(http://www.epochtimes.com)
【大纪元8月8日讯】香港政府动用对小摊贩的管理条例，对法轮功十名学员的情愿行动提出“阻街”检控。此案引起各国政府高度关注，英国外交部七月给参众议会的特别报告中专门提及此案，表示高度关注香港问题。因为此案超越一般的治安检控，涉及中国对法轮功政治镇压在香港的延续，为方便社会各界了解此案，我们特公布“阻街”案中辩方陈词。
在香港特别行政区西区裁判处
WSC5482002
辩方律师陈词
事发经过
IN THE WESTERN MAGISTRACY OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
WSC 548 OF 2002
DEFENCE SUBMISSION
CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY
１. 在二００二年三月十四日，上午八点五十分左右，四名瑞士法轮功学员（F.L.G.）在干诺道西一六０号（no.160）中国驻港联络办事处前门的旗杆台前细小范围内排坐成一行，进行静坐请愿行动。根据香港的标准，这条行人道很宽阔，完全没有障碍物，而且行人往来量很少。这次的请愿行动包括了一个手持的横额，一张地席写着“Switzerland（瑞士）”，就像所有瑞士的东西都有“瑞士”字样，而且他们极之整齐。这次请愿行动“矛头指向”中国政府，而请愿者选择的位置具“有效的象征意义”（就是直接对着抗议所针对政府的旗杆台）。请愿者的“分布”可以精确地显示在展示图。在请愿范围的四周都有超过两米阔的行人道没有任何障碍（在中联办的侧面两至三米，以及路（北）边五至六米），除了他们这次在香港的请愿行动所针对的政府良心之外，这些请愿者没有理由相信他们会引起任何人事的尴尬和不便。早前有关这次请愿行动的录影带和图片（上午十时之前）显示出这次请愿行动富有色彩和宁静，而且整个气氛相当安静、和平、平静和有秩序。但在no.160出现了官方埋怨的声音和行动。
1. At about 8.50 am on the 14th of March 2002 4 Swiss Fa Lun Gong (F.L.G.) practioners set up a small stationary linear sit-in type demonstration in front of the flag podium of the Chinese Government Liaison Office at 160 Connaught Road West (no.160). By Hong Kong Standards, this pavement was very wide totally unobstructed and pedestrian traffic was very light. The demonstration included a hand held banner, a mat stating “Switzerland” and (like all things Swiss!) was extremely neat a tidy. The demonstration was “aimed at” the government of China and its positioning was “symbolically perfect” (i.e. directly opposite the flag podium of the government to whom the protest was directed). The “layout” can be fixed exactly on the scale plan exhibited. There was over 2 metres of clear pavement in all sides of the demonstration area. (2-3 metres on the office(s) side and 5 to 6 metres on the road (N.) side). The demonstrators had no reason to believe that they would embarrass or inconvenience anybody or anything except the conscience of the government against whose activities they were seeking to exercise the H.K. right to demonstrate. Early video and photos of this demo (prior to about 10.00 am) show it to have been colourful but quiet and that tranquillity, peace, calm, and order prevailed. However there was a buzz of official resentment and activity at no.160.
２. 这些“声音”始于no.160护卫的意见，认为这次请愿行动的地点太接近旗杆台。他惯性地容忍F.L.G.请愿行为，被“框在”no.162门外行人道的一旁。接着下来的一个小时，在no.160的一位相关官方人员（他有警方早前所提供，能说普通话的高级督察的私人电话号码）重复向本地警方投诉了5次。即使是如此地关注事情，这位官员没有做一个证人的声明或提供证据给法庭。
2. That “buzz” had begun with a security guard from no.160 taking the view that the demo. was too close to his podium. He was accustomed to the F.L.G. demos being tolerated and “penned in” only to one side outside no.162. During the next hour a named official from no.160 (who had been previously supplied with the private phone number of Mandarin speaking senior police) repeated his complaint to the local police on 5 separate occasions. Despite this show of concern, that official did not make a witness statement or give evidence to the court.
３. 在上午差不多9点钟，西区警署的督察收到有关官员投诉的消息。督察立刻处理这件可能阻碍行人道的案件。他放下自己惯常9点钟的训示，立刻就赶到现场。到了上午9:10时，no.160外面已经有大量警察“来回打转”。警察的人数不断地增加直至到警察的人数比请愿人士多。
3. Just before 9.00 am the superintendent at Western Police Station received news of the official’s complaint. The superintendent jumped to deal with this possible pavement obstruction. He shelved his routine 9.00 am. Briefing and immediately rushed to the scene. By about 9.10 am there was a large number of police “milling about” outside no.160. The police numbers grew and grew until there were many more police than demonstrators.
４. 警察展开了一连串的带挑衅性和令人费解的行为。首先，他们用铁马封锁了通往旗杆台的行人道（这就是那条员工和访客到中联办时喜欢使用的道路；现在遭封锁后，只有那条“危险”的行车道可以供使用）。然后他们把示威者“栏进”了东和西两边，接着他们把传媒和好奇的市民“栏倒到”东边，他们在路边留下一条1－2宽的通道，让行人路过；其后，他们在西边（在160和162的交界处）放置了铁马。
4. The police embarked on a serious of potentially confrontational and puzzling acts. First they blocked off the pavement access to the podium with iron railings (this was the very access, so it is said, that workers and visitors to 160 liked to use; now only the “dangerous” vehicular access could be used). They than “penned in” the demonstrators to E and West. Then they “penned back” the media and curious citizens to the E leaving a 1-2 metre gap of pavement next to the road for passers by; later they put a similar barrier to the West (at the border of 160 and 162).
