本來寫20多年前的事，關於一個曾經弄權的人，在今天已毫無味道，泛不起一點漣漪。我寫這幾篇《剛正不阿》的文章，要帶出一明確的訊息，就是不要輕信那些回憶錄自傳之類的真實性。我對崔志英的憶述也是很片面及具局限性的，加上記憶未必準確，又沒有儲存任何文件以資參照，誤差難免。而且我對崔志英可能存在先入為主的定性，只選擇性的記得那些自以為事實的事，影響了報導的客觀性。如果你是在香港法律界工作，碰到以下的人，茶餘飯後，可以向他們求證我講這件事的真確性：辛達誠(John Saunders, High Court Judge)，彭中屏(C.P. Pang, magistrate), 馬振光(Ackber Omar, barrister-at-law), 陳思聖(Leo Chan, barrister-at-law), 伍家聰(Simon Ng, barrister-at-law)及文頌基(George Man, Senior Prosecutor)等，他們都曾經在1987-1988年在崔志英席前代表過控方，可以用第一身來覆述。
用客觀眼光來看崔志英這本書，也可以見到她自己做了ultra vires及違反stare decisis的事。前者的例子是在一件街頭搶劫案，拒絕控方押後申請，在控方不同意下自己聽取被告答辯(take plea from defendant)，後者的例子是罔顧上訴庭的判刑指引，司法抗命。Stare decisis這法律概念是指上級法院的案例具權威性及約束力，必須跟隨(precedents are authoritative and binding, and must be followed.)。崔志英具上街抗爭或針砭時弊自由撰稿人的素質，骨子裏並非法官的材料，她的行為並不展示尊重法治的心。走筆至此，寫她也寫得膩煩，言盡擱筆。
Thanks for your effort to allow us to see the other side of coin!
回覆刪除There are many facets in an incident. I have only told it from an angle. Thank you for reading.
回覆刪除Inspired and thank you for letting your readers know these untold stories.
回覆刪除I have a habit when I travel to other common law jurisdictions. I usually spend at least half day to observe court proceedings. One of the objectives is to observe the behaviour of the judge/ magistrate when one is on the bench.
For those courts I had visited, the judge/ magistrates generally displayed good temperament, despite the court may have very heavy workloads on the day, and I did not note one case that the judge/ magistrate would display dismay in an unwarranted manner, nor would state something that the counsel did not actually state.
Of course, this is a very limited personal view only.
It is interesting to know you have such a habit. It is a nice experience to make judicial comparison.
刪除終於理解到標兄爲何能夠明白我對九品咖喱官的憤恨！
回覆刪除最近還回來翻閹！
回覆刪除...... 唯有等天收 ......
回覆刪除單街頭搶劫案，上左庭姐係落左charge，控方點解要申請押後？落左charge下一步咪應該問被告認罪與否，如果唔認罪，咪會押後審，通常都要等兩個月，呢兩個月控方可以處理佢本身申請押後想做既事，有不妥嗎？
回覆刪除