Unlawful Assembly and Riot as Outdated Offences in the Public Order Ordinance, by Chapman Chen (Please roll down for English summary)
香港《公安條例》源於英治時期,一九六七年土共暴動,導致無辜市民死傷枕藉,香港政府痛定思痛,制訂《公安條例》,對付土共,詎料九七後,港共政權用以打壓爭取民主人權自由的本土示威人士,其中以非法集結(unlawful assembly)及暴動(riot)罪定義最糢糊,最為人所垢病。
香港非法集結罪重點在破壞社會安寧(breach of peace),但破壞社會安寧非常含混,甚難定義,容易屈得就屈,例如,三人在街上一齊高歌,可否當破壞社會安寧,犯非法集結罪呢?在英國,破壞社會安寧乃係中世紀產物,現已不算刑事罪行,最多判簽保守行為。美國最高法院也曾裁定破壞社會安寧罪名範圍太闊,有違憲法。至於非法集結,英國一九八六年業已廢除。
在香港,三人非法集結一掕(俗寫:扌能)埋定義糢糊的破壞社會安寧,就構成暴動,一經公訴定罪,可判監十年之久。在英國,要十二人或以上參與,方算暴動,而判刑普遍輕過香港,例如可罰款了事。在美國,三人或以上集結可能構成暴動,但定義清析,訂明必須涉及暴力,即時危險,將導致他人受傷或財物受損。
以下列明香港、英美相關具體法律條文。
《公安條例》第十八條,非法集結:
(1) 凡有三人或多於三人集結在一起,作出擾亂秩序的行為或作出帶有威嚇性、侮辱性或挑撥性的行為,意圖導致或相當可能導致任何人合理地害怕如此集結的人會破壞社會安寧,或害怕他們會藉以上的行為激使其他人破壞社會安寧,他們即屬非法集結。(由1970年第31號第11條修訂)
《公安條例》 第十九條,暴動:
(1) 如任何參與憑藉第18(1)條被定為非法集結的集結的人破壞社會安寧,該集結即屬暴動,而集結的人即屬集結暴動。(由1970年第31號第12條修訂)
(2) 任何人參與暴動,即犯暴動罪 ——
(a) 一經循公訴程序定罪,可處監禁十年
在英格蘭,威爾殊和北愛爾蘭,破壞社會安寧一詞源自一三六一年太平紳士法(Justices of the Peace Act 1361),其中提到破壞國王安寧的暴動及暴虐行為 。近代當局將破壞社會安寧界定為實際傷害或可能傷害他人或其財產,又或令人恐懼受到傷害,途徑或為襲擊、或為公共場所打架、或為暴動、 或為非法集結,或為任何其他形式滋擾(R. v. Howell [1982] QB 416)。
在當代英格蘭和威爾殊,破壞社會安寧並非罪行,意據法令或普通法,不受罰款或監禁懲罰,有關訴訟亦不產生任何案底。破壞社會安寧,法院可立即採取的制裁措施是簽保守行為,不留案底;簽保期間違反簽保令的結果不過失去保金(R. v. County of London Quarter Sessions Appeals Committee, ex parte Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1948] 1 KB 670, per Lord Goddard, CJ; Williamson v. Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2004] (1 WLR 14, per Dyson, LJ))。法國亦不當破壞社會安寧係罪行。
一九六五年,美國最高法院裁定:路易斯安那州刑事化破壞社會安寧的法令,如路易斯安那州最高法院所解釋者,範圍太闊,違反憲法。法令部份如下:任何人意圖煽動破壞社會安寧,或情況可能導致社會安寧破壞...在公共街道或公路上,或任何其他公共場所或建築物,與他人聚集或聚眾,無疏散或拒絕疏散,經當地市政或區域任何執法官員任何其他獲授權人士明令禁止,仍繼續移動,即屬破壞社會安寧(Cox v. Louisiana )。
暴動是英格蘭和威爾殊的法定罪行。根據一九八六年公共法(Public Order Act 1986)第一條第一至第五節而立:
(一)凡十二人或以上,共同在場使用或威脅使用非法暴力,為某共同目的或行為(一齊進行),將導致現場合理穩定的人懼怕個人安全,則每一為此共同目的使用非法暴力的人,均犯暴動罪。
到十九世紀,英國法例中非法集結指三名或以上人士集結,意圖以武力犯罪或達到某共同目的(無論合法抑或非法),或在以上情況,穩定和理性的人會認為危及公共和平,或令人恐懼附近安寧即時臨危。原本合法的集結,不會因為參加的人事前知道好可能有組織的反對,可能導致破壞社會安寧,而變成非法。為達成共同目的而行動的非法集結稱為騷亂,如果非法集結繼而實現其目的,例如拆毀某封閉體,即為暴動。暴動最多可判監十年,但亦可判罰款了事。非法集結罪由一九八六年由公安法廢除。
根據美國聯邦法律(United States federal law),暴動定義為:
公共騷亂,涉及(一)三人或以上的集結,其中一人或以上作出一項或多項暴力行為,構成明顯及即時危險,或將導致任何其他人人身或財產受傷或受損。
或(二)三人或以上的集結,其中一人或以上,威脅作出一項或多項暴力行為,其中個別或集體擁有即時實行此等威脅的能力,其中威脅作出的一項或多項暴力行為,會構成明顯及即時危險,或將導致任何其他人人身或財產受傷或受損。
總之,《公安條例》係殖民地法律,其中不少過份嚴苛,現已過時。九七後,根據基本法,港人治港,理應重新檢視《公安條例》,廢除其中惡法。
English Summary
Unlawful Assembly and Riot as Outdated Offences in the Public Order Ordinance
Chapman Chen, Ph.D.
The Public Order Ordinance of Hong Kong can be dated back to the 1967 riot, in which many innocent Hong Kong citizens were either killed or injured by local communists. The ordinance was then intended by Hong Kong Government to deal with the local communists. Since 1997, however, the ordinance has been used by the Hong Kong Communist Government to suppress local activists striving for democracy, human rights and freedom in Hong Kong. As far as the ordinance is concerned, the offences, unlawful assembly and riot are most notorious and ambiguously defined.
The main thrust of unlawful assembly in Hong Kong law is breach of peace, which is, alas, very ambiguous and easily abused. For instance, when three people gather together and sing loudly on a street, are they guilty of breaching peace and unlawful assembly? In England, breach of peace is a product of the Middle Age and is no longer an offence, the most serious consequence possible of which is just binding over. In the United States, the Supreme Court has also ruled that breach of peace is unconstitutionally broad in scope. As for unlawful assembly, it has already been abolished in 1986 in England.
In Hong Kong, once unlawful assembly of three persons or more is linked up with the vaguely defined breach of peace, the resulting offence is riot, for which the maximum penalty is ten years in jail. In England, it takes twelve participants or more to constitute riot, and the penalty is in general more lenient than in Hong Kong, for example, maybe just a fine. In the States, three people or more congregating could amount to riot, but the definition is clear -- involving violence, causing immediate danger to other people's person or property.
In conclusion, the Public Order Ordinance is a law of the colonial days, many items of which are outdated and unduly harsh. After 1997, Hong Kong people are supposed to rule Hong Kong, so that the Public Order Ordinance should be re-examined and oppressive elements therein removed.