無Sexual Offences Act 2003後果就係膠

「嗰度係私人地方,告佢唔入嘅喎」。阿欣報警告發男友在家中廁所安裝攝錄機偷拍客人如廁,但警員的說法令她疑惑。事實上,法律界人士亦指出,在私人地方偷拍,如果有關片段或相片僅供自己「欣賞」不算犯法,除非將有關相片或片段上載互聯網或向他人展示,又或被偷拍者是 16歲以下,這才須負刑責。有婦女團體認為有關條例過時需要修改。

點解會出現啲咁膠嘅狀況,因為香港以Sexual Offences Act 1956為基礎嘅性犯罪法律,根本無法對付一大堆新科技、新案例造成嘅硬膠問題。今年一宗硬膠案例,令警察無嘢好做:

黃世澤:你仲敢睇男性婦科醫生?

喺香港特別行政區 v. 湯勇文醫生(沙田裁判法院 STCC5928/09)案,案件由於涉及私人地方,以及本身有reasonable doubt,非禮被打甩,偷窺根本告唔到。之後差佬對呢類案件,都只能調查,睇有無其他《刑事罪行條例》或普通法罪行告得入,但好多時都愛莫能助。

英國本土喺2003年訂Sexual Offences Act 2003果陣,將偷窺行為(Voyeurism)成文法部分執過晒,現行條文係咁:


67Voyeurism

(1)A person commits an offence if—

(a)for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he observes another person doing a private act, and

(b)he knows that the other person does not consent to being observed for his sexual gratification.

(2)A person commits an offence if—

(a)he operates equipment with the intention of enabling another person to observe, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, a third person (B) doing a private act, and

(b)he knows that B does not consent to his operating equipment with that intention.

(3)A person commits an offence if—

(a)he records another person (B) doing a private act,

(b)he does so with the intention that he or a third person will, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, look at an image of B doing the act, and

(c)he knows that B does not consent to his recording the act with that intention.

(4)A person commits an offence if he instals equipment, or constructs or adapts a structure or part of a structure, with the intention of enabling himself or another person to commit an offence under subsection (1).

乜叫Private Act,喺Sexual Offences Act 2003 s68己經有定義

68Voyeurism: interpretation

(1)For the purposes of section 67, a person is doing a private act if the person is in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy, and—

(a)the person’s genitals, buttocks or breasts are exposed or covered only with underwear,

(b)the person is using a lavatory, or

(c)the person is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public.

(2)In section 67, “structure” includes a tent, vehicle or vessel or other temporary or movable structure.

喺英國好清楚,我話知你果度係咪私人地方,決定因為係被拍嘅行為係s68定義嘅「私人行為」(Private Act),就唔會出現喺自己屋企裝彈弓偷拍人地去廁所都竟然係合法嘅膠事,而且串謀做呢啲膠事嘅淫蟲,一律可以照拉,費時有啲友仔搞「有組織偷窺」嘅情況。

依家律政司無可能乜都唔做,否則你去人地屋企都隨時中招,政府係有責任修改《刑事罪行條例》,你唔引入晒成份Sexual Offences Act 2003都好,至少引入S67同S68,依家膠到係,除非偷拍條硬膠係英國公民或者持英國居留身份(ILR或永久居民身份,或者曾經喺歐洲行使歐盟公民權利嘅BNO持有人,而喺歐洲住至少一年),咁你唔好搵香港差佬,你搵英國警察舉報喇,用Sexual Offecnes Act 2003 s72針對英國公民同居民嘅域外效力對付呢啲福佳。

簡單嚟講,無Sexual Offences Act 2003嘅結果就係,香港女士無保障。

Advertisements

3 則迴響

Filed under 英國與歐洲, 香港政治

3 responses to “無Sexual Offences Act 2003後果就係膠

  1. 通告: Tweets that mention 續) MO's notebook 3 to 4:無Sexual Offences Act 2003後果就係膠 //寫到咁俗係咪想之後來個潔版投稿? XD -- Topsy.com

  2. 義不容共

    一直覺得中共容許香港在九七後沿用普通法,只係怕嚇走投資者,葉公好龍,並不是真正理解認同英式法治文明,所以公安條例等惡法依舊,須與時並進改良的法律,就闊佬懶理視如不見。

    深層骨子裏的政治劣根,就係寧要中式枉法野蠻,都不能讓英倫看扁。

  3. Denn

    Martin,
    既然DoJ食O左*,可否由法律界議員用私人條例草案照抄英國法令, 以解決問題?

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com Logo

您的留言將使用 WordPress.com 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Twitter picture

您的留言將使用 Twitter 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Facebook照片

您的留言將使用 Facebook 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Google+ photo

您的留言將使用 Google+ 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

連結到 %s