上庭的代價之四：給終審法院首席法官馬道立寫的一個blog

這是第四篇有關上庭要付出代價的文章，這一篇是寫給終審法院首席法官馬道立看的。我以前寫了上庭的代價, 上庭的代價之二 及上一篇 上庭的代價之三 ，都是泛不起漣漪，擲地無聲的陋文。話雖如此，我還是要寫。上一篇的匿名君私下以電郵寄來他的上訴案判辭，為了尊重私隱，避免披露讀者的身分，我不能在這裡說出案件編號。該案是極為簡單的「發生交通意外後沒有停車的控罪」(Section 56, Cap 374)。審訊的著眼點是，在事發時被告是否知道發生意外及車輛造成損害。原審裁判官認為被告知悉發生意外，所以把他定罪。聽上訴的法官覺得被告未必知悉發生意外，故此判上訴得直。上訴結果並不重要，原審裁判官及高院法官看法不同，但不能講誰是誰非，因為就算駁回上訴，結果同樣合理。

本文旨在探討匿名君對上庭的次數的投訴及對當初處理本案那位女暫委裁判官的能力的評價，進而分析問題癥結所在。

根據匿名君的憶述，我很清楚案中所涉法官的身分，但在上訴判辭沒有提到他們的名字，也沒有討論trial de novo的做法，我也不打算在此披露。在上一篇提到所花第四至六天的審訊，弄清了事情的來龍去脈後，我覺得絕對是浪費時間。

案情這樣簡單的一件案，一個高效率的裁判官，不消個半小時，就可審結。Adjourn for verdict，絕對不必要。就算效率低也磨不到半天，一再押後，怎麼說得出口。而且，為何這種人可以蒙混過關？還繼續蒙混下去。

匿名君沒有講他面對的是甚麼控罪，上訴只處理一項，另外一項在審訊時no case to answer， 我猜測是「意外後沒有報案」，如果猜測正確，就可以解釋匿名君投訴有關主控陳述把burden of proof 加諸匿名君身上的講法。若然如此，翻一翻Wilkinson這交通案的權威典籍，再結合《刑事訴訟程序條例》Cap 221第94A條否定的聲言(Negative averments)來看，十分顯淺的法律，何需為此押後裁決？還搞到trial de novo， 簡直是笑話。如果涉及沒有停車，舉證責任自然不屬被告，更加無需押後考慮。這件事說明，該暫委裁判官法律知識不堅實，尸位素餐，一心抱著少做少錯的心態做事，浪費法庭資源，浪費所有人的時間，嚴重失職，不應繼續任命下去。

這並不會是單一例子，行政管理出現問題，姑息這種不配做法官的人蒙混過日，不單只影響司法機構的聲譽，也對默默耕耘的法官不公平。主管行政的人，只要在DARTS處拿審訊錄音來聽一下，標少是否有的放矢，便一目了然。

香港司法機構在2004年所訂定Guide to Judicial Conduct裡，有關履行法官職責是這樣講的：

Diligence

26. Judges should be diligent in the performance of their judicial duties. They should endeavour to be punctual and to perform their judicial duties with reasonable promptness.

簡單案件一再不必要地押後就不符reasonable promptness的要求。不論證人或被告，警察或市民，上庭便要放下工作。如果上庭並無必要，可想而知那種白等的情況，一直在浪費社會資源。為了法治，為了正義而付出代價，無話可說。如果是為了法官的審案能力差，或是存心弄權，或是刻意惰懶而造成資源浪費，實在荒謬得可笑。更甚者用這種心態辦事蒙混過關，有可能繼而正式被委任為法官，那種禍害，不能言表。

不要以為標少在危言聳聽，情況有多嚴重，DOJ的人比我清楚。當然，勤奮盡心工作的法官佔著絕大多數，庸碌無能的卻一個也不能多。畢竟法官社會地位高崇，我們自然心存較高的期許，質素不好的孬種，怎能為法治把關？我拭目以待，大馬爺怎樣撥亂反正，儆惡懲奸。

寫這個blog無疑又得罪人，但我不在賣笑，何懼之有？感到害怕的，應該是被照妖鏡照射而露出真面目的人。這題材，將會是我在2013年寫法官小說的素材。

上庭的代價之三

A comment was left in 上庭的代價 today. My Penpower pen is broken and I am waiting for a replacement from Taiwan. I can only write in English to save the trouble of using my finger to write on the Nexus 7 tablet.

