圖書館:Draft:2017年香港三名政治人物入狱事件

Bluedeck Library 圖書館卡

Bluedeck Library 圖書館卡

本頁面為「Draft:2017年香港三名政治人物入獄事件」的存檔，該頁面已遭刪除，本頁面僅供參考用。

存檔UTC時間	2018年4月23日 02:30
存檔編者	Bluedeck
當前版本號	49238337

取得正常維基源碼

{{vfd|廢棄草稿|date=2018/04/21}}

{{Infobox event | title = 2017 imprisonment of Hong Kong democracy activists | image = 20170820 March in support of jailed Hong Kong activists 2.jpg | image_size = | image_upright = | image_alt = | caption = Supporters of the jailed activists marching on 20 August 2017 |native_name = | native_name_lang = | english_name = | time = | duration = | date = {{start date|2017|08|17}} | venue = | location =香港 | coordinates = | also_known_as = | type = Imprisonment | theme = | cause = Their roles in a protest at the Civic Square | first_reporter = | budget = | patron = | organisers = | filmed_by = | participants = 黃之鋒、羅冠聰、周永康 | outcome = Applauded by the pro-Beijing camp but decried by pro-democracy figures in Hong Kong | casualties1 = | casualties2 = | casualties3 = | reported deaths = | reported injuries = | reported missing = | reported property damage = | burial = | inquiries = | inquest = | coroner = | arrests = | suspects = | accused = | convicted = 3 | charges = | trial = | verdict = | convictions = | sentence = 6 (Wong), 7 (Chow) and 8 (Law) months in prison | publication_bans = | litigation = | awards = | url = | blank_label = | blank1_label = | blank2_label = | website = | notes = }}

2017年8月1日，三名香港政治人物，黃之鋒、羅冠聰和周永康，被香港高等法院上訴法庭判以監禁。原因是 their roles in a protest at the {{tsl|en|Civic Square (Hong Kong)||Civic Square}} in front of the 香港特別行政區政府總部 (建築物) in 添馬, 金鐘, on 26 and 27 September 2014. The events at the Civic Square helped set off 雨傘革命, sometimes referred to as the 雨傘運動佔領區, which lasted until police cleared the last of the protest sites in December 2014.

The three had originally been convicted and given {{tsl|en|community service||community service}} orders or, in the case of Chow, a 緩刑. The government appealed their sentences and successfully pursued harsher punishments. The trio's imprisonment was applauded by the 建制派 but decried by pro-democracy figures in 香港 as well as international politicians and 人權 advocates, who have called the activists Hong Kong's first 良心犯, and alleged that the sentence is intended to intimidate other would-be activists.

The sentence also disqualifies the three from running for office for five years, quashing their political aspirations in the near future. Wong had previously sought election but was barred due to his age, while Law, democratically elected to the 香港立法會 in September 2016, was removed from office in July 2017 following a 香港立法會宣誓風波.

背景

當事人

黃之鋒（最右）和其他學生於2014年9月23日在香港抗議時的情景

黃之鋒、羅冠聰和周永康一直是近年來比較顯眼的民主活動家。就讀於香港公開大學的黃之鋒在2011年與同夥們一起創立了學民思潮。許多民間組織積極抵制香港教育局提出的「德育及國民教育科」，學民思潮在其中表現突出。黃之鋒隨後參與了雨傘革命（占中）。2016年3月20日，學民思潮停止運作，黃之鋒隨後與同僚們於2016年創立了民主派政黨香港眾志。

羅冠聰是一位香港嶺南大學的本科生、香港眾志的主席。他以前擔任過嶺南大學學生會的各項職務和香港專上學生聯會的秘書長。2016年香港立法會選舉期間，他在香港島選區勝出，當選為香港有史以來最年輕的立法會議員。2017年7月14日，香港立法會宣誓風波爆發。香港政府採取法律行動，將羅冠聰等6名議員的議席褫奪。

