(http://www.epochtimes.com)
【大紀元8月8日訊】香港政府動用對小攤販的管理條例，對法輪功十名學員的情願行動提出“阻街”檢控。此案引起各國政府高度關注，英國外交部七月給參眾議會的特別報告中專門提及此案，表示高度關注香港問題。因爲此案超越一般的治安檢控，涉及中國對法輪功政治鎮壓在香港的延續，為方便社會各界了解此案，我們特公佈“阻街”案中辯方陳詞。
在香港特別行政區西區裁判處
WSC5482002
辯方律師陳詞
事發經過
IN THE WESTERN MAGISTRACY OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
WSC 548 OF 2002
DEFENCE SUBMISSION
CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY
１. 在二００二年三月十四日，上午八點五十分左右，四名瑞士法輪功學員（F.L.G.）在干諾道西一六０號（no.160）中國駐港聯絡辦事處前門的旗杆台前細小範圍內排坐成一行，進行靜坐請願行動。根據香港的標準，這條行人道很寬闊，完全沒有障礙物，而且行人往來量很少。這次的請願行動包括了一個手持的橫額，一張地席寫著「Switzerland（瑞士）」，就像所有瑞士的東西都有「瑞士」字樣，而且他們極之整齊。這次請願行動「矛頭指向」中國政府，而請願者選擇的位置具「有效的象徵意義」（就是直接對著抗議所針對政府的旗杆台）。請願者的「分佈」可以精確地顯示在展示圖。在請願範圍的四周都有超過兩米闊的行人道沒有任何障礙（在中聯辦的側面兩至三米，以及路（北）邊五至六米），除了他們這次在香港的請願行動所針對的政府良心之外，這些請願者沒有理由相信他們會引起任何人事的尷尬和不便。早前有關這次請願行動的錄影帶和圖片（上午十時之前）顯示出這次請願行動富有色彩和寧靜，而且整個氣氛相當安靜、和平、平靜和有秩序。但在no.160出現了官方埋怨的聲音和行動。
1. At about 8.50 am on the 14th of March 2002 4 Swiss Fa Lun Gong (F.L.G.) practioners set up a small stationary linear sit-in type demonstration in front of the flag podium of the Chinese Government Liaison Office at 160 Connaught Road West (no.160). By Hong Kong Standards, this pavement was very wide totally unobstructed and pedestrian traffic was very light. The demonstration included a hand held banner, a mat stating “Switzerland” and (like all things Swiss!) was extremely neat a tidy. The demonstration was “aimed at” the government of China and its positioning was “symbolically perfect” (i.e. directly opposite the flag podium of the government to whom the protest was directed). The “layout” can be fixed exactly on the scale plan exhibited. There was over 2 metres of clear pavement in all sides of the demonstration area. (2-3 metres on the office(s) side and 5 to 6 metres on the road (N.) side). The demonstrators had no reason to believe that they would embarrass or inconvenience anybody or anything except the conscience of the government against whose activities they were seeking to exercise the H.K. right to demonstrate. Early video and photos of this demo (prior to about 10.00 am) show it to have been colourful but quiet and that tranquillity, peace, calm, and order prevailed. However there was a buzz of official resentment and activity at no.160.
２. 這些「聲音」始於no.160護衛的意見，認為這次請願行動的地點太接近旗杆台。他慣性地容忍F.L.G.請願行為，被「框在」no.162門外行人道的一旁。接著下來的一個小時，在no.160的一位相關官方人員（他有警方早前所提供，能說普通話的高級督察的私人電話號碼）重複向本地警方投訴了5次。即使是如此地關注事情，這位官員沒有做一個證人的聲明或提供證據給法庭。
2. That “buzz” had begun with a security guard from no.160 taking the view that the demo. was too close to his podium. He was accustomed to the F.L.G. demos being tolerated and “penned in” only to one side outside no.162. During the next hour a named official from no.160 (who had been previously supplied with the private phone number of Mandarin speaking senior police) repeated his complaint to the local police on 5 separate occasions. Despite this show of concern, that official did not make a witness statement or give evidence to the court.
３. 在上午差不多9點鐘，西區警署的督察收到有關官員投訴的消息。督察立刻處理這件可能阻礙行人道的案件。他放下自己慣常9點鐘的訓示，立刻就趕到現場。到了上午9:10時，no.160外面已經有大量警察「來回打轉」。警察的人數不斷地增加直至到警察的人數比請願人士多。
3. Just before 9.00 am the superintendent at Western Police Station received news of the official’s complaint. The superintendent jumped to deal with this possible pavement obstruction. He shelved his routine 9.00 am. Briefing and immediately rushed to the scene. By about 9.10 am there was a large number of police “milling about” outside no.160. The police numbers grew and grew until there were many more police than demonstrators.
４. 警察展開了一連串的帶挑釁性和令人費解的行為。首先，他們用鐵馬封鎖了通往旗杆台的行人道（這就是那條員工和訪客到中聯辦時喜歡使用的道路；現在遭封鎖後，只有那條「危險」的行車道可以供使用）。然後他們把示威者「欄進」了東和西兩邊，接著他們把傳媒和好奇的市民「欄倒到」東邊，他們在路邊留下一條1－2寬的通道，讓行人路過；其後，他們在西邊（在160和162的交界處）放置了鐵馬。
4. The police embarked on a serious of potentially confrontational and puzzling acts. First they blocked off the pavement access to the podium with iron railings (this was the very access, so it is said, that workers and visitors to 160 liked to use; now only the “dangerous” vehicular access could be used). They than “penned in” the demonstrators to E and West. Then they “penned back” the media and curious citizens to the E leaving a 1-2 metre gap of pavement next to the road for passers by; later they put a similar barrier to the West (at the border of 160 and 162).
