2012年2月8日星期三

不爭為爭

朋友看了再談非禮 blog裏的意見,一早就沉不住氣,叫我不要理會這完全不懂法律的人。這位在法律界一段日子的朋友擁有幾個法律學位,我有甚麼地方講錯了,必定會指正勘誤。不對讀者回應,不是我一貫作風。有時自己寫了膚淺的評論,便躊躇滿志,沾沾自喜。看了別人寫的留言,才茅塞頓開,醒悟天下之大,個人之小。就算遇到意見平凡的留言,或者個別私人的問題,標少也竭盡所能,找尋答案與人分享。標少在blog中,一向強調自幼家貧,讀書成績差,是個一事無成的平凡人,從來都沒有吹噓自己有甚麼專長。然而,平庸的人也可以有自已的blog,作為寫作的園地。除了三數好友,我很少推銷自己的拙文,大部份的讀者都是在偶然的機會下看到拙作。一位當主控的朋友在電郵批評我文辭平淡,不夠潑辣,並不好看。我毫不介意,每個人都因應喜好作選擇。這位美國的匿名君,看了標少在再談非禮文中的回覆,大不以為然,信誓旦旦,不再閱讀。可是又像上了癮一般,一再留言。這情況就好像上館子吃飯,吃過後廚師走出來問你是否滿意,你充滿挑剔的批評人家的菜燒得不好,之後又每晚光顧,繼續挑骨頭。餐館老闆心中嘀咕,老是不滿意,何必再來。

匿名君自稱懂得法律,第一次的評論已露了餡。對刑事法稍有認識的人都不會問這種pure allegation不足定罪的講法。那幾天恰巧在離家幾百公里外,上網十分不便,未能詳盡解答。匿名君進一步質疑我的可信性,又西班牙文又拉丁文,完全偏離課題。如果要罵我,不如說我窮、中英文都差、法律常識貧乏,我會直認不諱。如果說我法律講錯了,就應該找Archbold那類法律權威典籍或上訴案例來講,而並非個人信念。我們並非在談宗教,不是信不信的問題。標少批評法官,都盡量引用原判辭以作論據的佐證。罵孔慶東用論語陽貨篇,引魯迅小說、詩及日記,因為孔教授聲稱是孔子後人及魯迅專家。

昨晚儘管十分疲憊,也花點時間找了終審法院的案例,作了回覆,印證自己的講法。心中絕對同意意見25那位朋友的評論,但是甚麼叫懂甚麼叫不懂,是充滿禪機的問題,自以為懂的人其實可以是甚麼都不懂。標少不學無術,唯有把前終院首席法官的判辭拿出來押陣。走筆至此,希望這課題不再纏擾下去,尤其是不希望再見到那些西班牙文及拉丁文,我連英文也看得吃力,又怎樣抵受得住阿諾舒華辛力加的hasta la vista baby。標少人過半百,已不具展示滿身肌肉的心智,Arnie使人吃不消。有些人應該學一下不爭為爭,無聲勝有聲的含意。不講人家未必知道你不懂,越講得多餡越露得多,借用匿名君的mea maxima culpa作結,以免五十笑百。

2 則留言:

  1. By chance I read a judgement today (HCMA 532/2011) today. I undertand that sometimes, a mere assertion from a witness is not safe for conviction, but in the appeal case, the Magistrate looked at an objective facts - video record which captured the incident and made some comments. I am surprised that the appeal was allowed because of the "due process". The key issue is whether the video recording supported the charge, but not what the Magistrate's comment was. I am disappointed with the Judge's ruling.

    VL

    回覆刪除
  2. Hi VL,

    The choice of words by the original trial magistrate opens a loop hole for appeal. He should have avoided giving people an impression of forming his/her mind before the prosecution had started its evidence. What is in your mind only you yourself know it if you do not spell it out. Though it is not uncommon for the magistrate to see the brief facts etc before the trial commences, making comment at a very early stage is always a delicate matter. The magistrate should have said, "如果錄像顯示案發經過,被告你又不爭議它的真確性,又沒有其他理由使法庭下別的結論,它足以證明不小心駕駛。當然我還沒有聽審證供,在現階段不會妄下定論,因為你沒有律師,我有責任幫助你,加上聽到你講錄像可以證明你沒有不小心駕駛,才表達我的看法。" If the magistrate commented in the way I did, the impression of putting the cart before the horse will not exist. I cannot say Andrew Chan is wrong to allow the appeal. The trial magistrate should have learned a lesson. In quite a number of cases, we can see appeals are allowed because the trial judge/magistrate do not write meticulously. Appeal can be a language game. Another very recent example of this is HKSAR and Surinder Singh CACC348/2011 uploaded on 8/2/2012. The Deputy District Judge did not clearly express himself as to what view he had formed after accepting the photo of the burglary scene led to the vitiation of the conviction.

    Bill

    回覆刪除