曾健超處罰欠透明 未見理據難證秉公

<轉載自2017年10月11日 明報 社評>

「七警案」當事人曾健超遭投訴違反社工專業操守，據了解，社會工作者註冊局（下稱註冊局）最終決定書面警告曾健超，毋須停牌。由紀律聆訊委員會建議判罰停牌半年，到局方否決停牌建議，再到書面警告，事態峰迴路轉，原因何在，公眾蒙在鼓裏；上訴限期屆滿後，局方會否詳細披露駁回停牌處分等等的理據，亦屬疑問。「七警案」在社會劃下深刻傷疤，各界高度關注七警和曾健超的處分是否合情合理，註冊局如何懲處曾健超，早已並非單純是「專業界內部事務」，處分過程欠缺透明度，難以證明秉公辦理，註冊局有責任詳加說明服眾。

駁回紀律委員會建議 局方只通過書面警告

《社會工作者註冊條例》（下稱《條例》）訂明，註冊社工若裁定犯下「任何可令社會工作者專業聲譽受損的罪行」，即屬違紀。去年曾健超一項襲警及兩項拒捕罪名成立，今年撤回上訴申請，入獄服刑，意味法律訴訟告一段落，有業界人士根據《條例》向註冊局投訴。今年5月，局方轄下紀律聆訊委員會判定，曾健超不涉專業失德，令社工專業聲譽受損的投訴則成立，建議判罰停牌半年。可是之後註冊局兩次大會，對於如何處罰曾健超，遲遲未有定案。據了解，本周局方再度開會，最終在「內部分歧」之下通過書面警告了事。

整個紀律聆訊處分程序持續約半年，一直閉門進行，強調保密原則，沒有透明度可言，除了與會人士會後披露的小量信息，外界無從得知葫蘆裏賣什麼藥，莫說處罰決定的詳細理據，就連基本處罰內容也要等待3個月司法上訴期完結，才能正式公開。理論上，曾健超可以就處罰向法院提出上訴，其他人亦可以提出司法覆核，惟從註冊局內部投訴機制而論，今次處罰可以理解為局方最終決定。

曾健超與七警案在社會引起廣泛迴響，書面警告處罰是否恰如其分，難免惹來議論。綜合註冊局會議後的消息，以及曾健超支持者的說法，主張「毋須停牌」觀點大抵有三﹕一、曾健超雖然犯法違紀，惟行動是「爭取公義」；二、曾健超干犯的定罪案件，不屬註冊局訂明必須取消牌照的項目；三、事件關乎未來社工會否因為「政治原因」遭除牌，不能打開缺口。三個觀點均值得商榷。

首先，社運人士刑期覆核案，上訴庭已就「違法達義」作出清晰批判。「公義」是政治主張，人人看法不盡相同，如果為了追求心目中的「公義」，可以使用任何手段，社會必然大亂。早前七警提出保釋申請等候上訴，上訴庭認為七警沒有推翻定罪的機會，惟同時亦批評曾健超潑液行為挑釁、傲慢和具攻擊性，若說潑液是「爭取公義」，未免匪夷所思。

其次，《條例》附表二列出一系列「令某人不能擔任或不能繼續擔任註冊社會工作者的罪行」，包括性侵、謀殺、嚴重傷人、虐兒等重罪，曾健超案不涉其中，可是《條例》也沒有說明，「只有」違犯這些重罪才可判罰停牌。附件二所羅列的，應當理解為必須「永久停牌」或「永不錄用」的重罪，不能跟判罰暫時停牌混為一談。局方的社工註冊申請文件，除了要求申請人提交基本個人資料，還有一項核心要求，就是要申請人提交法定聲明，列明曾否被控、定罪及判監，說明社工專業相當重視社工是否有刑事案底，沒理由突然「搬龍門」。

不應政治原因除牌 勿因政治網開一面

第三，社工不應因為「政治原因」遭除牌，惟亦不應因為「政治原因」獲得網開一面，無論打開兩者任何一個缺口，同樣遺害深遠。社工界有聲音認為曾健超的個案較為特別，參與的事件與社工價值相符，最後卻要承擔刑罰，沒有先例可援，註冊局陷入政治兩難，罰與不罰都會被不同政治陣營批評。有關說法存在不少謬誤。向警潑液是挑釁行為，不是社工核心價值；個案特殊和政治困難均非關鍵，最重要是以理服人，秉公辦理。就像法庭裁決一樣，只要理據充分，雖千萬人吾往矣；倘若自反而不縮，雖褐寬博，吾不惴焉？

註冊局大會合共15人，7人屬政府委任成員及社署代表，8人屬業界代表，曾健超是其中之一。據了解曾健超在討論違紀裁決期間一直避席，大會討論懲罰一度膠着，原因是投票多次出現7比7的局面。由早前局方駁回停牌建議，到今次書面警告處罰，究竟裁決是講道理講憑據，還是委員們「屁股決定腦袋」，除非局方披露詳情，否則外界無從判斷，疑團亦無法消除。一個社會「禮崩樂壞」，就是不再講道理和準則。曾健超個案真正特殊之處，是它早已不止是社工界內部事務，而是社會普遍關注的事件，關乎註冊局公信力，局方應向社會說清楚裁決理據及前因後果，不應以「業界內部事務」作為擋箭牌。

Ken Tsang's punishment

A complaint was filed against Ken Tsang (the victim of the seven-policemen case) that he breached social workers' code of professional conduct. We gather that the Social Workers Registration Board (the Board) has eventually decided Tsang be given a written warning and his licence should not be suspended. The disciplinary panel suggested that his licence be suspended for half a year. Now the Board has rejected that suggestion in favour of giving him a written warning. What has caused the twist? The public has been kept in the dark. And it is doubtful that the Board will disclose in detail the grounds for rejecting that suggestion when the appeal period expires. The seven-policemen case has left in society a deep scar, and people very much concern themselves with whether the seven police officers and Tsang have been properly punished. It is no longer purely the profession's internal matter what punishment the Board should have meted out to Tsang. The process of determining the punishment seems too opaque to evidence the Board's impartiality in handling the case. The Board is obligated to convince citizens of its impartiality by giving them a detailed account.

