【判詞中譯】官：案中處境「光時」有港獨含義
國安法首案今日（27日）裁決，三名國安法指定法官裁定唐英傑煽動分裂國家罪和恐怖活動罪罪名成立。三名法官在判詞指，考慮到本案發生的處境（context），認為「光復香港 時代革命」在當日這「關鍵時間點」有港獨含義，唐英傑當時展示「光時」旗幟屬煽動分裂國家的行為。
就煽動分裂國家罪，判詞指出在2020年7月1日，「光時」口號能夠（capable of）具有將香港特別行政區從中華人民共和國分離的意思，在自然和合理效果下，唐英傑展示光時旗幟能夠煽動他人干犯分裂國家。
眾新聞將判詞中，判斷「光時」口號是否涉及煽動分裂國家的段落全文，翻譯成中文。
（註：括號內數字為判詞段落編號）
唐英案判詞中譯（節錄）：口號的意義和是否涉及煽動分裂國家
（134）
正如上文第34段（按：為判詞原文第34段）所總結，法庭需要處理的問題是：考慮到自然和合理效果，在本案的特定情況下展示印有（光時）口號的旗幟，從整體而言，這種展示（光時）口號是否能煽動他人干犯分裂國家。然而，在處理這個問題前，我們必須先考慮在2020年7月1日當時，該口號是否具有相關分裂主義的意思，即是將香港特別行政區從中華人民共和國分離。
（135）
我們接納（控方專家證人）劉智鵬教授的意見，指出中文口號的兩部分（即「光復香港」和「時代革命」）在語義上有緊密聯繫，不能分開理解。它們必須整體地被視為一個詞組或口號。
（136）
在回答上述的問題時，我們不認為辯方專家證人的分析能特別有助法庭回答上述問題。因為正如李立峯教授在辯方盤問時解釋，其報告的分析重點是驗證一個「關鍵假設」，即（光時）口號是否只有一個意思，而每個人都同樣如是地理解。其分析並非針對口號能否有劉智鵬教授所歸納的意思。
（137）
我們須重申，本案所關注的，不是郭兆銘資深大律師所提出，（光時）口號是否只有唯一一種意思；而是從整體而言，考慮所有相關情況後，這句口號能否煽動他人分裂國家。我們參考過的資料中，並沒有表達「唯一的意思」；反之，重點在於相關的文字/訊息/文章/宣傳是否能夠（capable of）煽動他人干犯有關罪行。
（138）
事實上，三名專家證人並無爭議在2020年7月1日這個關鍵時間點，中文口號整體而言至少可以包含劉智鵬教授提出的意思，即是「將香港特別行政區從中華人民共和國分離的目標」。在這個情況下，法庭毋須解決劉智鵬教授與辯方專家證人之間的分歧。
（139）
我們考慮到，辯方專家證人們從未爭議（光時）口號能夠包含分裂國家的意思，因而得出這個觀點：
（1）在辯方專家報告的第61段，辯方專家接納，不能否認梁天琦在2016年2月20日的競選演說中贊同香港在政治上獨立；
（2）在控方盤問時，李詠怡教授同意對某些人而言，梁天琦提倡的口號具有劉智鵬教授在控方專家報告第36段所述的意思，即「口號是為了推動和提倡梁天琦的政治主張；而其政治主張的主要內容是提倡港獨和分裂國家。」；
（3）在辯方專家報告的第114段，辯方專家明確同意「港獨」是其中一個可能與（光時）口號相關的思想；
（4）李詠怡教授在辯方盤問時，一定程度上同意「光復」一詞組，有恢復已失去的政權的意思，儘管它不一定具有該含義；
（5）在控方盤問下，李詠怡教授再次一定程度上接受「革命」一詞組，有推翻政府的意思，儘管它不一定具有該含義。
（140）
在本案中，我們認為劉智鵬教授和辯方專家證人在解釋口號的含義時，均強調「處境」（context）的重要性。在這方面，以下幾點考慮均重要：
（1）在2020年7月1日，電單車手在所有關鍵時間點，插著印有（光時）口號的旗幟、公開在人前見到的繁忙高速公路上行駛；
（2）在2020年7月1日，香港島有示威活動發生。根據控方第一證人、警司譚蘊兒女士所指，當日港島的示威活動訴求是反對國安法，而當日的示威是非法的，因為組織者未能成功申請舉辦公眾活動；
（3）被告當日駛過東區海底隧道後，選擇的行駛路線包括港島區的主要幹道，包括東區走廊、中環及灣仔繞道、干諾道中、金鐘道和軒尼詩道；
（4）被告並無只沿軒尼詩道單向行駛；反之，被告先沿軒尼詩道東行駛向銅鑼灣，然後轉入駱克道向西行，之後再轉入謝斐道繼續向東駕駛；
（5）在展示（光時）旗幟時，被告故意沒有在多條警察防線前停下他的電單車，是明顯公然違抗負責維持香港法紀的執法人員的合法指示；
（6）當日意義明顯不過：7月1日是香港特別行政區成立周年紀念日，和中華人民共和國對香港恢復行使主權的紀念日；和
（7）2020年7月1日當然也是國安法生效後的第二天，該法律針對國家安全問題，尤其是分裂國家。
（141）
考慮到在本案的特定情況下展示（光時）旗幟的自然和合理效果，亦考慮到上述處境式事宜，我們毫不困難地得出肯定的結論：即直至2020年7月1日，（光時）口號能夠具有將香港特別行政區從中華人民共和國分離的意思，亦能夠煽動他人從事分裂國家的行為。
（142）
郭兆銘資深大律師提出，（光時）口號非常含糊，致其不能具有任何分裂國家的意思。這項陳詞與辯方專家證人的供詞有所矛盾，辯方專家證人指口號其中一個可能的意思是香港獨立，而那顯然具有分裂國家的本質。
（143）
辯方進一步質疑控方在此項煽動控罪中，沒有提供任何證據證明被告如何從事將香港特別行政區從中華人民共和國分離的行為，我們認為這是無關宏旨的。以謀殺罪為例，只要證明被告有煽動行為和意圖，便屬干犯煽動謀殺罪，毋須證明被告實施的手段，例如行刺、下毒或勒死另一人，以此令他被定罪。當然，法例沒有規定被煽動者需具有同等的犯罪意圖，控方亦毋須證明被煽動者確曾干犯被煽動的罪行。
（144）
