀謗罪第三項是否違憲，曾經做出似乎企圖保障人民言論自由權的解釋。可惜為德不卒，在當事人的舉證責任分配問題上，大法官做了一種令人難以適從的解釋。雖然，大法官主張「行為人依其所提證據資料，有相當理由確信其為真實者」（又稱合理查證原則）即不能以誹謗罪之刑責相繩。再者，為了避免違反「刑事被告無需自證無罪」的原則，大法官又揭示如是解釋並未免除檢察官或自訴人於訴訟程序中，依法應負行為人故意毀損他人名譽之舉證責任，或法院發現其為真實之義務。但是，那「行為人依其所提證據」的用語，似乎暗示行為人仍有提出證據證明自己確信所言真實的義務。要不然，一個堅持行使緘默權的刑事被告要如何「透過未曾呈堂的證據」證明自己的合理確信。

此外，大法官在釋字第509號解釋中也未如美國聯邦法院在其1964年 的著名案例New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan 375 US 254中將公眾人物和一般升斗小民做一明確的劃分。美國聯邦最高法院認為一個公眾人物，將自己投射在攸關公眾利益的領域裡，企圖利用自己在公共論壇上的曝光率和幾乎無限制的話語權，去影響社會大眾對某些社會議題或爭點的意見。這種自己走入「熱廚房」的行為，無異於自動邀請社會大眾對他們公開批判甚或詆毀。換言之，活該！ 在這種情形下，任何人只要沒有實質存在的惡意 （Actual Malice），他們對公眾人物有關公眾事務的批評，均不負任何刑事責任。 所謂的實質存在的惡意, 依據上舉的New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan判例以及加州上訴法院在 Jackson v. Mayweather (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1240, 中重新闡述的，指的是： “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not” 「明知所言為誤或對於所言是否錯誤毫不在乎」。這種實質存在的惡意和大法官會議解釋第509號所揭示的「行為人依其所提證據資料，有相當理由確信其為真實者」（合理查證原則），簡直天壤之別。

完善的法律可以避免訟棍的濫訴，也可防止不肖的政治工作者企圖利用訴訟引發寒蟬效應

在美國公眾人物如果要對新聞從業人員或所謂的名嘴依民事毀謗（New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan） 或刑事毀謗 （Garrison v. Louisiana （1964）379 U.S. 64起訴，必須證明行為人有實質存在的惡意。 而依據大法官會議解釋第509條，台灣的公眾人物如果想用「以訟止謗」的策略對付新聞從業人員或名嘴，只需證明行為人未盡合理查證，就可以刑罰伺候，逼迫其就範。（周玉蔻學姊應該最能感同身受吧？） 這種合理查證原則對新聞從業人員而言是一種枷鎖，因為新聞從業人員基於新聞從業人員的職業倫理，有保護資料來源的義務，但是在司法公權力強制之下以及可了解的自保心理，新聞從業人員最終被迫地公布消息來源。 於是，以訟止謗所造成的寒蟬效應所及的範圍不僅止於新聞從業人員，還不當地及於「看不下去」的「深喉嚨」。 如此的寒蟬效應久而久之將完全扼殺媒體第四權摘奸發伏的神聖功能。

司法改革從刨根重新種植開始，不肖政客無權主導司法改革

審判工作是一項艱鉅而吃力不討好的任務。即使在民主成熟的美國，從事審判工作者也有誠信遭質疑的痛楚。 在美執業律師超過三十載，有很多機會聆聽審判者吐苦水。他們最大的抱怨是：不管如何小心謹慎，當審判或裁決的結果出爐之後，有一半的人會歡欣鼓舞地讚揚公義伸張，感謝上帝！（感謝法官的人卻不多！） 另一半人會聲嘶力竭地破口大罵司法不公侵犯人權 （沒有人敢褻瀆神明，說上帝不公！）

司法改革的重點在如何教化一般的社會大眾了解：人非聖賢更非神明，審判者只能在人的有限性內盡力而為，追求最大程度的人為公平正義。而真正的神的公平正義在這個充滿人性邪惡的人類社會，可能在人活的時候根本看不見。另外，主政者必須了解司法改革只能從根做起，也就是法學教育的徹底變革開始。 法學生從進入法學院的第一天開始就必須了解法學的訓練不是對繁複的法學體系的鑽研，而是常識的累積、邏輯思維的培養，以及最重要的公平正義理念的內在化（internalized）。不要告訴我：司法改革從改革法學教育是打高空，為時已晚！ 最好的種樹時機不是春天、夏天、秋天，當然更不會是冬天。最好的植樹節是今天！不是嗎？ 十年樹木百年樹人，Do the Right Thing; Do it Right! And, Do it Right Now!

