這個爭議已久的問題終於有了定案,只不過185-4條現行的法定刑「一年以上七年以下有期徒刑」的刑度並沒有立即失效。不囉嗦,馬上來看看熱騰騰的司法院釋字第777號解釋及解釋理由書吧。
司法院釋字第777號解釋 108年5月31日 【駕駛人無過失及情節輕微之肇事逃逸案】
解釋文
中華民國88年4月21日增訂公布之刑法第185條之4規定: 「駕駛動力交通工具肇事,致人死傷而逃逸者,處 6 月以上 5 年 以下有期徒刑。」(102 年 6 月 11 日修正公布同條規定,提高刑度 為 1 年以上 7 年以下有期徒刑,構成要件均相同)其中有關「肇 事」部分,可能語意所及之範圍,包括「因駕駛人之故意或過失」 或「非因駕駛人之故意或過失」(因不可抗力、被害人或第三人之 故意或過失)所致之事故,除因駕駛人之故意或過失所致之事故為 該條所涵蓋,而無不明確外,其餘非因駕駛人之故意或過失所致事故之情形是否構成「肇事」,尚非一般受規範者所得理解或預見, 於此範圍內,其文義有違法律明確性原則,此違反部分,應自本解 釋公布之日起失其效力。
88 年上開規定有關刑度部分,與憲法罪刑相當原則尚無不符, 未違反比例原則。102 年修正公布之上開規定,一律以 1 年以上 7 年以下有期徒刑為其法定刑,致對犯罪情節輕微者無從為易科罰金之宣告,對此等情節輕微個案構成顯然過苛之處罰,於此範圍 內,不符憲法罪刑相當原則,與憲法第 23 條比例原則有違。此違 反部分,應自本解釋公布之日起,至遲於屆滿 2 年時,失其效力。
解釋理由書
聲請人盧鉖(下稱聲請人一)於 92 年 11 月 26 日,駕駛自小 貨車停放於改制前臺北縣淡水鎮淡金路,未將該車輛緊靠路旁停 放,左側車身超越道路邊線 0.2 公尺,右側車身距離路旁尚有 1.55公尺,適有楊智傑駕駛重機車,因疏於注意車前狀況,自後方撞擊 聲請人一小貨車之左後方,造成楊智傑人車倒地後受有胸腹鈍挫 傷等傷害。雖當場已有路人前往救護並要求聲請人一停留,但其仍逕自駕車離去。嗣經臺灣士林地方法院檢察署檢察官,以其犯刑法第 284 條第 1 項前段及 88 年 4 月 21 日增訂公布之同法第 185 條 之 4 規定(下稱 88 年系爭規定)罪嫌,向臺灣士林地方法院提起 公訴,經該院審理認聲請人一觸犯 88 年系爭規定,判處聲請人一 有期徒刑 7 月,緩刑 2 年(過失傷害部分,因楊智傑撤回告訴, 業經臺灣士林地方法院判決公訴不受理確定在案)。嗣聲請人一提 起上訴,先後經臺灣高等法院 94 年度交上訴字第 43 號及最高法 院 94 年度台上字第 4333 號刑事判決駁回上訴而告確定。聲請人 一認 88 年系爭規定有牴觸憲法之疑義,聲請解釋。
聲請人蕭正彬(下稱聲請人二)於 103 年 10 月 20 日,駕駛 自用小客車,於嘉義縣太保市北港路 2 段 661 巷口擬右轉北港路 2 段時,適有蕭文慶違規逆向騎乘自行車,於機車道擬左轉往北港 路 2 段 661 巷騎駛,聲請人二閃避不及,與蕭文慶所騎自行車發 生碰撞,蕭文慶因而受有右手肘、右膝及右踝擦傷等傷害(過失傷 害部分未據告訴)。聲請人二雖立即下車牽起蕭文慶倒地之自行 車,並協助撿拾其掉落路面之農作物而短暫停留現場,惟經蕭文慶 表明請警到場處理時,聲請人二未對蕭文慶施以必要醫療救護或 等待警方到場處理,且未經蕭文慶明示同意或留下姓名、聯絡方 式,即逕自駕車離開現場。經臺灣嘉義地方法院檢察署檢察官依 102 年 6 月 11 日修正公布之同法第 185 條之 4 規定(下稱 102 年 系爭規定)起訴,並經臺灣嘉義地方法院 104 年度交訴字第 20 號 刑事判決處有期徒刑 8 月,復經臺灣高等法院臺南分院 105 年度 交上訴字第 633 號刑事判決改處有期徒刑 6 月,最高法院 106 年度台上字第 3585 號刑事判決駁回上訴而告確定。聲請人二認 102 年系爭規定有牴觸憲法之疑義,聲請解釋。
聲請人吳俊興(下稱聲請人三)於 105 年 4 月 17 日,駕駛自 用小貨車沿新北市泰山區中港西路往明志路、新生路方向行駛,行 經明志路二段 273 巷 29-3 號前時,疏未注意,未保持安全間隔即 超越前方由胡智程所騎乘之機車並駛入原行路線,兩車因而發生 碰撞,致胡智程人車倒地,受有左側肩膀挫傷、左側手肘擦傷、左 側膝部擦傷等傷害(過失傷害部分未據告訴)。聲請人三得以預見 與其發生擦撞之胡智程可能因此事故受有傷害,惟仍以誤認事故 並非自己所肇致,而未下車處理或為任何救護及處置,隨即駕車離 開現場,隔日始於警局與胡智程達成和解。經臺灣新北地方法院檢 察署檢察官依 102 年系爭規定起訴,並經臺灣新北地方法院 106 年度交訴字第 15 號刑事判決處有期徒刑 8 月,聲請人三提起上 訴,迭經臺灣高等法院 106 年度交上訴字第 166 號、最高法院 107 年度台上字第 2599 號刑事判決駁回上訴而告確定。聲請人三認 102 年系爭規定有牴觸憲法之疑義,聲請解釋。
