2012年1月10日星期二

解讀2012年法律年度開啟典禮馬道立的演辭

馬道立指釋法屬憲法責任 (18:03)

終審法院首席法官馬道立表示,有關剛果共和國案件,法院確認其憲法責任,提請釋法。

他在法律年度開啟典禮上稱,去年,在剛果民主共和國及其他人訴 FG Hemisphere Associates LLC一案受到考驗,終審法院多數裁定,根據普通法,不存在由香港特區法院對外國適用與中華人民共和國所採納的原則立場不同的國家豁免法律原則。這也是終審法院首次啟動《
基本法》機制,提請全國人民代表大會常務委員會解釋《基本法》的相關條文。
(9/1/2012 明報即時新聞節錄)

昨日是香港2012年法律年度開啟典禮(Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2012),昨晚看了明報的即時新聞嚇了一跳,以為終院淪陷了,司法獨立死了,原來是明報搞錯,把律政司司長黄仁龍的演辭當了馬道立的來報導,太豈有此理。司法機構今早上載了CJ的演辭全文,金睛火眼仔細的看,確定是誤報。

標少是寫評論的人,希望從演辭中看出一點端倪,洞悉先機。從馬道立的演辭看,可以肯定講,民事案單憑訴訟所涉款額100萬元即可上訴至終審法院的當然權利,很快會修例改為要預先獲得上訴許可(leave to appeal),方能上訴。在陳振聰向終院上訴被駁回時,判辭已清楚表達意向。

演辭在結語這一段落,也可以解讀為將來終院態度的伏筆,演辭這樣講:

     The world and the society in which we live change, often rapidly. New challenges present themselves constantly. Like the building that is to be the Court of Final Appeal, the common law is both old and new, adapting itself to new circumstances in order to produce the right and just answer.

社會瞬息萬變,法院判決要與時並進,正確公正,恐怕要等包致金及李義兩位「開明」的常設法官退休之後,才能看到。屆時人事變異,對法律釋義看法不同,裁決務實,各方利益皆獲平衡兼顧,比諸現在失衡的看法,必有一番新局面。這不是我憑空妄誑之言,馬道立這結語在呼應首段之言:

In a society as varied and populous as ours, it is inevitable that there will be many interests at stake; in many instances, such interests will from time to time conflict with each other. It is therefore essential that the law operates well in practice. Where conflicts give rise to legal disputes, it is critical that the courts can effectively resolve them.


是否有變化不是一時三刻可以體現,再過兩三年才會知道我這看法能否應驗。同樣是司法獨立,同樣是法治如磐,分別繫於身為終極法官的看法。從另一個角度看,確實有點兒戲。他們是真理道路,主宰萬物,豈不是神!



















2 則留言:

  1. I am afraid that under the imbalance of power in the present political system (esp the relative weak Legislative Council), social/political issues will inevitably turn into legal issues which will then give relatively a greater power to the Judiciary branch.

    CFA therefore will have a greater say in their judgement but I do not find much objection to this. At least, the CFA judges are highly educated, intelligent and conscientious individuals that follow long - established legal principles, unlike the dubious officials with links with the Mother China.

    回覆刪除
  2. William,

    I do not dispute the power and function of CFA. I only cast doubt on the "hyper" liberal minds who do not give regard to the reality. My intuition is some sort of politic is behind the scene (Wikileak showing the communication between Bokhary and the US Consul is an example) A less liberal approach to interpret the law will not encroach or harm judicial independence nor make it less conscientious. After the new CJ has solidified his power and influence, I wait in anticipation to see some gradual changes.

    One cannot distinguish true justice and the fake one, both contains rhetorical, persuasive and embellished legal principles and languages.

    Bill

    回覆刪除