５. 那位督察向記者和傳媒發表公布。記者和傳媒只能站在no.160西邊的行車道才能聽到公布他們合作地出示他們的瑞士護照。他們全部的護照和簽證都是有效的。不過在沒有明確的原因下（據說香港沒有F.L.G. 的「黑名單」？），警察抄錄了他們護照上的資料。警察知道他們是外國人，但卻沒有詢問他們的母語是甚麼。雖然警察沒有問以上的問題，但他們(在傳媒面前) 把一位翻譯員帶到現場。警察隨即發現翻譯員使用的並不是這些外國請願人士的語言。即使如此，他們繼續採用這位翻譯員(同樣是在傳媒面前) 。
5. The superintendent addressed the press and media. They could only listen by standing in the E vehicular access to no.160. The police spoke to the foreign demonstrators. They cooperated by showing their Swiss passports. All their passports and visas were in order. Never-the-less and for no apparent reason (their being no “black-list of F.L.G. in H.K.) the police wrote down particulars from their passports. The police realized they were foreigners but did not ask them what their native language was. Although this had not been asked, an interpreter was brought to the scene by the police (in the presence of the media). The police then discovered that the interpreter did not speak the language of the foreign demonstrators. They continued to use this interpreter (again in the presence of the media) despite their knowledge that she did not speak the language of these foreigners.
６. 接著警方向請願人士，展開了一連串在法律上令人費解，類似暴動條例式的宣讀。這些宣讀帶有一個恐嚇，就是將會採取進一步行動（最終被帶走和拘捕），和一個動機，就是讓這些請願人士回到162外面，以避免警方的行動升級。學校老師們可能會形容這是給調皮學生們的數次「最後機會」。但在成年人的世界裏，這些「警告」有很少的法律基礎，且被「翻譯」成非請願者使用的語言，而所有這些都在傳媒面前發生。那些外國請願者指出他們沒有造成阻礙，沒有做錯任何事，所以不會離開。所有過程都記錄在警方的錄影／錄音帶中。
6. The police then embarked on a series of legally puzzling quasi-RIOT ACT type readings out to the demonstrators. The readings contained a threat, that further action (eventually removal and arrest) may be taken, and an inducement, that this may be avoided if the demonstrators moved to outside 162. School teachers might describe this as giving naughty pupils several “last chances” but in the grown up world, these “warnings” have little legal basis, they were “interpreted” in the wrong language, and this all went on in front of the media. The foreign demonstrators reacted by pointing out that they were causing no obstruction and were doing nothing wrong and would not move. This is all in the police video/audio tapes.
７. 到了中午十二點半，大批警員（包括機動部隊）都準備就緒。在大批警員未到場前那種安靜、空間感與和平氣氛，已被鐵馬、警方的記者招待會、警車（部分停泊在行人道上）、兩組擄帶踏腳梯的警方攝錄隊伍等所取代，所有這些反應、行動肯定會讓外國遊客感到驚訝。我們希望警方的小題大做不會成為未來香港生活的一個特徵。那些遊客保持緘默，並且保持原來的位置。大約到了下午一時十分，他們和他們的本地支持者被警方採用使請願者感到疼痛的方法，把緊扣在一起的請願者鬆手，束手就擒，而警方沒有給請願者正式的警告和NTPIC。他們拒絕被警方拘捕，指稱他們並沒有阻礙任何人，以及他們不應該被拘捕。
7. By 12.30 pm massive numbers of police (including P.T.U. units) had been stood by. The tranquillity, space and peace which had prevailed before the arrival of large number of police had been replaced by metal barricades, police press conferences, police vehicles (some on the pavement), 2 police video teams with step ladders etc. All this reactive activity should have amazed the foreign visitors. We hope “over policing” of small matters is not becoming a feature of H.K. life. The visitors kept quiet and sat tight. At about 1.10 pm they and their local supporters, were seized using a technique which relies on causing pain to release a demonstrators grip. No formal cautions and no NTPIC were ever given to the suspects. They resisted being seized, said they had obstructed nobody, and said they should not be arrested.
重要因素
８. 我們要仔細探討中聯辦門外行人道的政治背景及整個歷史，才能發現為何這麼多性格高尚、和平的人被拘捕的真正原因。這個政府亦展現出他們承認這個複雜背景的相關性，政府認為只要派兩名很高級的檢控官去打這場官司，他們（就像辯方律師）基本上沒有處理過阻街案件的專業經驗，他們的被取用一定是有別的原因。我們認為政府的決定，主要是因為明顯地與本案所觸及到在政治上和憲法方面的問題有關。F.L.G.在中國大陸是不合法的，一個屬於「同一國家」但有獨立體制的地方內的警力，對F.L.G.在香港行使法律賦予的權利（當著中央辦公室的面）請願，而這種請願行動在大陸發生就是不合法，所以香港警方很自然地會傾向於對F.L.G.作出負面反應。亞洲人（尤其是那些沒有享受不太多民主的人）都不願意向強權作出直接及公然的挑戰，香港警方已經養成了（壞？）習慣，把籠般帶侮辱性的鐵欄，包圍著和平地靜坐著的請願者（見S.C.M.P.2/7/020）。在我們任何一份憲法文件上，都沒有指出自由表達意見一定要在類似鐵籠裡和受侮辱的情況下進行。
SIGNIFICANT FACTORS
8. To discover the true factors precipitating the seizure of so many peaceful people of good character, the overall history and political background of this particular area of pavement must be carefully examined. The government have demonstrably recognized the relevance of this complex background. The government has seen fit to instruct 2 very senior government Counsel to present their case. They (like defence counsel) have virtually no professional experience of doing pavement obstruction cases. They must be here for other reasons. We hope it is solely because there is an obvious and relevant political and constitutional aspect to this case. F.L.G. is unlawful in Mainland China. Any police force of a separate system but of the “same country” will naturally be tempted to react negatively to F.L.G. exercising a legal right to demonstrate here (in the face of the mainland office) which would be illegal in the mainland. Asian people (particularly those with reduced democracy) do feel uncomfortable in the presence of a direct visible challenge to authority. H.K. police have got into the (bad?) habit of placing humiliating cage like metal fences around peaceful sitting demonstrators (see S.C.M.P. 2/7/02). None of our constitutional documents suggests that free expression must be made from a quasi-caged and humiliating position.