核前開 3 件聲請案均與司法院大法官審理案件法第 5 條第 1 項第 2 款所定要件相符,爰予受理。
另聲請人臺灣臺中地方法院刑事第八庭嶽股法官等,為審理 各該法院如附表所示之案件(聲請人及原因案件如附表),就應適 用之 102 年系爭規定,認有牴觸憲法之疑義,裁定停止訴訟程序, 向本院聲請解釋憲法,共 16 件聲請案(共 17 件原因案件),均核 與本院釋字第 371 號、第 572 號及第 590 號解釋所示法官聲請釋 憲之要件相符,爰予受理。
上開聲請案涉及 88 年系爭規定或 102 年系爭規定,二者除刑 度有異外,構成要件均相同,所涉違憲之爭議有其共通性,爰併案審理,作成本解釋,理由如下:
一、88 年暨 102 年系爭規定之「肇事」構成要件語意所及之範圍, 部分違反法律明確性原則,就此部分應失其效力基於法治國原則,以法律限制人民權利,其構成要件應符合法 律明確性原則,使受規範者可能預見其行為之法律效果,以確保法 律預先告知之功能,並使執法之準據明確,以保障規範目的之實現。依本院歷來解釋,法律規定所使用之概念,其意義依法條文義、立法目的及法體系整體關聯性,須為受規範者可得理解,且為其所得預見,並可經由司法審查加以確認,始與法律明確性原則無違(本院釋字第 432 號、第 521 號、第 594 號、第 617 號、第 623 號、第 636 號及第 690 號解釋參照)。惟涉及拘束人民身體自由 之刑罰規定,其構成要件是否符合法律明確性原則,應受較為嚴格 之審查(本院釋字第 636 號解釋參照)。
88 年系爭規定明定:「駕駛動力交通工具肇事,致人死傷而逃 逸者,處 6 月以上 5 年以下有期徒刑。」102 年系爭規定提高刑度 修正為:「駕駛動力交通工具肇事,致人死傷而逃逸者,處 1 年以 上 7 年以下有期徒刑。」核上開二規定為涉及拘束人民身體自由 之刑罰規定,是其構成要件是否明確,自應受較為嚴格之審查,其 判斷爰應僅以該規定文義及刑法體系整體關聯性為準,不應再參考其他相關法律。
查 88 年暨 102 年系爭規定之構成要件有四:「駕駛動力交通工具」、「肇事」、「致人死傷」及「逃逸」。其中有關「肇事」部分, 可能語意所及之範圍,包括「因駕駛人之故意或過失」或「非因駕 駛人之故意或過失」(因不可抗力、被害人或第三人之故意或過失) 所致之事故,除因駕駛人之故意或過失所致之事故,依其文義及刑法體系整體關聯性判斷,為該條所涵蓋,而無不明確外,其餘非因駕駛人故意或過失所致事故之情形是否構成「肇事」,尚非一般受 規範者所得理解或預見,於此範圍內,其文義有違法律明確性原 則,此違反部分,應自本解釋公布之日起失其效力。
二、88 年系爭規定之刑度,未違反比例原則;102 年系爭規定之刑度,於情節輕微個案構成顯然過苛之處罰部分,與比例原則有 違
人民身體之自由應予保障,憲法第 8 條定有明文。限制人身 自由之刑罰,嚴重限制人民之基本權利,係不得已之最後手段。立 法機關如為保護合乎憲法價值之特定重要法益,並認施以刑罰有 助於目的之達成,又別無其他相同有效達成目的而侵害較小之手 段可資運用,雖得以刑罰規範限制人民身體之自由,惟刑罰對人身 自由之限制與其所欲維護之法益,仍須合乎比例之關係,尤其法定 刑度之高低應與行為所生之危害、行為人責任之輕重相稱,始符合 憲法罪刑相當原則,而與憲法第 23 條比例原則無違(本院釋字第 544 號、第 551 號、第 646 號、第 669 號及第 775 號解釋參照)。
按 88 年系爭規定係為「維護交通安全,加強救護,減少被害 人之死傷,促使駕駛人於肇事後,能對被害人即時救護」而增訂(立 法院公報第 88 卷第 13 期第 97 頁及第 98 頁參照)。102 年系爭規 定提高刑度為 1 年以上 7 年以下有期徒刑,其修正理由略以:內 政部警政署統計 97 年至 100 年間,駕車肇事致人傷亡而逃逸之事 件有逐年上升之趨勢,鑒於刑法第 185 條之 3(酒醉駕車)已於 97 年 1 月 2 日、100 年 11 月 30 日及 102 年 6 月 11 日三度修正提高 法定刑,為避免「肇事逃逸者同基於僥倖心態,延誤受害者就醫存 活的機會,錯失治療的寶貴時間」,以遏阻肇事逃逸之行為(立法院公報第 102 卷第 26 期,第 122 頁以下參照),爰提高法定刑度。 綜上,88 年暨 102 年系爭規定係為保障人民之生命身體及道路往 來交通安全等重要法益。核其目的,尚屬正當。且其採取刑罰手段,禁止駕駛人離開現場,對維護交通安全以避免二次事故、減少被害人死傷之目的之達成,非無助益。