５. 那位督察向记者和传媒发表公布。记者和传媒只能站在no.160西边的行车道才能听到公布他们合作地出示他们的瑞士护照。他们全部的护照和签证都是有效的。不过在没有明确的原因下（据说香港没有F.L.G. 的“黑名单”？），警察抄录了他们护照上的资料。警察知道他们是外国人，但却没有询问他们的母语是什么。虽然警察没有问以上的问题，但他们(在传媒面前) 把一位翻译员带到现场。警察随即发现翻译员使用的并不是这些外国请愿人士的语言。即使如此，他们继续采用这位翻译员(同样是在传媒面前) 。
5. The superintendent addressed the press and media. They could only listen by standing in the E vehicular access to no.160. The police spoke to the foreign demonstrators. They cooperated by showing their Swiss passports. All their passports and visas were in order. Never-the-less and for no apparent reason (their being no “black-list of F.L.G. in H.K.) the police wrote down particulars from their passports. The police realized they were foreigners but did not ask them what their native language was. Although this had not been asked, an interpreter was brought to the scene by the police (in the presence of the media). The police then discovered that the interpreter did not speak the language of the foreign demonstrators. They continued to use this interpreter (again in the presence of the media) despite their knowledge that she did not speak the language of these foreigners.
６. 接着警方向请愿人士，展开了一连串在法律上令人费解，类似暴动条例式的宣读。这些宣读带有一个恐吓，就是将会采取进一步行动（最终被带走和拘捕），和一个动机，就是让这些请愿人士回到162外面，以避免警方的行动升级。学校老师们可能会形容这是给调皮学生们的数次“最后机会”。但在成年人的世界里，这些“警告”有很少的法律基础，且被“翻译”成非请愿者使用的语言，而所有这些都在传媒面前发生。那些外国请愿者指出他们没有造成阻碍，没有做错任何事，所以不会离开。所有过程都记录在警方的录影／录音带中。
6. The police then embarked on a series of legally puzzling quasi-RIOT ACT type readings out to the demonstrators. The readings contained a threat, that further action (eventually removal and arrest) may be taken, and an inducement, that this may be avoided if the demonstrators moved to outside 162. School teachers might describe this as giving naughty pupils several “last chances” but in the grown up world, these “warnings” have little legal basis, they were “interpreted” in the wrong language, and this all went on in front of the media. The foreign demonstrators reacted by pointing out that they were causing no obstruction and were doing nothing wrong and would not move. This is all in the police video/audio tapes.
７. 到了中午十二点半，大批警员（包括机动部队）都准备就绪。在大批警员未到场前那种安静、空间感与和平气氛，已被铁马、警方的记者招待会、警车（部分停泊在行人道上）、两组掳带踏脚梯的警方摄录队伍等所取代，所有这些反应、行动肯定会让外国游客感到惊讶。我们希望警方的小题大做不会成为未来香港生活的一个特征。那些游客保持缄默，并且保持原来的位置。大约到了下午一时十分，他们和他们的本地支持者被警方采用使请愿者感到疼痛的方法，把紧扣在一起的请愿者松手，束手就擒，而警方没有给请愿者正式的警告和NTPIC。他们拒绝被警方拘捕，指称他们并没有阻碍任何人，以及他们不应该被拘捕。
7. By 12.30 pm massive numbers of police (including P.T.U. units) had been stood by. The tranquillity, space and peace which had prevailed before the arrival of large number of police had been replaced by metal barricades, police press conferences, police vehicles (some on the pavement), 2 police video teams with step ladders etc. All this reactive activity should have amazed the foreign visitors. We hope “over policing” of small matters is not becoming a feature of H.K. life. The visitors kept quiet and sat tight. At about 1.10 pm they and their local supporters, were seized using a technique which relies on causing pain to release a demonstrators grip. No formal cautions and no NTPIC were ever given to the suspects. They resisted being seized, said they had obstructed nobody, and said they should not be arrested.
重要因素
８. 我们要仔细探讨中联办门外行人道的政治背景及整个历史，才能发现为何这么多性格高尚、和平的人被拘捕的真正原因。这个政府亦展现出他们承认这个复杂背景的相关性，政府认为只要派两名很高级的检控官去打这场官司，他们（就像辩方律师）基本上没有处理过阻街案件的专业经验，他们的被取用一定是有别的原因。我们认为政府的决定，主要是因为明显地与本案所触及到在政治上和宪法方面的问题有关。F.L.G.在中国大陆是不合法的，一个属于“同一国家”但有独立体制的地方内的警力，对F.L.G.在香港行使法律赋予的权利（当着中央办公室的面）请愿，而这种请愿行动在大陆发生就是不合法，所以香港警方很自然地会倾向于对F.L.G.作出负面反应。亚洲人（尤其是那些没有享受不太多民主的人）都不愿意向强权作出直接及公然的挑战，香港警方已经养成了（坏？）习惯，把笼般带侮辱性的铁栏，包围着和平地静坐着的请愿者（见S.C.M.P.2/7/020）。在我们任何一份宪法文件上，都没有指出自由表达意见一定要在类似铁笼里和受侮辱的情况下进行。
SIGNIFICANT FACTORS
8. To discover the true factors precipitating the seizure of so many peaceful people of good character, the overall history and political background of this particular area of pavement must be carefully examined. The government have demonstrably recognized the relevance of this complex background. The government has seen fit to instruct 2 very senior government Counsel to present their case. They (like defence counsel) have virtually no professional experience of doing pavement obstruction cases. They must be here for other reasons. We hope it is solely because there is an obvious and relevant political and constitutional aspect to this case. F.L.G. is unlawful in Mainland China. Any police force of a separate system but of the “same country” will naturally be tempted to react negatively to F.L.G. exercising a legal right to demonstrate here (in the face of the mainland office) which would be illegal in the mainland. Asian people (particularly those with reduced democracy) do feel uncomfortable in the presence of a direct visible challenge to authority. H.K. police have got into the (bad?) habit of placing humiliating cage like metal fences around peaceful sitting demonstrators (see S.C.M.P. 2/7/02). None of our constitutional documents suggests that free expression must be made from a quasi-caged and humiliating position.
