一直透過私人檢控方式追究警暴的民主黨立法會議員許智峯，早前向2019年11月11 日交通部警長於西灣河開槍案提出私人檢控，法庭原於8月31日傳召被告警長審訊，但許智峯律師團隊今日收到信件，知悉律政司決定介入此案，今日已去信西九龍裁判法院要求介入及撤銷檢控。許智峯對此感到極之憤怒，直斥律政司司長鄭若驊此舉，是以人治取代法治，而且要求撤銷個案亦無提出任何理由，質疑律政司官官相衛、包庇警暴，嚴重衝擊普通法下市民提出私人檢控的權利。許智峯會與律師團隊商討，考慮於短期內提出司法覆核。

許智峯表示，律師團隊今日收到律政司提交西九龍裁判法院信件，提出律政司司長決定介入西灣河警長開槍案的私人檢控，並表明會撤銷對開槍警長的傳召，要求法院在8月20至28日其中一天安排聆訊處理上述要求，更要求豁免被告警員出席聆訊。

許智峯質疑鄭若驊以政治介入這私人檢控案，以人治取代法治，直斥政府包庇警暴。「律政司沒有提供任何理由和法理依據，連調查都沒有進行，便作出撤控決定，做法黑箱作業，是官官相衛，為保護警隊，不問是非黑白。」

許智峯指，私人檢控是普通法下市民享有的法律權利，他形容律政司這樣做影響深遠，衝擊私人檢控權利，向市民和國際社會表明香港特區政府是以人治取代法治。他要求律政司公開交代原因，並指過去律政司會公開交代介入私人檢控的理由，例如1998年11月時任刑事檢控專員江樂士便曾赴立法會交代律政司司長接管和中止一宗針對前檢察官的私人檢控的原因。

法院早前批准發出傳票，傳召西灣河開槍案的警長出席8月31日的聆訊，就以下三項控罪答辯：

對受害人A干犯的罪行
1. 香港法例第212章《侵害人身罪條例》第17(B)條，意圖造成身體嚴重傷害而射擊（Shooting with intent），最高可處終身監禁。

2. 香港法例第238章《火器及彈藥條例》第22(1)條，罔顧他人安全的情況下發射彈藥（discharging ammunition with reckless disregard for the safety of others），最高可處監禁7年。

對受害人B干犯的罪行
香港法例第238章《火器及彈藥條例》第22(1)條，處理槍械而其方式相當可能傷害或危害他人的安全(dealing with arms in a manner likely to injure, or endanger the safety of other person)，最高可處監禁7年。

民主黨立法會議員許智峯

2020年8月18日

--

Department of Justice took over proceedings of HUI Chi-fung’s private prosecution against policeman who fired live rounds in Sai Wan Ho

HUI slams the government for overriding rule of law with rule of man

Democratic Party Legislative Councillor HUI Chi-fung, who has been actively using private prosecutions to hold police accountable for their actions, had earlier instituted a private prosecution against a policeman who fired live rounds in Sai Wan Ho on 11th November 2019. The hearing was originally scheduled on 31st August but HUI’s legal team received a letter today, notifying them that the Department of Justice (DoJ) took over proceedings of the private prosecution and had already written to the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts to intervene and withdraw the charges. HUI is furious, “Teresa Cheng’s action is overriding rule of law with rule of man. DoJ failed to provide any reasons for withdrawing the charges.” HUI said DoJ’s decision equates to condoning police violence and undermines the right of an ordinary citizen to institute private prosecutions under common law. HUI will discuss with his team and consider filing a judicial review soon.

HUI said his legal team received DoJ’s letter to the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts today, which mentioned that the Secretary for Justice decided to intervene in his private prosecution against the policeman who fired live rounds in Sai Wan Ho, and withdraw the summons issued to the policeman. The letter also asked the court to hold a hearing between 20 to 28th August to deal with the request and exempt the policeman from appearing before the court.    

HUI highly suspects Teresa Cheng to intervene in the case because of political reasons. HUI said the decision blatantly overrides rule of law with rule of man and condones police violence. He said, “DoJ did not provide any reasons or legal basis for the decision. They decided to withdraw the charge when an investigation never even took place. They are merely protecting the police regardless of their actions.”

HUI notes that instituting private prosecutions is a right of an ordinary citizen under common law, not only does DoJ’s action undermine such right, DoJ has also shown the public and the international community that the SAR government is overriding rule of law with rule of man. He demands DoJ to follow past examples by disclosing the reasons to the public, e.g. Grenville Cross SC, then Director of Public Prosecutions, disclosed the reasons for intervening and ending the proceedings against a former prosecutor at the Legislative Council in November 1998.

The court previously issued a summons to the policeman who fired live rounds in Sai Wan Ho to appear before court on 31st August for the following 3 charges:

Against Victim A:
1. Shooting with intent to do grievous bodily harm, under Article 17(b) of Offences against the Person Ordinance (Cap. 212) which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

2. Discharging ammunition with reckless disregard for the safety of others, under Article 22(1) of Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance (Cap. 238), which carries a maximum imprisonment of 7 years.

Against Victim B:
Dealing with arms in a manner likely to injure, or endanger the safety of other person, under Article 22(1) of Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance (Cap. 238), which carries a maximum imprisonment of 7 years.

Democratic Party Legislative Councillor HUI Chi-fung, Ted

18th August 2020