第一項控罪的具體內容是指「將香港特別行政區從中華人民共和國分離」或「以非法手段改變香港特別行政區的法律地位」。因我們已得出「分離」的基礎，我們認為沒有必要處理作為替代基礎的「改變香港特別行政區法律地位」。
判詞原文（節錄）：Meaning of the Slogan and incitement to commit secession
（134）
As concluded in paragraph 34 above, the issue before the court is: having regard to the natural and reasonable effect of displaying the flag with the Slogan on it in the particular circumstances of this case and when viewed as a whole, is such display of the Slogan capable of inciting others to commit secession. However, before we could deal with this issue, we have to first examine whether the Slogan as at 1 July 2020 was capable of carrying the relevant secessionist meaning, namely, separating the HKSAR from the PRC.
（135）
We accept Professor Lau’s opinion that the two parts of the Chinese Slogan (ie “光復香港” and “時代革命”) have a close semantic connection and cannot be construed separately. They must be viewed as a phrase of words or slogan as a whole.
（136）
In answering the question posed above, we do not find the analysis of the Defence Experts particularly helpful because as explained by Professor Francis L F Lee in his examination-in-chief, the emphasis of the analysis was to test a “key hypothesis”, namely whether the Slogan had one meaning only and that was how everybody understood it. The analysis was not directed at the question as to whether the Slogan was capable of having the meaning ascribed to it by Professor Lau.
（137）
We should reiterate that what we are concerned with in this case is not whether the Slogan meant one and only one thing as contended by Mr Grossman but whether the Slogan, when taken as a whole after considering all the relevant circumstances, was capable of inciting others to commit secession. The authorities which we have examined did not speak in terms of “one meaning only”. Instead, the focus was on whether the words/message/article/advertisement was capable of inciting others to commit the offence in question.
（138）
There is in fact no dispute amongst the 3 experts that at the material time on 1 July 2020, as a whole, the Chinese Slogan was at the very leastcapable of having the meaning ascribed to it by Professor Lau, namely, “the objective of separating the HKSAR from the PRC.” In the circumstances, it is not necessary for the court to resolve the differences between the approach of Professor Lau on the one hand and the approach of the Defence Experts on the other.