９. 警方对no.160所发出的官方投诉养成了会服从地作出即时处理的习惯，是本案直接的相关因素。警方在庭上完全无意提供任何“阻街”证人，他们没有提供任何一个真正“独立的旁观者”，这是危险式的自负。警方知道在证实一个被辩方当场作出否决的具争议性的指控，法庭会高度重视这一类证人。警方希望围绕着F.L.G的政治气候足够让法庭自然地接受他们任何的证供，警方因此认为不需要大费周章去提供独立的证词。
9. The developed, obliging and immediate police response to official complaints from no.160 has a direct relevance to this case. The police have not troubled to bring a single “obstructed” witness to court. They have not produced a single truly “independent bystander”. This is dangerously arrogant. The police know how highly such a witness would be regarded by the court when it comes to proving an inherently controversial offence which was flatly denied at the time by the defendants. The police may be hoping that the political climate re F.L.G. is such that the court will automatically accept whatever the police say and they the police need not trouble to produce independent confirmation.
１０. 儒家的训诲中，有一个故事是关于一个暴君为了证实随从对他的忠诚，于是指鹿为马，他的随从并没有纠正他的错误，虽然他们每个人都知道他们的领袖所指着的是一只鹿。而那些在权力架构内服务的人（如警察、安全人员等）无可避免地堕入故事中随从的思想倾向。当然衡量一个请愿行动会否造成阻碍的界线，比分辨一只马和一只鹿更难。然而，这些警员容易倾向于视任何未经允许或指定的F.L.G.请愿行动，都视为潜在的阻碍。法庭需要的是真凭实据，而不是警员（无论多高级）的意见。在本案聆讯中，涉及请愿权利时，控方有点自负，完全无意提供来自普通市民的独立证词。就像其他公民一样，警员有权拥有他们个人的意见。警员主观地认为这次请愿行动造成阻碍的看法，并不是根据任何客观证据所得出的合理结论。所有的证据都是来自警察和160的护卫员，造成了明显的偏见。
10. Those who serve in an authoritarian structure (e.g. police, security offices etc.) are inevitably susceptible to the mind set encapsulated in the Confucian parable about a despot who tested the loyalty of his subjects by pointing to a deer and calling it a horse; his people were not minded to contradict him even through everyone knew it was a deer that their leader was pointing to. Of course, the line between a demo. that may cause obstruction and one that may not is much finer than that between a horse and a deer. However these officers are likely to be pre-disposed to see any F.L.G. demonstration not previously tolerated/located by police as a potential obstruction. However it is hard evidence/and not the opinion of police officers, (however senior), which must satisfy the court. There is some arrogance in presenting this case involving a right to demonstrate without troubling to obtain any independent evidence from ordinary citizens. The police, like all other citizens are entitled to their own opinions privately held. Their subjective beliefs that this demo. constituted a potential obstruction has not been shown to have been based on reasonable grounds by any objective evidence. All the evidence has come from police and security men from 160. This creates an obvious appearance of bias.
１１. 警员这种态度，使他们成为可能带有偏见的目击证人，而结果就是（除了警员作出多个不相干的意见，例如一个F.L.G.可能擅自进入；可能会破坏和平；员工可能感觉受到威胁；同样事情可能会发生）他们所提供的可能阻街的证据，都被比例平面图所提供的数字一一推翻。那些超过四小时的影音证物及图片，表现了这一段行人路的历史。今次控诉面对以下两个因素（a）一条宽阔且人流稀少的行人道，过去都有不同的杂物出现，但都被高度的容忍；而将来警方亦不会就这条行人道被收窄而作出反对；（b）图片和警方未采取行动之前的部分录影带显示出，旗杆台并未被请愿者“阻塞”，比例图证明了这一点。结果，检控官在（陈述案件接近尾声时）曾经问过证人们，请愿者会否对在香港行人路上想走直线的人造成阻碍！检控官知道没有这个论点，他们的诉讼就不成立了，这个神话式的人物（那个“行走直线的人”），如果真的存在的话，他不会在香港生存得很久。
11. The result of this police altitude is that/apart from the irrelevant opinions of police officers e.g. an F.L.G. might trespass, there might be a breach of the peace, approaching workers might be intimidated, there might be recurrence) there is no area of the potentially opinionated live witness evidence of potential obstruction that is not completely destroyed by the mathematical accuracy available from the scale plan, the 4 hours plus of video/audio material and the photographs illustrating the history of that stretch of pavement. The prosecution are now faced with (a) a wide lightly travelled pavement whose history shows flexible tolerance of acceptable clutter and whose future shows no police objection to a very substantial narrowing of the existing pavement. (b) photos and early videos which show that the flag podium was never “blocked” by the demonstrators. (scale plan proves this).
The result is that the prosecution have (towards the end of their case) been asking witnesses if the demonstrators might have obstructed persons who take straight line routes on H.K. pavements! They have recognised that without that proposition, they have no case. Such a mythical person, if he ever existed, (the “straight liner”) would not survive long in H.K.
