Monday, January 25, 2010

茅山師傅冤案(一)

茅山師傅案終於審結,被告以改運為由與19歲女模性交,因9項以虛假藉口促致性行為罪,於區院被判入獄6年9個月。在下認為,此案實有重大冤情。

小弟乃一介草民,並非法律專家,但亦自覺有必要為茅山師傅申冤。首先,姑且假設被告存心欺騙誘使女模性交,俗稱「呃人上床」,被告即觸犯《刑事罪行條例》第200章,第120條,中英文原文如下:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

以虛假藉口促致他人作非法的性行為
(1) 任何人以虛假藉口或虛假申述,促致另一人在香港或外地作非法的性行為,即屬犯罪,一經循公訴程序定罪,可處監禁5年。
(2) 就第(1)款而言,“藉口”或“申述”包括與過去、現在或將來有關的藉口或申述,亦包括與使用藉口或申述的人或任何其他人的意圖有關的藉口或申述。

Procurement by false pretences
(1) A person who procures another person, by false pretences or false representations, to do an unlawful sexual act in Hong Kong or elsewhere shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for 5 years.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), "pretence" or "representation" includes a pretence or representation relating to the past, the present or the future and any pretence or representation as to the intention of the person using the pretence or representation or any other person.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

當年轟動一時的「字母小姐案」,犯人錢志明利用不同化名,扮演皮條客、電影編導、富家公子等身份,以優厚片約、房車、金錢利誘多個女藝人(A,B,C,D,E,X小姐)性交,便被此法定罪。

不過依在下愚見,此法實在霸道,「呃人上床」也要坐牢,認真執行起來,相信全港監獄會即時爆滿。謊稱單身背妻偷吃之男子,謊稱處女引人上釣之女子,全部難逃法網。何況法例還包括「將來」之申述,換言之「我將來會和你結婚」,「我會愛你一生一世」此等謊言,如被證實說時只為「呃人上床」,也會構成刑責。那為何全港監獄至今還未爆滿?皆因此等霸道法例如遊蕩罪一樣,一般都不會嚴厲執法,只有在騙人性交者太過離譜時才會動用,茅山案與字母案即屬此例。

不論如何,如果一條惡法太不合理,太過霸道,有而不用並非長久之道。香港的前宗主國大英帝國現時之性罪行法例裡,便無此惡法,多以保護兒童為主。

看倌或問,香港法例大多緊跟前宗主國,何以自創惡法?非也,「以虛假藉口促致他人作非法的性行為」自非香港自創,乃抄襲自大英帝國1956年之性罪行法例。今日英國法例並無此條,皆因1995年已將之廢止,順應民情。

在下現呼籲香港尊貴之立法者們,與其為無益之事終日吵鬧,不如做些澤被蒼生之事,商議廢止此條惡法,以免全港數十萬人誤墜法網,效法前宗主國,與時並進。

7 comments:

小瓶子 said...

哈哈..你怕返来香港会误堕法网呢....哈哈哈...

Feheart said...

Elvis 兄溝女前先熟讀兩地法律,準備充足, 非茅山師傅可比.....在下佩服

Michael Leung said...

認同,此法太含混、霸道,實早已過時,有廢止必要

easyCorp said...

OMG

i think i will be in jail for the rest of my life....

is that any similar law in UK??

-_-|||

Anonymous said...

真係無哩頭,咁有人分左手十年後又係埋一齊,對現左佢之前的承諾,又算唔算呃呢?
此法的確耐人尋味

爆炸頭 said...

大部份人講"愛你一世"既時候都認為自己真係會愛佢一世﹐對自己所言有honest belief﹐不構成欺詐。而且如果個法官因為而判人有罪﹐嚴重違反職業操守﹐你可以告番佢轉頭。

Anonymous said...

probably this is not what most people understand on the current uk statues on sexual offence. if you check on the sexual offences act 2003, in particular s.1 regarding the offence of rape and s. 76 regarding the conclusive presumtion on (no) consent if the defendant intentionally deceived the complainant as to the nature or purpose of the relevant act, it's quite clear that the 茅山師傅 case will be covered too.

SOA 2003 has been critized by many as eroding the important common law position of presumtion of innocence by assuming no consent and allow the court to make inference in case of silence of the defendant.

it is the general trend in common law jurisdictions that the statutes empower the court to have more role in adjudicating. it is an important feature of common law system to intrepet the statues with regards to relevant case laws.

the staute could be checked via: http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=sexual&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=820904&ActiveTextDocId=821003&filesize=1619