法內情

五大訴求中要求「特赦」撤銷義士控罪,可以嗎?

反修例人士提出的五大訴求,其中一項為「撤銷義士控罪」,香港律師會於2019年8月30日向會員發出的通訊中,提及有關法律的條文,解釋於甚麼情況下可以由行政長官使用特赦的權力。

原文如下:

《基本法》第48(12)及63條

關於近來的公共秩序事件,社會有部分意見,指可由行政長官「特赦」,或不檢控在這些事件中被捕的人士。若所謂「特赦」指的是赦免罪行,行政長官的有關權力載於《基本法》第48(12)條,該條指行政長官可行使「赦免或減輕刑事罪犯的刑罰」的權力。這條款適用於已被定罪的人,所以赦免只可在審訊和定罪後作出,而非在拘捕後。至於檢控,律師會已於2019年6月28日的聲明中重申,根據《基本法》第63條,律政司主管刑事檢察工作,不受任何干涉。律政司決定是否檢控一名涉嫌犯罪人士時,必須全面檢視證據和情況,考慮證據是否足以作出檢控,以及檢控是否符合公眾利益。沒有任何一個人可就應否檢控,強加決定。

Articles 48(12) and 63 of Basic Law

In relation to the recent public order events, comments have been made by some quarters of the community about the possibility of the Chief Executive “granting an amnesty” or not prosecuting people who have been arrested in these events. If the suggestion to “grant an amnesty” is to pardon, the power of the Chief Executive is set out in Article 48(12) of the Basic Law. It provides that the Chief Executive has the power to “pardon persons convicted of criminal offences or commute their penalties”. The provision applies to persons who have been convicted of criminal offences, so the act of pardon only comes after trial and conviction, not upon arrest. With respect to prosecution, the Law Society, in its statement dated 28 June 2019, has already reiterated that under Article 63 of the Basic Law, the Department of Justice (“DoJ”) shall control criminal prosecutions, free from any interference. In deciding whether to prosecute a person who has allegedly committed a criminal offence, DoJ must fully evaluate the evidence and circumstances. It must also consider whether the evidence is sufficient to justify instituting proceedings and whether the public interest requires a prosecution to be pursued. It is not a matter where any one person can impose a decision on whether to prosecute or not.

既然法例已經寫得咁清楚,究竟大家追求的是否可以實現,大家心裡有數。

中英文版原文轉自 香港律師會 內部通訊

Author: 法律小薯

發佈留言

發佈留言必須填寫的電子郵件地址不會公開。 必填欄位標示為 *