復查88 年系爭規定於立法時,係參考刑法第 294 條第 1 項遺 棄罪而規定法定刑為 6 月以上 5 年以下有期徒刑(立法院公報第 88 卷第 13 期,第 98 頁參照)。核遺棄行為及逃逸行為,均未對被 害人之生命及身體構成直接侵害,但同有增加被害人死傷之危險, 罪責內涵相類似,其訂定相同之法定刑,尚非過當。況法院就符合 88 年系爭規定構成要件之犯罪行為,得因個案情節之差異而宣告 不同的刑度,俾使犯罪情節輕微之個案得依刑法第 41 條第 1 項本 文易科罰金,以避免執行短期自由刑或易服社會勞動,致過度影響行為人重新回歸一般社會生活之流弊(本院釋字第 662 號及第 679 號解釋參照),藉由法官裁量權之行使,避免個案過苛之情形,88 年系爭規定有關刑度部分,與憲法罪刑相當原則尚無不符,未違反 比例原則。
如前所述,102 年系爭規定提高法定刑度,係鑑於依修法當時 之犯罪統計資料,顯示駕車肇事致人傷亡而逃逸事件有逐年上升之趨勢,並為免肇事逃逸者基於僥倖心態,延誤傷者就醫等,乃修 法加重處罰。就此而言,102 年系爭規定提高法定刑度,並非全然 不當。惟肇事逃逸罪之犯罪情節輕重容有重大差異可能,其中有犯 罪情節輕微者,例如被害人所受傷害輕微,並無急需就醫之必要,或其他對 102 年系爭規定所欲保護之法益侵害甚微之相類情形; 或被害人並非無自救力,且肇事者於逃逸後一定密接時間內,返回 現場實施救護或為其他必要措施,抑或肇事者雖離開現場,但立即通知警察機關或委請其他第三人,代為實施救護或為其他必要措 施,或有其他相類後續行為有助於維護所欲保護法益之情形。然 102 年系爭規定一律以 1 年以上 7 年以下有期徒刑為其法定刑,致 對犯罪情節輕微者無從為易科罰金之宣告,對此等情節輕微個案 構成顯然過苛之處罰,於此範圍內,不符憲法罪刑相當原則,與憲法第 23 條比例原則有違。此違反部分,應自本解釋公布之日起, 至遲於屆滿 2 年時,失其效力。
相關機關基於本解釋意旨修正102 年系爭規定前,各級法院對駕駛人於事故之發生有故意或過失而逃逸,且無情節輕微個案 顯然過苛之情形者,仍應依法審判。
三、併予檢討部分為因應交通工具與時俱進之發展,並兼顧現代社會生活型態、人民運用交通工具之狀況及整體法律制度之體系正義,相關機關 允宜通盤檢討 102 年系爭規定之要件及效果,俾使人民足以預見 其行為是否構成犯罪,並使其所受之刑罰更符合憲法罪刑相當原 則。例如:(一)關於構成要件部分,就行為與事故之發生間有因果關係之駕駛人,明定其主觀責任要件,亦即,除肇事者有過失外,是否排除故意或包括無過失之情形。倘立法政策欲包括駕駛人無過失之情形,有關機關併應廣為宣導,建立全民於交通事故發生 時,共同參與維護道路交通安全及救護死傷者之共識。(二)關於停留現場之作為義務部分,參酌所欲保護之法益,訂定發生事故後之作為義務範圍,例如應停留在現場,並應通知警察機關處理、協助傷者就醫、對事故現場為必要之處置、向傷者或警察等有關機關表明身分等。(三)關於法律效果部分,依違反作為義務之情節輕 重及對法益侵害之程度等不同情形,訂定不同刑度之處罰,以符憲 法罪刑相當原則。併予敘明。
刑法100條盧修一 在 吳文遠 Avery Ng Facebook 的精選貼文
黃浩銘:
//法官閣下,我能夠參與雨傘運動,爭取民主,實是毫無悔意,畢生榮幸。我已花了最青春的10年在社會運動上,假若我有80歲,我仍有50年可以與港人同行,繼續奮鬥。要是法官不信,且即管以刑罰來考驗我的意志,試煉我的決心,希望我的戰友們在我囚禁的時候,可以激發愛心,勉勵行善,更加有勇氣和力量作個真誠的人對抗謊言治國的中共政權。
「希望在於人民,改變始於抗爭」,唯有透過群眾力量,直接行動,才能改變社會。8年前如是,今日亦如是。但願港人堅定不移,爭取民主,打倒特權,彰顯公義。自由萬歲!民主社會主義萬歲!願公義和慈愛的 主耶穌基督與我同在,與法官先生同在,與香港人同在!//
希望在於人民 改變始於抗爭
—雨傘運動公眾妨擾案陳情書
陳法官仲衡閣下:
