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 focus of the Appellants’ challenge was on the contention that the Commissioner’s statutory discretion for the purpose of “public order (ordre public)” was too wide and uncertain to satisfy the requirements of constitutionality. ． It was held that the concept of “public order (ordre public)” applied in the Public Order Ordinance was imprecise and wide and did not therefore satisfy the constitutional requirement of “prescribed by law” which mandated the principle of legal certainty. ． Public order in the law and order sense, that is, the maintenance of public order and prevention of public disorder is sufficiently certain and therefore satisfies the constitutional requirement of “prescribed by law”. The Court of Final Appeal held that the appropriate remedy would be the severance of public order in the law and order sense from “public order (ordre public)” in the relevant statutory provisions. After severance, the Commissioner’s discretion in relation to public order in the law and order sense would be constitutional and satisfied the constitutional requirement for the relevant constitutional legitimate purpose. ． The Court of Final Appeal also emphasized that the Commissioner must apply the proportionality test in exercising his statutory discretion to restrict the right of peaceful assembly so as to satisfy the constitutional necessity requirement. ． The ruling of the Court of Final Appeal did not affect the conviction. The appeal was therefore dismissed. 終審法院的判決 ． 上訴人所爭議的重點是法例賦予警務處長的酌情 權太廣泛和太含糊，並不符合憲法的要求。 ． 終審法院認為《公安條例》中所引用的“公共秩 序 [public order (ordre public)]”這概念並不明 確，而且意思寬泛。警務處長以“公共秩序”為 由限制和平集會權利而行使的酌情權，因不合乎 “清楚明確”的原則而未能符合“依法規定”這 項憲法要求。 ． “治安上的公共秩序”在法律與秩序上的涵義是維 持公眾秩序與防止擾亂公眾秩序，意思充分明確， 因此符合“依法規定”的憲法規定。終審法院裁定 適當的解決方法是在法例條文中，將“治安上的公 共秩序”從“公共秩序 [public order (ordre public)]”中分拆出來，使警務處長行使的酌情權 能符合憲法的要求，並達致相關的憲法上之合理目 的。 ． 終審法院同時強調，警務處長在行使法例所賦予 他的酌情權時，必須引用“相稱性”這個原則作 為標準，從而符合“必要性”的憲法規定。 ． 終審法院的裁決並不影響涉案的定罪判決，所以 上訴被駁回。 Going Forward ． This case involved high profile protestors such as veteran activist and political group leader Leung Kwok Hung, and vocal critics of government policy and student activists Fung Ka Keung and Lo Wai Ming. There was a view in society that the prosecution of the protesters was politically motivated. ． The Court of Final Appeal's judgment provided a practical guideline for the Police to handle public processions and protests. The POO was amended in 2008 to provide a clearer meaning of the relevant provisions. ． The case sets out a more defined boundary between protecting and facilitating individuals’ rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, and the broader interests of the community at large. 發展路向 ． 此案涉及資深社運人士及政治組織領袖梁國雄、 時事評論員及學運人士馮家強及盧偉明等高調抗 爭者，社會上有意見認為此案為政治檢控。 ． 終審法院的判決為警方處理公眾遊行和示威訂立了 具體指引。當局於2008年修訂《公安條例》，使有關 法例條文更為清晰。 ． 案件為保障和促進個人在和平集會和表達自由的權 利，以及維護整體社會的更廣泛利益之間，訂立 了較清晰的界線。 P.81 法律援助署五十周年紀念特刊