周永康就讀於香港大學，曾經是香港大學學生會的副主席和香港專上學生聯會的秘書長。他是雨傘運動的早期組織者之一。

政治背景

{{see also|2016年及2017年香港政治制度改革}} 香港特別行政區行政長官是特區政府的行政首長及政府首腦。中華人民共和國香港特別行政區基本法的第45條規定「香港特別行政區行政長官在當地通過選舉或協商產生，由中央人民政府任命。行政長官的產生辦法根據香港特別行政區的實際情況和循序漸進的原則而規定，最終達至由一個有廣泛代表性的提名委員會按民主程序提名後普選產生的目標」。 Following the transfer of Hong Kong to China in 1997, the pro-democratic camp pushed for the election of the chief executive in 2007 through universal suffrage. On 26 April 2004, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC), a mainland Chinese legislative body, ruled out the possibility that universal suffrage would be allowed in 2007. In 2007, the NPCSC ruled out the 2012 election of the legislature and chief executive through universal suffrage, but stated that the Legislative Council and the chief executive could be elected through universal suffrage in 2016 and 2017, respectively. {{see also|831 decision}} However, democratic aspirations stalled on 31 August 2014, when the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress in Beijing made {{tsl|en|831 decision||a decision}} that chief executive candidates in 2017 would be required to "love the country and love Hong Kong"; that all candidates would be screened by a nominating committee of a composition paralleling the existing Election Committee, which is dominated by pro-Beijing interests; and that any chief executive elected through these means would then have to be appointed by the Chinese government. The decision was intensely decried by the pan-democratic camp, who said the arrangement would not amount to genuine democracy.

2014 Civic Square protests

香港公民廣場，兩圖分別攝於2012年和2014年

導致判決的事件發生在香港特別行政區政府總部前院的東翼（{{tsl|en|Civic Square (Hong Kong)||公民廣場}}。新修的政府總部於2011年開放，由建築師{{tsl|en|Rocco Design Architects||Rocco Yim}}設計，其理念為「門永遠開放」，象徵著香港人對「治理的開放和透明」的驕傲。 In keeping with this design concept, the Civic Square was originally open to the public when the new government headquarters was inaugurated in 2011.

這個廣場成為了政治示威活動的熱門地點。2014年中旬，這裡爆發力反對實行新界東北發展計劃的數次抗議活動。作為回應，2014年7月16日前後，work began on a permanent three-metre high metal fence, closing off the Civic Square from Tim Mei Avenue. The Hong Kong government stated that the barrier was a necessary security measure while others stated that the move ran contrary to Hong Kong people's right to freedom of assembly, which is codified in the Basic Law. The government responded that protests would be allowed in the square on public holidays if the director of the Administration Wing consented in advance. Other areas of the complex were fortified at the same time as the Civic Square.

Concurrently with the fortification of the square, the government's controversial democratic reform proposals, coupled with the {{tsl|en|831 decision||831 decision}}, were triggering discontent and protests. On 22 September 2014, students launched a week-long class boycott campaign, coupled with demonstrations at the government complex. At around 22:30 on 26 September 2014, protesting students scaled the fence that had been erected in July in an attempt to "retake" the Civic Square. Police managed to regain control of the square, and {{tsl|en|Kettling||kettled}} dozens of protesters on the circular base of the flagpoles, where they were denied access to water and the toilet. At the same time, a large number of protesters amassed outside the Civic Square. The square was cleared by police by the end of the following day, with more than 60 people arrested. Wong, Chow, and Law were among those arrested.

The incident immediately helped kick off the 2014 Hong Kong protests, also known as the Umbrella Movement, which saw the motorway in front of the government complex, Harcourt Road, occupied by protesters until 11 December 2016.

法律訴訟

東區裁判法院, where the trio initially received noncustodial sentences in August 2016

初步判刑

2016年7月21日，東區裁判法院認定黃之鋒和周永康犯有非法集會罪，而羅冠聰則因煽動他人參與非法集會罪被定罪。這些都是雙學三字的首例犯罪行為。黃之鋒煽動他人參加非法集會活動的罪名被撤銷。

2016年8月15日，三人被判刑。黃之鋒被判以80個小時{{tsl|en|community service order|社區服務令|社區服務令}}，羅冠聰被判以120個小時的服務令。周永康被判以三個星期的監禁，緩刑一年來讓他按計劃前往倫敦政治經濟學院學習。

判決結束後，羅冠聰表示三子尊重法庭的決定，但他仍然認為公民廣場是公共空間、是市民表達政治意見的地方。三位被告仍然對公安條例有質疑。

The trio subsequently served these initial sentences.

