我看到這標題:《反新界東北衝立會改判囚 12名被告考慮上訴》。我看到不同媒體報導此案都講到今天被上訴庭改判即時入獄的被告會上訴。我不禁要問, 去那裏上訴?

本案今天判決, 不是一般的裁判法院的上訴案。一般裁判法院的上訴案會由高等法庭單一法官處理, 如果是控方申請判刑覆核, 就會由上訴庭三位法官一起聽審。今天這件案由上訴庭副庭長楊振權, 上訴庭法官潘兆初及彭偉昌三位聽審。他們對覆核刑期的裁決, 根本不能上訴。上訴庭對上就是終審法院, 終審法院並不是聽審刑期上訴的法院, 刑期的上訴在上訴庭止步, 故此, 東北衝擊立法會一案今天由上訴庭處理了, 就完全結束。

終審法院受理刑事上訴而會批出許可的準則在《終審法院條例》第32(2)條訂立了, 

32. 上訴許可

(1) 除非終審法院已給予上訴許可，否則不得受理有關上訴。
(2) 除非上訴法庭或原訟法庭(視屬何情況而定)證明有關案件的決定是涉及具有重大而廣泛的重要性的法律論點，或顯示曾有實質及嚴重的不公平情況，否則終審法院不得給予上訴許可。 
(由1997年第120號第4及12條修訂)

.......

本案的被名被改判監禁, 並不涉及「具有重大而廣泛的重要性的法律論點」, 那麼可以用「顯示曾有實質及嚴重的不公平情況」(substantial and grave injustice) 作為上訴理由嗎? 我恐怕不能。終審法院在蘇耀峰(音譯)一案, 解釋了何謂substantial and grave injustice,

THE "SUBSTANTIAL AND GRAVE INJUSTICE" TEST

6. Access to this Court in criminal cases is governed by s.32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, which provides that:

"Leave to appeal shall not be granted unless it is certified by the Court of Appeal or the High Court, as the case may be, that a point of law of great and general importance is involved in the decision or it is shown that substantial and grave injustice has been done."

7. This Court's primary role in the administration of criminal justice is to resolve real controversy on points of law of great and general importance. For this Court does not function as a court of criminal appeal in the ordinary way. However the "substantial and grave injustice" limb of s.32(2) exists as a residual safeguard to cater for those rare and exceptional cases in which there is a real danger of something so seriously wrong that justice demands an enquiry by way of a final criminal appeal despite the absence of any real controversy on any point of law of great and general importance. To obtain leave to appeal under this limb, an appellant has to show - as this appellant had shown - that it is reasonably arguable that substantial and grave injustice has been done.

(So Yiu Fung and HKSAR  FACC 5/1999)

終審法院並非一般的上訴庭, 審理的案件基本上是涉及重大法律議題, 其次才是實質和嚴重不公, 考慮的焦點是定罪是否穩妥, 而不是審理刑期或申請保釋那類上訴。故此, 這件案的被告根本再沒有途徑就判刑上訴。

除此之外, 終審法院今天頒布了另一篇判辭, 涉及新界東北衝立會案第一及第二被告(梁曉暘及黃浩銘)的上訴, 已講明不批出他們非法集結罪的上訴許可,

1. At the hearing, we dismissed the applications of both applicants for leave to appeal against their conviction for unlawful assembly, but granted the first applicant’s leave application in respect of his conviction under section 19(b) referred to below. These are our reasons for so doing.

......

4. In the course of a demonstration held on 13 June 2014, protesters rushed at the entrances to the Legislative Council (“Legco”) complex and, using implements like bamboo poles and metal Mills barriers which had been placed to bar entry, attempted to force their way inside by prising open or battering in the glass doors. Considerable violence was used and a Legco security officer was injured, sustaining fractured toes caused by a falling Mills barrier. Damage costing $200,000 was occasioned to property at the entrances attacked.

5. The unlawful assembly convictions were based on both applicants’ participation in this violent behaviour. Their conduct plainly gave rise to a reasonable apprehension by the persons inside the complex of a breach of the peace and undoubtedly constituted an unlawful assembly under POO section 18.[4]
(FAMC No. 18 of 2017)