法律援助署五十周年紀念特刊 | Legal Aid Department 50th Anniversary Commemorative Publication

Judgment of Court of Final Appeal ． The Court of Final Appeal applied and interpreted human rights norm as outlined in The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) governing freedom of expression. ． Protection of national and regional flags was provided for by ICCPR under its public order provisions. ． The Court of Final Appeal held that national and regional flags were important symbols of the PRC and the HKSAR respectively, and as such societal and community interests were involved and needed to be taken into consideration. ． While the Court of Final Appeal considered flag desecration as limiting the constitutionally-protected right of free speech, the constitution itself specifically bans the desecration of flags. ． The Court of Final Appeal considered that the Respondents could have expressed themselves in other ways. ． ‘Necessity’ and ‘proportionality’ tests of international human rights norms were satisfied. ． The two ordinances under which the Respondents were convicted were constitutional. ． The Court of Final Appeal ruled in favour of the Appellant. 終審法院的判決 ． 終審法院根據《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》（國 際公約）所管限的發表自由，解釋人權的基準。 ． 國際公約根據對公共秩序的規定保護國旗及區旗。 ． 終審法院認為，國旗和區旗分別為中華人民共和 國和香港特別行政區的重要象徵，因此涉及社會 及社區利益，必須納入考慮範圍。 ． 雖然終審法院認為侮辱國旗及區旗的行為限制了 憲法所保障的言論自由，但憲法本身已明確禁止 侮辱國旗及區旗的行為。 ． 終審法院認為，答辯人的訴求本可通過其他途徑表 達。 ． 通過國際人權基準的「是否必要」和「是否合乎 比例」驗證。 ． 答辯人被控觸犯的兩條條例均符合憲法。 ． 終審法院裁定上訴人上訴得直。 Going Forward ． The Courts have power to determine, based on relevant human rights standard, if legislation and executive decisions have violated the ICCPR or the Bill of Rights, thus contravening the Basic Law. ． The case demonstrates how freedom of expression is not an absolute argument. ICCPR’s preamble recognises that each individual has duties towards other individuals and the community to which he belongs. By extension, criminalising flag desecration is justifiable restriction, and the right to freedom of expression is still guaranteed. ． The case assists in laying down the principle of “One Country, Two Systems” and reinforcing national unity and territorial integrity. The protection of national and regional flags as unique symbols plays an important role in attaining these goals. ． The case impacts on future cases involving flag desecration and human rights and lays down sentencing guidelines. 發展路向 ． 法庭可根據相關人權準則審視那些法例或行政措施 是否抵觸國際公約或人權法案，因而判斷其是否符 合憲法。 ． 本案展示了發表自由並非絕對的論據。國際公約 的序言亦指出每個人對其他人及其所屬社區負有 責任。推而廣之，把侮辱國旗刑事化是合理的 限制，發表自由的權利仍受保障。 ． 本案肯定了國家統一及領土完整，有助展示「一國 兩制」原則，同時保障作為獨特象徵的國旗及區 旗，在達致上述目標方面所擔當的重要角色。 ． 本案為日後涉及侮辱國旗與人權之間的案件帶來影 響，並為案件訂下量刑準則。 P.73 法律援助署五十周年紀念特刊