自2011年你審理只有23歲的我,追問時任特首曾蔭權知否米貴涉擾亂公眾秩序的案件距今已有8年。在命運的安排下,我再次站在你面前,只是當你讀到這封陳情書的時候,我已經不是當年被你宣判無罪釋放的年青人,而是一個準備迎接第三次入獄的積犯。然而,今天我不是尋求你的憐憫,而是希望道明我參與雨傘運動,公民抗命的緣由,讓法官閣下可以從我的動機及行為來給予合理判刑。
8年以來,我們的崗位稍有轉變,但香港的變化更大,充滿爭議的各個大白象基建均已落成,更多旅客走訪社區,似是一片繁華景象,但同時,更多窮人住在劏房,更多群眾走上街頭,亦有更多我們愛惜的年青人進入監牢。從前我們認為香港不會發生的事,都一一在這8年間發生了。當我8年前站在你面前那一刻,我們都不會想像得到香港人可被挾持返大陸,亦想像不到原來有一天大陸的執法人員可在香港某地方正當執法,更想像不到中共政府除了透過人大釋法外,還可藉著「一言九鼎」的人大決定,甚至中央公函來決定香港人的前途命運和收緊憲制權利。
爭取民主的本意
民主只是口號嗎?當年,我痛罵無視100萬窮人及30萬貧窮長者利益,卻慶祝不知辛亥革命本意的前行政長官曾蔭權,並要求設立全民退休保障,廢除強積金,因此首次被捕被控。但時至今日,香港仍然有過百萬貧窮人口,超過30萬貧窮長者,貧富懸殊及房屋短缺的問題愈加嚴重。2014年,我見過一位75歲的伯伯跪在立法會公聽會向時任勞工及福利局局長張建宗下跪,懇求政府不要拆遷古洞石仔嶺安老院。2019年,我又見到一位67歲執紙皮維生的婆婆在立法會公聽會哭訴難以找工作,現任勞工及福利局局長羅致光竟然叫她找勞工處。為何官員如此冷酷無情?為何我們的意見均未能影響政府施政?歸根結柢,就是因為香港人沒有真正的選擇,喪失本來應有制訂政策及監督的權力!
所謂民主,就是人民當家作主。任何施政,應當由人民倡議監督,公義分配,改善公共服務,使得貧者脫貧,富者節約。今日香港,顧全大陸,官商勾結,貧富懸殊,耗資千億的大白象跨境基建接踵而來,但當遇見護士猝死,教師自殺,老人下跪,政府政策就只有小修小補,小恩小惠,試問如何服眾?由1966年蘇守忠、盧麒公民抗命反對天星小輪加價,乃至1967年暴動及1989年中國愛國民主運動,甚至2003年反廿三條大遊行,無不是因政權專政,政策傾斜,分配不公,引致大規模民眾反抗。2014年雨傘運動的起點,亦是如此。
多年來,港人爭取民主,為求有公義分配,有尊嚴生活,有自主空間,但我們得到的是甚麼?1984年,中英兩國簽署《聯合聲明》前夕,前中共總書記趙紫陽曾回覆香港大學學生會要求「民主治港,普選特首」的訴求,清楚承諾「你們所說的『民主治港』是理所當然的」。當時,不少港人信以為真,誤以為回歸之後可得民主,但自1989年六四血腥鎮壓及2003年50萬人反對《廿三條》立法大遊行後,中共圖窮匕現,在2004年透過人大釋法收緊政制改革程序,並粗暴地決定2007及2008不會普選行政長官及立法會。自此,完全不民主的中國立法機關-全國人民代表大會常務委員會掌控香港人的命運福祉,人大釋法及人大決定可以隨時隨地配合極權政府的主張,命令香港法庭跟從,打壓香港的民主和法治。
2014年8月31日,是歷史的轉捩點。儘管多少溫和學者苦苦規勸,中共仍以6月的<一國兩制白皮書>為基礎,展示全面管治權的氣派,包括法官閣下在內,都要屈從愛國之說。在《8‧31人大決定》之後,中共完全暴露其假民主假普選的面目,其時,我們認為對抗方法就只有公民抗命。
公民抗命的起點
違法就是罪惡嗎?我們違法,稱之為「公民抗命」,就是公民憑良心為公眾利益,以非暴力形式不服從法律命令,以求改變不義制度或法律。終審法院非常任法官賀輔明(Leonard Hoffmann)勳爵曾在英國著名案例 R v Jones (Margaret) [2007] 1 AC 136 案提出:「發自良知的公民抗命,有着悠久及光榮的傳統。那些因着信念認為法律及政府行為是不義而違法的人,歷史很多時候都證明他們是正確的……能包容這種抗爭或示威,是文明社會的印記。」
終審法院在最近的公民廣場案(Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35)亦道明「公民抗命」的概念可獲肯定(該案判詞第70至72段)。因此,亦印證我等9人及其他公民抗命者並非可以一般「違法犯事」來解釋及施刑。港人以一般遊行示威爭取民主30年,無論從殖民年代乃至特區年代,皆無顯著改進,今日以更進步主張,公民抗命爭取民主,正如印度、南非、波蘭等對抗強權,實在無可厚非。誠然,堵塞主要幹道,影響民眾上班下課,實非我所願,但回想過來,中共及特區政府多年來豈不更堵塞香港民主之路,妨擾公眾獲得真正的發聲機會?
