<轉載自2018年8月24日 明報 社評>
前行政長官梁振英女兒梁頌昕「行李門」風波，有空中服務員不滿機管局容許梁頌昕毋須「同行同檢」，提出司法覆核，獲高等法院裁定勝訴。乘客與行李「同行同檢」是最佳安排，當日機管局的處理明顯有違指引。當局在司法覆核聆訊前不動聲色修改指引，改變「同行同檢」規定，不僅有欠光明磊落，更有文過飾非之嫌。機場行李安檢關乎所有乘客及機組人員安全，不能有絲毫鬆懈，不應隨便酌情做壞規矩。當局不能為了應付一時官司，放棄行之有效做法，應該還原「同行同檢」規定，維持最嚴格安檢標準。
「行李門」覆核裁定違規 政府修改指引打茅波
2016年3月，梁頌昕離港時，遺下一件手提行李在機場禁區外。機管局允許航空公司職員代送行李入禁區，並在梁頌昕不在場下通過行李安檢。事後機管局提交報告，承認當時航空公司職員向機管局尋求協助，有特別提及事件涉及行政長官女兒，惟強調事件沒有違反機場保安規定，亦沒有違反國際航空安全標準，機管局沒有特事特辦。有空中服務員質疑做法違反「同行同檢」，提出司法覆核，挑戰機管局決定。
根據高院頒下的判辭，所謂「沒有違反機場保安規定」的說法，明顯站不住腳。當日機管局提出很多說法，否認特事特辦，諸如過去一直有所謂「酌情送遞」的做法，機管局和航空公司可視乎人手，酌情安排職員將行李送入禁區交予乘客，局方還聲稱在2015年3月至2016年3月間，有517宗類似個案，當中有40宗涉及小型手提行李，云云，然而當時已有人指出，有關做法只是針對失物處理，所謂「類似個案」大多數是交還旅遊證件、銀包、電子產品和衣物等，與梁頌昕個案的性質截然不同。今次高院判辭斬釘截鐵提到，事發時的航空保安指引清晰規定，保安人員用X光儀器檢查行李，乘客必須在場。裁決結果令人質疑當局一直以來的說法是否砌辭狡辯，不斷鑽制度的空子。
這宗司法覆核案件令人側目之處，是機管局在庭上突然透露，當局在聆訊前兩個月修訂了《香港航空保安計劃》第6.2.10段及第6.2.11段條文，將「所有手提行李必須與乘客同行同檢」，改為首檢毋須同行同檢， 覆檢時乘客才必須在場。辯方聲稱，條文修改後，這場覆核已成「學術討論」，再無討論必要，企圖以此說服法庭撤銷覆核申請。當局這次修改指引，事前鮮有人知曉，修訂後亦未有盡快通知空勤人員總工會，做法毫不光明磊落，更有敗壞規矩「搬龍門打茅波」之嫌。高院判辭也提到，當局在法庭受理司法覆核後才修改相關指引，明顯是要針對今次訴訟。
特權疑雲一再出現 政府必須秉公辦事
機場安檢的目標，是確保乘客和機組人員安全，沒理由為了應付一場官司，作出全無必要的修改，將不理想的做法恆常化。「同行同檢」多年來行之有效，論保安嚴謹程度肯定比新規定優勝。高院判辭就指出，「同行同檢」不會損害或降低安全保障，反而令到安檢程序更加順暢及有效率。辯方聲稱「同行同檢」執行「有困難」，修改條文旨在「提高保安系統效率」，說法離奇荒謬。政府和機管局有必要好好回應高院判辭，就修改指引一事，向公眾作出合理和有說服力的解釋。
辯方質疑，申請人提呈司法覆核有政治考慮，當事人若非時任特首之女，而是普通乘客，根本不會引發今次訴訟。問題是申請人的個人政治立場，根本不是案件重點，整件事的核心，是機管局有否違反指引。當日機管局容許梁頌昕不需「同行同檢」，不管原因是有人施加壓力，還是有人怕惹麻煩曲意逢迎，總而言之都是不恰當的決定，當局事後修改條例但求自圓其說，更是錯上加錯。當局應該承認錯誤，還原指引，恢復同行同檢。
除了梁頌昕行李事件，今年5月立法會議員馬逢國在機場接受安檢，搜出一瓶200克裝髮膠，超出只能盛載100毫升液體的規定，惟最終仍獲准放行，事後同樣惹來市民非議。兩宗事件表面似乎只是茶杯裏的風波，實際卻關乎市民對當局優待權貴的懷疑，就算得益者並非刻意索要特權，然而看在市民眼裏，觀感實在很差。政府部門和公營機構必須秉公辦事，對所有人一視同仁，不能假酌情之名，縱容特權。
The High Court's ruling on "baggage gate"
THE "baggage gate" incident involving Leung Chung-yan, former
Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying's daughter, prompted some flight attendants, who
were unhappy with the Airport Authority's decision to allow her to circumvent
the requirement for cabin baggage to undergo security checks together with the
passenger, to file for judicial review. The High Court has ruled in favour of
them. The requirement in question is the best arrangement possible. It is
obvious that the way the Airport Authority handled the matter was in violation
of the regulations. The authorities amended the regulations surreptitiously
before the case was heard by the court and changed the requirement in question.