（139）
In coming to this view, we take into account that the Defence Experts have never disputed that the Slogan is capable of bearing a secessionist meaning:
(1) At paragraph 61 of the Defence Expert Report, the Defence Experts accept it is undeniable that in his campaign speeches on 20 February 2016, Leung spoke in favour of Hong Kong’s political independence.
(2) Under cross-examination, Professor Eliza W Y Lee agreed that the Slogan put forward by Leung would, to some people, carry the meaning stated at paragraph 36 of Professor Lau’s report, namely inter alia, “the subject words were clearly put forward for the objective of advocating one or more political agendas [of Leung]; such political agendas in turn have the advocacy of Hong Kong independence and secession as their main content.”
(3) At paragraph 114 of the Defence Expert Report, the Defence Experts expressly accept that “Hong Kong Independence” is one of the ideas that may be associated with the Slogan.
(4) In her examination-in-chief, Professor Eliza W Y Lee fairly accepted that regarding the compound word “光復”, it can mean recovering a regime that is lost, although it does not necessarily have that meaning.
(5) Under cross-examination, Professor Eliza W Y Lee again fairly accepted that regarding the compound word “革命”, it can mean overthrowing the government, although it does not necessarily mean so.
（140）
In the present case, Professor Lau and the Defence Experts have, rightly in our view, emphasised the importance of “context” when construing the meaning of the Slogan. In this regard, it is important to take into account the following:
(1) the Slogan was printed on a flag carried at all material times on the back of a motorcyclist travelling on a busy public highway on 1 July 2020 plainly in the view of the general public;
(2) on 1 July 2020, there were protests on Hong Kong Island. According to PW1, Woman Superintendent Tam, the protests on Hong Kong Island were against the NSL, and the protests were illegal because an organiser had applied for the holding of a public event but was unsuccessful;
(3) the route chosen by the Defendant after crossing the Eastern Harbour Crossing involved some major thoroughfares on Hong Kong Island, including the Eastern Corridor, the Central-Wanchai Bypass, Connaught Road Central, Queensway, and Hennessy Road;
(4) the Defendant did not travel along Hennessy Road in a single direction. Rather, having travelled in an easterly direction along Hennessy Road towards Causeway Bay, the Defendant turned into Lockhart Road and travelled in a westerly direction before turning into Jaffe Road to resume travelling in an easterly direction;
(5) while the flag was displayed, the Defendant had deliberately failed to stop his motorcycle at multiple police checklines, showing obvious and open defiance to lawful instructions given by law enforcement officers duly tasked to maintain law and order in Hong Kong;
(6) the significance of the date is obvious: 1st July is the anniversary date of the establishment of the HKSAR and the resumption of sovereignty over Hong Kong by the PRC; and
(7) 1 July 2020 was of course also the very next day after the NSL had come into effect, a law which specifically deals with matters of national security including, in particular, secession.
（141）
Having regard to the natural and reasonable effect of displaying the flag in the particular circumstances of this case and taking into account the above contextual matters, we have no difficulty in coming to the sure conclusion that the Slogan as at 1 July 2020 was capable of carrying the meaning of separating the HKSAR from the PRC and was capable of inciting others to commit secession.
（142）
Mr Grossman argued that the Slogan was so vague that it was not capable of carrying any secessionist meaning. With respect, this submission is contrary to the Defence Experts’ evidence that one of the possible meanings of the Slogan was Hong Kong Independence which is clearly secessionist in nature.
（143）
The Defence further complained that the Prosecution, in this charge of incitement, had not adduced any evidence as to how the said incited act of separating the HKSAR from the PRC was to be carried out. In our view, the absence of such is immaterial to the Prosecution’s case of incitement. Taking the offence of murder as an example, a person is guilty of incitement to murder as long as the actus reus of incitement and the mens rea to incite murder are proved. There is no requirement that the incitor must specify the means, for instance, by stabbing, by poisoning, or by strangulation, through which the murder is to be carried out before he could be so convicted. Needless to say, it is also not a legal requirement for the offence of incitement that there be parity of mens rea on the part of the incitee. Nor is the Prosecution required to prove that the incitee indeed carries out the offence incited.
（144）
The particulars in count 1 allege “separating the HKSAR from the PRC” or “altering by unlawful means the legal status of the HKSAR”. Since we have found that the “separating” limb has been made out, we do not consider it necessary to deal with this alternative basis of “altering the legal status of the HKSAR”.
觀看原文： 按此連結