９. 警方對no.160所發出的官方投訴養成了會服從地作出即時處理的習慣，是本案直接的相關因素。警方在庭上完全無意提供任何「阻街」證人，他們沒有提供任何一個真正「獨立的旁觀者」，這是危險式的自負。警方知道在證實一個被辯方當場作出否決的具爭議性的指控，法庭會高度重視這一類證人。警方希望圍繞著F.L.G的政治氣候足夠讓法庭自然地接受他們任何的證供，警方因此認為不需要大費周章去提供獨立的證詞。
9. The developed, obliging and immediate police response to official complaints from no.160 has a direct relevance to this case. The police have not troubled to bring a single “obstructed” witness to court. They have not produced a single truly “independent bystander”. This is dangerously arrogant. The police know how highly such a witness would be regarded by the court when it comes to proving an inherently controversial offence which was flatly denied at the time by the defendants. The police may be hoping that the political climate re F.L.G. is such that the court will automatically accept whatever the police say and they the police need not trouble to produce independent confirmation.
１０. 儒家的訓誨中，有一個故事是關於一個暴君為了證實隨從對他的忠誠，於是指鹿為馬，他的隨從並沒有糾正他的錯誤，雖然他們每個人都知道他們的領袖所指著的是一隻鹿。而那些在權力架構內服務的人（如警察、安全人員等）無可避免地墮入故事中隨從的思想傾向。當然衡量一個請願行動會否造成阻礙的界線，比分辨一隻馬和一隻鹿更難。然而，這些警員容易傾向於視任何未經允許或指定的F.L.G.請願行動，都視為潛在的阻礙。法庭需要的是真憑實據，而不是警員（無論多高級）的意見。在本案聆訊中，涉及請願權利時，控方有點自負，完全無意提供來自普通市民的獨立證詞。就像其他公民一樣，警員有權擁有他們個人的意見。警員主觀地認為這次請願行動造成阻礙的看法，並不是根據任何客觀證據所得出的合理結論。所有的證據都是來自警察和160的護衛員，造成了明顯的偏見。
10. Those who serve in an authoritarian structure (e.g. police, security offices etc.) are inevitably susceptible to the mind set encapsulated in the Confucian parable about a despot who tested the loyalty of his subjects by pointing to a deer and calling it a horse; his people were not minded to contradict him even through everyone knew it was a deer that their leader was pointing to. Of course, the line between a demo. that may cause obstruction and one that may not is much finer than that between a horse and a deer. However these officers are likely to be pre-disposed to see any F.L.G. demonstration not previously tolerated/located by police as a potential obstruction. However it is hard evidence/and not the opinion of police officers, (however senior), which must satisfy the court. There is some arrogance in presenting this case involving a right to demonstrate without troubling to obtain any independent evidence from ordinary citizens. The police, like all other citizens are entitled to their own opinions privately held. Their subjective beliefs that this demo. constituted a potential obstruction has not been shown to have been based on reasonable grounds by any objective evidence. All the evidence has come from police and security men from 160. This creates an obvious appearance of bias.
１１. 警員這種態度，使他們成為可能帶有偏見的目擊證人，而結果就是（除了警員作出多個不相干的意見，例如一個F.L.G.可能擅自進入；可能會破壞和平；員工可能感覺受到威脅；同樣事情可能會發生）他們所提供的可能阻街的證據，都被比例平面圖所提供的數字一一推翻。那些超過四小時的影音證物及圖片，表現了這一段行人路的歷史。今次控訴面對以下兩個因素（a）一條寬闊且人流稀少的行人道，過去都有不同的雜物出現，但都被高度的容忍；而將來警方亦不會就這條行人道被收窄而作出反對；（b）圖片和警方未採取行動之前的部分錄影帶顯示出，旗杆台並未被請願者「阻塞」，比例圖證明了這一點。結果，檢控官在（陳述案件接近尾聲時）曾經問過證人們，請願者會否對在香港行人路上想走直線的人造成阻礙！檢控官知道沒有這個論點，他們的訴訟就不成立了，這個神話式的人物（那個「行走直線的人」），如果真的存在的話，他不會在香港生存得很久。
11. The result of this police altitude is that/apart from the irrelevant opinions of police officers e.g. an F.L.G. might trespass, there might be a breach of the peace, approaching workers might be intimidated, there might be recurrence) there is no area of the potentially opinionated live witness evidence of potential obstruction that is not completely destroyed by the mathematical accuracy available from the scale plan, the 4 hours plus of video/audio material and the photographs illustrating the history of that stretch of pavement. The prosecution are now faced with (a) a wide lightly travelled pavement whose history shows flexible tolerance of acceptable clutter and whose future shows no police objection to a very substantial narrowing of the existing pavement. (b) photos and early videos which show that the flag podium was never “blocked” by the demonstrators. (scale plan proves this).
The result is that the prosecution have (towards the end of their case) been asking witnesses if the demonstrators might have obstructed persons who take straight line routes on H.K. pavements! They have recognised that without that proposition, they have no case. Such a mythical person, if he ever existed, (the “straight liner”) would not survive long in H.K.