如果我是公民抗命,又何以不認罪承擔刑責?2014年12月,警方以成文法「出席未經批准集結」及「煽動參與未經批准集結」在村口將我逮捕。2017年3月,警方改以普通法「煽惑他人作出公眾妨擾」及「煽惑他人煽惑公眾妨擾」提控。正如戴耀廷先生在其結案陳詞引述英國劍橋大學法學教授 John R. Spencer 提及以普通法提訴的問題:「近年差不多所有以『公眾妨擾罪』來起訴的案件,都出現以下兩種情況的其中一個:一、當被告人的行為是觸犯了成文法律,通常懲罰是輕微的,檢控官想要以一支更大或額外的棒子去打他;二、當被告人的行為看來是明顯完全不涉及刑事責任的,檢控官找不到其他罪名可控訴他」,無獨有偶,前終審法院常任法官鄧楨在其2018年退休致詞提及:「普通法同樣可被用作欺壓的工具。它是一種變化多端的權力,除非妥善地運用人權法加以適當控制,否則可被不當使用。」如今看來,所言非虛。
今我遭控二罪,必定據理力爭,冀借助法官閣下明智判決推翻檢控不義,但法庭定讞,我自當承擔刑責,絕無怨言,以成全公民抗命之道。
試問誰還未覺醒
我是刻意求刑標榜自己,讓年青人跟從走進監獄大門嗎?我反覆推敲這個問題。然而,我的答案是,正正是希望後輩不用像我此般走進牢獄,我更要無懼怕地爭取人們所當得的。縱使今日面對強權,惡法將至,烏雲密佈,我依然一如既往,毋忘初衷地認為真普選才是港人獲得真正自由之路。任何一個聲稱為下一代福祉者,理應為後輩爭取自由平等的選擇權利,讓他們能自立成長,辨明是非,而非家長式管控思想,讓下一代淪為生財工具,朝廷鷹犬。
主耶穌基督說:「我確確實實地告訴你們:一粒麥子如果不落在地裡死去,它仍然是一粒;如果死了,就結出很多子粒來。(《約翰福音》第12章24節)」沒有犧牲,沒有收穫。故然,我不希望年青人跟我一樣要踏上公民抗命之路,承受牢獄之苦,但我請教所有智慧之士,既然舉牌示威遊行均已無顯其效,公民抗命和平抗爭為何不是能令政權受壓求變之策?若非偌大群眾運動,梁振英豈不仍安坐其位?
刑罰於我而言,無情可求,唯一我心中所想,就是希望法庭能顧念75歲的朱耀明牧師年事已高,望以非監禁方式處之,讓港人瞥見法庭對良心公民抗命者寬容一面。美國法哲學家羅納德‧德沃金(Ronald Dworkin)在1968年論及公民抗命時(On Not Prosecuting Civil Disobedience),不但認為法庭應給予公民抗命者寬鬆刑罰,甚至應不予起訴。事實上,終審法院非常任法官賀輔明在2014年12月4日,即雨傘運動尾聲(已發生大規模堵路多日),佔中三子自首之後一日,接受《蘋果日報》及《南華早報》訪問時提到「抗爭者及掌權者均未有逾越公民抗命的『遊戲規則』,抗爭活動並沒有損害香港法治」,更進一步提到「一旦他們被判有罪,應該從輕發落,認為這是傳統,因為自首的公民不是邪惡的人」,由此,我期盼法庭將有人道的判刑。
法官閣下,我能夠參與雨傘運動,爭取民主,實是毫無悔意,畢生榮幸。我已花了最青春的10年在社會運動上,假若我有80歲,我仍有50年可以與港人同行,繼續奮鬥。要是法官不信,且即管以刑罰來考驗我的意志,試煉我的決心,希望我的戰友們在我囚禁的時候,可以激發愛心,勉勵行善,更加有勇氣和力量作個真誠的人對抗謊言治國的中共政權。
「希望在於人民,改變始於抗爭」,唯有透過群眾力量,直接行動,才能改變社會。8年前如是,今日亦如是。但願港人堅定不移,爭取民主,打倒特權,彰顯公義。自由萬歲!民主社會主義萬歲!
願公義和慈愛的 主耶穌基督與我同在,與法官先生同在,與香港人同在!