１２. 这个论点在香港的环境里不能抵御严谨的分析，一些例子已证实了这一点。我们日常接触到的例子，如工人在行人道上起御和堆放货物；热心的自愿工作者在卖旗日向行人卖旗；兼职者派发传单，游说行人光顾一间新的酒楼，吸人行人去买消费品；一群老朋友在行人道上偶遇，演变成二十分钟的街头对话。香港到现在仍然会基于人道，容忍有人士在不超过十二小时的期限内，在繁忙的行人道上维持一个“乞丐俯卧的姿势”，而导致行人必须绕道而走。饼店工人停在路中心，打着横幅抗议失业。青年少女们在路上一边谈天，一边等待迟到了一个小时朋友；最近的几个星期，成百上千的香港市民站在或坐在行人路上，观看大银幕上的世界杯比赛，他们很多时候阻塞的不只是部分行人道，而是整条行人道。但明白到这个现代都市的居民，并没坚持在走路时要维持直线或者是维持他们“惯常”的路线，他们绕过了人群，或采用另外路线。对于那些“好事近”的（通常是）年轻人，在L.G.4的行人路上半永久摆设，我们不会派出机动步队。我们会带着微笑地经过。
12. This proposition cannot survive critical analysis in a H.K. setting. Some examples make the point. Among those we encounter on a regular basis are workmen unloading or piling goods on the pavement; enthusiastic volunteers seeking flag day donations; part-time workers distributing leaflets to persuade us to patronize a new restaurant or to entice us to purchase consumer items; a group of old friends whose chance encounter develops into a twenty-minute conversation right in the middle of the pavement. H.K. is still humane enough to tolerate, for periods of up to 12 hours, established “prostrate beggar positions” on the pavement necessitating pedestrian diversions in busy locations. Cake workers stop in mid-pavement with a banner to protest a loss of jobs. Teenage girls gather to gossip on the pavement whilst waiting for a friend who is 1 hour late. These last few weeks hundreds, sometimes, thousands of Hong Kong resident stood or sat on pavements watching world cup games on large video screens, blocking not just part, but frequently the whole, of the pavement. But understanding residents of this modern metropolis did not insist on walking in straight lines or even their “usual” route, they made small diversions around the groups of people or took an alternative route. The (usually) young “soon to be marrieds” set up semi-permantly on the pavement at L.G.4. We do not send for the P.T.U. We smile and pass by.
１３. 但以上几个所列举的例子中，所涉及的人们，都是没有受到基本法和国际公约所保护。本次审讯被指控的人，不单衹可以倚赖这个争取成为世界级大都会的文明城市里面，人民的善意；即使有人可能在路过这条行人道时，需要作出轻微的绕道，这些被指控的人所拥有的权利，是被珍藏在基本法上，而因此受到基本法的保护，从而保障了他们的集会自由、与表达自己的权利。况且，在本案中亦没有任何人提出任何证据，表示他/她确实因为避开这些请愿者而多走几部路。以上列举的例子与本案的分别，在于F.L.G. 有一个“政治”信息与及他们应有的行人道使用权，并未有被容纳。由于NO.160的“面子”，警察需要表现得对一切事情都在掌握中等因素，都在影响着那些本地的警察的判断。
13. Yet none of the persons in these few examples are protected by the Basic Law and International Covenants. The accused in this trial should be able to rely not only on the good will and courtesy of the residents of this civilized city that strives to be a world class metropolis; These accused have rights that are enshrined in and thus protected by the Basic Law, which guarantees their right to assemble and express their views, even if someone might have to make a very slight detour when walking on the pavement. Moreover in this case there is no evidence from anyone stating that he or she actually had to take a few extra steps. The difference between the examples and this case is that F.L.G. had a “political” message and they were not given the pavement tolerance they are entitled to. The “face” of no.160, the local police and their need to appear to be in control has affected their judgement.
１４. 因为表达自由、言论自由、以及请愿自由都是一些长久以来在香港法律下所保障的权利，香港市民已经习惯于请愿活动可能有时会影响到正常的交通运作的情况。他们绕过请愿地点，有时也会等待这些请愿的参与者路过。这里的市民从来都没有对和平请愿活动感到受威胁。警方没有必要尝试去把这次的小型请愿转移到同一条行人道另一处的地方，(也就是162) ，好让被抗议的人看来不太显眼。警方和160的投诉者之间，有没有一些不成文的安排？在25/8/01和10/11/01的混乱事件中可以得到解答。在中联办门前的一片宽阔无阻行人道上，是否有着不可侵犯的意味？其实要“除去”旗杆台前所觉察到的障碍很简单；只需要要求那些瑞士人进一步移离旗杆台2-3米的地方便行，为什么有一个这么简单的“除去阻碍”的解决办法不被采用？不怪得F.L.G. 感到被迫害。
14. Hong Kong residents are accustomed to demonstrations sometimes disrupting the normal flow of traffic. They walk around a demonstration site and sometimes wait for the participants of a demonstration to walk by. Because the right to freedom of expression and the freedom of speech and the right to demonstrate are longstanding rights in H.K. Law, residents here have never been intimidated by peaceful demonstrations. The police had no need to attempt to divert and side track this small demonstration to a place on the same pavement but less conspicuous to those they wished to demonstrate to (i.e. 162). Had some implicit but unexpressed arrangement been come to between the police and the complainant at 160? The confusing events of 25/8/01 and 10/11/01 could be thus explained. Was there something sacrosanct about the big wide empty pavement outside 160? Why was the simple solution of “unblocking” the perceived blockage to the podium not dealt with by asking the Swiss to move 2 or 3 metres further away from the podium? Small wonder that the F.L.G. felt persecuted.
１５. 虽然在本案中，到现在必须公认的是在这四名瑞士请愿者和那些支持他们的F.L.G. 学员的四周，都有大量的空间可以让行人通过，但检控官到现在仍坚持说这是一个阻碍，这是因为理论上，一些假设的人士是不可能沿着行人道一直走到这小撮请愿者跟前(他们在一条30米长9.5米宽的行人道上，只是占据了一处3米长2米宽的地方)，然后再作九十度左转，好让他们愈加走贴近直接位于中联办前门的旗杆台。
15. Somehow in this case, although it must now be acknowledged that there was plenty of space to pass in front of, behind and on either side of the four Swiss demonstrators and those F.L.G. members who supported them, the prosecution now insist that there was an obstruction because it was theoretically impossible for some hypothetical person to walk along the pavement to a position directly in front of the small group of protestors (occupying a site about 3 meters by 2 meters of a section of pavement measuring overall 30 meters by 9.5 meters) and then make a right angle turn so that they could walk as close as possible to the flag pole directly to the front door of the LOPCG.