I copy the comment here for the purpose of discussion and easy reference.

匿名2012年12月28日 下午6:31

Let me share my experience here, a year ago I was charged with 2 traffic offences. At the end it took me 7 days spreaded over a year to get this over.

Day 1 - Pleaded not guilty

Day 2 - Waited one whole day and was told there is no time to hear my case.

Dat 3 - Trial heard by a magistrate featured in another article of yours in the same page. I was self represented and had no legal background.

Day 4 - Verdict was suppose to be given, but I complained the prosecutor on some points and the magistrated postponed the verdict to another day.

Day 5 - The magistrate insisted the prosecutor did nothing wrong and I said if she beleives the prosecutor did nothing wrong, please give her verdict, which the magistrate refused. At the end she decided to "trial de novo" although neither the prosecutor or myself wanted this.

Day 6 - Trial heard by another magistrate. He found me no case to answer for one offence, and guilty for the other offence which I was fined.

Day 7 - Appeal heard at the court of first instance. I was notified later my appeal was successful with cost given back to me.

My personal thought is the government should consider training and hiring more magistrates to ensure more attention is given to each case and to shorten the waiting period.

Anonymous complained about the length of time taken for the trial. Without the benefit of seeing transcripts of the trial, I can only analyse from my past experience to see if the complaint is justified. The analysis is for the benefit of the people who do not know how the court works.

Day1--The defendant served with a court summons to appear in court for the first time the purpose is for plea only. The defendant cannot expect to deal with the case there and then and reach a final decision on the plea day unless the defendant pleads guilty or the prosecution drops the case. No complaint can be made about it if the defendant pleads not guilty and has to come back for trial on another day. This is done in accordance with various provisions in the Magistrates' Ordinance Cap 227 as well as other related ordinances. At the same time, there are numerous plea cases brought up every day from different government departments. One cannot expect to proceed to a trial on his first appearance.

Day 2 --The trial day. Normally a reasonable number of cases are fixed for trial on the same day depending on the total number of witnesses involved. In a traffic trial court, it is very common to see several trial cases fixed. For various reasons unbeknown to the court beforehand, some defendants will plead guilty or adjournment will be sought because of the unavailability or absence of prosecution witnesses. At times, warrant of arrest issued when the defendant does not turn up. These are normal reasons curtailing the workload on the trial day. If all the defendants plead not guilty and no adjournment is sought on either side, then the magistrate has to deal with all the trials. Sometimes, other magistrate will offer to take up some of the trial cases when he finishes his own list. Another result is the trial magistrate is unable to finish the whole list and some of the cases have to be re-fixed to another trial day. If this happens, I cannot say it is not a justifiable outcome.

Day 3 -- The re-fixed day. Priority should be given to a case which is re-fixed in a previous occasion. In the normal circumstance, I do not see the need to adjourn for verdict a traffic matter when no complicated point of law is involved and my experience tells me most of the traffic trials involve the finding of facts. There are normally no justifications to further adjourn the matter for verdict.

Day 4 -- The day supposed verdict to be delivered. If there are further issues arising, unless complicated law point is involved, I see no justification to adjourn the matter further.

Day 5 -- If the magistrate finds that the complaint against the unfairness of the prosecutor is devoid of merit, there is no justification to order trial de novo and re-fix the case to another magistrate for a new trial.

Day 6 -- The case is concluded within 1 day by another magistrate. It shows that there is no need for the case to waste Day 4 and Day 5 by the original magistrate. I will analyse it in a moment.

Day 7 -- Appeal heard. The decision may not be delivered on the same day of the appeal because some high court judges like to write the judgement before a decision is announced. In the instant case, the defendant does not have to go to court again for that. There should not be any complaint.

