醫者有社會責任去保障公眾健康，我們認為梁卓偉教授和陳家亮教授作為香港兩所醫學院院長責無旁貸。因此，我們呼籲所有醫護人員參與連署，懇請兩位院長履行社會使命發表聲明保障社會大眾的健康和人身安全。

連署連結: https://forms.gle/teMGNCiZPMYatVbh8
———————————————————————-
《致香港大學李嘉誠醫學院院長、中文大學醫學院院長的公開信》

梁教授、陳教授道鑒：

　　有鑑於在六月十二日、七月二日及二十一日，香港警察濫用武力以控制群眾。如此行徑實對公眾健康遺害無窮，我們一眾醫療人員對此極為關切。作為香港大學李嘉誠醫學院院長、中文大學醫學院院長，吾等懇請兩位院長細察香港警察控制群眾之手段，以保障公眾健康。

　　據多家本地及國際媒體報導，香港警察於六月十二日，發射多輪催淚彈、橡膠子彈及布袋彈，以驅散聚集在金鐘的示威者。報導提及，警方向示威者發射至少一百五十枚催淚彈，二十輪布袋彈以及數枚橡膠子彈，造成至少七十二人受傷。從多家媒體直播可見，橡膠子彈更直射一名教師眼球，創傷嚴重，對其視力之損害非同等閒。另外，警方亦曾以數枚催淚彈包抄示威者，堵塞其退路；而當示威者被逼退守至中信大廈，警方竟朝人群中央投以催淚彈，造成數以百計的市民受傷及呼吸困難，生死攸關，不容小覷。此外，警方向一名手無寸鐵的市民，近距離發射橡膠子彈，以致其下腹嚴重受傷，情況慘不忍睹。

　　據多份醫學期刊綜述──如《刺針》（Lancet）[1] 及英國醫學期刊（BMJ (Open)）[2]，橡膠子彈乃可致命武器。同時，橡膠子彈不易操控，準確性低，有引致重傷，乃至死亡之風險。多份期刊不約而同指出，橡膠子彈不適宜用於密集人群之管制。

　　然而，香港警察漠視上述已知風險，仍於七月二日及七月二十一日繼續使用此類武器。在七月二十一日，警察更於鄰近民居之地，向群眾發射多輪催淚彈及橡膠子彈，當中更殃及記者。此等武器之禍害影響深重，不單有損呼吸系統，更會導致燒傷、嚴重鈍物創傷及爆炸性創傷。據媒體報導，武器造成至少十四人受傷；更有市民懼於警方之搜捕行動，而未敢求醫，致使受傷數字難以估算。

　　人權醫療組織（Physicians for Human Rights）醫生哈爾（Dr Rohini Haar）在接受紐約時報訪問時指出，警方對市民使用不成比例的武力，實有濫用武力之嫌。早在二零一四年，潘冬平教授[3]亦對香港警察使用催淚氣體情況深表關注，擔心催淚氣體損害市民呼吸系統。可見，催淚彈、橡膠子彈及豆袋彈等武器危害不輕，對香港市民公眾健康的損害不容置疑。

　　兩大醫學學院一直致力培育杏林菁英，不遺餘力。一眾醫療人員亦謹承《希波克拉底誓詞》之教誨，不論病患身份職要，一直為全人類之福祉著想，嚴守不懈。學院循循善誘，吾等縷心刻骨。誓詞薪火相傳，代代不息；缺少對生命健康之尊重，醫療人員何以自立？故此，我們一眾醫療人員懇請院長，發表聲明，呼籲香港警察：

一、避免濫用催淚彈及任何類型子彈，以免導致人命傷亡及其他不可見之損傷。
二、在使用武力時，必須顧及市民安全，並保持專業克制。

　　醫療人員一直存仁心，行仁術；保護市民之健康，乃至生命，吾等責無旁貸。院長為學為醫，高風峻節，茍以吾等同心同德，捍衛市民之生命健康，必見杏林春暖。

　　謹祝
道安

一眾醫療人員謹上
———————————————————————


Dear Professor Leung and Professor Chan,

We are a group of healthcare professionals, some of us being also graduates from the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Hong Kong and the Chinese University of Hong Kong. We are writing to express our gravest concerns over the persistent and serious threats to the health of members of the public posed by weapons deployed in crowd control by the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) on 12 June, 2 July and 21 July. We hereby urge the Deans of the sole Faculties of Medicine in Hong Kong to take actions in censuring the HKPF and the Hong Kong Government against the serious health risks in their crowd-control tactics.

