來稿｜《願榮光》禁制令案後，應如何理解香港法院的審判權？
來稿作者：羅天恩
最近，上訴法庭推翻了去年原訟法庭的決定，頒布了禁止與《願榮光歸香港》有關的四項具體行為的禁制令。雖然上訴法庭的裁決明確強調了司法機構將繼續致力保障國家安全，但該裁決亦同時促進了行政機構和司法機構在國家安全與公民自由之間的新動態平衡。
香港與其他普通法地區的法律對標
上訴法院在決定是否頒布《願榮光歸香港》禁制令同時作為「新來者禁制令」（newcomer injunction）和「協助刑事法的禁制令」（injunction in aid of the criminal law）的審議過程中，它顯著地吸納了英國最高法院的最新裁決。「新來者禁制令」不僅適用於無法識別身份的人，而且也適用於在禁制令頒布時仍未違反該禁制令的人。上訴法庭考慮到英國最高法院去年的先例，認為頒布新形式禁制令的權力來源於衡平法（equity）。只要法院遵循既定的衡平法原則或其合理擴展，法院就擁有內在的管轄權（inherent jurisdiction），可以根據正義和方便的要求，創新和頒布新禁制令來應對新的情況。更重要的是，上訴法庭強調，頒布禁制令的原則和程序不是靜態的，而是隨著社會情況的發展而演變的。法律必須保持動態和適應性，能夠緊隨變化，迅速應對緊急情況和衡平法的要求。因此，上訴法院通過引入英國法，擴展了有關新來者禁制令的法律範圍。
同樣，上訴法庭在擴展香港協助刑事法的民事禁制令方面，也借鑒了相關的英國案例。根據英國在這一領域的主要案例，上訴法庭認為，協助刑事法的禁制令的申請，必須要證明存在超過單純違反刑法的其他情況。法院應考慮的廣泛測試是，在特定情況下，刑事訴訟是否可能無法實現立法的公共利益目的。如果法院認為，除非通過法律的有效限制，否則被告的非法活動會持續下去，法院才會願意行使酌情權，以頒布民事禁制令的方式協助刑法的執行。在緊急情況下，法院也可能願意頒布禁制令，以防止繼續發生的非法狀態或行為導致不可逆的情況。
香港上訴法庭除了對標英國最高法院關於頒布新來者禁制令和協助刑事法的禁制令的類似先例外，它還採用了國際慣例，尊重行政部門在國家安全相關決定上的判斷。法庭指出，行政長官根據《香港國安法》第47條做出了決定，認為與《願榮光歸香港》相關的四項行為構成了國家安全風險，不利於國家安全利益。在審查了香港的憲制和制度框架後，上訴法院重申，評估和應對國家安全風險的責任應由行政部門承擔。行政部門具備必要的經驗、專業知識、資源以及信息和情報獲取能力，能夠做出更為知情的國家安全決定。在本案中，由於行政部門評估後決定協助刑事法的民事禁制令有助於降低或消除與《願榮光歸香港》四項行為相關的風險，法院決定將決策過程交由行政部門處理。
法院審查行政決定的權力更加受限
在尋求平衡國家安全需要與維護公民自由的過程中，上訴法庭認為香港的法律制度本質上為人權和自由提供了強而有力的保障。關於新來者禁制令的新概念，法院強調，這種禁制令必須謹慎頒布。對於協助刑事法的禁制令，法院指出，這種禁制令必須通過實用性測試（utility test）和必要性測試（necessity test）。實用性測試要求民事禁制令通過防止危害國家安全的特定行為或活動來表現出它在協助刑法實現保護國家安全的公共利益目的的實用性。另一方面，必要性測試則要求申請人證明該禁制令對於協助刑法保護國家安全是必要的。證明必要性的門檻高於單純的預防刑法侵害。然而，必要性測試不要求證明除該禁制令外沒有其他措施可以實現立法目的，或該禁制令會比刑法提供更大的威懾力。由於行政部門已經評估並認定協助刑法的民事禁制令有助於降低或消除與《願榮光歸香港》有關的四項行為對國家安全的風險，法院對行政部門的判斷表示尊重，並通過頒布禁制令予以支持。
值得注意的是，與原訟法庭討論協助刑事法的民事禁制令是否通過Hysan Development Co Ltd v Town Planning Board案（希慎發展案）中提出的四步測試不同，上訴法院只是重申了認同原訟法庭決定，並沒有探討禁制令所施加的限制是否會不成比例地侵犯基本權利，也忽視了香港社會普遍存在的關於禁制令可能對言論和表達自由產生寒蟬效應的擔憂。從本質上看，上訴法院優先考慮了協助刑事法的禁制令的實用性和必要性，而這一禁制令可能不當限制言論和表達自由的問題，則遺憾地被法院降到了次要地位。
雖然上訴法院堅持認為法院仍然保留審查行政決定是否有證據支持的權力，並可以在行政決定超越權限（ultra vires）或「韋恩斯伯里式不合理」（Wednesbury unreasonableness，即沒有合理的行政機關能夠在這種情況下合理地得出這種意見）的情況下拒絕行政部門的意見，但這種審查力度遠不及希慎發展案中的四步測試嚴格。如果行政決定超越權限、沒有證據支持或「韋恩斯伯里式不合理」，那麼社會中理性的個人將毫無疑問地認為此類決定應被法院推翻，即使它們涉及國家安全問題並因此屬行政部門的職權範圍。相反，在希慎發展案中確立的四步測試中，不同人士可能會對行政決定對公民自由限制的必要性和比例性產生分歧。更重要的是，希慎發展案中的第四步要求法院評估社會利益與對人權和自由的侵害之間是否有合理的平衡。由於不同的人可能對個人和社會利益是否達到合理平衡有不同看法，希慎發展案中的四步測試使法院能夠對行政的決定實行更有意義的司法審查。通過將行政措施的實用性和必要性的決策交由行政部門決定，法院實際上削弱了自己在實質上審查行政決定適當性的權力。