１２. 這個論點在香港的環境裏不能抵禦嚴謹的分析，一些例子已證實了這一點。我們日常接觸到的例子，如工人在行人道上起御和堆放貨物；熱心的自願工作者在賣旗日向行人賣旗；兼職者派發傳單，游說行人光顧一間新的酒樓，吸人行人去買消費品；一群老朋友在行人道上偶遇，演變成二十分鐘的街頭對話。香港到現在仍然會基於人道，容忍有人士在不超過十二小時的期限內，在繁忙的行人道上維持一個「乞丐俯臥的姿勢」，而導致行人必須繞道而走。餅店工人停在路中心，打著橫幅抗議失業。青年少女們在路上一邊談天，一邊等待遲到了一個小時朋友；最近的幾個星期，成百上千的香港市民站在或坐在行人路上，觀看大銀幕上的世界杯比賽，他們很多時候阻塞的不只是部份行人道，而是整條行人道。但明白到這個現代都市的居民，並沒堅持在走路時要維持直線或者是維持他們「慣常」的路線，他們繞過了人群，或採用另外路線。對於那些「好事近」的（通常是）年輕人，在L.G.4的行人路上半永久擺設，我們不會派出機動步隊。我們會帶著微笑地經過。
12. This proposition cannot survive critical analysis in a H.K. setting. Some examples make the point. Among those we encounter on a regular basis are workmen unloading or piling goods on the pavement; enthusiastic volunteers seeking flag day donations; part-time workers distributing leaflets to persuade us to patronize a new restaurant or to entice us to purchase consumer items; a group of old friends whose chance encounter develops into a twenty-minute conversation right in the middle of the pavement. H.K. is still humane enough to tolerate, for periods of up to 12 hours, established “prostrate beggar positions” on the pavement necessitating pedestrian diversions in busy locations. Cake workers stop in mid-pavement with a banner to protest a loss of jobs. Teenage girls gather to gossip on the pavement whilst waiting for a friend who is 1 hour late. These last few weeks hundreds, sometimes, thousands of Hong Kong resident stood or sat on pavements watching world cup games on large video screens, blocking not just part, but frequently the whole, of the pavement. But understanding residents of this modern metropolis did not insist on walking in straight lines or even their “usual” route, they made small diversions around the groups of people or took an alternative route. The (usually) young “soon to be marrieds” set up semi-permantly on the pavement at L.G.4. We do not send for the P.T.U. We smile and pass by.
１３. 但以上幾個所列舉的例子中，所涉及的人們，都是沒有受到基本法和國際公約所保護。本次審訊被指控的人，不單衹可以倚賴這個爭取成為世界級大都會的文明城市裡面，人民的善意；即使有人可能在路過這條行人道時，需要作出輕微的繞道，這些被指控的人所擁有的權利，是被珍藏在基本法上，而因此受到基本法的保護，從而保障了他們的集會自由、與表達自己的權利。況且，在本案中亦沒有任何人提出任何証據，表示他/她確實因為避開這些請願者而多走幾部路。以上列舉的例子與本案的分別，在於F.L.G. 有一個「政治」信息與及他們應有的行人道使用權，並未有被容納。由於NO.160的「面子」，警察需要表現得對一切事情都在掌握中等因素，都在影響著那些本地的警察的判斷。
13. Yet none of the persons in these few examples are protected by the Basic Law and International Covenants. The accused in this trial should be able to rely not only on the good will and courtesy of the residents of this civilized city that strives to be a world class metropolis; These accused have rights that are enshrined in and thus protected by the Basic Law, which guarantees their right to assemble and express their views, even if someone might have to make a very slight detour when walking on the pavement. Moreover in this case there is no evidence from anyone stating that he or she actually had to take a few extra steps. The difference between the examples and this case is that F.L.G. had a “political” message and they were not given the pavement tolerance they are entitled to. The “face” of no.160, the local police and their need to appear to be in control has affected their judgement.
１４. 因為表達自由、言論自由、以及請願自由都是一些長久以來在香港法律下所保障的權利，香港市民已經習慣於請願活動可能有時會影響到正常的交通運作的情況。他們繞過請願地點，有時也會等待這些請願的參與者路過。這裡的市民從來都沒有對和平請願活動感到受威脅。警方沒有必要嘗試去把這次的小型請願轉移到同一條行人道另一處的地方，(也就是162) ，好讓被抗議的人看來不太顯眼。警方和160的投訴者之間，有沒有一些不成文的安排？在25/8/01和10/11/01的混亂事件中可以得到解答。在中聯辦門前的一片寬闊無阻行人道上，是否有著不可侵犯的意味？其實要「除去」旗杆台前所覺察到的障礙很簡單；只需要要求那些瑞士人進一步移離旗杆台2-3米的地方便行，為甚麼有一個這麼簡單的「除去阻礙」的解決辦法不被採用？不怪得F.L.G. 感到被迫害。
14. Hong Kong residents are accustomed to demonstrations sometimes disrupting the normal flow of traffic. They walk around a demonstration site and sometimes wait for the participants of a demonstration to walk by. Because the right to freedom of expression and the freedom of speech and the right to demonstrate are longstanding rights in H.K. Law, residents here have never been intimidated by peaceful demonstrations. The police had no need to attempt to divert and side track this small demonstration to a place on the same pavement but less conspicuous to those they wished to demonstrate to (i.e. 162). Had some implicit but unexpressed arrangement been come to between the police and the complainant at 160? The confusing events of 25/8/01 and 10/11/01 could be thus explained. Was there something sacrosanct about the big wide empty pavement outside 160? Why was the simple solution of “unblocking” the perceived blockage to the podium not dealt with by asking the Swiss to move 2 or 3 metres further away from the podium? Small wonder that the F.L.G. felt persecuted.
１５. 雖然在本案中，到現在必須公認的是在這四名瑞士請願者和那些支持他們的F.L.G. 學員的四周，都有大量的空間可以讓行人通過，但檢控官到現在仍堅持說這是一個阻礙，這是因為理論上，一些假設的人士是不可能沿著行人道一直走到這小撮請願者跟前(他們在一條30米長9.5米寬的行人道上，只是佔據了一處3米長2米寬的地方)，然後再作九十度左轉，好讓他們愈加走貼近直接位於中聯辦前門的旗杆台。
15. Somehow in this case, although it must now be acknowledged that there was plenty of space to pass in front of, behind and on either side of the four Swiss demonstrators and those F.L.G. members who supported them, the prosecution now insist that there was an obstruction because it was theoretically impossible for some hypothetical person to walk along the pavement to a position directly in front of the small group of protestors (occupying a site about 3 meters by 2 meters of a section of pavement measuring overall 30 meters by 9.5 meters) and then make a right angle turn so that they could walk as close as possible to the flag pole directly to the front door of the LOPCG.