The reader suggests that more resources have to be deployed for training and appointment of more judicial officers to shorten the waiting time and save the defendant from attending court unnecessarily. This is only an outsider's point of view. The judiciary pledges to ensure trial be fixed within 6 to 8 weeks from the first appearance in the magistrate court. My impression is this target is basically met with the appointment of deputy magistrates and deputy special magistrates. The problem does not lie in the manpower, it is in the competence of the people rather. In the case brought up by the reader, Day 4 to Day 6 are actually wasted. The deputy magistrate forgets about the function of the magistrate court. She should be able to deliver the verdict there and then once the trial is concluded. One of the tactics to avoid workload is to prolong trials and adjourn unnecessarily. If you prolong the trial in hand, that means you cannot try other cases. They have to be given to other magistrates to deal with or re-fixed. Without doubt, this can be used to avoid more trials, in the end, more appeals. Some magistrates may just listen to the evidence until noon time and adjourn the case for verdict until 4 pm. In the meantime, all other cases cannot be dealt with and they can pretend to be busy and occupied.

What has gone wrong is the lack of supervision and at the same time there are quite a number of obsequious sycophants. Just like what I said in 升官制度, the crux of the problem. What the boss has to do is to listen to the recording of the trial or sit in court to observe, who is competent and who mediocre, the ability is so obvious.

平安夜

今年過一個平淡的聖誕，派對飯局都推掉，一則感冒未清，一則不想應酬。平安夜在花園勞動了一陣子，鋸掉幾十公斤樹木，搗毁一窩紅火蟻，殺它幾百。30幾度炎熱，忍不住去剪短了煩腦絲，多人的日子，等待了一會，讓個新手剪了個不稱意的頭。我不吭一聲，還付了小費。今天開車特別忍讓，換來不少燦爛笑容和揮手。懶洋洋的答了朋友的電郵，也用心回覆了讀者的詢問，希望幫不上忙也給人一點鼓勵，在戾氣重的香港，發揮丁點正能量。剛收到香港融樂會的捐款呼籲，過了聖誕便給它寄張支票。今天也收到終審法院的聖誕咭，大馬爺(主任裁判官有個馬爺，所以馬道立被稱為大馬爺)親筆寫的，怪不得一眾小吏都覺得他平易近人。希望他權力鞏固之後，就向司法機構政務長開刀，削掉她膨脹已久的權力， 撥亂反正，把資源正確使用在司法人員身上。我當然不會給大馬爺回信，他根本不認識我。

這平安夜晚，我可以看兩眼莫言的《生死疲勞》，呷幾口二十年的普洱，一邊聽Simon and Garfunkel， 一邊乘著虛空恬靜，把校友會的會章修改第二稿，成事方休。事理未必通達，只求心靈平安。

顏太

珊姐半年前返港，到顏香圃買茶，赫然發覺顏太中了風，已不能開鋪了。那是我帶她去買茶葉的地方，回到悉尼，她告訴我這消息。

我大概在15年前才開始在顏香圃買茶，店鋪在正街附近的皇后大道西。我原本在源茂光顧了10多年，有一次源茂的老闆竟然賣了烘焦了的鐵觀音給我，欺負熟客的奸商，我還有幫襯下去的理由嗎? 況且還是幾百元一斤的茶，欺人太甚。我是一個重感情的人，很少轉換慣常買生果蔬菜海味茶葉的地方，熟落了的店鋪成為朋友多過買賣關係。

顏香圃的顏伯和顏太是很健談的人，標少也曾經是口沫橫飛的人，故此也經常去串門喝茶。相熟之後，有一次顏太拿了一張登着標少照片的報紙出來，對標少增添一些敬意。其實我做微不足道的工作，從來都不會透露職業，避免任何優惠。那些年在工作上的事情引起記者報導的興趣，有三兩年確實時常見報，甚至成為頭條新聞。不知就裡的人以為標少了不起，坦白講不值一哂。

顏香圃以前的鐵觀音春、秋茶是不賣給客人的，在我要求下每年給我留兩三斤，之後才放在店中標價出售，3年前已漲至1600元一斤。標少雖然貧窮，因為喜歡喝茶， 一年總花上一萬幾千在茶葉上。我寧願節省其他花費，生活簡樸，好茶卻不能省。少時家貧，但有位世叔在南北行經營出入口生意，偶然讓我品嚐到極品的鐵觀音功夫茶，可能是這原故，使我對茶鍾情。

