昨天朋友在Facebook中談論最多的,那是今年7.1遊行期間,一名男子在5名輔警警長及警員耳邊大聲吹口哨,結果被控5項襲警罪,昨日在東區裁判法院開審。

令童工與朋友覺得難以理解的是,何以,只是在警員耳邊大聲吹口哨,也可以告襲警?就算如控方所說,那男子是故意走近警員吹口哨挑釁,又或是真的很大聲吹口哨,那,作為一般市民,完全無法明白,律政司何以認為在警員耳邊大聲「吹口哨」,可以等同襲警!那,日後豈不連遊行叫口號,也是襲警?在特首梁振英面前大叫他下台,豈不是公然襲擊特首?上次蘋果日報記者在胡錦濤路過之處大叫平反六四問題,又豈非公然以聲音行剌國家領導人?

童工記得2003年法庭審理大聲公襲警案,代表辯方資深大律師李柱銘認為,若大聲公也可以「襲警」,日後可能連說話也可被告襲警,法官在判詞中表明,一般人說話不會構成襲擊,但經擴音器擴大後聲音,則可對人身做成損害:

「here must be an implied consent in the ordinary normal situation for us to be “touched" by the sound from people talking to us. We have to accept that as a part of our everyday living. However, would we consent to be “touched" by amplified sound when the loudhailer is being placed next to our ear? The answer must be no, unless in some idiosyncratic situations. I would conclude that when a loudhailer is used as an implement to send out amplified sound at close range of someone’s ear without the consent of that person, it must be battery. And it would be wounding if actual bodily injury had occurred as a result. I do not agree that his conclusion would mean an extension of the principle, it is only an application of the basic elements of the offence. 」

即是,若以當日判詞,或許連法官也未想過,有天真的會連說話、吹口哨也會被告「襲警」,反而李大狀卻有「先見之明」,究竟,香港警方及律政司有沒有想過,提出這樣控告,只會引來社會更大反感?

廣告