一個撒謊成性、失去公信力，而對提出合理質疑的新聞從業人員或看不下去的知識分子動輒以刑事毀謗訴訟大刑伺候的政治工作者，值得信任嗎？ 如果這種政客告訴你司法改革是其執政的最偉大的職志，你會傻到相信嗎？You are insulting our intelligence! 別把大家都當白癡了？！

2019年11月2日於洛杉磯

——原載《台灣海外網》

【作者為加州執業的台灣人律師，前美國檢察官】

睇睇睇睇睇哂佢！！！

是咁的法網肥人

見到 文科生習醫的奇幻旅程 同 顥魄砌機 To.Moon DIY 講起網上有人提議太子站恐襲傷者應該向黨鐵同警察展開人身傷亡訴訟。肥人我有做開人身傷亡訴訟，可以簡述一下正常來講一個傷者如何展開人身傷亡訴訟，但係我都會話俾大家知一D好掃興既現實。

本文太長，可能要分一兩日出，免得你地睇到想死。

------------------------------

首先，我想講下今日東方日報報導一個前法庭書記好高調咁「報稱太子站警打人致情緒困擾」，於是佢向警務署長索償。

肥人想話俾大家聽，如果你唔識做人身傷亡索償 (Personal Injury Action“PI”)，千祈咪亂做，否則你會搞到單野唔三唔四，第二個接手會做到媽媽聲。如果你玩爛左單案，甚至俾人 strike out (踢走)，你變相 discourage 好多後來真正有事想 claim 既受害人。玩還玩，法律唔係討論區你一言我一語咁吹完無後果的。有時用纏擾性訴訟可能令對方投降，但有時你會搞爛整件事。

講返新聞內文，有幾個要點肥人我必須要解釋一下。

(1) 呢位前法庭書記報稱在電視直播中看見警方執法畫面，感到恐懼，情緒受困擾，更害怕搭地鐵；
(2) 疑患上「創傷後壓力症候群」（Post-traumatic Stress Disorder “PTSD”）;
(3) 入稟小額錢債審裁處，向「一哥」申索5000港元賠償；
(4) 認為9月1日警方以警棍毆打地鐵上沒有構成威脅的乘客，無視《警察通例》中使用「最低程度武力」指引，不合比例的尺度超出「朱經緯案」，因而向警務處處長申索。

報導話呢位前法庭書記係想用小額錢債 (Small Claim Tribunal) 做 PI。PI 係 tort claim (侵權法申索)，係需要爭拗誰是誰非，邊個有 duty，邊個 breach 左個 duty，邊個 negligent，唔可以三兩句就完事。用 small claim 做 PI，就好似用牛油刀鋸智能燈柱一樣。而 small claim 呢，就主要係做「任何就合約、準合約或侵權行為而提出的金錢申索，而申索款額不超過$75,000者…」（參考香港法例第338章《小額錢債審裁處條例》附表－審裁處的司法管轄權），基本上係 D 細藝野。

如果你認真想 claim 對方，請正正經經搵律師循正常途徑做，OK? 但文中呢位前法庭書記話自己因為9月1日太子黨鐵站既恐襲而有 PTSD，所以去 claim 5000蚊。咁問題係邊？

如果俾你 claim到，係咪叫以後真係有 PTSD 既傷者只可以最高 claim 5000? 你set 一個咁既先例，幫政府節省開支？好啦，如果審裁處覺得你個 claim frivolous and vexatious，踢返你個 claim 走，然後東方又大肆報導，咁你係咪想 discourage 一班真正有需要而又好徬徨既受害人？唔好玩啦。This is not funny.