１６. 這個論點的荒謬處可以從檢控官再次盤問証人時，所問的問題中顯示出來。檢控官問道，如果有人要去吃中午飯，最短和最直接的途徑就是通過旗杆台。這是幻境因為
１. 所有一般去吃中午飯的人都會用德輔道的出口。
２. 嘗試橫過在旗杆台對開的干諾道是違法的。
３. 這裡沒有停候處（不能找到的士等）。
４. 這不是通往任何一處的直接路線(除了通往一段空無一物的行人道之外) 。
５. 一般去吃午飯的人，不會因為要在這段空無一物的行人道上走走而選擇經過旗杆台的路線，所有人都必須向東面或西面走，而實際上他們也會用東面或西面的入口。
即使會有一個行為如此奇怪的人存在，他仍然可以通過旗杆台，再從請願範圍(9尺加9AP)的兩旁走過。這個「奇怪的人」或者甚至是一大批這種人都不能夠構成最初部的阻街疑慮。實際上，並沒有這類証人被傳召；或許他並不存在
16. The absurdity of this proposition was illustrated by the prosecutor re-examining a witness to ask if, for a person emerging for his lunch break, the shortest and straightest route to the pavement would be through the flag podium. This is cloud cuckoo land because
(1) all normal lunch goers use the Des Voeux Road exit.
(2) to attempt to cross Connaught Road opposite the podium is unlawful.
(3) It is a no stopping area (cannot get taxi etc).
(4) It is not a direct route to anywhere (except to an empty piece of pavement).
(5) No normal lunch goer would come out just to visit an empty piece of pavement. All must go East or West to get anywhere and in fact, demonstrably, they do use the E or W entrances.
Even if such an odd fellow existed he could go through the podium and could still pass by either side of the demonstration. (9 foot plus 9AP) This “odd fellow” or even a legion of them cannot begin to establish a prima facie care of obstruction. In fact, no such witness was called; Perhaps he does not exist.
１７．在案例中或成文法例中，都沒有找到對甚麼是阻街的明確界定。風俗和習慣（普通法的起源）已經能夠讓公眾安全及方便地充分利用行人道，作多種用途使用。在一條寬闊，無阻，而且人流量輕的行人道，進行小型請願活動，並不應該出現甚麼問題。
17. No specific definition of what is and what is not pavement obstruction can be found in case or statute law. Custom and usage (the origins of the Common Law) have enabled the public to make full and varied use of its pavements within practical limits of tolerance safety and convenience. There should be no problem in a wide, clear, lightly used pavement accommodating a smallish demo.
１８．從158到162這段行人道的「風俗和習慣」顯示出，它能輕易地容納被長期擺放的雜物(例如在行人來往的地方橫放著8吋長的鐵欄；在行人路上植樹；個別地容忍在162外的請願行為) 。它還能容納短期的存放雜物(例如有5到6輛車，三輛一排，分兩行並排於160前面，的士和車輛在行160外面的行人道上「上落」) 將來，158到160這段行人道將會被縮減至少於原來面積超過一半以上，警方並沒有就這次行人道大幅度的收窄可能會導致阻街而提出反對。行人道最終會被收窄致3米，到時將會很容易引起抗議。尤其是打從三月十四日起，警方就一直把大量的鐵馬，封鎖了現場行人道的1/3到2/3的範圍。這些鐵馬並未有安上照明，也未有標明，但卻不會對任何人構成傷害或阻礙！警方對以上現象的所謂解釋相當有趣，他們解釋說在行人道上擺放一個更大，更不易覺察以及更實質的障礙物，是為了防止將來可能再發生一種相對地比較小範圍的流動障礙(請願活動) 。警察相當樂觀地相信法庭不會識破這種謬論。一個合理的觀點就是，在160外面的行人道是寬闊、開揚，而且在實質上能夠容納警方長時間的封鎖措施。就這觀點而言，不難推斷的就是一個小規模的請願行動不可能導致阻礙或傷害等。
18. The “custom and usage” of this pavement from 158 to 162 shows that it readily accommodates long-term clutters (e.g. the storage of 8’ long police barriers across the ped. flow, trees set into the pavement, the sporadically tolerated demo outside 162). It also accommodates short-term clutter (e.g. 5 or 6 large cars parking 3 abreast in 2 rows in front of 160, taxis and cars “dropping off” on the pavement outside 160). For the future, the pavement area available for pedestrians between 158 and 162 will be more than halved and the local police have not registered any objection that such a substantial reduction could cause obstruction. Final plans will allow 3 meters, pavement could easily accord Demos. Specifically, the police left their extensive barriers fencing off between 2/3’s and 1/3 of the available pavement for days and days after the 14th of March. They were unlit and unmarked and caused no injury or obstruction to anybody. Although the police alleged explanation for this is interesting, it does not lie in their mouth to say that they would seek to prevent a possible recurrence of a relatively small mobile obstruction (the demonstration) by putting in its place in the pavement an obstruction much larger, less visible and more solid than that which it is seeking to prevent. The police are wildly optimistic to believe that a court will not see through that nonsense. A sensible view is that the pavement outside 160 was wide, open, and could and did successfully accommodate the police fencing operation for days. It is logically and demonstrably unlikely therefore that a small human demo. could cause obstruction injury etc.