在《願榮光歸香港》案中，法院聲稱在給予行政部門尊重的同時，仍保留在某些領域作出自主判斷的權力。法院指出，當某項行政措施影響到特定個人的基本權利時，法院將準備通過採用深入審查來確定該特定個人的權利是否受到了侵害，以及有效保護該個人的權利。上訴法院引用了英國《2001年1998年人權法（指定廢除令）》（Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001）的例子，該命令允許內政大臣拘留非英國國民，若他認為該非國民在英國的存在對國家安全構成威脅，但基於安全擔憂或其他實際考慮無法驅逐他出境。然而這並不意味著法院在審查行政決定時的權力不會減少。在英國和香港的案例中，如果行政決定涉及特定個人的權利，那法院一般會表現出更強的決心和意願來審查行政決定。相反，當行政決定涉及一般行政政策時，而該政策影響到所有人的權利和自由，但沒有任何一個人受到比其他人更多的影響，那法院可能會將其視為一般的政策問題，屬行政部門的職權範圍。對行政部門的尊重意願進一步減弱了法院的管轄權。
上訴法院在判決中明確提及的公平審判權（right to fair trial）的保護並不必然促進討論。公平審判權是一項不可剝奪的權利，意味著即使在存在公共危險（public danger）或緊急情況（public emergency）下也必須予以維護。當案件涉及公開司法（open justice）時，問題將變得更加複雜。根據《香港國安法》第41(4)條，有關國家安全的審判應在公開法庭進行。然而，當涉及國家機密或公共秩序時，全部或部分審判不應對媒體和公眾公開。鑒於《香港國安法》的特殊規定，它對香港司法系統具有凌駕性效力，很難想像法院如何能夠在案件涉及國家機密或公共秩序時，行使其自由裁量權讓審判在公開法庭中進行。
此外，香港固有的民事程序可能並不像法院所指出的為言論和表達自由提供強而有力的保護。首先，協助刑事法的民事禁制令通常與其所協助的刑事法律的條款相同或幾乎相同，但違反民事禁制令的處罰有機會比刑事法中規定的刑罰更為嚴厲。其次，刑事法律的立法過程通常有行政和立法部門的參與，這一民主過程要求立法機關考慮刑罰是否足夠，立法機關也有權在它認為刑罰不足夠時增加刑罰。因此，違反民事禁制令的個人可能會面臨比刑事犯罪更嚴厲的處罰。此外，刑事訴訟有多種機制保護基本人權，例如更嚴格的舉證責任、陪審團審判和一罪不二審原則。然而，民事訴訟的舉證責任顯著低於刑事訴訟，而且可能缺乏足夠的機制來確保人權保護。
最後，儘管禁制令的單方面性質（ex parte）要求律政司全面坦誠地披露所有可能影響法院酌情權行使的要點，並且禁制令內容應包含明確聲明，使任何受其影響的人或新來者可以向法院申請撤銷、變更、澄清或作出其他適當陳述，但這些措施可能不能夠完全令人滿意，因為它們將發展法律和保護人權自由的公共責任交給了個人。
民事訴訟能否提供足夠的公民自由保護？
儘管上訴法院頒布禁制令後，公民自由的保護可能有所削弱，但本文最終認為，香港的人權和自由保障基本制度保持不變。這主要是因為禁制令的條款與其所依據的刑事法律條款非常相似。
此外，所有現代社會都有共識，認為沒有任何人有「權利」干犯刑事罪行或進行刑事犯罪活動。事實上，在《願榮光歸香港》禁制令頒布後，違反國家安全罪的潛在風險大大降低。這進一步確保了香港居民正確行使人權和自由。因此，頒布禁制令的決定應該被視為香港保障人權自由、打擊國家安全罪行的積極一步，應予以歡迎。
作者羅天恩律師是香港城市大學法學院研究助理、清華大學法學博士候選人。文章僅屬作者意見，不代表香港01立場，內容以英文原文為準。
The Court of Appeal recently overturned the Court of First Instance's decision last year and granted an injunction to ban the four specific acts related to the protest song Glory to Hong Kong. While the ruling of the Court of Appeal has emphatically underscored the judiciary's continuous commitment to safeguarding national security, it has concurrently precipitated a recalibration in the dynamic between the executive branch and the judicial system in their ongoing endeavour to strike a balance between national security and civil liberties.
Hong Kong's alignment with international jurisprudence
