来稿｜《愿荣光》禁制令案后，应如何理解香港法院的审判权？
来稿作者：罗天恩
最近，上诉法庭推翻了去年原讼法庭的决定，颁布了禁止与《愿荣光归香港》有关的四项具体行为的禁制令。虽然上诉法庭的裁决明确强调了司法机构将继续致力保障国家安全，但该裁决亦同时促进了行政机构和司法机构在国家安全与公民自由之间的新动态平衡。
香港与其他普通法地区的法律对标
上诉法院在决定是否颁布《愿荣光归香港》禁制令同时作为“新来者禁制令”（newcomer injunction）和“协助刑事法的禁制令”（injunction in aid of the criminal law）的审议过程中，它显著地吸纳了英国最高法院的最新裁决。“新来者禁制令”不仅适用于无法识别身份的人，而且也适用于在禁制令颁布时仍未违反该禁制令的人。上诉法庭考虑到英国最高法院去年的先例，认为颁布新形式禁制令的权力来源于衡平法（equity）。只要法院遵循既定的衡平法原则或其合理扩展，法院就拥有内在的管辖权（inherent jurisdiction），可以根据正义和方便的要求，创新和颁布新禁制令来应对新的情况。更重要的是，上诉法庭强调，颁布禁制令的原则和程序不是静态的，而是随著社会情况的发展而演变的。法律必须保持动态和适应性，能够紧随变化，迅速应对紧急情况和衡平法的要求。因此，上诉法院通过引入英国法，扩展了有关新来者禁制令的法律范围。
同样，上诉法庭在扩展香港协助刑事法的民事禁制令方面，也借鉴了相关的英国案例。根据英国在这一领域的主要案例，上诉法庭认为，协助刑事法的禁制令的申请，必须要证明存在超过单纯违反刑法的其他情况。法院应考虑的广泛测试是，在特定情况下，刑事诉讼是否可能无法实现立法的公共利益目的。如果法院认为，除非通过法律的有效限制，否则被告的非法活动会持续下去，法院才会愿意行使酌情权，以颁布民事禁制令的方式协助刑法的执行。在紧急情况下，法院也可能愿意颁布禁制令，以防止继续发生的非法状态或行为导致不可逆的情况。
香港上诉法庭除了对标英国最高法院关于颁布新来者禁制令和协助刑事法的禁制令的类似先例外，它还采用了国际惯例，尊重行政部门在国家安全相关决定上的判断。法庭指出，行政长官根据《香港国安法》第47条做出了决定，认为与《愿荣光归香港》相关的四项行为构成了国家安全风险，不利于国家安全利益。在审查了香港的宪制和制度框架后，上诉法院重申，评估和应对国家安全风险的责任应由行政部门承担。行政部门具备必要的经验、专业知识、资源以及信息和情报获取能力，能够做出更为知情的国家安全决定。在本案中，由于行政部门评估后决定协助刑事法的民事禁制令有助于降低或消除与《愿荣光归香港》四项行为相关的风险，法院决定将决策过程交由行政部门处理。
法院审查行政决定的权力更加受限
在寻求平衡国家安全需要与维护公民自由的过程中，上诉法庭认为香港的法律制度本质上为人权和自由提供了强而有力的保障。关于新来者禁制令的新概念，法院强调，这种禁制令必须谨慎颁布。对于协助刑事法的禁制令，法院指出，这种禁制令必须通过实用性测试（utility test）和必要性测试（necessity test）。实用性测试要求民事禁制令通过防止危害国家安全的特定行为或活动来表现出它在协助刑法实现保护国家安全的公共利益目的的实用性。另一方面，必要性测试则要求申请人证明该禁制令对于协助刑法保护国家安全是必要的。证明必要性的门槛高於单纯的预防刑法侵害。然而，必要性测试不要求证明除该禁制令外没有其他措施可以实现立法目的，或该禁制令会比刑法提供更大的威慑力。由于行政部门已经评估并认定协助刑法的民事禁制令有助于降低或消除与《愿荣光归香港》有关的四项行为对国家安全的风险，法院对行政部门的判断表示尊重，并通过颁布禁制令予以支持。
值得注意的是，与原讼法庭讨论协助刑事法的民事禁制令是否通过Hysan Development Co Ltd v Town Planning Board案（希慎发展案）中提出的四步测试不同，上诉法院只是重申了认同原讼法庭决定，并没有探讨禁制令所施加的限制是否会不成比例地侵犯基本权利，也忽视了香港社会普遍存在的关于禁制令可能对言论和表达自由产生寒蝉效应的担忧。从本质上看，上诉法院优先考虑了协助刑事法的禁制令的实用性和必要性，而这一禁制令可能不当限制言论和表达自由的问题，则遗憾地被法院降到了次要地位。
