|
AT ISSUE 專題探討 |
Under the existing s 2(1)(d) of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap 200) a person commits treason if he 'instigates any foreigner with force to invade the United Kingdom or any British territory'.
The Blue Bill proposes to enact a new s 2(1)(b) under which a Chinese national commits treason if he 'instigates foreign armed forces to invade the People's Republic of China?
The instigation offence was referred to in para 2.9 of the Government Consultation Document of September, 2002, and was not much commented upon. Now that the actual wording is on the table, it appears this proposed enactment could be of potent effect.
The genesis of this offence appears to be certain words in s 3 of the Treason Felony Act 1848. The text given in Archbold, Criminal Pleading Evidence and Practice is as follows:
If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or intend to deprive or depose our most gracious Lady the Queen ... from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of Her Majesty's dominions and countries, or to levy war against Her Majesty ... within any part of the United Kingdom, in order by force or constraint to compel Her ... to change Her ... measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon, or in order to intimidate or overawe both houses or either house of parliament, or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade the United Kingdom, or any other of Her Majesty's dominions or countries under the obeisance of
Her Majesty ... and such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare by publishing any printing or writing, ... or by any overt act or deed, every person so offending ... shall be liable ... to be imprisoned for the term of his or her natural life ...
This Act appears to have been passed in response to a specific situation in Ireland at the time: nearly all the reported cases are dated the same year as the Act, and nearly all the defendants had Irish names, the only exception being one Constantine. The last reported case was tried in Dublin in 1867.
One might say this law is history, but lawyers and governments have a habit of tenaciously clinging to the past, and the words 'move or stir any foreigners or strangers to invade the United Kingdom, or any other of Her Majesty's dominions' became part of the law of treason in colonial Hong Kong in the form of s 2(1)(d) of the Crimes Ordinance. There is no reported Hong Kong case on this law. However, with the proposal in the Blue Bill, part of a law which was enacted by the British to deal with the Irish in 1848 might become part of the law of the Hong Kong SAR in the 21st Century.
The Consultation Document sought to justify the re-enactment of this offence in these terms:
An armed invasion is clearly a serious breach of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of the country. The offence of instigation of foreigners to invade the country should therefore be retained as a treason offence (paragraph 2.9).
However, since then a serious amount of thinking has gone into the definition of the offences of treason, subversion, secession and sedition, and this is reflected in the Blue Bill. A significant feature of the Blue Bill is that some element of force or 'serious criminal means' is required to constitute nearly all the proposed offences. The instigation offence is a notable exception.
What does it take to commit this offence? A Chinese national only has to 'instigate'. Instigate is not a technical legal word, and is to be interpreted according to its ordinary meaning. It follows that if you encourage or provoke, by speech or otherwise, you would be instigating. Note also that success is not a requirement: you would still have instigated, and therefore committed an offence, even if you did not produce any result.
The result of this re-enactment would be to impose criminal liability of disproportionate severity on an act which might amount to no more than talking.
There are also ramifications beyond the immediate offence: if you incited a Chinese national to instigate you would be inciting treason, and the meaning of 'seditious publication' would also be broadened because of this widened meaning of treason.
It might be said that it is wrong for a Chinese national to instigate foreign armed forces to invade China, but in terms of the proposed legislation, the question is whether as a matter of legal policy such an act should amount to treason or indeed a criminal act.
The general policy adopted in the Blue Bill is that a treason offence is constituted by specific acts with specific intent or results, for example joining foreign armed forces at war with China with intent to overthrow the Central People's Government or assisting any public enemy at war by doing any act with intent to prejudice the position of China. The stringent requirements of these examples stand in stark contrast to the instigation offence.
Also, by way of comparison, the offence of misprision of treason, though reprehensible, is proposed to be repealed. The instigation offence should fall into the same category and should be repealed. This can be done without detriment to national security, because if a person does more than talk, he could easily be caught under the other offences. The instigation offence is an historical relic which should not be given a new lease of life.