１９．跟據以上分析，這裡哪有任何明確的客觀和準確的證據，證明這次請願行動可能阻塞往旗杆台的通道？
１. 那些護衛員？他們都說請願行動阻塞了行人道和通往旗杆台的通道。這個指控被錄影帶、照片和比例圖則所推翻。
２. 那個主管？他說一個員工（現在已經找不到或甚至不能描述）當走近到請願者２至３尺範圍之，因為剩下的空間「只有２至３吋」，所以「不能再通過了」。根據照片顯示，那個空間接近９吋寬，「現在可以從比例圖則的錄影帶等證明」。總管指出入160的人有可能受到威脅的講法是無力的，選用「無力的」字眼是因為；
(a) 只有那個工作人員自己才能就他是否受到「威脅」而提供有效證據。他沒有被傳召。
(b) 那裏有數名穿著制服的警察和護衛員在現場，足以消弭任何假想的恐懼。
(c) 香港面對市民請願的經驗悠久。
19. Against that background where is there any clear objective and accurate evidence that the demo. might block access to the podium?
(1) The security officers? Both said that the demo blocked the pavement/podium access. That claim is destroyed by the video/photo/and scale plans.
(2) The superintendent? He said that a worker (who could not now be traced or even described) approached to within 2 or 3 feet and “simply could not get through” because the gap left “was only 2′ to 3’”. Shown photos which demonstrated the gap to be nearer 9′ (now proved by the scale plan videos etc.) the superintendent spoke rather feebly about the possibility of intimidation. The word “feebly” is chosen advisedly because;
(a) only the worker himself could give admissible evidence as to whether he was “intimidated”. He was not called.
(b) there were several uniformed P.C.’s and security officers in the immediate vicinity, to calm any imaginary fears.
(c) Hong Kong`s long standing experience of citizens of demonstrations.
２０．部分的干諾道是完全沒有酒樓，如果根據邏輯推斷因為過往曾經有人受阻，因而有理由相信人們（例如下午１時１０分之後才去吃午飯的員工）可能受阻。由於160所處一段干諾道完全沒有酒樓，因此這個成為了間接的證據，在３月１４日之前後，人們使用這條行人道的習憤，毫無疑問地顯示出不會有人因為這次相對地小型的請願行動，而受到阻礙或傷害。
20. This, indirect evidence (that some people were obstructed is led to prove a likelihood that people might be obstructed – for example workers coming out for lunch (presumably after 1.10 pm!) to a part of Connaught Road totally devoid of Restaurants. The contemporary events on this pavement both before and after March 14 and to the East and West demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that no one was likely to be obstructed/injured by this relatively small demo.
21.當特警部隊到達160外面時，已經不能就「正常的」人流收集有效的觀察數據。這是因為警方的出現，導致一片混亂，和他們到場前的相對地和平、安靜形成一大對比。
21. By the time the P.T.U. units arrived outside 160, no valid observations of “normal” traffic could now be made. The police had created a tumult where, in their absence, their had been relative peace and quiet.
22. 關於第 二條控罪(關於對撗幅的指控)
22. AS TO CHARGE 2 (Charge se: Banner)
(1) 控方努力地尋找適合的條例起訴這些請願者，他們最後以簡易條例第２２８條第４Ａ節對請願者進行起訴。跟據第４Ａ節指出「任何人士在未有合法的權利或原因陳列或留下或原因去陳列或留下任事物或物件因而對公眾地方構成阻礙……」。在庭上有證據顯示出被控者在整個請願過程中，都是拿著撗幅，甚至有證據顯示他們在整個請願期間都是緊握著撗幅，這裡沒有證據顯示他們陳列或留下撗幅。
郎文字典中對ＳＥＴ ＯＵＴ下的定義是「把一組東西放下，然後把東西有序地排列，例如在餐桌上陳列晚餐」。牛津字典界定這一詞為安排，或展示（東西）。字典裡所提供的例子如把椅子排放好，以供開會時用，或在棋盤上擺放棋子。在Ｃｏｌｌｉｎ字典寫著，「陳列東西，就是在某處把這些物件安排和展示。利用有花邊的蛋糕紙，把一些蛋糕陳列得很吸引」。那些被告並沒有在公眾地方棄置或陳列他們的撗幅。第４Ａ節主要針對的不良行為是，人們在公眾地方陳列一些物件，例如晾衣繩，在路邊曬乾魚類，在商店門前擺放的物件，過分突出行人道等。它甚至包括一條被陳列和棄置的撗幅。但這不是本案的例子。所以這條控罪應該被撤銷。我沒有使用中文的能力，我的訴狀律師的中文程度比我好一點，他經過和其他人交換意見後，指導我去認識「陳列」一詞的中文字樣。來幫我的見習學生和其他人也確定了這一點。
(1) In their desperation to find a suitable charge, the prosecution grabbed for the straw of section 4A of the Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap.228). Section 4A states “any person who without lawful authority or excuse sets out or leaves or causes to be set out or left any matter or things which obstruct in a public place …..”. There is evidence before the Court that the accused were holding a banner at all times and even evidence that they at times held it very firmly. There is no evidence that they set out or left it.
Longman’s dictionary defines set out as “to put a group of things down and arrange it order, such as to set out the dinner on the table”. The Oxford Advanced Learner’s English Chinese Dictionary defines the term as to arrange or display (items). The examples given are to set out chairs for a meeting or to set out the pieces on the chessboard. The Collins Co-build English Dictionary’s states, “if you set things out, you arrange or display them somewhere. Set out the cakes attractively, using lacy dollies.” The accused did not set out or leave their banner in a public place. The obvious mischief that section 4A intends to address is when people set out something in a public place, such as a clothesline, some fish left to be dried on the sidewalk, item protruding too far on to the pavement in front of a shop, etc. It could even include a banner that was set out and left unattended. But that is not the case here. Therefore this charge should be dismissed. My Chinese language ability is non-existent, the Chinese standard of my instructing solicitor is a bit better and he, after conferring with others has instructed me that the Chinese character have the same meaning as “set out” to which I have already referred. The summer students assisting me and others have confirmed this.
（２）撗幅是軟的，顯眼的，它的特質使它不容易構造成對路人的阻礙或傷害。如果撗幅真的能引起以上的危險，那麼位於１６２的撗幅會被容許擺放在那兒嗎？
(2) The banner is soft and conspicuous and inherently unlikely to obstruct/injure any pedestrian. Would the banner at 162 be tolerated if it posed any such risk? Both are acceptable clutter on a pavement as wide as this one.