On 12 June, as reported by multiple local and international news agencies, the HKPF fired multiple rounds of tear gas, rubber bullets and bean-bag rounds to disperse protesters in Admiralty. Over 150 canisters of tear gas, 20 bean-bag rounds and several rubber bullets have admittedly been directed at protestors which resulted in at least 72 injuries. As evident in the live reports from various media sources, a teacher suffered traumatic ocular injury causing significant vision loss when his eye was hit by a rubber bullet; hundreds of citizens suffered various degrees of injuries and respiratory distress consequential upon the numerous tear gas canisters shot at Citic Tower in Admiralty where protesters were trapped in a life-threatening space filled with tear gas; an unarmed man sustained injury in his lower abdomen when a rubber bullet was directed at him in a short distance.

According to multiple studies and reviews from high impact factor medical journals, in particular the Lancet[1] and BMJ (Open)[2], rubber bullets can be lethal. Their notorious inaccuracy and risk of severe injury and death render them inappropriate and unsafe means of force in crowd control.

However, despite the known risks of these weapons, the HKPF tenaciously deployed them on citizens on 2 July and 21 July. On 21 July, 55 canisters of tear gas, 5 rubber bullet rounds and 24 sponge bullets were admittedly shot, some without immediate warning, at protestors and even at journalists notwithstanding the numerous residential buildings and citizens in the vicinity. The use of these weapons has left members of the public with at the very least, various types of injuries and further, burns, blunt force trauma and explosive injuries. 14 injuries have by far been reported where others did not present themselves to the hospital in fear of the risk of prosecution.

Dr Rohini Haar of Physicians for Human Rights had in a recent interview told the New York Times that the force used by the HKPF was disproportionate and excessive. In Hong Kong, Professor Ronnie Poon had as early as in 2014 expressed openly his earnest concern over both the short term and long term health risks in the use of tear gas in particular to one’s respiratory system when the HKPF first fired tear gas at Hong Kong citizens [3]. It is indisputable that these named weapons put the health of Hong Kong citizens at serious risks.

Doctors have striven to stand by the Hippocratic oath that they remain members of society, the identity of which comes before their profession, with special obligations to all fellow human beings. The two medical schools in Hong Kong have been established accordingly for the nurture of healthcare professionals to serve the public with benevolent hearts and minds. This is the time to honour our oath that human life should deserve the utmost respect and to maintain by all means such noble traditions of the medical profession.

We, as healthcare professionals, therefore implore the Deans of the only Faculties of Medicine in Hong Kong, in the service of humanity with conscience and dignity, to take the lead in safeguarding the public’s health and to issue a statement to urge the Hong Kong Police Force to:

(1) refrain from using tear gas and bullets in any form on protestors to prevent further bloodshed and severe non-reversible injuries; and

(2) exercise due restraint over the use of force when handling protests and at all times, put the safety of Hong Kong citizens at the highest priority.

Regards,
A group of healthcare professionals
———————————————————
Healthcare professionals have a social responsibility to safeguard the health of members of the public. We believe that, as Deans of the faculties of medicine in Hong Kong, Professor Leung and Professor Chan bear a paramount obligation in this regard. We appeal to all healthcare professionals to join us in this petition to urge the deans to issue a statement to honour their obligation to defend the public from health risks.
—————————————————————
Petition Link: https://forms.gle/teMGNCiZPMYatVbh8
——————————
參考資料/References
[1] Mahajna, A., Aboud, N., Harbaji, I., Agbaria, A., Lankovsky, Z., Michaelson, M., . . . Krausz, M. M. (2002). Blunt and penetrating injuries caused by rubber bullets during the Israeli-Arab conflict in October, 2000: A retrospective study. The Lancet, 359(9320), 1795-1800. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)08708-1

[2] Haar, R. J., Iacopino, V., Ranadive, N., Dandu, M., & Weiser, S. D. (2017, December 01). Death, injury and disability from kinetic impact projectiles in crowd-control settings: A systematic review

[3] Professor Ronnie Poon Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/138599119760/posts/10152753050039761?s=1014598371&sfns=mo

—————————————————————

「檢方的罪人」--- 當執念的心魔，左右了正義，真相最終歸屬何方?

http://petermurphey.pixnet.net/blog/post/226267118

<一分鐘影評>

「沒有人會說出毫無破綻的謊言，也沒有人會說出絕對的真相，所以這世上根本沒有百分百的正義 !」

一名東京地檢資深檢座，職場上長袖善舞，巧妙周旋遊走在政壇、司法界、警界、新聞界與黑道之間，表現犀利而穩健，是眾人看好的明日之星，職場高昇指日可待；但相對的，家庭夫妻親子關係不佳，對誕生數與人個性的連結，有著莫名的執念；

一名他手底下的年輕菜鳥檢查官，執念於科學辦案，一分證據說一分話，沒有真憑實據天王老子都不賣帳，追求真正的正義有著莫名的狂熱，但他行事時而拘僅時而橫衝直撞，也讓自己身陷職場的困境；

一名善於偽裝潛伏不同領域，以手中之筆爆料成了暢銷作家；這回她考進了東京地檢擔任助理事務官，膽大心細的她，又會挖出司法界甚麼驚天動地的秘密?

