周永康案秘密審理 無助強化法治信心

<轉載自2015年6月12日 明報 社評>

內地官方傳媒昨日傍晚約6時「突然」發布消息，報道天津市第一中級人民法院依法對原政治局常委周永康進行了一審的審理和宣判，三罪並罰，周永康被判處無期徒刑。過去一段時間，內地官方在正式和非正式渠道都表示，周案將依法公開審理，國人對此拭目以待。不過，事態最新發展有反高潮意味，對於未知開審卻已認罪的判刑，不少人感到詫異。相對於薄熙來案件，周案在司法公開和透明度方面有所倒退，無助於強化國人對法治的信心。

薄熙來案透明度高 周永康案走回頭路

周永康以政治局常委身分統領全國政法工作，可謂權傾一時，他涉及貪腐下馬，除了黨紀處分，還要面對國法制裁。當局對周永康的處理，被認為打破了歷來「刑不上常委」的潛規則，對於肅貪倡廉、整飭吏治、端正官箴，都有指標性意義，是中共歷史上具里程碑意義的個案，海內外各方對當局的處理語多肯定。因而，不少人期望透過對周永康的審理，進一步強化國人對依法治國的意識和信心；可是，周案的不公開審理，又隨着周永康表明不上訴，案件已屬定讞，客觀上未能起到更大教育意義和作用，使人有點失望。

回歸約兩年前，原重慶市委書記薄熙來被控告受賄、貪污、濫用職權三項罪名的審理，透明度甚高，法院破天荒以經過篩選的微博文字，就審理過程和內容作現場「直播」。薄案因為薄熙來臨場翻供，使審理有戲劇性發展，不過當局未視為禁忌，讓大多數審理內容「直播」到法庭之外，整個過程顯示當局的信心，被告薄熙來的各項訴訟權利獲得充分尊重和保障。薄案被認為是內地審理高官的經典之作，司法品位因而上了一個台階，使人對司法和法治增加了信心。

周永康其中一項控罪是故意泄露國家機密，按刑事訴訟法規定，當局可以涉及國家機密為由，秘密審訊周永康。因此，當局對周案在天津第一中級人民法院進行「不公開」開庭審理，原本無可非議。問題是今年3月間，央視報道對於包括周永康在內的省部級以上的領導幹部，在進了法院是否都會公開審理的問題上引述最高法院院長周強表示會「依法公開」，人們便憧憬類似薄熙來案的審理。可是，現在事態發展並非如此，箇中轉折是否反映了什麼情况，外界無從查究。

其實，以周永康的罪名，當局若願意，倒可以先不公開審理故意泄露國家機密罪，然後才公開審理其他兩項受賄和濫用職權罪名，並按薄熙來案模式，容許微博文字「直播」。這樣的話，則打擊貪腐無層級考量，樹立司法權威、彰顯法治精神等，都可以登上新台階。這本是大好宣揚機會，卻失諸交臂，有點可惜。

至於周永康的判刑，是另一個熱議點。約兩年前，薄熙來以受賄、貪污和濫用職權三項罪名，被判處終身監禁、剝奪政治權利終身，並沒收個人全部財產。周永康除了受賄罪被判無期徒刑，濫用職權罪判刑7年，故意泄露國家機密罪判刑4年。案情指周永康直接涉及受賄的只有價值約73萬元人民幣財物，薄熙來案涉及的法國一幢別墅，價值約21萬元人民幣；單看官方披露的數額，周永康受賄所得遠遠不及薄熙來，這與周被冠以貪腐「大老虎」的稱號，是否名實相副，各人只能從不同角度理解了。

另外，周永康被判無期徒刑，與薄熙來的無期徒刑一樣，理論上有機會在有生之年保外就醫。據官方公布的審理和判刑結果，內容有指周永康「歸案後能如實供述自己的罪行，認罪悔罪，絕大部分賄賂係其親屬收受且其係事後知情，案發後主動要求親屬退贓且受賄物全部追繳，具有法定、酌定從輕處罰情節」，云云。這樣的表述，被認為對周永康甚為有利，特別是「事後知情」把他與親屬受賄清晰切割，彷彿為他日後的安排做鋪墊。相對於薄熙來在庭上翻供，與當局辯駁，周永康的取態與內地黨政文化與司法倫理，在精神上更為契合，相信這是他獲得從輕發落的原因。

公正要讓人看到 周案未符合期望

薄熙來案珠玉在前，周永康位階更高，人們對周案的期望相應提升，可惜現在的處理，客觀上使人有高高舉起、輕輕放下之感。特別是案件以秘密審理方式處理，還未知道何時開審，卻獲告知已有判決，在認知上使人重回未審已知裁決的場景。這與薄熙來案比較，司法進程似乎走了回頭路，相信這是不少人的感受和心裏的失落。

法院審理案件，程序公義和透明度十分重要，若處理不好，無論案中被告如何罪有應得，也會蒙上污點，此所謂公正並非說出來的，而是要讓人人都看得見，才算是真正的公正。周永康案的審理，並未能符合這個精神。不過，即使審理周案未能強化人們對法治的信心，政治局前常委鋃鐺入獄的意義，仍然值得珍視，期望內地以此為契機，從此在依法治國的路上，走得更穩當和有力。

Zhou Yongkang's in-camera trial

AROUND 6 pm yesterday (June 11), the mainland's official media broke a piece of news quite out of the blue - that Zhou Yongkang, who was a member of the Standing Committee of the Politburo, had been convicted on three charges in the first instance and sentenced to life imprisonment by Tianjin Municipal No 1 Intermediate People's Court. The mainland authorities had long been signalling, through official and unofficial channels, that Zhou would stand trial in open court in accordance with the law, and people had been full of eager anticipation. But the latest development seems anti-climactic. Many are surprised that he had pleaded guilty and had been given a sentence before it became known that he would be brought to trial. Compared with Bo Xilai's, Zhou's trial has put the clock back in terms of judicial openness and transparency. That does not help bolster Chinese people's confidence in the rule of law.