覆審

律政司不同意判決。2016年9月，它要求對覆審判決。律政司認為三人並「沒有真誠悔意」，因此社區服務令「明顯不足」。

2016年9月21日，覆核聆訊展開。判官認為原來的判決和推理已經足夠，而且該部門沒有為加重刑罰提供足夠的證據。律政司將活動家與歹徒進行了比較，裁判官張天雁則表示他們只是在表達自己的政治信仰，加重刑罰並不公平。張天雁表示，在類似案件中有非監禁刑罰的先例，並駁回了加重刑罰的請求。

2016年10月，{{tsl|en|Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)||上訴法院}}同意聽取政府對原判的上訴。

Law, Wong, and Chow speaking to media and supporters before entering court on 17 August 2017

2017年8月17日，上訴法庭裁定黃之鋒和周永康犯有非法集會罪，分別判以六個月和七個月的監禁；羅冠聰煽動他人參加非法集會，被判以八個月的監禁。

判刑還剝奪了三位活動家在未來五年內競選公職的權力。羅冠聰曾是民選產生的立法會議員，黃先生表示希望今後可參選，他此前由於過於年輕無法參加2016年立法會選舉。

Imprisonment

Pik Uk Correctional Institution, a maximum security youth prison where Wong is held

Wong was sent to Pik Uk Correctional Institution, a maximum security facility for male prisoners below the age of 21.

羅冠聰和周永康被轉入了壁屋懲教所，他們將在那裡等候，直至轉入監獄。

各界反應

香港

是次判決在香港反應不一。泛民主派和民權活動界的政治人物對其批評較多，他們認為刑罰不成比例，不滿於律政司司長提出上訴，而且坐席法官不考慮三位當事人的行為公民不服從（可造成緩刑）。而建制派則認為判決十分合理。The legal profession has also responded to allegations by the media that the Hong Kong judiciary had been influenced or controlled by the Communist Party of China through the Hong Kong Bar Association and the Law Society of Hong Kong, stating that there is no indication of such influence.

判刑時，Joshua Wong wrote in a series of tweets that the sentence will not halt the activism for universal suffrage and democracy, or "贏得香港人的心". 其他香港的泛民主派政治人物也批評了法院的裁決。Academic Benny Tai at The University of Hong Kong, who also faces prosecution for his role in the 2014 protests, stated that civil disobedience to "challenge the law or acts of injustice by the government" is a necessary part of a civilised society.

也有人對律政司司長提出的上訴做出了批評。梁錦松律師代表的進步律師團體表示他們「強烈反對政府把政治問題看作「治安」問題，把重點放在起訴抗議者身上」。前香港大律師公會主席、公民黨政治家梁家傑評論稱上訴「一定有政治動機」。而另一位大律師工會的前任主席石永泰則認為，沒有足夠的證據表明上訴涉及到了政治因素。石永泰還呼籲律政司司長袁國強解釋上訴原因，以提高上訴決定的透明度。律政司司長袁國強本人也回復稱他的判沒有任何「政治動機」。

2017年8月18日晚，社會民主連線在荔枝角收押所外舉行集會、反對判決。數個不同的組織在2017年8月20日公然舉行了抗議遊行，遊行在修頓球場開始，在終審法院大樓結束。他們認為這是「可恥」的「政治迫害」，要求香港當局「釋放政治犯」。抗議者們將他們的批評集中在袁國強上，他忽視了最高檢察官提出的上訴。

建制派成員則支持監禁「雙學三子」。香港第一大建制派政黨民主建港協進聯盟（民建聯）的主席李慧琼，表示「任何非法暴力行為都要付上的法律代價」、香港市民們「千萬不要以身試法」。民建聯的副主席周浩鼎認為三子的「罪行非常嚴重」、「行為不負責任」，而且「無真誠悔意」。等待判決時保衛香港運動的成員還在用揚聲器一直大聲播放歌曲《喜氣洋洋》和《鐵窗紅淚》，判決後他們還指三人「入獄找數」，認為刑期「實在係太短」，不過，「好過無」。

中國大陸

據環球時報報道，「這項判決將是香港治理的里程碑。從現在開始，可以根據這個先例判處暴力抗議抗議的人有罪，他們將需要去監獄」。

2017年8月18日，中華人民共和國外交部發言人華春瑩主持的例行記者會中談到了此事，她表示：

{{cquote|香港是法治社會，居民依法享有充分的權利和自由，但任何人都不能打著「民主」、「自由」等幌子進行違法暴力活動。特區法院是以事實為依據，按照香港法律對有關案件作出判決。我想重申，香港是中國的特別行政區，香港事務屬於中國內政，中方堅決反對任何外部勢力干預特區事務，干預香港司法獨立。}}

