政治操作凌駕公義 陳同佳投案遇障礙

<轉載自2019年10月22日 明報 社評>

台灣殺人案疑犯陳同佳願意赴台自首，本是一個積極發展，可以還受害人及其家屬公道，讓司法公義得以伸張，然而台北當局的態度，卻令事態變得相當複雜。陳同佳所有殺人罪證都在台灣，唯有台方可以依法治罪，台北當局卻堅稱陳投案背後「有陰謀」，云云，說來說去就是要港府背離「一個中國」框架，與台灣簽訂司法互助協議。合作貴乎誠意，障礙總可克服，只要雙方有心，無門亦可繞道，可惜陳同佳案目前的情况，卻是有門也開不了，追求司法正義的初心，遭政治操作所凌駕，叫人遺憾。

若有誠意無門可繞道 無心合作有門也不開

亞馬遜森林一隻蝴蝶拍翼數下，有可能數周後在美國引起一場龍捲風。去年初港人陳同佳涉嫌在台灣殺死女友，台港兩地輿論甚為關注，惟從來無人想到，這宗案件的「蝴蝶效應」竟會如此之大。人們不可能因為發生了奪命龍捲風，便去怪罪一隻蝴蝶；現今香港的亂局，也不能說是陳同佳所致，若非政府漠視民意強推《逃犯條例》修訂，反修例風暴也不會爆發。一事還一事，相信沒有多少港人會認為，陳同佳赴台投案可以化解反修例風暴，又或成為下月區議會選舉一個左右大局的議題，不過陳同佳願意赴台接受法律制裁，對於遇害女子、死者家屬乃至他本人都是一種解脫，問題在於台北當局是否願意打開大門。

香港處理刑事案件，奉行「屬地原則」，犯罪行為要在香港發生，始有司法管轄權。陳同佳殺人案在台灣發生，所有重要罪證也在台灣，香港司法機構只能以洗黑錢等其他罪名給他定罪。陳同佳本周在港刑滿出獄，不代表案件告一段落，若要還死者及其家屬一個公道，始終需要台灣司法部門處理。可是台北當局卻堅稱，陳同佳投案背後有「政治陰謀」，旨在矮化台灣地位、「企圖合理化送中」，云云。

在台灣，泛政治化情况嚴重，就連島內輿論也不時慨嘆，很多原本與政治無關的事情，都被拿來政治操作。就着陳同佳有意投案，台北當局指控港府「政治操作」，可是當中一些說法，卻叫人感到奇怪和困惑。

台北當局高談陳同佳「被自首」之說，又聲稱港方掌握「諸多證據未有交台方」，港方理應對陳同佳「續押追訴」，自行蒐證檢控陳同佳殺人。陳同佳案在台灣發生，台方對案件有司法管轄權，台北當局經常強調「捍衛主權」，沒理由自削司法主權。如果陳同佳真的是「被自首」，難道這不是台北當局昭示台灣人權民主法治的良機？台北當局理應把握這次機會，還陳同佳一個公道，確保他得到公平公正審訊。既然蔡英文政府認為台灣比香港擁有更優越的民主制度，為何還要讓陳同佳在港受審？

台方認為陳同佳在港已有預謀犯案，質疑港府未有交出陳同佳在港的「諸多證據」，台北當局不妨公開交代詳情，以免有人質疑是渲染陰謀論，然而以法論法，在台灣，審理殺人案根本就不需要被告預謀殺人的證據，根據當地刑事案件律師說法，殺人案只需殺人部分相關證據就可審理，被告的預謀或犯罪動機只屬量刑參考因素之一。殺人罪為萬國公罪，協助兇殺案受害者討回公道是普世價值，台北當局這麼強調人權民主，看不出為何不去伸張司法正義。

兇案追求司法正義 叩問台北當局初心

礙於兩岸政治關係，香港與台灣沒有引渡或司法互助協議，可是兩地執法機關過去亦有合作默契，數年前的荃灣石棺案，3名疑犯潛逃台灣，最後台港雙方協調，由台灣警方將3人送往桃園機場，再由香港警員陪同疑犯坐飛機返港。政府與政府之間，只要有合作意願，技術問題再多，總有方法克服困難障礙，理論上，台方確可參考當時香港警方做法，問題在於台北當局是否願意。