他們三人負責承辦一樁發生在蒲田的老夫婦雙屍命案，在找尋真兇的過程，卻意外牽扯出一名多年前犯下重大刑案，卻因證據不足僥倖逃過重判的嫌疑犯，面對這名極惡之徒，三人之間即使全都是身負尋找真相的檢察官與事務官，他們心中那把正義之尺，卻有著不同長短 ；當正義的那端，有了分岐的看法，真正的正義將歸屬何方? 會不會真正的「真相」，到最後都隱藏在的執念下的正義」背後呢?



這就是預計2018年10月19日在台上映的日本電影「檢方的罪人」 (検察側の罪人/ Killing For The Prosecution)的核心故事，電影改編自日本推理小說家雫井脩介(Shusuke Shizukui)，於2013年9月11日，由文藝春秋出版社出版的同名小說「検察側の罪人」(中文版由春天出版集團於2018.4.17出版 ) ，由「關原之戰」導演原田真人執導，日本人氣男星木村拓哉與日本奧斯卡影帝二宮和也首度在大銀幕合作領銜演出，攜手女星吉高由里子領銜主演，多位老中青三代演技派跨刀相助，拍出了近期在台上映的日片中，最具爭議話題與戲劇張力的作品。

檢方的罪人 検察側の罪人/ Killing For The Prosecution
出 品 國：日本
語 言：日語
台灣上映：2018.10.19
類 型：警匪
片 長：2時01分
級 數：輔導12歲級
監 製：市川南
導 演：「關原之戰」原田真人( Masato Harada)
演 員：
「無限住人」木村拓哉(Takuya Kimura)飾演東京地檢檢座最上毅
「最後的食譜：麒麟之舌」二宮和也(Kazunari Ninomiya)飾演東京地檢菜鳥檢察官沖野啟一郎
「破案天才伽利略：真夏方程式」吉高由里子(Yuriko Yoshitaka)飾演東京地檢事務官橘沙穗
「極惡非道最終章」松重豊(Yutaka Matsushige)飾演諏訪部利成
「埋葬的樹」酒向芳飾演殺人嫌移犯松倉重生

【經哲法漫談】朱經緯案可否用私人檢控？

可否是簡單的問答題，答案相信大家皆知道是可以的。但具體利用私人檢控謀取公義是相當之不容易的事。大家可能知道有關私人檢控的法例授權來自<裁判官條例>第14條。但忽略了第14條第二款同時授權律政司司長可介入並接管案件〈intervene〉；而第15條則授權律政司藉提出終止檢控而撤回案件（Nolle Prosequi）。

具體而言，作為政府檢控代表的律政司在檢控方面雖無專利，但在公民社會自行檢控之時，例如朱經緯案，可在程序進行時介入、接管，並且終止檢控。

必須指出私人檢控類似朱經緯案的普通襲擊是有先例的，而且涉及城中富豪及名騎師打架事件，警方不告而騎師私人檢控成功。富豪要入獄多月，這已是上世紀80年代初的事件。

但近年亦有一案顯示私人檢控（Private Prosecution）遭律政司用上述15條終止檢控。私人檢控者因而向高院申請司法覆核律政司的干預不合理，要求推翻干預的權力，但敗訴。法庭的理據對朱經緯案自然有參考作用。（Re Ng Chi Keung 吳志強案 432 [2013] 2HKC）

檢控者本來向警方舉報一件盜竊股份案件，在警方調查期間，檢控者開始進行私人檢控的程序，律政司認為按警方的調查結果不應檢控疑犯，因為證據不足，於是接管案件並終止了檢控。檢控者向高院司法覆核律政司的介入，也敗訴。高院不肯批准司法覆核申請的理由要點如下：

（一）以公眾利益為出發點，一件沒有合理機會告入的案件不應提控。
（二）律政司介入案件之時，已經決定了此案不會作出檢控。
（三）申請人說律政司應先取得私人律師的法律意見，才不作檢控，法庭認為荒唐。
（四）一般在公共檢控中要求檢控是基於合理入罪機會（reasonable prospects of success）的要求同樣適用於私人檢控。
（五）法院不應浪費時間於不確定的檢控（speculative prosecution）律師費對被告的影響及公眾對司法的信心亦令到檢控必須小心認真。

筆者認為第4及5點是有相當道理在內，但不會適用於朱經緯案。這樣簡單的案件律政司不需考慮兩年多還未有決定，公眾已經認定是警方及政府的壓力令朱不用被檢控。朱案受害人若進行檢控，會得到社會各方支持，而高院也不會支持政府濫權干預。◇

[黃覺岸 ... 退休經濟法律講師，著有多本中文法律書藉，並為資深時評者。近年修讀哲學，希望能從哲學層次提高對法律本質的理解，糾正一般人對法律的盲目崇拜。]