國際社會

蔡英文總統的辦公室發表聲明表示了台灣對監禁刑罰「深切的遺憾」

中華民國（台灣）政府對監禁表示「深切的遺憾」，並重申了台灣「長期以來支持香港市民追求民主、自由、法治和人權的立場」。民主進步黨表示「愈發嚴重的壓制只會引發更多的阻力」，政府發言人則表示：「香港當局應該認真對待『香港人想要選擇自己的生活方式和政治制度』這一事實」。

美國民主黨的領導人蘭希·裴洛西在美國眾議院表示該執政是不公正的 "shock the conscience of the world". She described the prison sentence as an "egregious decision", and that the resulting disqualification of Wong, Law and Chow to run for public office was unjust. She also regarded the sentence to be against "the basic notions of freedom and democracy".

25位國際人士公布了一項聯合聲明，認為這一監禁是「非常不公正」的。署名者對雨傘運動給予了高度的評價，並認為判刑「是一個無恥的司法錯誤，是香港法治和基本人權的喪鐘，嚴重打擊了『一國兩制』的原則」。聲明由知名政客、維權活動家和前政治犯簽署，這包括了{{tsl|en|David Alton||David Alton}}、{{tsl|en|Paddy Ashdown||Paddy Ashdown}}、{{tsl|en|Sonja Biserko||Sonja Biserko}}、查爾斯·波、{{tsl|en|Fiona Bruce||Fiona Bruce}}、{{tsl|en|John Dayal||John Dayal}}、Andrew Khoo、大衛·喬高、{{tsl|en|John McCarthy (ambassador born 1947)||John McCarthy}}、穆罕默德·納希德、{{tsl|en|Geoffrey Nice||Geoffrey Nice}}、{{tsl|en|Consiglio Di Nino||Consiglio Di Nino}}、{{tsl|en|Grover Rees III||Grover Rees III}}、馬爾科姆·里夫金德、{{tsl|en|Janelle Saffin||Janelle Saffin}}、查爾斯聖地牙哥、克里斯·史密斯、{{tsl|en|Charles Tannock||Charles Tannock}}、阿利薩·瓦希德和Zarganar。 The group also questioned whether punishing the activists twice (as Wong, Law, and Chow have already served their initial community service orders) contravenes provisions against {{tsl|en|double jeopardy||double jeopardy}} in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

學術界

香港大學法律學院講師張達明質疑為什麼上訴法院認為被告的行為是「嚴重暴力」，早些時候東區法官已經清除了這三人犯下的任何暴力行為。He stated that there did not seem to be any evidence presented that the three committed violence, and questioned whether the Court of Appeal had effected a "substantial and grave injustice". He said there were grounds for the three to appeal the ruling to the Court of Final Appeal, 香港最高法院。

人權組織

人權觀察的發言人對裁決作出了批評

各個人權組織也表示反對判決。人權觀察的發言人索菲·理查森表示把三人關入監獄的努力並非考量公共秩序，而是一種心虛的政治動作，目的僅僅是「阻止3人參選立法會，同時阻嚇未來的抗議活動」。國際特赦組織的女發言人梅布爾·金則表示當局利用措辭含糊的罪名，堅持惡意追擊學生領袖，是基於政治目的之『秋後算帳』。

人權觀察研究員王松蓮這樣說道：「這是香港的一個分水嶺。它現在有了政治犯……對於任何想要抗議的人來說，嚴酷監禁刑罰的前景現在將籠罩在他們身上」。

Other jailings

本條目重點介紹了2017年最顯眼的三名被監禁活動家。The high-profile imprisonment of Wong, Law, and Chow spurred some Hong Kong media outlets to compile lists of all individuals who have allegedly been imprisoned for political reasons. On 15 August 2017, 13 protesters who stormed the Legislative Council building in June 2014 (during a protest against the planned North East New Territories new towns) were handed prison sentences of eight to 13 months after a similar push by the Department of Justice for more severe sentences than the community service orders they originally received.

參見

• 曾德成
• 梁頌恆
• 游蕙楨

參考來源

{{reflist|30em}}

外部連結

• SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WONG CHI FUNG AND OTHERS (17/08/2017, CAAR4/2016)

{{HKafter1997}}

Category:雨傘革命 Category:2017年香港 Category:香港罪案 Category:香港人權