細察台北政府和陸委會說法，台方的立場，說來說去就是要香港先與台灣簽署司法互助協議，才可談交人。可以想像，協議必須開宗明義，先確認締約方的名分地位，台北當局講的所謂「對等」，實際就是變相要港府在協議中明確承認「中華民國」，背離「一個中國」原則。台灣陸委會口口聲聲說願以「對等、尊嚴及互惠」為基礎，就陳同佳案與港府溝通配合，然而台北當局的政治操作，卻是另一回事。倘若台方堅持「玩政治」，就算現在陳同佳願意自首，未來恐怕還有不少變數。

反修例風暴中，有關台灣方面的角色，過去數月坊間有很多傳聞，不過一個客觀事實倒可肯定，這場發生在香港的政治風波，完全改變了明年初台灣總統大選的形勢。一年前國民黨韓國瑜以務實主義掛帥，憑經濟牌冒起，然而民進黨的蔡英文成功利用香港反修例爭議，以政治牌「翻身」，民望由谷底反彈，拋離韓國瑜。隨着台灣大選臨近，各式政治操作只會有增無減，將台灣殺人案兇手繩之於法的初心在哪，死者家屬也許要問問台北當局。

Political manoeuvring in the row over suspect's surrender to Taiwan

THE indication by Chan Tong-kai, the suspect in the Taiwan homicide case, of his willingness to surrender himself to Taiwan was a positive development that would have done justice to the victim and her family. It would also have upheld judicial fairness. However, the attitude shown by the Taipei authorities has very much complicated the matter. Although all evidence against Chan concerning the homicide case is in Taiwan and only the authorities of Taiwan are in a position to punish him in accordance with the law, the Taipei government argues that there is a "conspiracy" behind the voluntary surrender of Chan and so forth. No matter how Taipei puts it, what it wants is a departure from the "One China" framework by the Hong Kong government to sign a judicial cooperation agreement with Taiwan. Obstacles can always be overcome with sincerity, the most valued thing when it comes to cooperation. As long as each side's heart is in the right place, there will be a route, though circuitous, to resolving the situation. Unfortunately, the case of Chan is like a door that cannot be opened despite its very existence. How regrettable it is to see political manoeuvring taking precedence over the original intention of seeking judicial righteousness.

In Hong Kong, the "territoriality principle" governs the handling of criminal cases, meaning that Hong Kong can exercise jurisdiction over criminal acts that have happened in Hong Kong only. The homicide case of Chan Tong-kai happened in Taiwan. All the important evidence of the crime is also there. Hong Kong's judiciary has been able to convict him of the other charges such as money laundering only. The fact that Chan is about to be discharged from Hong Kong prison this week does not mean an end to the case. In order to deliver justice on behalf of the victim and her family, it is necessary for the judiciary of Taiwan to handle the case.

The Taipei authorities have talked loftily about Chan's so-called "reluctant self-surrender", claiming that the Hong Kong authorities have "withheld a large amount of evidence from Taiwan". They demand that Hong Kong follow up the case by "keeping the suspect in custody and pressing charges against him", at the same time gathering evidence to prosecute him for homicide. However, Taiwan indeed has jurisdiction over the case because it occurred there. In view of the Taipei authorities' frequent emphasis on "safeguarding its sovereignty", it is hard to see why it wants to cripple its own judicial power this time.

Arguing that Chan had planned the homicide in Hong Kong, the Taipei authorities have accused the Hong Kong government of withholding the "multifarious evidence" of his action in Hong Kong. Regarding this accusation, the Taipei authorities might as well release the details concerned, so as to rid themselves of the doubt that they are employing conspiracy theories. Nevertheless, if we consider the legal row from a legal point of view, evidence of the suspect's plans to commit homicide is not necessary for the case to be heard in Taiwan. According to a criminal lawyer in Taiwan, only evidence for the homicide itself is necessary for the court to hear a homicide case. The suspect's plans beforehand or the motives for the crime are but one factor in sentencing.