顏伯在幾年前一睡不起，無疾而終。老人家70多歲，聲如洪鐘，身體壯健，突然離世，使我十分錯諤。猝死但無痛苦，也無牽慮，算是一種福氣，他日吾軀歸故土，我也希望是這樣。顏太是樂天開朗的人，顏伯走後，很快就接受了現實，每日生活節奏如常，大女兒(我叫她顏小姐)在鋪頭幫手。去年鋪頭電線短路發生小火，燒傷顏太的手、臉。值得慶幸的是顏太康復得快，疤痕也不嚴重。可是身體一向壯健的顏太，二月底突然中風，半邊身軀失去活動能力，口齒不清，終日不是卧床就是與輪椅為伴，銷蝕心脾，叫人怎不悵然淚下。我這次回港看望了老人家一次，她還認得我，卻有吐不出的千言萬語憋在心裹。她激動得不斷飲泣，我也充盈着一眶濕潤的眼淚。我對她的撫慰，雖然沒有實質的作用，只能希冀她早日痊癒。顏太一下子蒼老了10年，標少的心也飛墮了千丈。

因為顏太身體突變，顏小姐只好遷往上環的商廈繼續經營。標少從來不在blog裏替人賣廣告，如果你有喝茶習慣，可以嘗試做生意殷實的顏香圃，地址是文咸東街105-107號利文商業大廈9樓，電話2548 1697。標少寫這個blog旨在為顏太打氣，顏小姐也不知有標少札記。

他朝有日標少如果身體有突變，但願撇撇脫脫，爽爽快快，我不想憋死。

有病不求藥

昨天終於外遊完畢，回到家裏，home, sweet home。過去10年中幾乎每年回港探親，都沒有像今年那樣病倒，喉如刀割的感冒，一度使我猶豫是否應該去看醫生，吃點抗生素，希冀藥到病除。但我的執着再一次省掉這藥費。我對於抗生素十分抗拒，若非重病，不吃便有生命不保之虞，否則我都不吃。過去10年，只有一次，就是去年懷疑染上肺炎才服了一個療程。可是，在日常食物中，我們間接吃下的抗生素卻多不勝數，防不勝防。我們日常食用的家禽家畜，水產食物，牛奶雞疍，都給人添加了抗生素。抗生素這名字確實有趣，所謂抗生，是指抑制細菌生長的意思，可是，用抗生素餵飼禽畜魚蝦甚至蜜蜂，目的是有病醫病，無病補身，使牠/它們快高長大，身體健康，賣得好價錢。我們不用直接服藥，不知不覺間也身受其「益」，教我怎能不抗拒呢！

不知是香港醫生喜歡開藥，抑或是香港的病人喜歡吃藥。病人會埋怨醫生藥開得太少，能開一大包五顏六色的藥丸給病人的就是妙手回春的再世華陀。如果看了病人不開藥，叫病人回家休息多喝水，這醫生肯定門可羅雀。情況好像犯了事的被告請律師，律師叫他認罪，而不教他揑造一個抗辯理由，這律師也休想飛黃騰達。所謂揑造，當然不會直接了當，否則變成教唆妨礙司法公正，以前也有律師因為這樣做而惹上官非。

在悉尼看醫生，我總是告訴醫生不一定要吃的藥不要開，不一定要照的片不照，照了片先打開報告來看，在網上查閱資料，到看醫生的時候懂得問切實的問題。我的目標是，無病不進補，有病不求藥。

Granting of bail to the Epping Murderer

Man accused of Lin family killings to remain in jail as prosecution appeals decision to grant bail

 

Min "Norman" Lin and Yun Li "Lillie" Lin.

The man accused of the Sydney Lin family killings, Lian Bin "Robert" Xie, has been granted bail by a Sydney magistrate.

However, Xie will remain in custody after crown prosecutor Mark Tedeschi QC said the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) would be appealing the decision in the Supreme Court.

In the Central Local Court on Thursday, Magistrate John Andrews said the Crown case against Xie had been weakened "substantially" in evidence that emerged during the committal proceedings.

"In my view, the case falls well short of being a strong Crown case," he said.

Mr Andrews said he was satisfied Xie had met the exceptional circumstances required for granting bail and he ordered him to put forward security amounting to $900,000.

He said if a jury found the DNA evidence was not blood, that would prove "fatal" to the Crown case.

Xie, 48, is charged with murdering his brother-in-law, Min "Norman" Lin, 45, Mr Lin's wife, Yun Li "Lily" Lin, 43, her sister, Yun Bin "Irene" Yin, 39, and two boys, aged nine and 12, who cannot be named for legal reasons.