１６. 这个论点的荒谬处可以从检控官再次盘问证人时，所问的问题中显示出来。检控官问道，如果有人要去吃中午饭，最短和最直接的途径就是通过旗杆台。这是幻境因为
１. 所有一般去吃中午饭的人都会用德辅道的出口。
２. 尝试横过在旗杆台对开的干诺道是违法的。
３. 这里没有停候处（不能找到的士等）。
４. 这不是通往任何一处的直接路线(除了通往一段空无一物的行人道之外) 。
５. 一般去吃午饭的人，不会因为要在这段空无一物的行人道上走走而选择经过旗杆台的路线，所有人都必须向东面或西面走，而实际上他们也会用东面或西面的入口。
即使会有一个行为如此奇怪的人存在，他仍然可以通过旗杆台，再从请愿范围(9尺加9AP)的两旁走过。这个“奇怪的人”或者甚至是一大批这种人都不能够构成最初部的阻街疑虑。实际上，并没有这类证人被传召；或许他并不存在
16. The absurdity of this proposition was illustrated by the prosecutor re-examining a witness to ask if, for a person emerging for his lunch break, the shortest and straightest route to the pavement would be through the flag podium. This is cloud cuckoo land because
(1) all normal lunch goers use the Des Voeux Road exit.
(2) to attempt to cross Connaught Road opposite the podium is unlawful.
(3) It is a no stopping area (cannot get taxi etc).
(4) It is not a direct route to anywhere (except to an empty piece of pavement).
(5) No normal lunch goer would come out just to visit an empty piece of pavement. All must go East or West to get anywhere and in fact, demonstrably, they do use the E or W entrances.
Even if such an odd fellow existed he could go through the podium and could still pass by either side of the demonstration. (9 foot plus 9AP) This “odd fellow” or even a legion of them cannot begin to establish a prima facie care of obstruction. In fact, no such witness was called; Perhaps he does not exist.
１７．在案例中或成文法例中，都没有找到对什么是阻街的明确界定。风俗和习惯（普通法的起源）已经能够让公众安全及方便地充分利用行人道，作多种用途使用。在一条宽阔，无阻，而且人流量轻的行人道，进行小型请愿活动，并不应该出现什么问题。
17. No specific definition of what is and what is not pavement obstruction can be found in case or statute law. Custom and usage (the origins of the Common Law) have enabled the public to make full and varied use of its pavements within practical limits of tolerance safety and convenience. There should be no problem in a wide, clear, lightly used pavement accommodating a smallish demo.
１８．从158到162这段行人道的“风俗和习惯”显示出，它能轻易地容纳被长期摆放的杂物(例如在行人来往的地方横放着8吋长的铁栏；在行人路上植树；个别地容忍在162外的请愿行为) 。它还能容纳短期的存放杂物(例如有5到6辆车，三辆一排，分两行并排于160前面，的士和车辆在行160外面的行人道上“上落”) 将来，158到160这段行人道将会被缩减至少于原来面积超过一半以上，警方并没有就这次行人道大幅度的收窄可能会导致阻街而提出反对。行人道最终会被收窄致3米，到时将会很容易引起抗议。尤其是打从三月十四日起，警方就一直把大量的铁马，封锁了现场行人道的1/3到2/3的范围。这些铁马并未有安上照明，也未有标明，但却不会对任何人构成伤害或阻碍！警方对以上现象的所谓解释相当有趣，他们解释说在行人道上摆放一个更大，更不易觉察以及更实质的障碍物，是为了防止将来可能再发生一种相对地比较小范围的流动障碍(请愿活动) 。警察相当乐观地相信法庭不会识破这种谬论。一个合理的观点就是，在160外面的行人道是宽阔、开扬，而且在实质上能够容纳警方长时间的封锁措施。就这观点而言，不难推断的就是一个小规模的请愿行动不可能导致阻碍或伤害等。
18. The “custom and usage” of this pavement from 158 to 162 shows that it readily accommodates long-term clutters (e.g. the storage of 8’ long police barriers across the ped. flow, trees set into the pavement, the sporadically tolerated demo outside 162). It also accommodates short-term clutter (e.g. 5 or 6 large cars parking 3 abreast in 2 rows in front of 160, taxis and cars “dropping off” on the pavement outside 160). For the future, the pavement area available for pedestrians between 158 and 162 will be more than halved and the local police have not registered any objection that such a substantial reduction could cause obstruction. Final plans will allow 3 meters, pavement could easily accord Demos. Specifically, the police left their extensive barriers fencing off between 2/3’s and 1/3 of the available pavement for days and days after the 14th of March. They were unlit and unmarked and caused no injury or obstruction to anybody. Although the police alleged explanation for this is interesting, it does not lie in their mouth to say that they would seek to prevent a possible recurrence of a relatively small mobile obstruction (the demonstration) by putting in its place in the pavement an obstruction much larger, less visible and more solid than that which it is seeking to prevent. The police are wildly optimistic to believe that a court will not see through that nonsense. A sensible view is that the pavement outside 160 was wide, open, and could and did successfully accommodate the police fencing operation for days. It is logically and demonstrably unlikely therefore that a small human demo. could cause obstruction injury etc.
１９．跟据以上分析，这里哪有任何明确的客观和准确的证据，证明这次请愿行动可能阻塞往旗杆台的通道？
１. 那些护卫员？他们都说请愿行动阻塞了行人道和通往旗杆台的通道。这个指控被录影带、照片和比例图则所推翻。
２. 那个主管？他说一个员工（现在已经找不到或甚至不能描述）当走近到请愿者２至３尺范围之，因为剩下的空间“只有２至３吋”，所以“不能再通过了”。根据照片显示，那个空间接近９吋宽，“现在可以从比例图则的录影带等证明”。总管指出入160的人有可能受到威胁的讲法是无力的，选用“无力的”字眼是因为；
(a) 只有那个工作人员自己才能就他是否受到“威胁”而提供有效证据。他没有被传召。
(b) 那里有数名穿着制服的警察和护卫员在现场，足以消弭任何假想的恐惧。
(c) 香港面对市民请愿的经验悠久。
19. Against that background where is there any clear objective and accurate evidence that the demo. might block access to the podium?
