上一篇有人問我對中華基督教會協和小學女教師洩露入學面試試題案駁回控方上訴的看法, 我速讀判詞後, 認為控方應上訴至終審法院, 我當時提出幾個胡謅的理由: 

Whether access to computer includes using
The scope of S161(1)(c)
Does Ivey overrule Ghosh
Is the factual decision of the magistrate perverse 

今天明報即時新聞說, 律政司已展開法律程序上訴至終審法院。我不敢說聽審上訴的高院暫委法官彭中屏判錯, 我只是對上述所提出的第二及第三個問題最感興趣, 想知道終院怎去釐清有關法律。以數碼相機而至以智能手機來偷拍裙底的案件, 在香港已猖獗了十多年, 不論是法律改革委員會或律政司, 都遲遲未作出針對性的立法, 由性罪行改革作諮詢, 而至發表建議報告, 已拖了好幾年, 立法還是遙遙無期。最受洩露面試試題案的判決影響的, 就是以手機偷拍裙底的案件, 一天洩露試題案的法律爭議未釐清, 大部份的手機偷拍行為的檢控都要煞停。如果批出上訴許可, 再到正審, 總要花上一年半載, 期間就只好眼巴巴任人偷拍, 可以拘捕卻要暫緩檢控, 除了那些可以遊蕩及有違體統罪替代的案件, 其他就只好暫緩執行。我以前寫過賭場大亨Ivey案(由賭徒推翻的案例), 對於本案上訴至終院能否因此而提出Ivey來討論, 我也不敢講, 因為很明顯在裁判法院原審時沒有提出Ivey, 在高院上訴時也沒有明確引用, 從彭官的判詞可見: 

35. Mr Lee referred me to a recent case decided by the UK Supreme Court: Ivey (Appellant) v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords (Respondent) [3]. In the case, the UK Supreme Court identified the serious problem in Ghosh test that the less a defendant’s standard conforms to society’s expectations, the less likely he is to be held criminally responsible for his behaviour (paragraphs 54, 57 – 59 of the judgment). That said, however, Mr Lee did not ask this court to follow the UK Supreme Court case for the purpose of the present appeal.

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHENG KA YEE AND OTHERS HCMA466/2017 

我對這些女教師最終的命運沒有興趣理會, 反正彭官在判詞中已嚴厲批評這些被告, 從人格上判刑: 

78. The overall evidence in the case suggests that, while they might not know that they were committing a crime, D1 – 4 knew that their conducts were improper and they did not want their conducts to be discovered. In my view, their conducts were wholly inappropriate and disgraceful which no doubt deserved to be condemned. 

上訴至終院, 恐怕律政司要找個能力更強的人作代表。This appeal was not well argued. 

至於會不會不批出上訴許可呢, 我相信一定會批出, 畢竟彭官的判決影響深遠, 為公眾利益, 值得釐清有關法律。