理性討論梁天琦判刑 妄言政治報復損法治

<轉載自2018年6月12日 明報 社評>

旺角暴動案，本土民主前線前召集人梁天琦等3名被告，判監3年半至7年。大好青年判囚，總是令人遺憾，社會矛盾亦不會因為暴動案判刑而消失，惟香港是法治社會，反對暴力這條底線必須守住，不能以政治理念又或熱愛香港等理由，將暴力合理化甚至英雄化。近日終審法院首席法官馬道立表示，很多市民以個人定見去衡量法庭判決，忽略法庭職責是恪守法律原則。今次判刑是否過重，各界可以討論，惟不應斷章取義，動輒扯上「政治打壓」或「政治報復」，貶損香港法治精神。

只看事實不爭論政治 旺角暴動案裁決一貫

2016年旺角暴動，迄今有28人定罪，以今次判囚的盧建民和梁天琦刑期最長，分別為7年和6年。兩人的支持者質疑判刑太重，有人形容裁決是「政治報復」、「政府癲咗」，云云。3名被告若有不服可以上訴，各界對判刑輕重亦有權各抒己見，然而若要理性討論，避免引喻失義，必須先了解法官觀點，以及其他旺角暴動案裁決。

有別於近兩年定罪的案例，今次是首宗交由高院審訊的旺角暴動案件，有關安排反映案件嚴重程度不同。暴動罪在區域法院審訊，最重監禁7年，惟高院審訊最多可囚10年。看待梁天琦等人判刑，不能忽略這差異。旺角暴動案定罪者求情理由形形色色，有人說是一時衝動，有人說是貪玩，有人為了政治理念，亦有人出於仇警，然而法庭裁決相當一致，強調只講法律和事實，不會考慮政治理念或目的，作出阻嚇刑罰目的絕非「阻嚇示威」，而是要「阻嚇暴力」，法庭不接受任何將暴力合理化的藉口。

之前數宗暴動案，法官援引廿多年前白石船民中心暴動，以判囚5至6年作為量刑起點，根據具體案情判刑。今次高院判刑與之前案件有別，高院法官認為，梁、盧參與暴動，暴力程度「極其嚴重」，是「有組織有預謀」嚴重罪行，所以判囚6至7年。相比之下，去年初2男1女暴動罪成，主審法官認為被告「暴力程度中等」、無法證明3人犯案早有預謀，所以判處3年監禁。有人提到，六七暴動比旺角暴動破壞更大，惟判囚一般不過兩年，然而必須留意是，暴動罪是六七暴動後，於1970年才納入《公安條例》，訂明最高判監10年，如果相關法例六七暴動前存在，很多暴動者判刑可能重得多。《公安條例》屢惹爭議，是否需要修訂可以斟酌，惟將六七與旺角暴動判刑直接比較，是將事情過度簡化。

近年法院處理多宗牽涉政治的案件，終審法院首席法官馬道立提到，這些案件有一特點，是很多人對事件有定見，他們對法律體制的觀感，取決於他們是否滿意判決，這些人忽略了法庭職責是恪守法律，也忘記法庭只是處理法律問題。今次暴動案判刑再次突顯這情况。梁天琦等人公開支持港獨，惟法院多番強調裁決判刑不考慮政治理念，綜觀法官判辭，看不出判刑涉及政治打壓。

現今社會有一種迷思，就是以「壓迫者與被壓迫者」的二元對立角度看待所有事情，誰人不是站在「被壓迫者」一面，就是當權者「維穩工具」。本案判囚7年的被告盧建民說過，案發時對警察有偏見，認為他們是政權維穩機器。然而盧表示看法已變，明白警察有職務在身，不代表他們反民主反自由。一個多元社會的權力關係錯綜複雜，不可能只簡化為「壓迫者與被壓迫者」關係，如果有人仍然渲染這種思維，因為不滿裁決，視法庭為「維穩機器」，是對本港法治最大污衊，各界有必要警惕這種二元對立思維。

爭民主自由毋須暴力 社會有錯非百搭辯辭

梁天琦支持者認為，他是愛港有理想的年輕人，問題是市民不了解其政治理念。誠然，未必人人知道梁天琦談的《社會契約論》是什麼，可是亦不應低估大眾智慧。市民多少明白梁爭取什麼，也知道現今社會有很多不公道的地方，然而旺角暴動是香港一個分水嶺，反對暴力再獲確認為社會最大公約數。香港自由要守護、民主要爭取、不公義必須改革，然而社會共識不認為現在香港需要暴力革命將一切推倒重來。

梁的辯護律師形容，上一代香港人「貪圖逸樂」，害怕年輕人「搞亂香港」，反而梁堅持爭取民主「不放棄香港」，頗有將梁描繪為「悲劇英雄」之意，被法官質疑是否合理化暴力。每一代港人都想建設更美好香港，只是想法各有不同，沒必要搞二元對立。由聲援八九民運到反對23條立法，以及積極推動選舉政治參與投票，上一代一樣有努力爭取民主自由，絕非勇武暴力才算「為民主打拼」。

年輕人踩了暴力紅線，法院只能根據法律辦事，無法處理政治問題，深層矛盾一日不解，社會傷口一日難癒，社會動盪可以重臨。然而，即使社會環境再艱難，人人仍然有自由意志選擇是否用暴力處理事情，不能老是拿「社會的錯」又或「上一代的錯」作為辯護理由。今次高院判刑，法官表示「任何選擇參與暴動的人均是咎由自取」，有關說法語氣甚重，未必人人入耳，惟說到底不過是重申，所有人必須為自己的行為負責。

Rational discussion of Leung's sentencing needed

EDWARD Leung, former convenor of the Hong Kong Indigenous, and two other people tried for their involvement in the Mong Kok riots have been sentenced to three and a half years to seven years in prison. It is always lamentable to see promising young people being sent to jail, and the sentences will not resolve social conflicts. However, Hong Kong is a society underpinned by the rule of law, and the rejection of violence is the bottom line we should adhere to. Neither political ideals nor a love of Hong Kong should be the reason for justifying violence or heroising those who resort to it.