社會民主連線副主席、雨傘運動案第八被告
黃浩銘
二零一九年四月九日
Hope lies in the people
Changes come from resistance
- Umbrella Movement Public Nuisance Case Statement
Your Honour Judge Johnny Chan,
It has been 8 years since I have met you in court. You were the judge to my case on disorder in public places. It was in 2011 and I was only 23 years old. I chased after the then Chief Executive Mr. Donald Tsang and asked if he knew the price of rice and whether he understood the struggles of the poor. Fate has brought us here again, I am before you once again, but I am no longer the young man who was acquitted. When you are reading this statement, I am a “recidivist”, ready to be sent to prison for the third time. However, I do not seek your mercy today, but wish to explain the reasons for my participation in the Umbrella Movement and civil disobedience, so that your honour can give a reasonable sentence through understanding my motives and actions.
Our positions have slightly altered in the past 8 years, but not as great as the changes that took place in Hong Kong. The controversial big white elephant infrastructures were completed. More tourists are visiting, making Hong Kong a bustling city. At the same time, however, more poor people are living in sub-divided flats, more people are forced to the street to protest, more young people are sent to jail. Things we wouldn’t have imagined 8 years are now happening in Hong Kong. When I was before you 8 years ago, we would not have imagined Hong Kong people could be kidnapped by the Chinese authority to Mainland China. We wouldn’t have imagined that one day, the Mainland law enforcement officers could perform their duties in Hong Kong. We wouldn’t have imagined, not only could the Community Chinese government interpret our law, but they could decide on our future and tightened the rule on constitutional rights through the National People’s Congress Decision.
The Original Intention
Is democracy just a slogan? 8 years ago, I criticised the then Chief Executive Mr. Donald Tsang for ignoring the interests of 1 million poor people and 300,000 elderly. I scolded him for celebrating the 1911 Revolution without understanding its preliminary belief. I called for the establishment of universal retirement protection and the abolition of MPF, and was arrested for the first time. Yet, there are still over a million poor people in Hong Kong today, with more than 300,000 of poor elderly. The disparity between the rich and the poor and housing problem have only become worsen.
In 2014, I witnessed a 75-year-old man kneeling before the Secretary for Labour and Welfare Mr. Matthew Cheung Kin-Chung at a public hearing in the Legislative Council. The old man begged the government not to demolish the elderly home in Kwu Tung Dills Corner. In 2019, a 67-year-old woman, who scavenges for cardboards to make a living, cried during the Legislative Council public hearing. She cried because it was impossible for her to get a job. The Secretary for Labour and Welfare Mr. Law Chi-Kwong simply told her to ask for help in the Labour Department. Why are the government officials so callous? Why have our opinions failed to affect the government’s administration? The root of the problem is that Hong Kong people do not have real choices, we have been deprived of the power to supervise the government and to formulate policies.
What is democracy? Democracy means people are the masters. Any policies should be supervised by the people, the society’s resources should be justly distributed to improve the public services, so that the poor is no longer in poverty. However, in today’s Hong Kong, the focus is on the Mainland China, there is collusion between the government and the businesses, there is a great disparity between the rich and the poor, and multi-billion-dollar big white elephant cross-border infrastructure are built one after another. Nurses die from overexertion at work, teachers commit suicide and old man kneels to beg for what he deserves. Yet, the government policies were only minor repairs here and there, giving small treats and favours to the people. How can you win the support of the people? From the civil disobedience movement in 1966 by So Sau-chung and Lo Kei against the increase of Star Ferry fare, until the 1967 riots and 1989 China Patriotic Democratic Movement, even the 2003 march against the purported legistlation of Article 23, they were all due to the political dictatorship, imbalance policies as well as unfair distribution of public resources. It is for these reasons that led to large scale protests. It is for the same reason that the 2014 Umbrella Movement started.
For so many years, Hong Kong people have been fighting for democracy. We demand a just allocation, a life with dignity and space of freedom. However, what do we get in return? On the eve of the signing of the Joint Declaration in 1984, the then premier of the Communist Chinese government Zhao Ziyang in his reply to the demand for democracy and universal suffrage by the University of Hong Kong Student Council clearly promised that ‘what you referred to, namely “rule Hong Kong by democracy” is a matter that goes without saying.’ At the time, a lot of Hong Kong people believed it. They thought they would have democracy after the handover. However, since the bloody suppression on 4th June 1989 and the 500,000 people demonstration against Article 23 in 2003, the plot of the Chinese communist revealed itself. They decided by force through the NPC interpretation in 2004 that there would be no universal suffrage of the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council in 2007 and 2008. Since then, the undemocratic authority of NPC kept a tight grip on the destiny of Hong Kong people. NPC’s interpretation and decisions can be deployed anytime when convenient to assist the propaganda of the authoritative government, forcing the hands of the Hong Kong court and suppressing Hong Kong democracy and the rule of law.
31st August 2014 was a turning point in history. No matter how the moderate scholars tried to persuade it from happening, the Community Chinese government has used the One Country Two System White Paper in June as the foundation and forced its way down onto the people. Even your honour was among them, succumbed to the so called patriotism. After the 8.31 Decision of the National People’s Congress, the plot of the Communist Chinese government has revealed itself, the Chinese government has been lying to the Hong Kong people, they never intended to give Hong Kong genuine universal suffrage. At that time, we believed that civil disobedience was inevitable and was the only way out.