The Court of Appeal has significantly incorporated the most recent rulings of the UK Supreme Court in its deliberation on whether to issue an injunction that simultaneously serves as a "newcomer injunction" and an "injunction in aid of the criminal law". A "newcomer injunction" pertains to individuals who are not only unidentifiable but have neither violated nor posed a threat to violate the act prohibited by the injunction at the time when it is issued. The Court of Appeal, taking into account the precedent set by the UK Supreme Court last year, held that the power to grant new forms of injunctions was fundamentally anchored in equity. Provided that the courts adhered to the established principles of equity or any logical extension thereof, they possessed the inherent jurisdiction to innovate and issue injunctions to address novel circumstances as dictated by justice and convenience. Of greater significance, the Court of Appeal emphasised that the principles and procedures that dictated the issuance of injunctions were not static, but rather, they evolved in tandem with the developing circumstances of society. It is crucial that the law remained dynamic and adaptable, capable of keeping abreast with changes in order to respond promptly to emergencies and the call for equity. Consequently, the Court of Appeal has broadened the scope of the law pertaining to the sanctioning of newcomer injunctions by introducing its application from English jurisdiction to Hong Kong.
Similarly, the Court of Appeal has also drawn upon the relevant English cases in extending the law regarding civil injunction in aid of the criminal law in Hong Kong. In line with the leading cases in the UK in this area, the Court of Appeal opined that there must be something more than mere infringement of criminal law before the assistance of civil proceedings can be invoked. The broad test that the courts should consider is whether in the particular circumstances, criminal proceedings were likely to prove ineffective to achieve the public interest purposes for which the legislation in question had been enacted. If the courts considered that the defendant's unlawful operations would persist unless and until effectively restrained by the law, and that nothing short of an injunction would be effective to restrain them, the courts would be more ready to exercise the discretion to grant an injunction to aid the operation of the criminal law. The court may also be willing to grant an injunction in emergency situation to prevent the continuation of an unlawful state of affairs or conduct which might result in irreversible unlawfulness unless an injunction were granted forthwith.