Due to political considerations related to the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, there is not an extradition or judicial cooperation agreement between Hong Kong and Taiwan. However, there has been tacit cooperation between the law enforcement agencies of the two sides in the past. Several years ago, three suspects in connection with a body-in-cement murder case in Tsuen Wan fled to Taiwan. After a coordinated effort between Taiwan and Hong Kong, the three fugitives were at last sent by the Taiwan police to Taoyuan airport, where they boarded a plane to Hong Kong under the escort of Hong Kong police officers. As long as there is the intention to cooperate, there is always some way to overcome the obstacles no matter how many technical problems exist. Theoretically, this time the Taipei authorities can refer to the way Hong Kong police handled the body-in-cement case. The problem is whether it is willing to do so.

If we carefully examine the arguments put forth by the Taipei government and its Mainland Affairs Council, we can see that no matter how they put it, the stance of Taiwan is that Hong Kong should sign a judicial cooperation agreement with it before they can talk about the transfer of Chan. One can imagine that Taiwan would demand in the text of the agreement a confirmation of the statuses of the two signatories. What is called "equal status" by the Taipei authorities would in fact mean requiring the Hong Kong government to clearly recognise "The Republic of China" in the agreement in a departure from the "One China" principle.

政治操作凌駕公義 陳同佳投案遇障礙

台灣殺人案疑犯陳同佳願意赴台自首，本是一個積極發展，可以還受害人及其家屬公道，讓司法公義得以伸張，然而台北當局的態度，卻令事態變得相當複雜。陳同佳所有殺人罪證都在台灣，唯有台方可以依法治罪，台北當局卻堅稱陳投案背後「有陰謀」，云云，說來說去就是要港府背離「一個中國」框架，與台灣簽訂司法互助協議。合作貴乎誠意，障礙總可克服，只要雙方有心，無門亦可繞道，可惜陳同佳案目前的情况，卻是有門也開不了，追求司法正義的初心，遭政治操作所凌駕，叫人遺憾。

香港處理刑事案件，奉行「屬地原則」，犯罪行為要在香港發生，始有司法管轄權。陳同佳殺人案在台灣發生，所有重要罪證也在台灣，香港司法機構只能以洗黑錢等其他罪名給他定罪。陳同佳本周在港刑滿出獄，不代表案件告一段落，若要還死者及其家屬一個公道，始終需要台灣司法部門處理。

台北當局高談陳同佳「被自首」之說，又聲稱港方掌握「諸多證據未有交台方」，港方理應對陳同佳「續押追訴」，自行蒐證檢控陳同佳殺人。陳同佳案在台灣發生，台方對案件有司法管轄權，台北當局經常強調「捍衛主權」，沒理由自削司法主權。

台方認為陳同佳在港已有預謀犯案，質疑港府未有交出陳同佳在港的「諸多證據」，台北當局不妨公開交代詳情，以免有人質疑是渲染陰謀論，然而以法論法，在台灣，審理殺人案根本就不需要被告預謀殺人的證據，根據當地刑事案件律師說法，殺人案只需殺人部分相關證據就可審理，被告的預謀或犯罪動機只屬量刑參考因素之一。

礙於兩岸政治關係，香港與台灣沒有引渡或司法互助協議，可是兩地執法機關過去亦有合作默契，數年前的荃灣石棺案，3名疑犯潛逃台灣，最後台港雙方協調，由台灣警方將3人送往桃園機場，再由香港警員陪同疑犯坐飛機返港。政府與政府之間，只要有合作意願，技術問題再多，總有方法克服困難障礙，理論上，台方確可參考當時香港警方做法，問題在於台北當局是否願意。

細察台北政府和陸委會說法，台方的立場，說來說去就是要香港先與台灣簽署司法互助協議，才可談交人。可以想像，協議必須開宗明義，先確認締約方的名分地位，台北當局講的所謂「對等」，實際就是變相要港府在協議中明確承認「中華民國」，背離「一個中國」原則。