The Starting Point of Civil Disobedience
Is breaking the law sinful? We broke the law with a cause, as “civil disobedience” is the refusal to comply with certain laws considered unjust, as a peaceful form of political protest in the interest of the public to change the unjust system or law. Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal Honourable Leonard Hoffman stated in the well-known R v Jones (Margaret) [2007] 1 AC 136 case that, “civil disobedience on conscientious grounds has a long and honourable history in this country. People who break the law to affirm their belief in the injustice of a law or government action are sometime vindicated by history. It is the mark of a civilised community that it can accommodate protests and demonstrations of this kind.”
The recent decision by the Court of Appeal concerning the Civic Square outside the government headquarter(Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35) also confirmed the idea of civil disobedience(paragraphs 70-72 of the judgment refer). This , therefore, confirmed that myself and the other 8 defendants as well as other civil disobedience protestors, should not be understood as “breaking the law” in its general circumstances, nor should our sentencing be weighted against the usual standard. Hong Kong people have been fighting for democracy through protest for 30 years already, whether it was during the times of colonial British rule or during the special administrative region, there has been no improvement. Today, we fought for democracy, just as the fights for freedom and democracy in India, South Africa and Poland, and civil disobedience is inevitable. It is true that we did not want to block the roads or affect Hong Kong citizens attending to work or school. But on reflection, didn’t the Communist Chinese and Special Administrative governments block our road to democracy and interfere with our rights to speak up?
If what I did was in the name of civil disobedience, why should I defend my case and not bear the criminal responsibility? In December 2014, the police made use of the statutory offences of “attending unauthorised assembly and inciting participation in unauthorised assembly” and arrested me at the village I live in. In March 2017, the police amended their charges to common law offences of “incitement to commit public nuisance and incitement to incite public nuisance”. As Mr. Benny Tai said in his closing submissions, quoting law professor of Cambridge University John R. Spencer on common law charges, “...almost all the prosecutions for public nuisance in recent years seem to have taken place in one of two situations: first, where the defendant’s behaviour amounted to a statutory offence, typically punishable with a small penalty, and the prosecutor wanted a bigger or extra stick to beat him with, and secondly, where the defendant’s behaviour was not obviously criminal at all and the prosecutor could think of nothing else to charge him with.” Coincidentally, the then Court of Appeal Honourable Mr Justice Robert Tang Kwok-ching stated in his retirement speech in 2018 that, “Common law can be used oppressively. It is protean power, unless adequately controlled by the proper application of human rights law, can be misused.” What he said has become true today.
Faced with 2 charges, I am going to stand by reasons and my principles, in order to assist the Court to overturn an unjust prosecution. However, should the court find me guilty, I shall bear the criminal responsibility. I have no qualm or regrets, in fulfilment of my chosen path of civil disobedience.
Who has not yet awoken?
I do reflect as to whether I am simply seeking a criminal sentence in order to make a point, or to encourage other young men to follow my footsteps into the gates of the prison. I have reflected upon this repeatedly. However, my answer is that, I am doing this precisely because I do not wish to see other young men following my suit into the prison. Because of this, I need to fight for what is ours fearlessly. Although today we are confronted by an oppressive authority, the looming legislation of unjust laws and a clouded future, I shall be as I always am: relentless maintaining my stance that a real election is the path to freedom for Hong Kong people. Anyone who claims to be acting in the interest of the next generation should fight for a free and equal choice for their youths. This is in order for them to learn to be independent, to be able to tell rights from wrongs. There should be no paternal thinking, simply teaching the next generation to be slaves of money and accessories to the oppressor.
My Lord Jesus Christ has said: ‘Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. (Book of John 12:24.) Without sacrifice, there is no reward. I don’t wish to see any more young men having to join the path of civil disobedience as I did, and to pay the price as I did. However, I ask this of all men and women of wisdom: if peaceful demonstration in the old fashioned way has lost its effectiveness and was simply ignored, why is peaceful civil disobedience not a good way to bring about change whilst one is being oppressed? If not for this crowd movement, C Y Leung would still be sitting comfortably on the throne.
I have no mitigation to submit. I only wish that the Court would spare Reverend Chu, who is an elderly of 75 years of age. I pray that a non-custodial sentence may be passed for Reverend Chu. I hope that the Court will have leniency and mercy for Reverend Chu. I refer to the work of the American legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin in 1968, namely: ‘On Not Prosecuting Civil Disobedience’. He opined that, not only should the Court allow leniency to civil disobedience participants, but also should they not be prosecuted. In fact, Lord Hoffmann NPJ of the CFA stated the following in an interview with Apple Daily and South China Morning Post on 4th December 2014 (which was at the end of the Umbrella Movement, a day before the surrender of the 3 initiators of the Occupy Central Movement): ‘In any civilised society, there is room for people making political points by civil disobedience.’ ‘These are not wicked people.’ Civil disobedience had ‘an old tradition’ in the common law world. ‘When it comes to punishment, the court should take into account their personal convictions.’ In light of this, I hope the Court shall pass a humane sentence.
