5 Sept 2024集誌社#4026
頭條新聞｜工會歷 52 個月挑戰通訊局 《頭條》侮警等三指控獲平反 曾志豪：遲來的正義
An episode of RTHK’s Headliner broadcast in February 2020 was complained against for defaming and insulting the police. The Communications Authority ruled that the programme had breached the Television Programme Code (the “Code”) and issued a warning. The RTHK staff union and the Hong Kong Journalists Association, disagreeing with the decision, sought a judicial review. In 2021, the High Court’s Court of First Instance ruled that part of the review was successful but upheld the decision concerning the alleged insult to the police. Both sides subsequently appealed against the parts on which they had lost. In written reasons handed down by the Court of Appeal on Wednesday (the 4th), the court dismissed the Communications Authority’s appeal and, by a 2:1 majority, ruled that the complaint of insulting the police was not established. In other words, 52 months after the warning was issued, all complaints concerning Headliner had been ruled unsubstantiated, and the Court of Appeal ordered the Communications Authority to withdraw the warning.
港台節目《頭條新聞》2020 年 2 月一集節目，被投訴污衊和侮辱警方，通訊局裁定節目違反《電視節目守則》（下稱《守則》發出警告。港台工會及記協不服，提出司法覆核，高院原訟庭在 2021 年裁定部分覆核得直、但維持涉辱警決定。雙方其後再就敗訴部分上訴，上訴庭周三（4日）頒下書面判詞，駁回通訊局上訴，另以 2:1 裁定辱警投訴不成立。換言之，由被警告至今歷 52 個月，涉《頭條》的投訴全被裁不成立，上訴庭令通訊局撤銷警告。
4 Sept 2024法庭線#4022
《頭條新聞》被指辱警違守則 港台工會部分上訴得直 上訴庭下令撤銷通訊局警告
In 2020, the Communications Authority ruled that the “The Shameless Official” and “Frightening News” segments of RTHK’s Headliner defamed and insulted the police, and issued RTHK a warning. The programme was subsequently taken off the air. The Hong Kong Journalists Association and the RTHK Staff Union sought a judicial review of the decision and won partly in the High Court in 2021. The Communications Authority, the RTHK Staff Union and the Journalists Association subsequently appealed against the parts of the judgment they had lost.
In a judgment handed down on Wednesday (the 4th), the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the Communications Authority’s appeal and upheld the original ruling that “The Shameless Official” did not breach the Television Programme Code. The Staff Union and Journalists Association’s appeal concerning “Frightening News” was allowed, and the Court of Appeal ordered the Communications Authority’s warning to be withdrawn.
On whether host Wong Hei’s appearance in “Frightening News”—wearing a police uniform, wrapped in a rubbish bag and emerging from a bin—constituted an insult to the police and breached the Code, the three judges expressed differing views. Chief Justice Andrew Cheung said that although satirical works should have greater freedom of expression, there remained “a threshold of propriety that even satirical works cannot cross”. The other two judges considered that if the content targeted the police’s anti-pandemic work, rather than merely their social standing, it should not be regarded as breaching the Code. The Staff Union’s appeal was ultimately allowed by a majority.
The Communications Authority said in response to enquiries that it would study the judgment with its legal advisers before deciding on its next steps. The Journalists Association said in a statement that it noted the court had overturned all of the Communications Authority’s rulings concerning the relevant episodes of Headliner, belatedly vindicating the RTHK production team. However, Headliner had already been taken off the air more than four years earlier, one month after the warning was issued. Regarding the ruling that the two organisations could not mount a constitutional challenge over an infringement of freedom of expression, the Journalists Association and the RTHK Staff Union said they respected the court’s decision and would not appeal the case to the Court of Final Appeal.
通訊事務管理局於 2020 年裁定港台《頭條新聞》內的「無品芝麻官」及「驚方訊息」環節，屬污衊、侮辱警方，並向港台發出警告，節目隨後停播。記協與港台工會提司法覆核挑戰決定，2021 年獲高院裁定部分勝訴。通訊局、港台工會與記協其後各就敗訴部分提上訴。
上訴庭周三（4 日）頒下判詞，一致駁回通訊局上訴，維持原審裁決，即「無品芝麻官」環節並無違反《電視節目守則》；工會、記協一方就「驚方訊息」提出的上訴，則獲判勝訴，上訴庭下令撤銷通訊局的警告。
就主持王喜在「驚方消息」中穿著警服、包著垃圾袋，從垃圾桶冒出，3 名法官對於是否構成辱警、違反《守則》各有意見。首席法官潘兆初認為，雖然諷刺作品在表達上應有更大自由度，但仍有「一條連諷刺作品都無法逾越的體統底線」。另外兩名法官則認為，若內容是針對警察的抗疫工作，非單純針對他們的社會地位，不應被視為違反《守則》，最終以大比數裁定工會一方上訴得直。
通訊局回覆查詢指，會與法律顧問研究判詞，再決定下一步行動。記協發聲明指，留意到通訊局就《頭條新聞》相關集數的裁決，已被法院全部推翻，還港台製作團隊遲來的公道，但《頭條新聞》於 4 年多前、收警告後一個月已停播。至於判決指兩間組織不能就言論自由受損作出違憲挑戰，記協與港台工會指尊重法庭裁決，不會將案件上訴至終審法院。
1 Jun 2023明報#6532
六四報道巨幅表揚信 掛牆港台34年被除下
The Department of Justice argued that the lower court had failed to consider the social circumstances at the time of the incident, and that the young man must have intended to injure someone. It asked for the case to be remitted to the lower court for reconsideration. The defence, however, said he might have used an object to “ward off” the attack, and that an intention to cause injury was not the only reasonable inference. After hearing submissions from both sides, Judge Cheung Wai-ling said she considered that the trial magistrate had made an error and was inclined to remit the case for reconsideration. She will hand down her judgment on a date to be fixed.
律政司一方認為，原審沒有考慮案發時社會環境，認為青年當時必然有傷人意圖，希望可發還案件予原審重新考慮。但答辯方指，他可能用物品「擋」開攻擊，意圖傷人並非唯一合理推論。法官張慧玲聽畢雙方陳詞，表明認為原審裁判官有犯錯，傾向發還予原審重新考慮，將擇日頒下判詞。
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
