七警罪成公義獲彰顯 警隊社會關係須擺正

<轉載自2017年2月15日 明報 社評>

2014年佔領運動期間，7名警員毆打曾健超一案（下稱七警案），法官裁定全部被告「襲擊致造成身體傷害」罪名成立。由案發前曾健超向警察淋潑異味液體挑釁，到之後7名警員將他帶往暗角毆打，攝影鏡頭捕捉了事發經過，鐵證如山，無論是今次七警定罪，還是去年曾健超被控襲警及拒捕罪成，均是合理判決，彰顯法治。近年香港社會嚴重撕裂，警民對峙頻仍，曾健超與七警案只是一個標誌象徵，多宗牽涉警民暴力的個案尚待處理。每宗案件得到秉公辦理，都有助社會傷口癒合，雖然過程痛苦漫長，不少人將因為昔日一時衝動而毁了前途，留下難以磨滅的烙印，然而最重要的是社會各方能汲取教訓，銘記暴力不能解決問題，不要重蹈覆轍。

警隊須加強管束 勿露「野性獠牙」

佔領運動距今已有兩年多，有意見認為，七警案拖得太久，裁決來得很遲，不過司法審訊最重要的是公平公正、毋枉毋縱。審訊期間辯方曾提出，案發現場的7人不一定是抬走曾健超的同一批警員，加上抬人過程中，鏡頭有49 秒被擋，不排除有其他可能性，云云。然而法官裁決時強調，反覆翻看所有新聞錄影片段，包括逐格及慢鏡翻看所有影片確認片中人身分，認為證據確鑿，不存在合理疑點，又提到雖然第一第二被告沒有參與襲擊，惟每名警員都有責任停止其他人犯法，同僚犯法亦然。法官明察秋毫，詭辯無所遁形。今次裁決再次證明香港司法制度值得市民信賴。

辯方律師求情時表示，佔領運動期間，警員不僅要長時間執勤，更常被示威者辱罵挑釁，逾百同僚受傷，心理壓力可想而知，7名被告過去都盡忠職守，刑事罪名成立已是很大懲罰，希望法官量刑時能考慮到是曾健超挑釁襲警在先。誠然，去年曾健超定罪時，裁判官曾批評他向警員淋潑異味液體是「極大侮辱和挑釁」，將警員當成「出氣袋」，不過警員面對各式挑釁，無論如何憤怒，都應保持克制。7名警員被告因為一時衝動而自毀前途，實屬可悲可惜，但是犯錯就是犯錯，不能逃避責任。案件本周五判刑，相信法官自然會從法、理、情的角度好好衡量。

警隊是香港最主要的武裝力量，負責除暴安良，惟一旦失去自制，很容易露出「野性的獠牙」，七警案的慘痛教訓，希望警隊上下都銘記於心。與此同時，社會人士也應思考，如何重新擺正警隊與社會的關係。近年香港街頭示威鬥爭激烈，警隊成為磨心，常被示威者冠以「黑警」惡名。樹大有枯枝，警隊中難免有不肖者，必須加以整頓，惟一竹篙打一船人、煽動仇警情緒，恐怕亦非正確態度，徒然加深警民對立。

佔領運動期間，七警暗角打人的新聞片段，跟前警司朱經緯涉嫌毆打途人的網上影片，無疑令人震驚，然而去年年初一深夜旺角暴亂中，不法之徒毒打倒地警員的新聞畫面，同樣叫人側目，悲嘆為何香港淪落至此。文明社會不應鼓勵暴力社會大眾並不希望這種寃寃相報的惡性循環繼續下去。要擺正警隊與社會關係、撫平社會撕裂創傷，必須先讓公義公道得到伸張。朱經緯涉嫌打人一事，當局是否檢控，早晚必須交代；去年旺角暴亂中目無法紀的不法之徒，亦應面對法律制裁。追究責任的目的，不應該是為了報仇雪恨，而是讓社會各界汲取教訓。

追究責任非報復 渲染仇警要不得

過去數年警民對峙頻生，暴力如癌細胞般擴散蔓延，製造了一場又一場悲劇，不少人因此付上沉痛代價。七警前途固然毀於一旦，曾健超因襲警拒捕罪成判囚5周，社工生涯亦可能要畫上句號。去年旺角暴亂，一名性格衝動的17歲少年，因為向軍裝警員掟磚導致他人受傷，上月被判接受感化18個月，令人惋惜；公開大學一名學生，在立法會前年底二讀《版權（修訂）條例草案》期間，因為攜帶爆炸品到附近，本月初判囚3月，被告聞判後在犯人欄激動嚎哭，同樣叫人心酸。2014年立法會審議新界東北發展工程撥款，多名示威者以竹枝強行撬開大樓玻璃門，發起暴力衝擊，最終判處社會服務令，上月高院法官駁回其中5人上訴，特別提到上訴方「輕言暴政正在形成」、「民眾有權抗暴」，很容易淪為濫用暴力的藉口，觀點不能接受。

沒有市民希望再見到有警員一時「火遮眼」濫用暴力，又或再有大好青年因為一時偏執輕狂自毁前程。警隊高層有必要加強管束和提醒警員知所分寸，不能任意妄為；與此同時，社會上一些不分青紅皂白、渲染仇警情緒的操作亦應止息，讓警隊與社會的關係有重新擺正的機會。

Justice is served in case of seven police officers

THE SEVEN POLICE OFFICERS who assaulted Ken Tsang — an activist who participated in the 2014 Occupy movement — were found guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm yesterday. As the whole incident — from Tsang's provocative splashing of odourous liquid on police officers to the seven policemen's dragging him to a dark corner, where he was beaten up subsequently — had already been caught on film, the evidence against the seven policemen was irrefutable. Our courts have upheld the rule of law with their fair judgements by convicting not only the seven police officers (of the above crimes), but also Tsang himself last year (of assaulting police and resisting arrest). That said, the cases of the seven police and Tsang are only one of the many symbols of the deep divisions and police-citizen confrontations Hong Kong society has witnessed in recent years, since a number of cases involving police-citizen violence have yet to be heard. If every case is handled in a just manner, it will help heal the wounds in society. It will be a long and excruciating process, as many people will see their future go to ruins because of the rashness of their actions, and will be scarred for life. Nevertheless, what society needs to know is that violence is never a solution to problems, and that it must not repeat the same mistakes.