Your honour, I have no regret for participating in the Umbrella Movement and the fight for democracy. It was an honour of a lifetime. I have spent the best 10 years of my youth in social movements. If I can live up to 80-year-old, I would still have 50 years to walk alongside the people of Hong Kong, to continue the fight. If this is in doubt, please test my will against the whips of criminal punishment. I shall take this as a trial of my determination. I only hope that my brothers and sisters-in-arms can be inspired whilst I am imprisoned, to do goods and encourage others. I hope they shall have further courage and strength to be honest men and women, to fight against the lies of the ruling Chinese Communist authority.
“Hope lies in the hands of the people, change starts from resistance.’ It’s only through the power of the people and direct action that the society can be changed. This was so 8 years ago. This is still the case today. May the will of the people of Hong Kong be firm and determined, to fight for democracy, overthrow the privileged, and let justice be done. All hail for freedom! All hail for democratic socialism!
May justice and peace of my Lord Jesus Christ be with me, with your Honour and with the People of Hong Kong!
Vice President of the League of Social Democrats,
the 8th Defendant of the Umbrella Movement Case
Raphael Wong Ho Ming
10th April 2019
刑法100條盧修一 在 李鴻鈞 Facebook 的精選貼文
偷東西物歸原主就不算偷竊? 這才是真的比扯鈴還扯....
然而, 實務上確實屢發生汽機車遭竊後, 因歸還原位被認定為使用竊盜罪而遭不起訴! 這樣的法令與裁定不斷悖離立法精神亦無教化懲戒之功效. 因此2016年11月, 鴻鈞即提案修正刑法相關法令! 該案獲跨黨派委員同仁連署並已付委, 希望能早日完成修法
該法相關原文如下
---------
案由:本院李鴻鈞委員等19人,有鑒於近十年來,汽機車遭竊比例佔整體竊盜案件高達35%以上,顯見汽機車始終是竊賊下手的主要目標。然而往往在失竊報警查獲之後,盜賊辯稱只是偷騎(開)車,事後已經歸還等藉口,法界通常面對此類汽機車竊盜案件時,均會引用最高法院100年度台上字第3232號刑事判決見解,學理上所稱「使用竊盜」,非該當刑法之竊盜罪:「刑法之竊盜罪,以行為人具有為自己或第三人不法所有之意圖,而竊取他人之動產,作為構成要件,若行為人欠缺此不法所有意圖要件,例如祇單純擅取使用,無據為己有之犯意,學理上稱為「使用竊盜」,尚非刑法非難之對象。」,進而給予不起訴或是無罪判決。導致人民感受與法律有明顯落差,並有鼓勵犯罪之嫌。為求有效保障民眾財產權,爰此提出刑法修正案,新訂無權使用交通工具之處罰。是否有當,敬請公決。
說明:
1. 每年高達兩萬輛以上的汽機車遭竊,近十年來始終佔整體竊盜案件比例高達35%以上,顯見汽機車等交通工具始終為竊賊所青睞。
2. 媒體上屢見「竊騎機車代步,有歸還判無罪」新聞,主因是法界通常面對此類汽機車竊盜案件時,均會引用最高法院100年度台上字第3232號刑事判決見解,學理上所稱「使用竊盜」,非該當刑法之竊盜罪:「刑法之竊盜罪,以行為人具有為自己或第三人不法所有之意圖,而竊取他人之動產,作為構成要件,若行為人欠缺此不法所有意圖要件,例如祇單純擅取使用,無據為己有之犯意,學理上稱為「使用竊盜」,尚非刑法非難之對象。」,進而檢察官給予不起訴或是法官給予無罪判決。這類判決與民眾對法律認知與情感相距甚遠,難怪民眾對司法倍感失望。
3. 為有效打擊犯罪與保護民眾財產權,並給予無權使用他人交通工具者一定懲罰,爰此參考國外立法例,提出刑法修正案。且有鑑於使用竊盜對於侵害私人法益尚屬輕微,是以增訂本條將使用竊盜歸為告訴乃論之罪。
提案人:李鴻鈞
連署人:柯志恩、許毓仁、曾銘宗、陳宜民、張麗善、李彥秀、羅明才、孔文吉、簡東明、盧秀燕、陳雪生、陳超明、林俊憲、林麗蟬、鄭寶清、周陳秀霞、高金素梅、吳志揚
https://news.ebc.net.tw/news.php?nid=102035
刑法100條盧修一 在 為前進而戰--盧修一的國會身影| 早安! 收到新書掛號包裹 的推薦與評價
今年是《 刑法 》 100條 修法30周年,此後台灣真正享有言論自由。 今年也是國會全面改選30周年。 台灣民主化重要的關鍵,我何其有幸,以寫作# 盧修一 博士的生命故事, ... ... <看更多>
刑法100條盧修一 在 盧修一的國會身影出版!吳怡農:政治人物典範-民視新聞 的推薦與評價
民視快新聞】為紀念《 刑法 》 100條 修法30周年,有出版社特別以,已故立法委員 盧修一 為撰寫對象,把整個台灣法治、民主轉型的歷程整理出來, ... ... <看更多>