Zhou was in charge of the country's procuratorial, judicial and public security organs in his capacity as a member of the Standing Committee of the Politburo. One may say he was enormously powerful. Dismissed for corruption charges, he was not only disciplined by the Communist Party of China but also punished by the law. Many had expected Zhou's trial to further increase Chinese people's awareness of and confidence in "running the country in accordance with the law". However, Zhou's trial was held in camera. As he has declared he will not appeal, his case is closed. This is somewhat of a disappointment, as the trial does not act as much of a deterrent.

About two years ago, Bo Xilai, who was Chongqing Communist Party chief, was indicted for accepting bribes, corruption and abusing his powers. The trial was marked by a high degree of transparency. For the first time ever, transcripts (censored, though) of a trial were carried live on the court's microblog. Bo brought much drama to the trial by retracting his confession, but that was not suppressed by the authorities. Since much of what happened in court was broadcast live, his trial evidenced the authorities' confidence. It also showed his procedural rights were fully respected and safeguarded.

One of the charges brought against Zhou was "intentionally divulging state secrets". As state secrets were involved, it was open to the authorities under China's criminal procedure to have him tried in camera. Therefore, that Zhou's case was heard behind closed doors in Tianjin Municipal No 1 Intermediate People's Court is beyond criticism. However, last March, President of the Supreme People's Court of China Zhou Qiang was quoted by CCTV as saying Zhou Yongkang and other senior officials above the provincial and ministerial level would be tried in open court "as stipulated by the law". That was why people expected a trial like Bo's. Things have not gone that way, and there is no way any outsider can find out what that development may presage.

In fact, given the charges against Zhou, the authorities could have had him tried in camera first for "intentionally divulging state secrets" and then in open court for accepting bribes and abusing his powers. The latter could have been broadcast live on a microblog like Bo's trial. That would have marked a new stage in China's equal treatment of corrupt officials regardless of their ranks as well as its determination to assert the judiciary's authority and uphold the spirit of the rule of law. It is a pity that the authorities have let slip such a good opportunity of gaining good publicity for themselves.

周永康案秘密審理 無助強化法治信心

內地官方傳媒昨日（11日）傍晚約6時「突然」發布消息，報道天津市第一中級人民法院依法對原政治局常委周永康進行了一審的審理和宣判，三罪並罰，周永康被判處無期徒刑。過去一段時間，內地官方在正式和非正式渠道都表示，周案將依法公開審理，國人對此拭目以待。不過，事態最新發展有反高潮意味，對於未知開審卻已認罪的判刑，不少人感到詫異。相對於薄熙來案件，周案在司法公開和透明度方面有所倒退，無助於強化國人對法治的信心。

周永康以政治局常委身分統領全國政法工作，可謂權傾一時，他涉及貪腐下馬，除了黨紀處分，還要面對國法制裁。不少人期望透過對周永康的審理，進一步強化國人對依法治國的意識和信心；可是，周案的不公開審理，又隨着周永康表明不上訴，案件已屬定讞，客觀上未能起到更大教育意義和作用，使人有點失望。

回歸約兩年前，原重慶市委書記薄熙來被控告受賄、貪污、濫用職權三項罪名的審理，透明度甚高，法院破天荒以經過篩選的微博文字，就審理過程和內容作現場「直播」。薄案因為薄熙來臨場翻供，使審理有戲劇性發展，不過當局未視為禁忌，讓大多數審理內容「直播」到法庭之外，整個過程顯示當局的信心，被告薄熙來的各項訴訟權利獲得充分尊重和保障。

周永康其中一項控罪是故意泄露國家機密，按刑事訴訟法規定，當局可以涉及國家機密為由，秘密審訊周永康。因此，當局對周案在天津第一中級人民法院進行「不公開」開庭審理，原本無可非議。問題是今年3月間，央視報道對於包括周永康在內的省部級以上的領導幹部，在進了法院是否都會公開審理的問題上引述最高法院院長周強表示會「依法公開」，人們便憧憬類似薄熙來案的審理。可是，現在事態發展並非如此，箇中轉折是否反映了什麼情况，外界無從查究。

其實，以周永康的罪名，當局若願意，倒可以先不公開審理故意泄露國家機密罪，然後才公開審理其他兩項受賄和濫用職權罪名，並按薄熙來案模式，容許微博文字「直播」。這樣的話，則打擊貪腐無層級考量，樹立司法權威、彰顯法治精神等，都可以登上新台階。這本是大好宣揚機會，卻失諸交臂，有點可惜。