(1) The security officers? Both said that the demo blocked the pavement/podium access. That claim is destroyed by the video/photo/and scale plans.
(2) The superintendent? He said that a worker (who could not now be traced or even described) approached to within 2 or 3 feet and “simply could not get through” because the gap left “was only 2′ to 3’”. Shown photos which demonstrated the gap to be nearer 9′ (now proved by the scale plan videos etc.) the superintendent spoke rather feebly about the possibility of intimidation. The word “feebly” is chosen advisedly because;
(a) only the worker himself could give admissible evidence as to whether he was “intimidated”. He was not called.
(b) there were several uniformed P.C.’s and security officers in the immediate vicinity, to calm any imaginary fears.
(c) Hong Kong`s long standing experience of citizens of demonstrations.
２０．部分的干诺道是完全没有酒楼，如果根据逻辑推断因为过往曾经有人受阻，因而有理由相信人们（例如下午１时１０分之后才去吃午饭的员工）可能受阻。由于160所处一段干诺道完全没有酒楼，因此这个成为了间接的证据，在３月１４日之前后，人们使用这条行人道的习愤，毫无疑问地显示出不会有人因为这次相对地小型的请愿行动，而受到阻碍或伤害。
20. This, indirect evidence (that some people were obstructed is led to prove a likelihood that people might be obstructed – for example workers coming out for lunch (presumably after 1.10 pm!) to a part of Connaught Road totally devoid of Restaurants. The contemporary events on this pavement both before and after March 14 and to the East and West demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that no one was likely to be obstructed/injured by this relatively small demo.
21.当特警部队到达160外面时，已经不能就“正常的”人流收集有效的观察数据。这是因为警方的出现，导致一片混乱，和他们到场前的相对地和平、安静形成一大对比。
21. By the time the P.T.U. units arrived outside 160, no valid observations of “normal” traffic could now be made. The police had created a tumult where, in their absence, their had been relative peace and quiet.
22. 关于第 二条控罪(关于对撗幅的指控)
22. AS TO CHARGE 2 (Charge se: Banner)
(1) 控方努力地寻找适合的条例起诉这些请愿者，他们最后以简易条例第２２８条第４Ａ节对请愿者进行起诉。跟据第４Ａ节指出“任何人士在未有合法的权利或原因陈列或留下或原因去陈列或留下任事物或物件因而对公众地方构成阻碍……”。在庭上有证据显示出被控者在整个请愿过程中，都是拿着撗幅，甚至有证据显示他们在整个请愿期间都是紧握着撗幅，这里没有证据显示他们陈列或留下撗幅。
郎文字典中对ＳＥＴ ＯＵＴ下的定义是“把一组东西放下，然后把东西有序地排列，例如在餐桌上陈列晚餐”。牛津字典界定这一词为安排，或展示（东西）。字典里所提供的例子如把椅子排放好，以供开会时用，或在棋盘上摆放棋子。在Ｃｏｌｌｉｎ字典写着，“陈列东西，就是在某处把这些物件安排和展示。利用有花边的蛋糕纸，把一些蛋糕陈列得很吸引”。那些被告并没有在公众地方弃置或陈列他们的撗幅。第４Ａ节主要针对的不良行为是，人们在公众地方陈列一些物件，例如晾衣绳，在路边晒干鱼类，在商店门前摆放的物件，过分突出行人道等。它甚至包括一条被陈列和弃置的撗幅。但这不是本案的例子。所以这条控罪应该被撤销。我没有使用中文的能力，我的诉状律师的中文程度比我好一点，他经过和其他人交换意见后，指导我去认识“陈列”一词的中文字样。来帮我的见习学生和其他人也确定了这一点。
(1) In their desperation to find a suitable charge, the prosecution grabbed for the straw of section 4A of the Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap.228). Section 4A states “any person who without lawful authority or excuse sets out or leaves or causes to be set out or left any matter or things which obstruct in a public place …..”. There is evidence before the Court that the accused were holding a banner at all times and even evidence that they at times held it very firmly. There is no evidence that they set out or left it.
Longman’s dictionary defines set out as “to put a group of things down and arrange it order, such as to set out the dinner on the table”. The Oxford Advanced Learner’s English Chinese Dictionary defines the term as to arrange or display (items). The examples given are to set out chairs for a meeting or to set out the pieces on the chessboard. The Collins Co-build English Dictionary’s states, “if you set things out, you arrange or display them somewhere. Set out the cakes attractively, using lacy dollies.” The accused did not set out or leave their banner in a public place. The obvious mischief that section 4A intends to address is when people set out something in a public place, such as a clothesline, some fish left to be dried on the sidewalk, item protruding too far on to the pavement in front of a shop, etc. It could even include a banner that was set out and left unattended. But that is not the case here. Therefore this charge should be dismissed. My Chinese language ability is non-existent, the Chinese standard of my instructing solicitor is a bit better and he, after conferring with others has instructed me that the Chinese character have the same meaning as “set out” to which I have already referred. The summer students assisting me and others have confirmed this.
（２）撗幅是软的，显眼的，它的特质使它不容易构造成对路人的阻碍或伤害。如果撗幅真的能引起以上的危险，那么位于１６２的撗幅会被容许摆放在那儿吗？
(2) The banner is soft and conspicuous and inherently unlikely to obstruct/injure any pedestrian. Would the banner at 162 be tolerated if it posed any such risk? Both are acceptable clutter on a pavement as wide as this one.
