武器在手勿濫用 朱經緯案成警惕

<轉載自2017年12月19日 明報 社評>

退休警司朱經緯以警棍擊打市民鄭仲恒，被控襲擊致造成身體傷害罪，罪名成立。朱案是繼七警案之後，另一宗牽涉警員濫用武力的佔領運動案件，備受社會關注，雖然辯方一再強調，朱經緯「真誠」相信要維持法治，有需要行使「合法權力」，阻止旺角再被佔領，然而觀乎事發片段，看不到朱非揮棍不可。警隊是香港最主要武裝力量，負責除暴安良，一旦自制自律稍為放鬆，很容易露出「野性的獠牙」，朱案是一個警惕，提醒警隊必須時刻冷靜克制，不可濫用手中武器。

未見「以武止暴」需要 維護法紀不是藉口

事隔3年，佔領運動仍是不少人心中的一根刺，總有人覺得自己眼中的公義公道未獲伸張，朱經緯定罪再次觸碰社會撕裂傷口，惹來熱烈議論亦是理所當然。過去數年，部分示威者和警員行事失去分寸，動搖了法治根基，孰可做孰不可做，界線變得模糊，目前法院所做的，正是透過審理一宗又一宗的敏感案件，重新劃清界線，過程無疑漫長痛苦，可是無法迴避。社會經歷了七警案、新界東北案和雙學三子案的洗禮，各界看待法院裁決應當更為成熟，當事人不服可以上訴，不同人對判決可以有不同意見，惟必須尊重法治，不應胡亂詆譭法官，更不能信口雌黃質疑政治立場影響裁決。

朱案與七警案均牽涉濫用武力問題，不過兩案又有微妙分別。七警案明顯涉及私刑報復，「暗角」圍毆，見不得光，朱案則是在人潮洶湧、眾目睽睽之下發生。辯方強調當時大批市民在旺角彌敦道一帶蓄意慢行，企圖再次佔領旺角，形勢嚴峻，朱經緯只是一心維護法紀，「真誠」相信需要使用武力，阻止佔領，揮棍亦「點到即止」，沒有傷害鄭仲恒的意圖。簡言之，朱案關鍵是朱經緯是否合理使用武力，揮棍行為又有否令鄭仲恒受傷。

朱經緯庭上自辯，聲稱真正路過者，不會身處鄭仲恒當時的位置，鄭並非一般途人，而是「暴民一分子」，即使沒有戴口罩或安全帽，不代表他不是示威者。不管鄭仲恒為何出現於人潮之中，可是當時鄭位處行人路，並非法院頒布的禁制令範圍，他亦正在按照警方指示離開，既沒有手持武器，也未見任何挑釁侵略動作，看不到警方需要先發制人「以武止暴」。朱經緯聲稱，鄭仲恒對其他警員有敵意行為，惟呈堂影片未見確鑿證據，倒是朱揮棍打向鄭背後，卻是鐵證如山。

案情對辯方較為有利的，是鄭仲恒事隔兩日才去求醫，負責醫生作供，指出鄭仲恒頸部傷勢屬橫向，與被告垂直揮棍方式並不脗合。辯方力圖論證朱深懂揮棍輕重之道，質疑鄭以案發前已有的傷勢誣衊，惟裁判官認為有關說法缺乏憑據，鄭遲了兩天求醫亦不影響供辭可信度。日後辯方上訴，究竟會提出哪些法律觀點，現階段無從得知，就算朱經緯揮棍真是「點到即止」，不足以令人嚴重受傷，可是警方使用警棍的指引，要求擊打不會構成重大傷害的位置，諸如大腿和前臂等，朱擊打鄭的背部，明顯有違反指引之嫌。

朱經緯在警隊服務35年間，見過不少「大場面」，由1990年代越南難民暴動、2003年七一大遊行，再到2014年佔領行動，未料臨退休前卻犯下大錯，一失足成千古恨。朱庭上自辯，堅稱執勤恪守中立，與所有參與佔領運動者無仇無怨，他關心的是行動底線、法律底線及社會秩序有無越過，然而諷刺是其揮棍行為卻過了火位，被裁定超越法律和行動底線。不管意圖或理想說得有多崇高，不當行為依舊不當，不會因為目標動機而變得合理。

朱案由發生至定罪，足足有1118天，是否拖得太久，不同政治立場人士看法未必相同。佔領運動支持者當然覺得這是「太遲來的公義」，可是反對者也可能覺得，佔旺藐視法庭案至今年仍未悉數判刑，一樣拖得太久。不過朱案由警方收到投訴，到今年3月正式提出檢控，過程確有可商榷之處，例如前年警方完成調查報告，向監警會提出「警棍是手臂延伸」，又無視影片證據，硬將「毆打」指控列為「無法證實」，與監警會拉鋸多時，難免令市民覺得警方護短。如何避免再有類似情况，值得當局認真檢討。

時刻警惕「野性獠牙」警民關係重新上路

激烈街頭示威令警隊成為了磨心。警隊中難免有不肖者，必須整頓，惟一竹篙打一船人，煽動仇警情緒，亦非正確態度。七警與朱經緯定罪，對警隊是一個深刻教訓，亦應該是警民關係改善重新上路的起步點。警隊有權合法使用武力，目的是儆惡懲奸除暴安良，警員有武器在手，就有責任小心運用，絕不能向一般市民展露「野性的獠牙」，無論警員身處現場環境如何惡劣，都必須時刻保持冷靜克制，絕對不能因為一時火遮眼，錯向市民使用武力。

Lesson from the baton assault conviction

RETIRED POLICE SUPERINTENDENT Franklin Chu King-wai has been found guilty of assault occasioning actual body harm to Osman Cheng Chung-hang, a citizen. The Chu case has drawn wide concern because it is the second one involving police using excessive force during the Occupy Movement, the first being the seven-officer case. The defence stressed more than once that Chu "genuinely and honestly" believed that, to maintain law and order and prevent protesters from re-occupying Mong Kok, it was necessary to use "legitimate powers". However, video footage shows he was not in such circumstances that he could not but wield his baton. As Hong Kong's major armed force, the police are charged with fighting crime and protecting people. Officers may easily show their "ferocious fangs" if they are slightly lax in their self-restraint and self-discipline. To police officers, the Chu case is one they should take warning from. It reminds them they must always remain calm and restrained and never misuse the weapons they have.