Peter Lo
Chairman, Constitutional
Affairs Committee
據現行的《刑事罪行條例》（第 200 章）第 2(1)(d) 條，任何人「鼓動外國人入侵聯合王國或任何英國屬土」，即屬叛國。
藍紙草案建議訂立新的第 2(1)(b) 條，訂明任何中國公民「鼓動外來武裝部隊入侵中華人民共和國」，即屬叛國。
政府在 2002 年 9 月發表的諮詢文件的第 2.9 段亦曾提到鼓動外國人入侵國家的罪行，但當時並未引起詳細論述。但參閱該項罪行在藍紙草案以正式法律字眼列明的定義，則發覺該條例可發揮巨大效力。
這條例源於英國《1848 年叛國重罪法令》第 3 條的某些字眼。該條文內容（載於 Archbold, Criminal Pleading Evidence and Practice）如下：
任何人士，不論在英國抑或在英國以外地方，圖謀、設想、捏造、策劃或意圖奪去或廢除仁慈的女皇陛下 …… 作為聯合王國或女皇陛下其他領土及國家的君主稱號、榮譽或皇室名稱或在聯合王國任何部分 …… 向女皇陛下發動戰爭，旨在以武力或強制手段強迫女皇陛下 …… 改變其措施或意見，或旨在向兩會議院或國會的其中一個議院施加武力或強制力，或向其作出恐嚇或威嚇，或驅使或煽動外國人或外人以武力入侵聯合王國或女皇陛下其他領土或臣服女皇陛下的國家 …… 並以發佈任何印刷品或文件表明、述明或發佈該等圖謀、設想、捏造、策劃或意圖或以上任何一種，…… 或以任何公開的作為表明、述明或發佈該等圖謀、設想、 捏造、策劃或意圖或以上任何一種，任何人觸犯如此罪行 …… 即屬犯罪 …… 可處終身監禁 ……
有跡象顯示此法令是因應愛爾蘭當時的特殊情況而通過：法律書籍所載案例絕大部份都在法令通過的同一年發生，而考查犯案者姓氏，則發覺所有被告均為愛爾蘭籍人士，唯一可能例外者是一位沒有「地道」愛爾蘭姓氏的康斯坦丁 (Constantine) 君。最後一宗案例則於 1867 年在都柏林審訊。
這條法例可說是歷史陳跡，只不過，律師行業與政府都有異常保守的習慣，因此香港殖民地政府過去在《刑事罪行條例》第 2(1)(d) 條中有關叛國的條文中，亦使用了「驅使或煽動外國人或外人入侵聯合王國或女皇陛下其他領土」的字句。香港從來沒有涉及這條法例的案例。可是，根據現時的藍紙草案，過去英國政府於 1848 年用來對付愛爾蘭人的法例，可能會成為香港特別行政區在廿一世紀訂立的法例的一部分。
諮詢文件以下列理由為再次制訂這條法例提供理據：
武裝入侵顯然會嚴重侵害國家主權、領土完整和國家安全。因此，應把鼓動外國人入侵國家保留為叛國罪（第 2.9 段）。
諮詢文件發表後，各界人士曾對叛國、顛覆、分裂國家和煽動叛亂罪行的定義進行詳細的辯論和研究。藍紙草案的內容反映了這些辯論和研究的結果。藍紙草案其中的一個特點，就是強調所有擬議罪行均須涉及使用武力或「嚴重犯罪手段」，才能構成該等罪行。但鼓動外國人入侵國家的罪行則顯著地例外。
中國公民只須「鼓動」，即屬犯法。「鼓動」並不是專有的法律詞語，因此應按照普通的意思予以詮釋。任何一人以言語或其他方式作出鼓勵或煽動，便屬於鼓動。同時，「鼓動」並不等於「引外敵入侵」。值得注意的是，即使鼓動者沒有達到目的：沒有引起什麼結果，鼓動行為本身仍然構成犯法。
藍紙草案這提議如獲通過，一些不涉武力或嚴重犯罪手段的行為將足以構成叛國罪。
此外，「鼓動」罪行將衍生出其他的結果：任何人煽動中國公民鼓動外國人入侵國家，便構成煽惑叛國，而「煽動性刊物」的定義亦將會因為較廣闊的叛國定義而擴大。
以國家立場來說，中國公民鼓動外來武裝部隊入侵中國是違反國民義務的行為。但以立法而言，應考慮該等行為是否有等同叛國的嚴重性，或純粹「鼓動」的行為應否引起刑事責任。
根據藍紙草案採用的立法政策，構成叛國罪須有某些行為及某些動機或造成某些效果，例如懷有推翻中央人民政府的意圖而加入與中華人民共和國交戰的外來武裝部隊，或懷有損害中華人民共和國在戰爭中的形勢的意圖，藉著作出任何作為而協助在該埸戰爭中與中華人民共和國交戰的公敵。上述例子的嚴格規定與鼓動罪行的規定構成明顯的對比。
隱匿叛國罪同樣應受指責，但政府已同意廢除這項罪行。此舉顯示政府有意廢除苛刻及過時的法例。有關鼓動外國人入侵國家的罪行屬於同一性質，因此亦應廢除。此舉將無損國家安全，因為藍紙草案其它提議已對叛國等種種罪行有嚴厲及全面性的制裁。即使沒有「鼓動」某罪行，中國公民如「引外敵入侵」，亦不可能消遙法外。香港法例中的鼓動罪行是歷史遺跡，實不應賦予新的生命。
羅志力
香港律師會憲制事務委員會主席