（３）這條控罪是重複了，因為撗幅是屬於第一條控罪所指的阻礙的其中一部份。
(3) The charge is duplicitous as the banner is part of the same obstruction relied on in Charge 1.
２３． 關於第三條控罪
辯方律師跟據在１－２０段所列出的據點，可以指出的是，雖然那些負責「清場」的警察是在執行任務，所有的「拘捕」是無效的因為主管的懷疑（如果他真的認為）並沒有合理的依據。從證據中得出一個正確的推斷就是，在警方把現場的範圍封鎖的情況下，是不可能有對這次的小型請願行動，會引起阻礙的可能性，作出正確的觀察。在很後期才到場的機動步隊，只是在相信他們接到的命令。我們這裡並不是在投訴個別的警察相信他們的命令的行為。
23. AS TO CHARGE 3
The defence relies on the facts set out in paragraphs 1-20 to show that although the individual “removal” officers carried out their orders, all the “arrests” were flawed because the superintendent’s suspicion (if he held it) was not based on reasonable grounds.
The proper inference from the evidence is that it was impossible to properly observe the obstructive potential of the small demo after the police had fenced the area off. The PTU units, arriving long after this, simply relied on their orders. We do not complain against the individual officers for relying on their orders.
直到目前為止，法庭只能在很大程度上，依賴高級警員的「專業意見」，就是看到了「明顯」的阻街行為，在這次的行動中，警員的「專業精神」就是因為以下的「不專業事件」而蒙上污點。
Insofar as the court is obliged to rely heavily on the Senior Police Officer present “professional view”, that he had seen obstruction committed “explicitly”, the “professionalism” of the police in this operation is not enhanced by the following “unprofessional events”.
（１）警方僱用的翻譯員所使用的語言，和請願者的母語不同，而且當他們在知道這個錯誤後，仍然繼續保留這位翻譯員。我們認為這是不專業。
(1) An interpreter speaking the wrong language was engaged and continued to be retained even after this fact was known the police. We say that is unprofessional.
（２）香港並沒有F.L.G. 的黑名單，但警察仍然把那些瑞士護照的資料記錄下來。我們認為這是不專業。
(2) Particulars from the Swiss passports were taken down despite their being no F.L.G. blacklist in H.K. We say that is unprofessional.
(3) 儘管警方建議請願者到162，本地的學員以往在162經常受到警察的問話，和撗幅被沒收。這裡表現出的是「警察的迫害」
(3) Notwithstanding advice to go to 162, local practitioners had been regularly subjected to police questioning and banner seizure at that place. This has the appearance of “police persecution”.
(4) 警方沒有嘗試讓請願行動繼續在160門前，但在更加靠向路邊的位置進行。我們認為這是不專業。
(4) No attempt was made to accommodate the demo further back towards the road but still in front of 160. We say that is unprofessional.
(5) 有證據顯示no.160享有一個和西區警署的特別關係。(例如會說普通話的督察比高級警員的人數多，商店職員投訴受阻礙時，不會跟中聯辦享有同樣的待遇，就是no.160的投訴會即時受到督察、C.I.P. 、沙展、和大量的警察的直接關注)。除了說160是受到警方的特別照顧外，跟本無法解釋為甚麼25/08/01的示威被清場(示威地點距離160的出入口如此遙遠) ，但請願者卻未有被起訴的原因。
(5) There is evidence from which it can be properly inferred that no.160 enjoys a special relationship with Western Police Station. (e.g. less senior officers than superintendents speak Mandarin, shop keepers complaining of obstruction do not get virtually immediate personal attendance by superintendents, C.I.P.’s, Sergeants and numerous P.C.’s. The removal of the demo on 25/8/01 (placed so far away from any access to 160) without any charges preferred is inexplicable except in terms of special police treatment for 160.
(6) 那個雙方堅持的局面，大部份的時間都在警方的嚴密的監管下（在公眾的角度來看），製造出一個局面就是，如果不作清場，警方會失去面子。清場行動可以被視為警方挽回面子的行動，而那些「警告」可以被視為「窗廚裝飾」。我說過了，警告是沒有法律意義。
(6) The stand-off heavily controlled for so long by the police (and publicly viewed) created a situation where, if no removals were made, the police would appear to lose face. The removals can be viewed as a face saving operation and the “warnings” as “window dressing”. The warnings had no legal meaning, as I said.
(7) 沒有遵守一般合法拘捕的程序。這裡沒有正式的告誡，也沒有向被捕人士提出NTPIC。沒有向法庭作出合邏輯的解釋或道謙。注意合邏輯這個詞。
(7) The normal routines of lawful arrest were not observed. There were no formal cautions and no NTPIC’s were served. No logical explanation or apology has been given to the court. Notice the word logical.
(8) 在庭上重複多次播放作鑒定用途的錄影帶中，可以看到警察明目張膽地無視警方應該遵守的規則，去保障控辯雙方的利益（有關規則已被影印及已附帶在這文件內）。
(8) The subsequent showings of video films for identification purposes were conducted in flagrant disregard of the police rules designed to safe guard the interests of both sides (relevant rules copied and enclosed).
(9)這次的起訴選擇不就拒捕作出指控，是不合邏輯。這樣的指控會立刻把法庭的注意力放在no.160外面清場行動的真正意圖。
(9) The prosecution have illogically chosen not to lay charges of resisting arrest. Such charges would have immediately focused the court’s attention on the bone fides of the removal operation outside no.160.
(10) 無論辯方將會如何選擇，這條指控能否最終成立，取決於控方能否證明這次的拘捕是否合法，這是必須要做到。被告們一開始就質疑今次拘捕行動的合法性。(錄影帶的騰文可以證實) 。
(10) The essential ingredients of this charge includes a requirement that the prosecution prove that the arrests were lawful. That must be done, regardless of any line that the defence might take. The defendants themselves challenged the legality of the arrests from the outset (video transcripts confirm).