Some people are of the opinion that the hearing of the seven policemen's case had dragged on for too long and should have been decided a long time ago, as it is already two years after the Occupy movement. But we are convinced that a fair trial is more important than anything. During the court hearing, the defence argued that the seven individuals who handcuffed and lifted Tsang could have been other police officers, and that as the camera was blocked for 49 seconds in the footage concerned, there could have been other possibilities. However, in the ruling he delivered, the judge stressed that by reviewing all the footage frame-by-frame and in slow motion, one could ascertain the identities of those people and conclude that the evidence against the seven police was rock-solid. Though the first and second defendants did not take part in the attack, every police officer had the responsibility to stop anyone — including their colleagues — from committing a crime, argued the judge. With his judiciousness, the judge exposed all the sophistry of the defendants. The ruling has once again demonstrated the trustworthiness of Hong Kong's legal system.

In mitigation, the defence said that the police were conceivably under pressure during the Occupy movement from the long duty hours, protesters' provocations and the fact that over a hundred of their colleagues had been injured. However, a police officer has to exercise restraint no matter how infuriated he is from all sorts of provocations he or she receives. True, it is lamentable to see that seven policemen have destroyed their futures with their own hands by acting rashly. But a mistake is a mistake, and there is no way they can shift the blame. We expect the judge to make a decision that will not only be in the spirit of the law and reasonable but also show sympathy when he passes sentence on Friday.

As the major armed force of Hong Kong, the police are responsible for tackling criminals and protecting good citizens. If they fail to exercise restraint, they become the "wild ones". The lamentable lesson of the seven officers must be learnt by police officers of every rank. But the public should at the same time contemplate the ways to mend their relationship with the police force. There are bound to be black sheep in the police force, and they should be disciplined. But stereotyping or stirring up hostility towards the police will only worsen the antagonism between the police and citizens.

The footage of seven policemen beating up a citizen, as well as that of Franklin Chu, a former superintendent, lashing passers-by with a baton is undoubtedly shocking. However, scenes of rioters violently attacking policemen who were down on the ground in the Mong Kok unrest (which occurred on the Chinese New Year Day in 2016) were equally unsettling. Violence must never be supported in a civilised society. Neither does the public want our society to fall into the vicious cycle of tit for tat.

七警罪成公義獲彰顯 警隊社會關係須擺正

2014年佔領運動期間，7名警員毆打曾健超一案（下稱七警案），法官裁定全部被告「襲擊致造成身體傷害」罪名成立。由案發前曾健超向警察淋潑異味液體挑釁，到之後7名警員將他帶往暗角毆打，攝影鏡頭捕捉了事發經過，鐵證如山，無論是今次七警定罪，還是去年曾健超被控襲警及拒捕罪成，均是合理判決，彰顯法治。近年香港社會嚴重撕裂，警民對峙頻仍，曾健超與七警案只是一個標誌象徵，多宗牽涉警民暴力的個案尚待處理。每宗案件得到秉公辦理，都有助社會傷口癒合，雖然過程痛苦漫長，不少人將因為昔日一時衝動而毁了前途，留下難以磨滅的烙印，然而最重要的是社會各方能汲取教訓，銘記暴力不能解決問題，不要重蹈覆轍。

佔領運動距今已有兩年多，有意見認為，七警案拖得太久，裁決來得很遲，不過司法審訊最重要的是公平公正。審訊期間辯方曾提出，案發現場的7人不一定是抬走曾健超的同一批警員，加上抬人過程中，鏡頭有49 秒被擋，不排除有其他可能性，云云。然而法官裁決時強調，反覆翻看所有新聞錄影片段，包括逐格及慢鏡翻看所有影片確認片中人身分，認為證據確鑿，又提到雖然第一第二被告沒有參與襲擊，惟每名警員都有責任停止其他人犯法，同僚犯法亦然。法官明察秋毫，詭辯無所遁形。今次裁決再次證明香港司法制度值得市民信賴。

辯方律師求情時表示，佔領運動期間，警員不僅要長時間執勤，更常被示威者辱罵挑釁，逾百同僚受傷，心理壓力可想而知。不過警員面對各式挑釁，無論如何憤怒，都應保持克制。7名警員被告因為一時衝動而自毀前途，實屬可悲可惜，但是犯錯就是犯錯，不能逃避責任。案件本周五判刑，相信法官自然會從法、理、情的角度好好衡量。

警隊是香港最主要的武裝力量，負責除暴安良，惟一旦失去自制，很容易露出「野性的獠牙」，七警案的慘痛教訓，希望警隊上下都銘記於心。與此同時，社會人士也應思考，如何重新擺正警隊與社會的關係。樹大有枯枝，警隊中難免有不肖者，必須加以整頓，惟一竹篙打一船人、煽動仇警情緒，徒然加深警民對立。

七警暗角打人的新聞片段，跟前警司朱經緯涉嫌毆打途人的網上影片，無疑令人震驚，然而去年年初一深夜旺角暴亂中，不法之徒毒打倒地警員的新聞畫面，同樣叫人側目。文明社會不應鼓勵暴力，社會大眾並不希望這種寃寃相報的惡性循環繼續下去。