28 people have so far been convicted for their participation in the Mong Kok riots in 2016. Lo Kin-man and Edward Leung have been sentenced to seven and six years in jail respectively, the longest prison terms of those handed down in the case. Supporters of the duo argue that the sentences are too harsh, with some saying that the ruling is a "political revenge" and that "the government is out of its mind". The three convicted people can appeal against their convictions. All sectors of society are also allowed to express their views on whether the sentences are too harsh or too lenient. However, to engage in informed debate rather than make far-fetched arguments, it is necessary to understand the point of view of the judge and other rulings on the Mong Kok riot case.

The latest ruling, different from those over the past two years, was handed down by the High Court. It was also the first time the High Court had heard the Mong Kok riot case. These different arrangements reflect the difference in severity between those cases. If the case is heard in the District Court, rioting is punishable by a maximum of seven years' imprisonment, while in the High Court the maximum is 10 years in prison. Those who comment on Edward Leung's and others' sentencing must not ignore this fact. In mitigation the convicted defendants cited a wide array of reasons. Some said they had a rush of blood to the head. Some said they were just being mischievous. Some said they did so out of their political conviction. Some said their action originated from a hatred of the police. But the court's sentencing has shown a high degree of uniformity — it has been based on the law and the facts, with political ideals or aims not taken into consideration. The sentencing is aimed at deterring "violence" but not "demonstrations." The court has rejected any excuses that seek to justify the use of violence.

When hearing several previous cases of the Mong Kok riots, the judge cited the Whitehead detention centre riots in determining that the starting point for sentencing should be 5 to 6 years, while the actual sentencing depended on the case. The sentences handed down by the High Court differ from those in previous cases. The High Court judge has explained that Leung and Lo's participation in the riots showed a level of violence that was "extremely serious", so they were sentenced to six to seven years in prison. The two men and one woman convicted early last year, in comparison, were deemed by the presiding judge to have exercised "a medium level of violence". It was also impossible to prove that their action was premeditated. Thus, they were sentenced to three years in prison.

Whenever a young person oversteps the red line and employs violence, what the court can do is act in accordance with the law only. It cannot handle political issues. If the deep-seated conflicts remain unresolved and wounds in society remain unhealed, social turbulence could return anytime. However, no matter how difficult social conditions have become, everyone still has the free will to decide whether to employ violence to handle a matter. They cannot cite "the fault of society" or "the fault of the older generation" perpetually as their defence. Handing down the ruling in the High Court, the judge said that "those who chose to take part in a riot have themselves to blame". Perhaps such strong words are not pleasing to every ear. But they are a reminder that everyone should be responsible for what they have done.

理性討論梁天琦判刑 妄言政治報復損法治

旺角暴動案，本土民主前線前召集人梁天琦等3名被告，判監3年半至7年。大好青年判囚，總是令人遺憾，社會矛盾亦不會因為暴動案判刑而消失，惟香港是法治社會，反對暴力這條底線必須守住，不能以政治理念又或熱愛香港等理由，將暴力合理化甚至英雄化。

2016年旺角暴動，迄今有28人定罪，以今次判囚的盧建民和梁天琦刑期最長，分別為7年和6年。兩人的支持者質疑判刑太重，有人形容裁決是「政治報復」、「政府癲咗」，云云。3名被告若有不服可以上訴，各界對判刑輕重亦有權各抒己見，然而若要理性討論，避免引喻失義，必須先了解法官觀點，以及其他旺角暴動案裁決。

有別於近兩年定罪的案例，今次是首宗交由高院審訊的旺角暴動案件，有關安排反映案件嚴重程度不同。暴動罪在區域法院審訊，最重監禁7年，惟高院審訊最多可囚10年。看待梁天琦等人判刑，不能忽略這差異。旺角暴動案定罪者求情理由形形色色，有人說是一時衝動，有人說是貪玩，有人為了政治理念，亦有人出於仇警，然而法庭裁決相當一致，強調只講法律和事實，不會考慮政治理念或目的，作出阻嚇刑罰目的絕非「阻嚇示威」，而是要「阻嚇暴力」，法庭不接受任何將暴力合理化的藉口。

之前數宗暴動案，法官援引廿多年前白石船民中心暴動，以判囚5至6年作為量刑起點，根據具體案情判刑。今次高院判刑與之前案件有別，高院法官認為，梁、盧參與暴動，暴力程度「極其嚴重」，所以判囚6至7年。相比之下，去年初2男1女暴動罪成，主審法官認為被告「暴力程度中等」、無法證明3人犯案早有預謀，所以判處3年監禁。

年輕人踩了暴力紅線，法院只能根據法律辦事，無法處理政治問題，深層矛盾一日不解，社會傷口一日難癒，社會動盪可以重臨。然而，即使社會環境再艱難，人人仍然有自由意志選擇是否用暴力處理事情，不能老是拿「社會的錯」又或「上一代的錯」作為辯護理由。今次高院判刑，法官表示「任何選擇參與暴動的人均是咎由自取」，有關說法語氣甚重，未必人人入耳，惟說到底不過是重申，所有人必須為自己的行為負責。