It is three years since the Occupy Movement took place, but it remains a thorn in many a heart. Some indeed feel what is in their eyes justice has yet to be done. It is a matter of course for Chu's conviction, which again touches the wound of societal rift, to have aroused heated discussions. Over the past few years, certain protesters and police officers have acted improperly. Such behaviour shakes the foundation of the rule of law. The line between what is permissible and what is not has been blurred. What the court is doing now is exactly to re-draw the line by way of hearing one sensitive case after another. The process is doubtless lengthy and painful, but it must not be avoided.

In defending himself at court, Chu insisted he had scrupulously abided by the principle of neutrality when he was on duty and he harboured no grudge against any participant in the movement. He said his only concern was whether people crossed the bottom line of law or that of social order in taking action. Ironically, he crossed the line when he wielded his baton and has been found to have overstepped the bottom line of law and that of action. No matter how noble one's intention or wish may be said to be, one's misconduct is misconduct. It would never become justified because of one's purpose or motive.

It took a good 1,118 days to convict Chu after the incident had occurred. Did it drag on for too long? People with different political stances may have different views. The complaint against Chu was filed with the police a long time ago. Not until last March was he prosecuted. The process is surely questionable. For example, in an investigation report the police submitted to the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC), it was argued that "the baton is the extension of the arm", the evidence shown in some video footage was ignored, and the allegation of "assault" was obstinately called "unprovable". The police had a protracted seesaw struggle with IPCC. Citizens cannot but feel the force was trying to shield misconduct. It is worth the authorities' while to conduct a serious review with a view to preventing similar situations.

The police are caught in the middle when a vehement street protest takes place. It is unavoidable that there are black sheep in the force. A shake-up is necessary. But it is not right to tar all police officers with the same brush and instigate hostility towards the police. While the seven officers' and Chu's convictions are to the police force a profound lesson, they also serve as a point at which efforts should again be made to improve police-public relations. Police officers have the power to use force lawfully for the purpose of fighting crime and protecting people. But police officers are obligated to employ the weapons they have in their hands cautiously. They must never show their "ferocious fangs" to ordinary citizens. However badly they may be situated, police officers should always remain calm and restrained. Never should they be so blinded by fury as to use force against citizens in a wrong way.

武器在手勿濫用 朱經緯案成警惕

退休警司朱經緯以警棍擊打市民鄭仲恒，被控襲擊致造成身體傷害罪，罪名成立。朱案是繼七警案之後，另一宗牽涉警員濫用武力的佔領運動案件，備受社會關注，雖然辯方一再強調，朱經緯「真誠」相信要維持法治，有需要行使「合法權力」，阻止旺角再被佔領，然而觀乎事發片段，看不到朱非揮棍不可。警隊是香港最主要武裝力量，負責除暴安良，一旦自制自律稍為放鬆，很容易露出「野性的獠牙」，朱案是一個警惕，提醒警隊必須時刻冷靜克制，不可濫用手中武器。

事隔3年，佔領運動仍是不少人心中的一根刺，總有人覺得自己眼中的公義公道未獲伸張，朱經緯定罪再次觸碰社會撕裂傷口，惹來熱烈議論亦是理所當然。過去數年，部分示威者和警員行事失去分寸，動搖了法治根基，孰可做孰不可做，界線變得模糊，目前法院所做的，正是透過審理一宗又一宗的敏感案件，重新劃清界線，過程無疑漫長痛苦，可是無法迴避。

朱庭上自辯，堅稱執勤恪守中立，與所有參與佔領運動者無仇無怨，他關心的是行動底線、法律底線及社會秩序有無越過，然而諷刺是其揮棍行為卻過了火位，被裁定超越法律和行動底線。不管意圖或理想說得有多崇高，不當行為依舊不當，不會因為目標動機而變得合理。

朱案由發生至定罪，足足有1118天，是否拖得太久，不同政治立場人士看法未必相同。不過朱案由警方收到投訴，到今年3月正式提出檢控，過程確有可商榷之處，例如前年警方完成調查報告，向監警會提出「警棍是手臂延伸」，又無視影片證據，硬將「毆打」指控列為「無法證實」，與監警會拉鋸多時，難免令市民覺得警方護短。如何避免再有類似情况，值得當局認真檢討。

激烈街頭示威令警隊成為了磨心。警隊中難免有不肖者，必須整頓，惟一竹篙打一船人，煽動仇警情緒，亦非正確態度。七警與朱經緯定罪，對警隊是一個深刻教訓，亦應該是警民關係改善重新上路的起步點。警隊有權合法使用武力，目的是儆惡懲奸除暴安良，警員有武器在手，就有責任小心運用，絕不能向一般市民展露「野性的獠牙」，無論警員身處現場環境如何惡劣，都必須時刻保持冷靜克制，絕對不能因為一時火遮眼，錯向市民使用武力。