（３）这条控罪是重复了，因为撗幅是属于第一条控罪所指的阻碍的其中一部分。
(3) The charge is duplicitous as the banner is part of the same obstruction relied on in Charge 1.
２３． 关于第三条控罪
辩方律师跟据在１－２０段所列出的据点，可以指出的是，虽然那些负责“清场”的警察是在执行任务，所有的“拘捕”是无效的因为主管的怀疑（如果他真的认为）并没有合理的依据。从证据中得出一个正确的推断就是，在警方把现场的范围封锁的情况下，是不可能有对这次的小型请愿行动，会引起阻碍的可能性，作出正确的观察。在很后期才到场的机动步队，只是在相信他们接到的命令。我们这里并不是在投诉个别的警察相信他们的命令的行为。
23. AS TO CHARGE 3
The defence relies on the facts set out in paragraphs 1-20 to show that although the individual “removal” officers carried out their orders, all the “arrests” were flawed because the superintendent’s suspicion (if he held it) was not based on reasonable grounds.
The proper inference from the evidence is that it was impossible to properly observe the obstructive potential of the small demo after the police had fenced the area off. The PTU units, arriving long after this, simply relied on their orders. We do not complain against the individual officers for relying on their orders.
直到目前为止，法庭只能在很大程度上，依赖高级警员的“专业意见”，就是看到了“明显”的阻街行为，在这次的行动中，警员的“专业精神”就是因为以下的“不专业事件”而蒙上污点。
Insofar as the court is obliged to rely heavily on the Senior Police Officer present “professional view”, that he had seen obstruction committed “explicitly”, the “professionalism” of the police in this operation is not enhanced by the following “unprofessional events”.
（１）警方雇用的翻译员所使用的语言，和请愿者的母语不同，而且当他们在知道这个错误后，仍然继续保留这位翻译员。我们认为这是不专业。
(1) An interpreter speaking the wrong language was engaged and continued to be retained even after this fact was known the police. We say that is unprofessional.
（２）香港并没有F.L.G. 的黑名单，但警察仍然把那些瑞士护照的资料记录下来。我们认为这是不专业。
(2) Particulars from the Swiss passports were taken down despite their being no F.L.G. blacklist in H.K. We say that is unprofessional.
(3) 尽管警方建议请愿者到162，本地的学员以往在162经常受到警察的问话，和撗幅被没收。这里表现出的是“警察的迫害”
(3) Notwithstanding advice to go to 162, local practitioners had been regularly subjected to police questioning and banner seizure at that place. This has the appearance of “police persecution”.
(4) 警方没有尝试让请愿行动继续在160门前，但在更加靠向路边的位置进行。我们认为这是不专业。
(4) No attempt was made to accommodate the demo further back towards the road but still in front of 160. We say that is unprofessional.
(5) 有证据显示no.160享有一个和西区警署的特别关系。(例如会说普通话的督察比高级警员的人数多，商店职员投诉受阻碍时，不会跟中联办享有同样的待遇，就是no.160的投诉会即时受到督察、C.I.P. 、沙展、和大量的警察的直接关注)。除了说160是受到警方的特别照顾外，跟本无法解释为什么25/08/01的示威被清场(示威地点距离160的出入口如此遥远) ，但请愿者却未有被起诉的原因。
(5) There is evidence from which it can be properly inferred that no.160 enjoys a special relationship with Western Police Station. (e.g. less senior officers than superintendents speak Mandarin, shop keepers complaining of obstruction do not get virtually immediate personal attendance by superintendents, C.I.P.’s, Sergeants and numerous P.C.’s. The removal of the demo on 25/8/01 (placed so far away from any access to 160) without any charges preferred is inexplicable except in terms of special police treatment for 160.
(6) 那个双方坚持的局面，大部分的时间都在警方的严密的监管下（在公众的角度来看），制造出一个局面就是，如果不作清场，警方会失去面子。清场行动可以被视为警方挽回面子的行动，而那些“警告”可以被视为“窗厨装饰”。我说过了，警告是没有法律意义。
(6) The stand-off heavily controlled for so long by the police (and publicly viewed) created a situation where, if no removals were made, the police would appear to lose face. The removals can be viewed as a face saving operation and the “warnings” as “window dressing”. The warnings had no legal meaning, as I said.
(7) 没有遵守一般合法拘捕的程序。这里没有正式的告诫，也没有向被捕人士提出NTPIC。没有向法庭作出合逻辑的解释或道谦。注意合逻辑这个词。
(7) The normal routines of lawful arrest were not observed. There were no formal cautions and no NTPIC’s were served. No logical explanation or apology has been given to the court. Notice the word logical.
(8) 在庭上重复多次播放作鉴定用途的录影带中，可以看到警察明目张胆地无视警方应该遵守的规则，去保障控辩双方的利益（有关规则已被影印及已附带在这文件内）。
(8) The subsequent showings of video films for identification purposes were conducted in flagrant disregard of the police rules designed to safe guard the interests of both sides (relevant rules copied and enclosed).
(9)这次的起诉选择不就拒捕作出指控，是不合逻辑。这样的指控会立刻把法庭的注意力放在no.160外面清场行动的真正意图。
(9) The prosecution have illogically chosen not to lay charges of resisting arrest. Such charges would have immediately focused the court’s attention on the bone fides of the removal operation outside no.160.
(10) 无论辩方将会如何选择，这条指控能否最终成立，取决于控方能否证明这次的拘捕是否合法，这是必须要做到。被告们一开始就质疑今次拘捕行动的合法性。(录影带的腾文可以证实) 。
(10) The essential ingredients of this charge includes a requirement that the prosecution prove that the arrests were lawful. That must be done, regardless of any line that the defence might take. The defendants themselves challenged the legality of the arrests from the outset (video transcripts confirm).
