【陳同佳案】林鈺雄／香港人不懂台灣到底在吵什麼？

▲港女箱屍命案兇嫌陳同佳出獄後鞠躬道歉。（圖／香港01授權提供）

●林鈺雄／台灣大學法律學院教授、刑事法研究會執行長

香港人不懂台灣陳案到底在吵什麼。轉引一位香港律師來問的問題，他是香港抗爭運動者，也曾公開投過書（別問誰）：「為何陳來台台灣就會喪失國家主權？」

關於我日前投書文章的第一個提問：
「先提一個問題：蔡政府這樣一口咬定香港有本案管轄權，真的有把握嗎？如果『前提』錯了呢？」

今天單單蘋果評論就兩篇香港大律師和泛民主派議員（可不是護航逃犯條例的建制派）的投書，說明為何香港根本沒有管轄權（但港府當然可以也應該設法協助陳案的港台合作）。

香港民主黨副主席、立法會議員尹兆堅：

「由於台港兩地的法制差異，香港法律下確實難以偵辦及審理在海外發生的殺人案件，即所謂案件的司法屬地原則。」

香港大律師林忌：

「除非香港採納早前大律師公會的建議，另立法律去處理境外殺人，否則已沒有方法，在本地去處理陳同佳殺人的罪行。」

但以上關於「台灣」法律的描述，未盡正確，以後容有機會再來辯駁。這也充分凸顯比較法制之難度。

香港法院同此見解：

再看一下香港法院在陳案說了什麼？（v. 我國政府聲明:港府有無管轄權部分，應由香港法院作出正式裁定，絕對不會私了）：

‘Great frustration’

“It is understandable that great frustration and a genuine sense of unfairness, to say the least, would be felt when an accused’s admission about killing someone outside this jurisdiction could not be a basis to bring a murder or manslaughter charge in Hong Kong,”

Judge Anthea Pang said "great frustration and a serious sense of unfairness" should not overshadow the fact that the case was a money laundering prosecution, not a murder trial.

引述段落：

42. That said, it is understandable that great frustration and a genuine sense of unfairness, to say the least, would be felt when an accused’s admission about killing someone outside this jurisdiction could not be a basis to bring a murder/manslaughter charge in HK. However, justice equally demands that an accused is to be sentenced on the basis of the offences with which he has been charged and of which he has been convicted, not on any other offences or matters, albeit matters which may disclose much greater criminality than the offences charged.

43. We should never lose sight of the fact that no matter how likely an accused has actually committed a most heinous crime, he is entitled to the full protection of his rights associated with a fair trial. If it were otherwise, it would mean short-circuiting our criminal procedure and this affects not only the accused, but also the integrity of our entire criminal justice system. These are fundamental principles which should always be borne in mind.

44. Now, other than the disputed paragraphs, there is full acceptance on the part of the defence that the Accused knew that the properties he dealt with were proceeds arising from the thefts he committed on the deceased whom, admittedly, he himself had killed.