虽然上诉法院坚持认为法院仍然保留审查行政决定是否有证据支持的权力，并可以在行政决定超越权限（ultra vires）或“韦恩斯伯里式不合理”（Wednesbury unreasonableness，即没有合理的行政机关能够在这种情况下合理地得出这种意见）的情况下拒绝行政部门的意见，但这种审查力度远不及希慎发展案中的四步测试严格。如果行政决定超越权限、没有证据支持或“韦恩斯伯里式不合理”，那么社会中理性的个人将毫无疑问地认为此类决定应被法院推翻，即使它们涉及国家安全问题并因此属行政部门的职权范围。相反，在希慎发展案中确立的四步测试中，不同人士可能会对行政决定对公民自由限制的必要性和比例性产生分歧。更重要的是，希慎发展案中的第四步要求法院评估社会利益与对人权和自由的侵害之间是否有合理的平衡。由于不同的人可能对个人和社会利益是否达到合理平衡有不同看法，希慎发展案中的四步测试使法院能够对行政的决定实行更有意义的司法审查。通过将行政措施的实用性和必要性的决策交由行政部门决定，法院实际上削弱了自己在实质上审查行政决定适当性的权力。
在《愿荣光归香港》案中，法院声称在给予行政部门尊重的同时，仍保留在某些领域作出自主判断的权力。法院指出，当某项行政措施影响到特定个人的基本权利时，法院将准备通过采用深入审查来确定该特定个人的权利是否受到了侵害，以及有效保护该个人的权利。上诉法院引用了英国《2001年1998年人权法（指定废除令）》（Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001）的例子，该命令允许内政大臣拘留非英国国民，若他认为该非国民在英国的存在对国家安全构成威胁，但基于安全担忧或其他实际考虑无法驱逐他出境。然而这并不意味著法院在审查行政决定时的权力不会减少。在英国和香港的案例中，如果行政决定涉及特定个人的权利，那法院一般会表现出更强的决心和意愿来审查行政决定。相反，当行政决定涉及一般行政政策时，而该政策影响到所有人的权利和自由，但没有任何一个人受到比其他人更多的影响，那法院可能会将其视为一般的政策问题，属行政部门的职权范围。对行政部门的尊重意愿进一步减弱了法院的管辖权。
上诉法院在判决中明确提及的公平审判权（right to fair trial）的保护并不必然促进讨论。公平审判权是一项不可剥夺的权利，意味著即使在存在公共危险（public danger）或紧急情况（public emergency）下也必须予以维护。当案件涉及公开司法（open justice）时，问题将变得更加复杂。根据《香港国安法》第41(4)条，有关国家安全的审判应在公开法庭进行。然而，当涉及国家机密或公共秩序时，全部或部分审判不应对媒体和公众公开。鉴于《香港国安法》的特殊规定，它对香港司法系统具有凌驾性效力，很难想像法院如何能够在案件涉及国家机密或公共秩序时，行使其自由裁量权让审判在公开法庭中进行。
此外，香港固有的民事程序可能并不像法院所指出的为言论和表达自由提供强而有力的保护。首先，协助刑事法的民事禁制令通常与其所协助的刑事法律的条款相同或几乎相同，但违反民事禁制令的处罚有机会比刑事法中规定的刑罚更为严厉。其次，刑事法律的立法过程通常有行政和立法部门的参与，这一民主过程要求立法机关考虑刑罚是否足够，立法机关也有权在它认为刑罚不足够时增加刑罚。因此，违反民事禁制令的个人可能会面临比刑事犯罪更严厉的处罚。此外，刑事诉讼有多种机制保护基本人权，例如更严格的举证责任、陪审团审判和一罪不二审原则。然而，民事诉讼的举证责任显著低于刑事诉讼，而且可能缺乏足够的机制来确保人权保护。
最后，尽管禁制令的单方面性质（ex parte）要求律政司全面坦诚地披露所有可能影响法院酌情权行使的要点，并且禁制令内容应包含明确声明，使任何受其影响的人或新来者可以向法院申请撤销、变更、澄清或作出其他适当陈述，但这些措施可能不能够完全令人满意，因为它们将发展法律和保护人权自由的公共责任交给了个人。
民事诉讼能否提供足够的公民自由保护？
尽管上诉法院颁布禁制令后，公民自由的保护可能有所削弱，但本文最终认为，香港的人权和自由保障基本制度保持不变。这主要是因为禁制令的条款与其所依据的刑事法律条款非常相似。
此外，所有现代社会都有共识，认为没有任何人有“权利”干犯刑事罪行或进行刑事犯罪活动。事实上，在《愿荣光归香港》禁制令颁布后，违反国家安全罪的潜在风险大大降低。这进一步确保了香港居民正确行使人权和自由。因此，颁布禁制令的决定应该被视为香港保障人权自由、打击国家安全罪行的积极一步，应予以欢迎。
作者罗天恩律师是香港城市大学法学院研究助理、清华大学法学博士候选人。文章仅属作者意见，不代表香港01立场，内容以英文原文为准。
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论坛”欢迎投稿，来函请电邮至01view@hk01.com。来稿请附上作者真实姓名及联络方法。若不适用，恕不通知。