(11) 用過去合法的擅自進入和可能破壞和平兩點為理據，而作出指控是存有偏見和轉移注意力的做法。跟據本案的背景，以上的兩個理據都不可能成為拘捕行動的合理理由。
(11) The introduction of allegation of previous non-criminal trespass and possible breach of the peace are potentially prejudicial and meaning-less red herrings and, against the background of this case could never provide any reasonable grounds for arrest. Trespass is a civil matter and in the absence of a crime accompanying any trespass, police favour to certain landlords should not be shown.
(12) 今次被捕的其中一些人士，在過程中並沒有正式的拘捕專員在場，這裡增加了控方成功入罪的難度。儘管控方沒有帶同揚聲器到法庭來，在錄影/錄音帶上可聽到在一時十分的時候，有人用英文說了「拘捕他們」的字句，這要比何督察在一時十一分所發出的指示要早一點。
(12) The absence of formal arresting officers for some of the arrested persons does not assist the prosecution to begin to make its case. Notwithstanding the words in English “Arrest them” at 1.10 pm on the video/audio, the prosecution have not brought a speaker to court. This precedes inspector Ho’s instruction at 1.11 pm.
24. 關於第四條控罪(襲警)
24. AS TO CHARGE 4 (Assault)
(1) 控方未能證明第五被告，是在合法情況下被捕。
(1) D5 has not been proved to have been lawfully arrested.
(2) 跟據警方的錄影帶顯示，警察與第五被告接觸的時候，第五被告的口是合上的。
(2) The police video shows a contact only when D5’s mouth is closed.
(3) 受害者的驗傷報告和照片都沒有發現任何被咬後所留下的傷痕。
(3) Neither the victim’s medical report nor the photographs show any bite.
(4) 不能排除意外觸碰的可能性。
(4) Accidental contact has not been ruled out.
25. 關於第五條控罪（一周事故之一）
25. AS TO CHARGE 5 (one of week incidents)
(1) 未能證明D10是在合法的情況下拘捕。
(1) D10 has not been proved to have been lawfully arrested.
(2) D10被帶下警車時的所有舉動全部被錄影上鏡。
(2) D10 is on video for all of her removal from the van.
(3) 這個連續播放的錄像顯示，她的手緊握並弄損了右邊的一個肩章。
(3) That continuous video shows her hand gripping and damaging a right side epaulette.
(4) 黃／王美寶（她已看了這盒錄像）第一次作證時說，她右邊肩章被損瓌，後來當她看了一張警方的照片，才「記得」應該是「左邊」的肩章。
(4) Wong Mei Po (who had viewed this video) first said in evidence that her R epaulette had been damaged. Only when she was shown a police photograph did she “remember” that it was her “left”.
(5) 黃／王美寶在沒有遵守警方的守則的情況下，看了該錄像。她的證供自相矛盾，及完全與錄像不相符。她的證供可信度可能會受到不合程序的觀看錄像的影響。
(5) Wong Mei Po had viewed the video without the police rules being observed. Her evidence is confused and totally inconsistent with the video. It may have been affected by this irregular viewing.
(6) 不能夠排除這是一次意外但充滿動感的接觸。
(6) Accidental but vigorous contact cannot be ruled out.
(7) 被拍攝的「傷口」可以在請願者被抬走過程中的任何一個環節中弄到。從來都沒見過，這麼少的傷口拍了這麼多照片。
(7) The “injuries” photographed could have occurred at any stage of the removals. Never have so many phothographs been taken of so few injuries.
26. 指控 6
26. AS TO CHARGE 6
(1) 未能證明D10是合法的被拘捕。
(1) D10 has not been proved to have been lawfully arrested.
(2) 陳惠／慧文／敏／雯同意一名女士被六名女警抬走時在極力反抗下，可能會緊握她的肩膀、頸和衣服，以避免跌下來，意即把自己扯上去。這並不是襲警。
(2) Chan Wai Man accepted that a struggling heavy woman, held by six W.P.C.’s, could have reached up to grip her shoulder neck and shirt to avoid being dropped i.e. to pull herself up. This would not be an assault.
(3) 陳惠／慧文／敏／雯最初展示左邊受傷，但後來又展示右邊受傷。
(3) Chan Wai Man first demonstrated a left side injury. She then demonstrated a right side injury.
(4) 陳惠／慧文／敏／雯同様不合程序地觀看錄像 ，這可能會影響她的證供。
(4) Chan Wai Man has also been exposed to irregular video showing which may have affected her evidence.
(5) 事實上，整個事件只維持２秒，可能促使「受害者」允許女士作出上述 ( 2 ) 的舉動。
(5) The fact that the incident only lasted 2 seconds may have prompted “the victim” to make the concession at (2) above.
(6) 在她的頸上找不到任何傷口或傷痕。
(6) No injury or mark was found on her neck.
(7) 另一名「支持」的目擊者指稱看見襲警，但看不見「實際被抓傷的傷口」(指控５)；她展示頸項的不同位置，不能排除被告緊急地抓住一些東西，把她自己撐起，且很快便放了手。
(7) The “supporting” witness who claims to have seen these assaults saw no “actual scratching” (charge 5); demonstrated different sides of the neck and could not rule out a suddenly released hand, clutching for something to pull herself up by.
26. 指控 4, 5 和 6
26. AS TO CHARGES 4, 5 & 6
鑑於這幾位女士是在混亂的情況下反抗和引起痛楚，被控襲警對這幾位被告人根本上不公平。以施壓手段製造痛楚是「不人道的對待」，可能人道的對待就是人權公約的信息。
In the light of the force and pain which these ladies were exposed to in chaotic circumstances, the charges of assault are fundamentally unfair to these defendants. The pain inflicted by the pressure technique is “inhuman treatment” and maybe inhuman treatment is light of the Bill of the Rights.
John Haynes
Counsel for all the Defendants
9 July 2002
(http://www.dajiyuan.com)