(11) 用过去合法的擅自进入和可能破坏和平两点为理据，而作出指控是存有偏见和转移注意力的做法。跟据本案的背景，以上的两个理据都不可能成为拘捕行动的合理理由。
(11) The introduction of allegation of previous non-criminal trespass and possible breach of the peace are potentially prejudicial and meaning-less red herrings and, against the background of this case could never provide any reasonable grounds for arrest. Trespass is a civil matter and in the absence of a crime accompanying any trespass, police favour to certain landlords should not be shown.
(12) 今次被捕的其中一些人士，在过程中并没有正式的拘捕专员在场，这里增加了控方成功入罪的难度。尽管控方没有带同扬声器到法庭来，在录影/录音带上可听到在一时十分的时候，有人用英文说了“拘捕他们”的字句，这要比何督察在一时十一分所发出的指示要早一点。
(12) The absence of formal arresting officers for some of the arrested persons does not assist the prosecution to begin to make its case. Notwithstanding the words in English “Arrest them” at 1.10 pm on the video/audio, the prosecution have not brought a speaker to court. This precedes inspector Ho’s instruction at 1.11 pm.
24. 关于第四条控罪(袭警)
24. AS TO CHARGE 4 (Assault)
(1) 控方未能证明第五被告，是在合法情况下被捕。
(1) D5 has not been proved to have been lawfully arrested.
(2) 跟据警方的录影带显示，警察与第五被告接触的时候，第五被告的口是合上的。
(2) The police video shows a contact only when D5’s mouth is closed.
(3) 受害者的验伤报告和照片都没有发现任何被咬后所留下的伤痕。
(3) Neither the victim’s medical report nor the photographs show any bite.
(4) 不能排除意外触碰的可能性。
(4) Accidental contact has not been ruled out.
25. 关于第五条控罪（一周事故之一）
25. AS TO CHARGE 5 (one of week incidents)
(1) 未能证明D10是在合法的情况下拘捕。
(1) D10 has not been proved to have been lawfully arrested.
(2) D10被带下警车时的所有举动全部被录影上镜。
(2) D10 is on video for all of her removal from the van.
(3) 这个连续播放的录像显示，她的手紧握并弄损了右边的一个肩章。
(3) That continuous video shows her hand gripping and damaging a right side epaulette.
(4) 黄／王美宝（她已看了这盒录像）第一次作证时说，她右边肩章被损瓌，后来当她看了一张警方的照片，才“记得”应该是“左边”的肩章。
(4) Wong Mei Po (who had viewed this video) first said in evidence that her R epaulette had been damaged. Only when she was shown a police photograph did she “remember” that it was her “left”.
(5) 黄／王美宝在没有遵守警方的守则的情况下，看了该录像。她的证供自相矛盾，及完全与录像不相符。她的证供可信度可能会受到不合程序的观看录像的影响。
(5) Wong Mei Po had viewed the video without the police rules being observed. Her evidence is confused and totally inconsistent with the video. It may have been affected by this irregular viewing.
(6) 不能够排除这是一次意外但充满动感的接触。
(6) Accidental but vigorous contact cannot be ruled out.
(7) 被拍摄的“伤口”可以在请愿者被抬走过程中的任何一个环节中弄到。从来都没见过，这么少的伤口拍了这么多照片。
(7) The “injuries” photographed could have occurred at any stage of the removals. Never have so many phothographs been taken of so few injuries.
26. 指控 6
26. AS TO CHARGE 6
(1) 未能证明D10是合法的被拘捕。
(1) D10 has not been proved to have been lawfully arrested.
(2) 陈惠／慧文／敏／雯同意一名女士被六名女警抬走时在极力反抗下，可能会紧握她的肩膀、颈和衣服，以避免跌下来，意即把自己扯上去。这并不是袭警。
(2) Chan Wai Man accepted that a struggling heavy woman, held by six W.P.C.’s, could have reached up to grip her shoulder neck and shirt to avoid being dropped i.e. to pull herself up. This would not be an assault.
(3) 陈惠／慧文／敏／雯最初展示左边受伤，但后来又展示右边受伤。
(3) Chan Wai Man first demonstrated a left side injury. She then demonstrated a right side injury.
(4) 陈惠／慧文／敏／雯同様不合程序地观看录像 ，这可能会影响她的证供。
(4) Chan Wai Man has also been exposed to irregular video showing which may have affected her evidence.
(5) 事实上，整个事件只维持２秒，可能促使“受害者”允许女士作出上述 ( 2 ) 的举动。
(5) The fact that the incident only lasted 2 seconds may have prompted “the victim” to make the concession at (2) above.
(6) 在她的颈上找不到任何伤口或伤痕。
(6) No injury or mark was found on her neck.
(7) 另一名“支持”的目击者指称看见袭警，但看不见“实际被抓伤的伤口”(指控５)；她展示颈项的不同位置，不能排除被告紧急地抓住一些东西，把她自己撑起，且很快便放了手。
(7) The “supporting” witness who claims to have seen these assaults saw no “actual scratching” (charge 5); demonstrated different sides of the neck and could not rule out a suddenly released hand, clutching for something to pull herself up by.
26. 指控 4, 5 和 6
26. AS TO CHARGES 4, 5 & 6
鉴于这几位女士是在混乱的情况下反抗和引起痛楚，被控袭警对这几位被告人根本上不公平。以施压手段制造痛楚是“不人道的对待”，可能人道的对待就是人权公约的信息。
In the light of the force and pain which these ladies were exposed to in chaotic circumstances, the charges of assault are fundamentally unfair to these defendants. The pain inflicted by the pressure technique is “inhuman treatment” and maybe inhuman treatment is light of the Bill of the Rights.
John Haynes
Counsel for all the Defendants
9 July 2002
(http://www.dajiyuan.com)