Such an action displayed a lack of openness and candour, leading to suspicions
that the authorities were trying to gloss over the matter.
In March 2016 Leung Chung-yan was departing from Hong Kong and left a
piece of luggage outside the restricted area. The Airport Authority allowed
staff members of the airline to carry the luggage on Leung's behalf into the
restricted area and a security check on the luggage was conducted without
Leung's presence. Later, the Airport Authority submitted a report and admitted
that staff members of the airline sought help from the Airport Authority and
specifically mentioned that the Chief Executive's daughter was involved in the
incident. But the authority stressed that neither the security regulations of
the airport nor international flight safety standards were breached. The
authority also said that a special arrangement was not made to deal with a
special situation. Some flight attendants, however, argued that the Airport
Authority violated the requirement for cabin baggage to undergo security checks
together with the passenger. They filed for judicial review to challenge the
Airport Authority's decision.
What is most outrageous about the case is that the Airport Authority
disclosed out of the blue that the authorities had amended sections 6.2.10 and
6.2.11 of the Hong Kong Aviation Security Programme, changing the requirement
that all passengers must be present at the screening of "all cabin
baggage" to a new version that required a passenger's presence only when a
piece of luggage needed to be checked for a second time. In an attempt to
persuade the court to refuse the application for judicial review, the defence
claimed that after the amendment, the judicial review case had become an unnecessary
"academic discussion". Few people were notified of the amendment
beforehand, and after the amendment was completed the Hong Kong Cabin Crew
Federation was not notified as soon as possible. Such an action was the
antithesis of openness and makes one suspect that the authorities are trampling
on the regulations, "moving the goalposts and playing the game
unfairly". In the judgement handed down by the High Court, it is mentioned
that the authorities amended the regulations in question only after the court
agreed to hear the judicial review case. Obviously, the amendment was aimed at
the lawsuit.
The aim of security checks at the airport is to ensure the safety of
passengers and crew members. There is no reason why completely unnecessary
amendments should be made and an undesirable practice should be turned into a
permanent one just in order to deal with a lawsuit. The requirement for cabin
baggage to undergo security checks together with the passenger has been
effective over the years. In terms of security, it is definitely stricter than
the new rules. The High Court points out in the judgement that the requirement
will not undermine or reduce security, but will rather ensure that the
procedure for security checks can be carried out more smoothly and effectively.
The defence's claim that there is "difficulty" in carrying out the
arrangement and the amendment was aimed at "enhancing the efficiency of
the security system" is far-fetched and ridiculous. It is necessary for
the government and the Airport Authority to respond to the judgement by the
High Court and give the public a reasonable and convincing explanation for the
amendment.
特事特辦做壞規矩 同行同檢盡快還原
前行政長官梁振英女兒梁頌昕「行李門」風波，有空中服務員不滿機管局容許梁頌昕毋須「同行同檢」，提出司法覆核，獲高等法院裁定勝訴。乘客與行李「同行同檢」是最佳安排，當日機管局的處理明顯有違指引。當局在司法覆核聆訊前不動聲色修改指引，改變「同行同檢」規定，不僅有欠光明磊落，更有文過飾非之嫌。
2016年3月，梁頌昕離港時，遺下一件手提行李在機場禁區外。機管局允許航空公司職員代送行李入禁區，並在梁頌昕不在場下通過行李安檢。事後機管局提交報告，承認當時航空公司職員向機管局尋求協助，有特別提及事件涉及行政長官女兒，惟強調事件沒有違反機場保安規定，亦沒有違反國際航空安全標準，機管局沒有特事特辦。有空中服務員質疑做法違反「同行同檢」，提出司法覆核，挑戰機管局決定。
這宗司法覆核案件令人側目之處，是機管局在庭上突然透露，當局在聆訊前兩個月修訂了《香港航空保安計劃》第6.2.10段及第6.2.11段條文，將「所有手提行李必須與乘客同行同檢」，改為首檢毋須同行同檢， 覆檢時乘客才必須在場。辯方聲稱，條文修改後，這場覆核已成「學術討論」，再無討論必要，企圖以此說服法庭撤銷覆核申請。當局這次修改指引，事前鮮有人知曉，修訂後亦未有盡快通知空勤人員總工會，做法毫不光明磊落，更有敗壞規矩「搬龍門打茅波」之嫌。高院判辭也提到，當局在法庭受理司法覆核後才修改相關指引，明顯是要針對今次訴訟。
沒有留言:
張貼留言