In addition to aligning with analogous precedents decided by the UK Supreme Court regarding the granting of newcomer injunction and injunction in aid of the criminal law, the Court of Appeal also adopted the international norm to defer to the executive in making national security related decisions. The court noted that the Chief Executive has made a decision pursuant to Article 47 of the National Security Law, and has determined that the four acts in relation to Glory to Hong Kong have posed national security risks and were contrary to the interests of national security. Upon reviewing the constitutional and institutional framework of Hong Kong, the Court of Appeal reiterated that it was up to the executive, and not to courts, to assume the responsibility to assess and address risks to national security. The executive was also believed to possess the requisite experience, expertise, resources and access to information and intelligence to make better informed national security decisions. In this case, as the executive has assessed and decided that the measure of a civil injunction in aid of the criminal law would be of utility and necessity to reduce or eliminate the risks associated with the four acts of the Song, the court decided to defer the decision-making process to the executive.
More restricted power in reviewing executive decisions
In the quest to strike an appropriate balance between national security imperatives and the preservation of civil liberties, the Court of Appeal argued that Hong Kong's legal system inherently provides robust safeguards for human rights and freedoms. With respect to the novel concept of newcomer injunctions, the courts emphasised that this type of injunction must be granted in caution, and would not be granted lightly. For the injunction in aid of the criminal law, the courts noted that this type of injunction must pass both the utility test and the necessity test. The utility test requires that the civil injunction demonstrates its utility in assisting the criminal law to achieve the public interest purpose of safeguarding national security by preventing particular acts or activities endangering national security. In addition to the utility test, the necessity test requires the applicant to prove that the injunction is necessary to assist the criminal law for safeguarding national security. The threshold for proving necessity is higher than the prevention of mere infringement of the criminal law. However, the necessity test does not require proof of certainty that nothing short of the injunction would achieve the purpose or that the injunction would provide greater deterrence than what the criminal law has already provided. Since the executive has already made the assessment that the measure of civil injunction in aid of the criminal law would be of utility and necessity to reduce or eliminate the risks posed to national security by the Song, the court deferred to the executive's judgement and endorsed their decision by granting the injunction.
Notably, unlike the Court of First Instance which deliberated on whether the civil injunction in aid of the criminal law could pass the 4-step proportionality test set out in Hysan Development Co Ltd v Town Planning Board, the Court of Appeal simply reiterated its agreement with the findings of the Court of First Instance. Most importantly, the Court of Appeal did not address whether the limitation imposed by the injunction would disproportionately infringe upon fundamental rights. It also overlooked the prevalent concerns within the Hong Kong community regarding the potential chilling effects that the injunction could have on freedom of speech and expression. In essence, it appears that the Court of Appeal prioritised the utility and necessity of the injunction in aid of the criminal law, and the question whether this injunction might unduly restrict the exercise of freedom of speech and expression was, regrettably, relegated to a secondary concern.
While the Court of Appeal insisted that the courts still retain the power to scrutinise whether the executive's decision is substantiated by evidence, and may reject the executive's opinion if it is ultra vires, or Wednesbury unreasonable (i.e. that no reasonable minister could reasonably have arrived at the opinion in the circumstances), this level of review is considerably less stringent than the 4-step proportionality test in Hysan Development. If the executive's decision is ultra vires, unsupported by evidence, or Wednesbury unreasonable, there would be little doubt in the minds of reasonable individuals in society that such decisions should be overturned by the court, even if they pertain to national security matters and hence fall under the executive's domain. On the contrary, in the 4-step proportionality test established in Hysan Development, opinion may diverge on whether the limitation of civil liberties imposed by the executive decision is necessary and proportionate to achieve the aim it tries to seek. More importantly, the fourth step in Hysan Development requires the courts to take a step back and assess whether there is a reasonable balance between the societal benefits of the encroachment and inroads made into human rights and freedoms. Since different person may have varied opinion on whether a reasonable balance has been struck at the personal and societal levels, the 4-step test in Hysan Development entails a more meaningful judicial review on the executive decision. By deferring to the executive in determining the utility and necessity of the imposition of administrative measures, the courts have effectively emasculated itself in substantively reviewing the appropriateness of the executive decisions.
