Hong Kong Lawyer

April 2017

Issue link: https://asianlegalbusiness.uberflip.com/i/806718

Contents of this Issue


Page 12 of 99

April 2017 • LETTER TO HONG KONG LAWYER 給《香港律師》的信 給《香港律師》的信 Letter to Hong Kong Lawyer www.hk-lawyer.org 11 By David A. Southern, Barrister-at-Law Justice Chambers I recently read Michael Jackson's article "HKSAR v Chan Kam Shing: CFA Finds 'No Wrong Turning'" in the March edition of Hong Kong Lawyer. While the feature provides a good summary of HKSAR v Chan Kam Shing FACC 5/2016 and the adverse political environment in which the doctrine was operating in the UK, it failed to touch on instances in which the doctrine is susceptible to abuse in Hong Kong. In "Is Abolishing Joint Enterprise Beneficial for Hong Kong?" (Hong Kong Lawyer, May 2016), Franklin Koo convincingly set forth a number of public policy considerations that weigh against the extended version of doctrine, or as Jackson termed "the wide principle", being maintained in Hong Kong. Namely, he highlighted the possibility of the doctrine being used to oppress particular groups – such as those in politically sensitive groups or those involved in local social movements. While the doctrine has not been used in this way in Hong Kong to date, this is a worrisome possibility, as joint enterprise liability is applicable to a wide variety of offences, not just gruesome, gang-related murders. Even after looking at the public policy considerations used to justify the creation and maintenance of the doctrine in the wider context, these concerns are not assuaged. As noted by Koo and Jackson, the Chan Wing Siu principle does have certain merit, in that it was designed to deter people from participating in gang-related criminal activities by holding all participating members of a gang responsible for each other's criminal actions. As Koo noted, studies have shown that "gang members commit over five times as many offences as non-gang members". He also pointed out that "social science research literature strongly suggested that individuals in groups behave very differently than they do when alone. They take more risks, are pressured to conform with the majority, and feel less personal responsibility, thus raising the possibility that group crimes lead to escalated and unplanned violence." Even with this being the case, it still seems anomalous that a secondary defendant can be convicted of a crime on proving mere foresight, when the prosecution must prove the "intent" of the primary defendant to secure a conviction. Put another way, this seems grossly unfair because foresight is a lower mental requirement than intention, which is the mens rea that must be established by the prosecution to meet its burden of proof to establish its case against the primary defendant. Also troubling is the possibility of an individual being convicted of a crime based on their involvement in a joint criminal enterprise, when he or she did not physically perpetrate the crime, had no intention to do so and was never at the crime scene. For all of these reasons, it is regrettable that the UK's approach in Jogee was not followed in Hong Kong. 我最近看了莊邁豪在3月份《香港律師》的一篇撰文:香港 特別行政區訴陳錦成:終審法院裁定「沒有行了錯誤的一 着」。莊邁豪雖然有在文中概述香港特別行政區訴陳錦成 案(FACC 5/2016),也有提到法則運作所在地英國的政治 環境惡劣,言簡意賅,但卻沒有寫到法則在香港容易被濫 用。 在「廢除『共同犯罪』對香港有好處嗎?」(2016年5月 《香港律師》)一文,顧偉傑就擴大版法則,莊邁豪稱之 為「廣泛的原則」(香港維持原則不變),提出多項反對法 則的公共政策考慮因素,言之成理,令人信服。基於公共 政策所考慮的,就是文中突顯的法則有被人用來壓迫某些 群體的可能性,例如壓迫政治敏感群體,或者本土社運人 士。時至今日,法則在香港一直沒有被這樣利用過,雖然 如此,這始終是個令人擔憂的可能情況,因為共同犯罪計 劃的法律責任,適用於很多罪行種類,不只是可怕的幫派 謀殺。 即使在更廣泛的背景下,想及用來支持法則的誕生和主張 的公共政策考慮因素,也消除不了這方面的憂慮。正如顧 偉傑和莊邁豪所指出, Chan Wing Siu案的原則確有一定 的好處,那就是,按照Chan Wing Siu案的原則,所有參 與犯罪的同黨都要為每名同黨的刑事行為負責,因而阻嚇 人糾黨參與刑事活動。顧偉傑提到,有研究顯示「同黨干 犯的罪比非同黨干犯的罪多出五倍以上」。他亦指出「社 會學研究文獻清楚顯示,群體中的個體的行為與他們獨處 時的行為大不相同。群體中的個體承受更大風險,因為要 保持與大多數人的行動一致,壓力更大,但感覺背負的個 人責任較輕,因此,聯群結黨所干犯的罪行,更有可能牽 涉沒有計劃但更嚴重的暴力。」即便研究屬實,但是要 確保主要被告人被定罪,控方必須證明他或她的「意圖」 ,而要次位被告人被定罪,卻只證明他或她有「預見」就 可以了;這樣的舉證要求似乎有悖常理。換個說法,似乎 是極不公平,因為「預見」的心態要求較意圖的低。意圖 是被告人的「犯罪意圖」,控方要履行舉證責任,證明控 方不利主要被告人的案情,就必須證明被告人有「犯罪意 圖」。 還有另一種令人擔憂的可能情況,就是有人沒有親身犯 罪,沒有意圖犯罪,也從來沒有到過犯罪現場,卻由於參 與共同犯罪計劃而被定罪。由於上述種種原因,香港不跟 隨英國Jogee案的方法,做法令人遺憾。

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

view archives of Hong Kong Lawyer - April 2017