Judging from what has transpired and what Tsang's supporters have said in the wake of the Board's meeting, those who are against "suspension" have basically proffered three views — (1) that Tsang did what he did to "fight for justice" though he broke the law; (2) that the offence of which Tsang was convicted is not among those which the Board has expressly said would certainly lead to the revocation of social worker licences; and (3) that the floodgate must not be opened as the matter has to do with whether any social worker's licence should be suspended for any "political reason". All of the three views are open to question.

First, in reviewing the sentences handed down to social activists, the Court of Appeal clearly criticised "achieving justice by violating the law". What is "just" has to do with political advocacy and one's view on justice may differ from another's. Chaos will certainly reign in a place where one may go to any length to achieve what is "just" in one's mind's eye. The Court of Appeal criticised Tsang's splashing of a liquid as provocative, arrogant and aggressive. It is unimaginable to say he "sought to achieve justice" when he poured the liquid.

Second, in Schedule II of the Social Workers Registration Ordinance are listed a number of offences which "disentitle persons from being or continuing to be registered social workers". The offence of which Tsang was convicted is not among them. However, the Ordinance does not say only those guilty of any of those felonies will see their licences revoked. The offences listed in Schedule II should be seen as felonies that lead to the permanent revocation of a social worker's licence or his or her permanent disqualification. Temporary suspension must not be confused with permanent suspension.

Third, as no social worker's licence should be suspended for any "political reason", so no social worker should be allowed for any "political reason" to get away with committing any offence. It is equally harmful to open either floodgate. It is provocative to splash police officers with a liquid. Such behaviour has nothing to do with social workers' core values. It is not crucial that the case is special or there are political difficulties. What matters most is to convince the public with reasoning and deal with such cases fairly and impartially.

The Board rejected the "suspension" suggestion and has now decided to have Tsang punished with a written warning. Is this ruling based on reasonable grounds? Do the members of the Board "allow their heads to be dictated to by their respective bottoms"? There is no way one can come to one's judgement or dispel one's doubts unless the Board discloses details. It is because principles and benchmarks are ignored that "the rites may collapse and music be marred". What is special about the Tsang case is that it came long ago to be not just the profession's internal affair. It has to do with the Board's credibility. Instead of lurking behind the "internal affairs of the profession" shield, the Board should clearly tell society on what its decision is based, what has caused it to arrive at that decision and what consequences that decision may have.

曾健超處罰欠透明 未見理據難證秉公

「七警案」當事人曾健超遭投訴違反社工專業操守，據了解，社會工作者註冊局（下稱註冊局）最終決定書面警告曾健超，毋須停牌。由紀律聆訊委員會建議判罰停牌半年，到局方否決停牌建議，再到書面警告，事態峰迴路轉，原因何在，公眾蒙在鼓裏；上訴限期屆滿後，局方會否詳細披露駁回停牌處分等等的理據，亦屬疑問。「七警案」在社會劃下深刻傷疤，各界高度關注七警和曾健超的處分是否合情合理，註冊局如何懲處曾健超，早已並非單純是「專業界內部事務」，處分過程欠缺透明度，難以證明秉公辦理，註冊局有責任詳加說明服眾。

綜合註冊局會議後的消息，以及曾健超支持者的說法，主張「毋須停牌」觀點大抵有三﹕一、曾健超雖然犯法違紀，惟行動是「爭取公義」；二、曾健超干犯的定罪案件，不屬註冊局訂明必須取消牌照的項目；三、事件關乎未來社工會否因為「政治原因」遭除牌，不能打開缺口。三個觀點均值得商榷。

首先，社運人士刑期覆核案，上訴庭已就「違法達義」作出清晰批判。「公義」是政治主張，人人看法不盡相同，如果為了追求心目中的「公義」，可以使用任何手段，社會必然大亂。早前七警提出保釋申請等候上訴，上訴庭認為七警沒有推翻定罪的機會，惟同時亦批評曾健超潑液行為挑釁、傲慢和具攻擊性，若說潑液是「爭取公義」，未免匪夷所思。

其次，《社會工作者註冊條例》附表二列出一系列「令某人不能擔任或不能繼續擔任註冊社會工作者的罪行」，可是《條例》也沒有說明，「只有」違犯這些重罪才可判罰停牌。附件二所羅列的，應當理解為必須「永久停牌」或「永不錄用」的重罪，不能跟判罰暫時停牌混為一談。

第三，社工不應因為「政治原因」遭除牌，惟亦不應因為「政治原因」獲得網開一面，無論打開兩者任何一個缺口，同樣遺害深遠。向警潑液是挑釁行為，不是社工核心價值；個案特殊和政治困難均非關鍵，最重要是以理服人，秉公辦理。

由早前局方駁回停牌建議，到今次書面警告處罰，究竟裁決是講道理講憑據，還是委員們「屁股決定腦袋」，除非局方披露詳情，否則外界無從判斷，疑團亦無法消除。一個社會「禮崩樂壞」，就是不再講道理和準則。曾健超個案真正特殊之處，是它早已不止是社工界內部事務，而是社會普遍關注的事件，關乎註冊局公信力，局方應向社會說清楚裁決理據及前因後果，不應以「業界內部事務」作為擋箭牌。