There are certain areas which the courts claim to maintain the power to make its own judgment while giving the executive deference. When a fundamental right of a particular individual is impacted by an administrative measure, the courts would be ready to afford effective protection to the individual by adopting an intensive review to determine whether such a right has been impugned. The Court of Appeal cited the example of the United Kingdom enacting the Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001. This Order allowed for the detention of non-nationals if the Home Secretary believed that their presence in the United Kingdom was a threat to national security, but deportation was not feasible due to safety concerns or other practical considerations. However, that does not shield the court from experiencing a reduction in its authority when reviewing executive decisions. In both the case of the United Kingdom and Hong Kong, the courts demonstrate a stronger resolve and willingness to review executive decisions if a particular individual's rights are violated. On the other hand, when it comes to general executive policy which affect the rights and freedoms of all individuals equally, with no individual suffering more than others, the courts may regard it as a matter of general policy which falls within the authority of the executive. The willingness to defer to the executive further exacerbates the matter by diminishing the court's jurisdiction.
The explicit protection of the right to fair trial mentioned by the Court of Appeal in the judgment does not necessarily advance the discussion either. The right to fair trial is a non-derogable right, meaning that it must be upheld even at the time of public danger or emergency. The issue becomes more debatable when open justice is invoked. Pursuant to Article 41(4) of the National Security Law, trial concerning national security shall be conducted in an open court. However, when circumstances arise such as the trial involving State secrets or public order, all or part of the trial shall be closed to the media and the public. Given the special provision of the National Security Law, which has a superseding effect on Hong Kong's judicial system, it is difficult to envision how the courts could exercise its discretion in order the trial to be heard in open court when State secrets or public order, which could potentially be very broad and encompassing, are engaged.
It is also crucial to highlight that the inherent civil procedure in Hong Kong may not offer as robust a protection for freedom of speech and expression as the courts suggest. First, while the injunction in aid of the criminal law is usually phrased in identical or almost identical terms to the criminal law that it seeks to aid, the breach of civil injunction may entail a more severe punishment than the penalty which the legislature has imposed in the criminal statute. Second, the legislation of criminal law typically involves a democratic process that requires the participation of both the legislature and the executive. During this process, the legislature must consider whether the penalty is adequate and has the power to increase the penalty if it is deemed insufficient. Consequently, an individual who breaches a civil injunction could potentially face a more severe penalty than for a criminal offence. Furthermore, criminal proceedings are capable of protecting fundamental human rights through various mechanisms, such as a more robust burden of proof, trial before the jury and the principle of double jeopardy. However, civil proceedings have significantly lower burden of proof, and may lack sufficient mechanisms to ensure the protection of human rights like criminal proceedings do.
Finally, although the ex parte nature of the injunction mandates the Secretary for Justice to make full and frank disclosure of all material points that may affect the court's exercise of the discretion, and the content of the injunction should contain clear statement to enable any person affected by it or a newcomer to come to the court for setting aside, variation, clarification or to make other representations as appropriate, these measures may not be entirely satisfactory since they place the duty to develop the law and to protect human rights and freedoms in the hands of private individuals.
Sufficient protection of civil liberties by civil actions?
While the protection of civil liberties may have been somewhat curtailed following the Court of Appeal's granting of the injunction, it is argued that the fundamental regime of human rights and freedoms protection in Hong Kong remains unchanged. This is largely due to the fact that the terms of the injunction closely mirror its underlying criminal law offences.
Furthermore, in all modern societies, there is a consensus that no individual has the "right" to commit criminal offences and violate criminal law. In fact, once the injunction is granted, the potential risks of violating national security offences are significantly reduced. This further ensures the proper exercise of human rights and freedoms by Hong Kong residents. As such, the decision to grant the injunction is generally viewed as a positive step and should be welcome.
「01論壇」歡迎投稿，來函請電郵至01view@hk01.com。來稿請附上作者真實姓名及聯絡方法。若不適用，恕不通知。