------------------------------

好啦，講返上面四點。

第一點呢位仁兄話係電視直播中見到警方執法畫面而感到恐懼，情緒受困擾，更害怕搭地鐵。肥人我講返原告人個 standing先。呢位仁兄係歸入 psychiatric illness – secondary victims, bystander之內。係 McLoughlin v. O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410 一案之中，原告人McLoughlin 太太獲知自己丈夫同三個子女遇到意外，原告人趕到醫院，親眼見到自己一個細路死左，丈夫同另外兩個細路滿身泥濘重傷，佢即時精神崩潰。後來原告人向 O'Brian 提出索償，以彌補自己精神上既創傷。案件上到英國 House of Lords，McLoughlin 太太最後勝訴，法官Lord Wilberforce 係判詞裡面指出呢類精神傷害 claim，原告人必須，係必須，符合以下三點：

1. The proximity of such persons to the accident;
2. The means by which the shock is caused; and
3. Closeness of ties with the person or persons imperiled.

即係 (1)原告人必須要與事件在時間與位置上都要非常接近；(2)原告人必須親眼見到即時慘狀；及(3)原告人必須與受害人有親密關係。McLoughlin 太太呢個 case，佢係接獲通知飛奔去醫院親眼見到自己先生同子女既慘狀，然後受到好大精神打擊。呢位前法庭書記呢？

第二點，呢位前法庭書記懷疑自己患上PTSD。現實上，凡係人身傷亡申索包括呢類 secondary victims 既 psychiatric illness claim，原告人係必須要有香港註冊專科醫生證明你有呢個健康問題，然後得到法庭批准，先可以拎份報告呈堂。你話自己有病而無證明？算吧啦。

第三點，雖然 Small Claim 有 jurisdiction 去審 tort claim，但現實中無人會用small claim 來做PI，一來 small claim 唔可以用律師，你叫 layman 點自己做？二來 small claim 銀碼唔大，如果你真係好傷，你點會 claim 幾萬咁少？你玩野壓低條 claim 以為可以玩政府，你其實開條路俾被告壓價！你叫以後上來既受害人點？

最後一點，呢位仁兄個 cause of action 真係…. 大家睇返 McLoughlin case，唔使睇 pleadings 都應該知道 McLoughlin 太太個 cause of action 應該係導致意外發生既人疏忽，令McLoughlin太太失去至親，佢目睹慘狀而精神崩潰。呢位前法庭書記呢？另外，我都講過《警察通例》係好似運輸署既 Road Users’ Code 一樣，無法律效力。我地做一般交通意外索償，起碼都要被告人被控不小心駕駛或者危險駕駛啦！被告無 conviction，你叫佢點會 admit liability? 佢死人都同你糾纏呀！尤其是你依家對住政府，佢地大把 resources 同你玩呀！

我好語重心長咁講，有陣時你玩膠無傷大雅，有時你玩膠會害到其他人。我地係參與緊翻天覆地既全民抗爭，有一D位唔可以好東張西望100毛咁「香港人輕鬆下啦」！呢場仗輸左，受害人好可能連醫藥賠償都得唔到呀！如果最後政府贏左無警察被刑事檢控，抗爭者不單止走佬都唔掂，受傷既無辜平民連醫藥費都無著落，一心玩野既人，請高抬貴手啦！

* 下一篇講如何開展PI

------------------------------

* 再講一講 psychiatric illness claim。上面提到 secondary victim，咁有無 primary victim 呀？有！睇返一個經典英國案例 Dulieu v White [1901] 2 KB 669，案中原告人係一位孕婦，有一日佢係老公開果間 bar 裡面，有架馬車撞入佢老公間 bar，佢嚇到有 psychiatric shock 然後早產，胎兒亦有早產後遺症，雖然佢無實質身體傷害，法庭都判佢贏，因為佢係兜口兜面咁遇到意外，雖然佢身體無受傷但嚇到早產嘛！咁你地知道咩人可以 claim psychiatric illness as a primary victim啦！

#做人要識分輕重
#你係嚴肅對抗極權唔係笑聲救地球
#第一篇完