一世留案底？犯過罪可否「洗底」？這文章的連結是來自網媒《香港01》的, 是2016年11月的一篇文。有讀者問我該文下面這一段的講法是否正確:

如符合以上條件，是否能真正洗底？又會否影響求職？楊岳橋指所有曾有刑事案底的人都有紀錄，不是「過了3年就自動刪除案底」，只是可以「對外聲稱無案底」。那應何謂「對外聲稱」？根據《罪犯自新條例》，楊指要視乎僱主如何發問；如僱主問：你是否有案底？僱員可答「無」，因為條例下保障自新人士可選擇「不披露」有案底；但若被問「你有犯過事或被定過罪？」，這時候就要如實表示「有」，否則僱主就可追究。

我最關注的是楊岳橋講僱主可繞過法律逼僱員披露案底的做法, 僱主真的可以不問案底而問「你有犯過事或被定過罪?」不如看下法例297章《罪犯自新條例》第2條:

2. 對已自新的個別人士的保障

(1) 凡個別人士 ——
(a) 不論在本條例生效之前或之後在香港被定罪，但並未因此被判處監禁超過3個月或罰款超過$10,000； 
(由1993年第24號第22條修訂)
(b) 在此以前不曾在香港被定罪；及
(c) 經過3年時間並未在香港再被定罪，

則 ——

(i) 除第3(3)及(4)條另有規定外，在任何程序中均不得接納傾向顯示他在香港曾被如此定罪的證據；

(ii)就他以往的定罪、罪行、行為或情況而向他或向其他人提出的有關問題，或加諸於他或其他人的有關披露該等定罪、罪行、行為或情況的義務，均須視為並非指該項定罪；及

(iii)該項定罪或不披露該項定罪，均不得作為將他從任何職位、專業、職業或受僱工作撤除或排除的合法或正當理由，亦不得作為使他在該職位、專業、職業或受僱工作上在任何方面蒙受不利的合法或正當理由。

2(1)(ii)條很明顯不准披露以往的定罪、罪行、行為等問題, 否則《罪犯自新條例》的訂立還有甚麼意義? 而且, 「定罪」一詞在本法例涵蓋性廣, 第2(6)條列出「定罪」包括

(6) 就第(1)(i)、(ii)及(iii)及(1A)(i)、(ii)及(iii)款及第3條而言，定罪包括 ——

(a) 該項定罪所指的罪行；

(b) 構成該罪行的行為或情況；及
(c) 任何與該項定罪有關的事項，而該事項一經披露，會傾向顯示該個別人士曾犯該項定罪所指的罪行，或曾因該罪行而被控告、檢控、定罪或判刑。

可見, 不能披露的包括曾犯罪及被檢控, 楊岳橋所舉的例子屬於違反法例的做法, 他的講法誤導市民。

高院法官歐陽桂如在Y and The Law Society of Hong Kong HCAL 39/2016一案的部份分析, 對理解《罪犯自新條例》也有幫助:

Convictions and common law

12.  At common law, an employee has no duty to disclose his conviction but the employer is entitled to ask about it.  If the employee chooses to answer, he must do so truthfully.  The position has been summarized in the case of R(T) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester and ors at §§67-68.  in the context of the law before the enactment of legislation similar to ROO in UK:

“67 If a person applies for a job, the employer is entitled under the common law to ask whatever questions of the applicant he considers relevant, and the applicant is obliged, if he chooses to answer them, to do so truthfully. If therefore he is asked about his criminal record, he can decline to answer the question, in which event he may of course not be considered further for the position. If he chooses to answer the question, however, he is under an obligation to do so truthfully. If he lies about his past, a resultant contract of employment will be regarded as having been induced by a fraudulent misrepresentation. If the deceit is discovered, the employer is in principle entitled to have the contract set aside. A person who obtained employment by means of deceit is also in principle liable to prosecution.

68 The position of a person applying for appointment to certain offices, such as judicial office, or for admission to certain professions, such as accountancy or the legal profession, or for permission to carry on certain other regulated activities, such as providing financial services or operating a casino, is broadly analogous. At common law, the applicant may again be asked about his criminal record. If he chooses to answer the question, he is again under a duty to do so truthfully, and his failure to do so will expose him to the risk of adverse consequences under both the civil and the criminal law.”

13.  In respect of Y, his employers did not ask him and he had not volunteered the information about his convictions to his employers.

Rehabilitation of Offenders Ordinance

14.  ROO, enacted in 1986, changes the common law.  According to its long title, its purpose is “to rehabilitate offenders who have not been reconvicted for 3 years, to prevent unauthorized disclosure of their previous convictions and for connected purposes.”

15.  ROO allows persons with spent convictions to conceal them from employers with no consequences, unless they fall within the exceptions in sections 3 and 4 of ROO.

僱員不披露案底受到《罪犯自新條例》保障而無需因此被炒魷或負上民事/刑事責任。另外, 也不要忽畧何謂案底, 我很久以前也談過, 被定罪不一定留下刑事案底, 不留下刑事案底就沒有初犯3年後洗底的考慮。案底是要警方刑事紀錄課的數據資料庫保存的才算, 否則也無需擔心。一個最簡單的測試方法, 就是在拘捕檢控的過程中有打過指模, 沒有打過指模的定罪紀錄是不會進入刑事紀錄課的數據資料庫的。