荒謬的保釋

悉尼晨報今天報導一段頗為驚人的新聞，15歲的少年由11歲開始犯罪生涯，至今已被檢控超過50次，成為新州最年輕又犯案最多的犯人。先看報導

Not a teenage crime wave - a tsunami

HE'S just 15 but rarely in the history of NSW law enforcement has such a young boy committed so many serious offences and caused so much trouble for Sydney's police. First charged with a criminal offence at 11, as of last week he has been charged more than 50 times.

His modus operandi (犯案手法)is to steal cars and drive them at very high speed - for instance, at 140km/h over the Anzac Bridge...

Detectives have repeatedly warned in court that he is ''an extreme danger to the community'' who is going to kill himself, an innocent member of the public or a police officer. According to police, he has breached his bail conditions, or failed to appear at court, a staggering 32 times. Despite that, and much to the anger and absolute exasperation of police, he has been granted bail by magistrates and judges time and again, only to go on and commit even more serious offences, sometimes within hours. (Extract from SMH Aug 14 2011)

這少年不論甚麼原因踏上這犯罪的不歸路，很涼薄的講，我毫無興趣去知。社會裏總有些人、有些事無可救藥。社會的資源，可以更加有效幫助更多值得幫助的人，不應為一個人而浪費。裁判官和法官對這少年過份姑息，助長他不斷犯罪的機會，使他有恃無恐。到控方成功說服裁判官拒絕保釋，高院法官對控方的反對又置若罔聞：

He said a magistrate who had previously refused the boy bail had commented: ''I have a genuine, and I emphasise genuine, fear that a person will become deceased.''

But much to the dismay of police, Justice Hoeben granted bail. Justice Hoeben acknowledged in his judgment it was ''a miracle'' that the boy had not caused ''serious injury'' to innocent road users.

But the judge noted the youth had had ''a tragic upbringing'' and that his case workers believed his behaviour was improving. The judge said it was ''difficult to reconcile'' this ''glowing report'' with the fact the boy committed serious offences in March, April and May. Nevertheless, Justice Hoeben said: ''I'm prepared to give him one last chance.'' He imposed strict bail conditions, including a 6pm to 7am curfew. (SMH)

法官給予被告保釋，理由極為荒謬，不單只罔顧社會公眾的安全，也不合乎法理原則。新州有關保釋的法例是Bail Act 1978，第32條訂定考慮保釋申請的準則(criteria to be considered in bail applications)，考慮範圍分為四大類二十小項，其中包括被告的背景、與社會的連繫、過往棄保潛逃的紀錄、控罪的性質及證據的分量等一大堆因素。單是考慮strength of evidence, previous absconding record and re-offending while on bail，已足夠合乎理智法則地把被告收監。

在香港而言，法律大原則上有關保釋權利，來自香港人權法案條例(Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance Cap383  section 8 article 5(3))，具體法例是刑事訴訟程序條例第9D條(Criminal Procedure Ordinance Cap 221)。同一條例第9G條列出拒絕保釋的考慮理由，

(1) 法庭如覺得有實質理由相信(不論假若准予保釋會否根據第9D(2)條施加條件作規限)被控人會有下列行為，則無須准予被控人保釋─

(a) 不按照法庭的指定歸押；或
(b) 在保釋期間犯罪；或
(c) 干擾證人或破壞或妨礙司法公正。

(2) 法庭於達致第(1)款所指的意見時，可顧及─

(a) 指稱罪行的性質及嚴重性，以及一旦定罪時，相當可能處置被控人的方式； (b) 被控人的行為、態度及操守； (c) 被控人的背景、交往、工作、職業、家庭環境、社會聯繫及財務狀況； (d) 被控人的健康、身體和精神狀況及年齡； (e) 被控人以往任何獲准保釋的歷史； (f) 被控人的品格、經歷及以往定罪(如有的話)； (g) 被控人犯被指稱罪行的證據的性質及分量； (h) 法庭覺得有關聯的任何其他事宜                        (S.9G Cap 221)

有些法官對社會現況的認識，嚴重脫節，在象牙塔裏閉門造車，炮製出影響深遠的裁決。除了一些是純法律，超乎標少個人智慧能理解的之外，有不少小道理，涉及普通常識的裁決，一樣可以是使人費解。上面的例子，便是明證。