為何要再談呢？事因匿名及L兩位的留言。
我首先澄清，我在blog裏面批評或讚賞的法官，完全沒有私交，也沒有宿怨。標少安貧樂道，不趨炎附勢，看人眉睫，以冀推挽。所以，那些位高權重的法官，無論怎樣平易近人，或笑裏藏刀，都不會是我的朋友或敵人。我對法官的看法，完全是上訴判辭得來。每當我評論的時候，不論見解多膚淺，必定引用判辭原文，作為佐證。無奈自己讀書少，能力差，可能曲解了一些大道理，或者以偏概全，或者斷章取義，唯有盼望讀者自己翻閱判辭，作出比較。
聽審上訴的法官，有些過份挑骨頭，找到一棵枯樹，沾沾自喜，而不看廣懋的森林，狹隘闡釋公義，自以為了不起。正如上訴庭在Nancy Kissel 一案所講"the wood is in danger of being obscured by the trees"。聽審上訴的法官，是否應該先看整體證據，衡量定罪是否正確，然後才判定原審法官所犯錯誤是否足以推翻定罪。並非人家丟一些魚粮入魚池，你就像魚一樣四處追逐。(各位有沒有留意標少札記版頭上面那10條游來游去，怡然自得的魚。當你把cursor放在那裏click幾下，魚粮就會放出來，魚就會游去追逐，而忘記了怡然自得之樂。)
法庭不是找尋真理的地方，審案除了法律之外，還要遵守一套證據的規則。審訊的結果，要視乎證據、法官、主控官及辯方律師的質素，上訴的結果決定因素在於那個法官聽審。如果講的是真理或事實經過，真理一下子不應變成歪理，事實變成沒有發生過。
這些討論，沒完沒了，也沒有絕對的結論，只要不把上訴法院的判辭奉若神明，多作思考，存法治之心比奉法治之名更為重要。法庭太容易變成百子櫃，喜歡打開那個櫃桶，抓一貼甚麼藥出來，你都照單全收，就會成為提綫木偶，給人牽着鼻子走。
"存法治之心比奉法治之名更為重要"
回覆刪除好句。
來自香港的CPE學生
I don't think that a judge is a evidence comparison machine. Sometimes the evidence is too perfect to be the truth, and sometimes the evidence is terrible but it is the truth. A judge should use his common sense and experience to distinguish them. It is a difficult task. Ms BOKHARY, Derek PANG are no better than Esther TOH.
回覆刪除VL
Young Lad and VL,
回覆刪除Thank you for reading. There is too much fake justice. We can always see people wielding their fists crying out loud to safeguard rule of law before the camera but at heart it is devoid of any meaning.
VL,
You mentioned Mrs Bokhary and Derek Pang. Frankly, there is not much I can write about them. They say little in their judgments. The former enjoys brevity in her judgment. There is no substance in it. The latter enjoys paraphrasing the statement of findings of the trial magistrate making reading so tedious. There is no substance as well.
In the world there has no such thing as legal protection, not because of government and law itself, but because of our brain are too limit.
回覆刪除It is because Law requires evidence. Victim and witness are expect to remember all of things happen during the crime process. Unfortunately our brain fail to did the job well. Brain also easy to make confuse with memory, especially to those petty crime like Indecent, which can make a lot of miscarriage of justice. (Big crime like fighting and violence are easier to remember for our brain).
I hope I did not misread what you said. My comments have gone beyond the fundamental requirement of evidence. It is a question of what is evidence. If I say there is sufficient evidence to convict and you say there are a lot of doubts and you give the defendant the benefit of doubt. How do we reconcile? We measure it by common sense and logical thinking. That is why I feel that I am better than some of the high court judges in this regard. By the way, Indecent Assault is liable to imprisonment for 10 years. It is not a petty crime as such. Acquitting the defendant unconvincingly can also be a miscarriage of justice. Justice has to be seen to be done to the victims as well. You can see the wisdom of the judges by reading more of their judgements.
刪除