小販阻街的司法覆核

報攤阻街多年未釘牌業主提覆核被拒

　【明報專訊】中環舊街市對面的報攤多年來不斷被指阻街而遭食環署票控，卻未有被釘牌，早前在報檔毗鄰的大廈業主，因不滿署方一直沒有把報檔釘牌，多年來的滋擾對他構成逾900萬元經濟損失，興訟高等法院提司法覆核。高院昨認為撤銷牌照非唯一解決辦法，且署方已採取其他措施並見成效，拒絕大業主申請，令報檔暫時「力保不失」。
............


　官：撤牌照非唯一方法


　 法官林文瀚在判辭指出，雖然相關法例確訂明署長有權對重複違規的小販撤銷牌照，但法例沒訂明撤銷牌照是唯一懲罰方法。署方誓章顯示，署長認為撤銷牌照對報檔來說太嚴重，故不宜運用這權力，但署長有執行其他措施，如加強巡查檢控，並會見報檔持牌人，最終對方同意遵守牌照規定，阻街情況已大大改善。雖然報檔偶有違規，但署方認為情況不致阻礙行人或影響公眾衛生，故認為署長並非沒有執行法律責任。
(25/5/2012明報節錄)


我在去年10月為這件案寫了小販阻街 一文，司法覆核的判辭昨天上載了。申請人敗訴兼付堂費，為意料中事，去年我已經預測了這結果。林文瀚法官忙得不可開交，昨日也頒佈了梁國雄的「剪布」司法覆核，處理憲法爭拗的法官，一點也不好做。但我對林官毫無保留地接受食環署官員誓章的做法卻有異議。林官這一廂惰願的看法，簡直是盲目接納官員誓章內容的真確性(veracity)。下面判辭的一段是他的理據，換了是我，我會邀請與訟雙方到現場突擊檢查。

It would be a serious matter if a public officer were found to be deliberately misleading the court, particularly when misleading statements were made under oath. It goes without saying that the duty of candour must permeate the making of statements in an affidavit of a public officer in judicial review proceedings. As a matter of principle, the obligation of a public authority to place before the court the relevant facts and the reasoning behind a decision challenged should guide not only the public officer who make the affirmation or affidavit, but also those assisting and advising him or her, including their lawyers. There are at least two facets in such obligation: the duty of candour and the duty of due diligence. And it should be emphasized that the obligation is a continuing one, lasting throughout the continuation of the proceedings. At any stage of the proceedings, if it is discovered that there were statements in the evidence of a public authority which are inaccurate or misleading, the court expects the mistake be revealed and explained as soon as practicable. (para 52 INGLORY LIMITED and THE DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE HCAL87/2011)

標少以前領教過食環署那些尸位素餐的人的工作態度，這充斥着低學歷員工的政府部門，職員工作散漫，能力有限，是最應該解散的政府部門。他們那股玩忽職守的工作文化，已經病入膏肓，無藥可救。在這覆核申請，我絕對同情業主。香港實在是個充滿覇權的地方，執法不嚴，小販變成街霸，不讓地產商專美。屋宇署、地政總署又造就新界霸權。我時常掛在口邊所講，姑息養奸。




一