• 今年夏天,寧靜的法(二):暴徒行者?|劉偉聰
  • 2019-08-14    

 


「使徒來襲」是《新世紀福音戰士》裡的永恆寓言,宗教的人間的。《使徒行者》是我城大台製作的臥底劇,正正邪邪,白白黑黑,早有「黑警」存焉,我從來看得肉緊。電影版《使徒行者2》更是大台加邵氏加無數國內單位的盛夏光年大製作,我從不懷疑它的政治正確,最少not its version of political correctness,因此當銀幕上的古天樂警司一手壓著女主角,切齒怒吼:「你究竟喺咩人?喺咪要全香港人同你一個女人陪葬?」我不能相信我的眼睛耳朵,更不能相信沒有弦外之音!

再容我贈興劇透,不必慎入。電影裏的警務署長比現實中的一位英俊秀美,叫馬德鐘,但一樣一般有太多不可告人的心事,其中有只向他一人負責的超級反恐部門,叫Invisible Frontline Force (IFF),既然是Invisible,自然是編制以外的絕密維持和平部隊,立法會不知情,公眾不知情,混入人群中最適宜最美麗。

八一一那夜我們在現實中領教過了,穿黑衣戴頭盔掛豬咀的原來不是抗議者,卻是協力拿下抗議者的偽抗議者,鏡頭前張家灝便問他是否警察,他不答;問他拿警察委任證,他叫家灝熄機;家灝問他為啥,他說他不想全世界看到他的警察委任證;家灝說,那麼你是有委任證的警察了?他說他沒有說過!偽抗議者/真警察一番如珠妙語,彷彿是《笑傲江湖》裏桃谷六仙的鬼馬邏輯,只是我們今番真的笑不出來。然後陸續有真•抗議者憶述,見有如此偽抗議者IFF在現場挑起事端,叫集結頓成非法集結,悍警即登時四方使徒來襲,真•抗議者統統成了甕中逃不了的真•鱉,注定要吃過期催淚煙、盲眼布袋彈和兜頭而下的連環棍子,血和淚一地無聲。

果如是,IFF即以infiltration和entrapment為專業,在人間太visible,卻因特府死不承認,莫之奈何,繼續風騷frontline invisible!執法執法,執著於法的是否只有我們這些一廂情願的人仔?

我城電影史上的臥底幹探從來是萬千寵兒的悲劇英雄,由《邊緣人》的艾迪、《龍虎風雲》的發哥、《辣手神探》和《無間道》的梁朝偉到今時今日揮洒自如的張家輝,俱克盡厥職,死而後已,對付的是真真壞人,是不了情,忘不了。我城的法律興許也如此欣賞臥底精神,故undercover agent 的證供從來admissible,也憑此而令幾許黑漢翻身不再,we are/were all grateful。甚至黑漢落網全因臥㡳幹探的細膩誘使,我們也不曾介意undercover的entrapment,法庭也如是。

我城上訴庭在2015年的《Ejegi Godspower》(名字頗一見難忘!)案中嘗明言道:「There is no dispute that entrapment does not exist as a substantive defence in English and Hong Kong law. However, “it may be of relevance in mitigation at penalty for the offence”.」

Entrapment不是脫罪辯解,只是求情理據。

甚麼是Entrapment? Lord Nicholls在 英國《R v Looseley》一案中優雅道來: 「If the defendant already had the intent to commit a crime of the same or a similar kind, then the police did no more than give him the opportunity to fulfil his existing intent. This is unobjectionable. If the defendant was already presently disposed to commit such a crime, should opportunity arise, that is not

entrapment . That is not state-created crime. The matter stands differently if the defendant lacked such a predisposition, and the police were responsible for implanting the necessary intent.」

Entrapment是the police’s being responsible for implanting the necessary intent,但還要當事人taking the bait and committing the crime himself or herself or themselves。這款entrapment 縱然不能免罪,但依然可能是morally objectionable,因此Lord Nicholls也說過:「it is simply not acceptable that the State through its agents should lure its citizens into committing acts forbidden by the law and then seek to prosecute them for doing so.」果如是,法院可考慮永久終止聆訊,但惱人的是法律也如水般fluid,甚麼是giving the opportunity to a criminal to fulfil his criminal intent 跟甚麼是morally objectionable state-sponsored crime,那只可能是facts-sensitive的 case-by-case jurisprudence,恕我無力一語道破。

目下英倫風風火火的Sir John Mitting’s Undercover Policing Inquiry已聆訊經年,針對的是警隊中Special Demonstration Squad的卧底行動,而SDS的拿手專業正正是滲透各類社運組織。聆訊新聞不斷,但好像俱不是圍繞聆訊的core issues(若要follow the core issues,要跟足transcripts喇),而Sir John惹火,偶然惹笑(請看最近Supreme Court在《Stocker v Stocker》案中對他的評語),報告無期,我們也只能像等待雙普選般翹首以待。

可幸,據目擊者所言,八一一晚上偽抗爭者佈下的根本不是entrapment,只是自己挑起事端,好借故引來圍捕,那是蘆溝橋唔見咗日本憲兵仔的行奸使詐,是false allegations,也是genuine excuses for police suppression,一天黑暗。

Entrapment如有千般不是,也尚是「請君入彀」,偽抗議者那一手卻是「黑獄斷腸歌之砌我生豬肉」。

9月2日起升級條件將更新 繼續每月撐壹仔 講真心話撐住我香港!