Their bodies were found in a North Epping house, in Sydney's northwest, on July 18, 2009.

They had been beaten to death with a hammer-like object, while the cause of death for four of the victims also included asphyxia.

He was committed to stand trial on Wednesday and applied for bail immediately afterwards.

It was his third bail application.

After Mr Tedeschi indicated the DPP would be appealing the decision, Mr Andrews granted a temporary stay on his decision.

It will expire on Thursday, December 27 at 4pm (AEDT), meaning the matter will have to be heard in the Supreme Court before then.

AAP (Sydney Morning Herald 20 December 2012)

I wrote numerous blogs to comment on the strength of evidence of the Epping murder. I read from the news this week that the defendant was committed to the High Court for trial. I was not surprised at all because to let him go at the committal stage needs a lot of guts. Now that the magistrate hearing the case and deciding to commit him to the High Court has granted bail to him. It means the magistrate also feels that the scanty evidence does not suffice to proceed to a conviction in the end. People may use the cliche "presumption of innocence" to explain and in reality the yardstick is the gravity of the offence and likelihood of absconding which are taken into account. In the 2 previous attempts to apply for bail, the defendant was denied the freedom but after hearing the preliminary evidence, he re-applies and gets it this time. It sheds some lights on the strength of the prosecution case.  That said, I am in no way sided with the defendant. The reality is cruel. The rule of law is rational so it may not give you the desired result of getting the atrocious murderer convicted. After the amendments of the law allowing double jeopardy, Robert Xie will not get loose so easily. Even if he were to be acquitted in the first trial, he would be facing a few re-charge and re-trials in the end. Philip Leung, who faced the murder of his partner and after two no case acquittals, was eventually convicted by the jury in his third trial on the same facts last month in Sydney.

「打茅波」釋法

無可否認， 律政司司長借外傭案向終審法院提請人大釋法，確實在「打茅波」，申請缺乏法理依據，很多人面對社會資源因終院的裁決所帶來的衝擊及影響，而寧願放棄具法理依據的處理方法，只求解決問題， by hook or by crook。

叫終院推翻莊豐源案的裁決， 談何容易， 莊案的判決距今才10年，期間涉及居權的法律看法並無顯著的改變，終院一則沒有推翻莊案的理據，再者外傭案也並非屬人大釋法的類別，律政司司長只是把這燙手山芋交給法院，在管治風雨飄搖的時候，擾亂視聽，推卸責任。

以前有讀者留言罵過標少，認為標少認同法院的看法，不管香港市民的死活，我不得不申辯一下。自吳嘉玲的居權案開始，如果終院接納政府的觀點，極其量被指看法保守，不致於造成提請人大釋法的終結。問題就出在終院受liberal minded的人所把持, 才產生這些漠視對社會衝擊的裁決，如果判決並非liberal minded,，就不會有雙非湧來產子的問題，一旦終院作出裁決，下級法院只能依從，故此標少贊同下級法院法官的判決，卻評擊liberal minded的看法，不同意終院開明的判決，但卻要捍衛他們體現法治的判決權力。

有人認為，律政司司長這次的做法，就是包致金所指的暴風雨來臨，我不認同這看法。如果提請人大釋法就是暴風雨來臨，那麼暴風雨在十年間已來過幾次。在我看，包大人所講的暴風雨，是指因他不獲延任，消除了對終院裁決的影響力，才講出這番危言聳聽的話，他覺得自己可以呼風喚雨。

我覺得最佳處理辦法是修改基本法，可是，人大不肯承認基本法在立法方面有問題，他們覺得一切問題出在法官不諳國情。各不相讓，惟有拉倒， 最終話事權卻握在人大手裡。終院覺得外行領導內行，這口氣噎不下，奈何！這種根本性的矛盾， 是一國兩制也避不了結構上的矛盾，就像香港立法會褫奪了法院的釋法權，在香港一向奉行的法律觀念中，這做法法官難以接受，也極不願意接受。我真的看不到律政司司長這次申請成功的可能性。

也不要以為染紅保皇的人就一定支持政府的做法，不是有覬覦律政司司長一職又當不成的人出來打秋風嗎？

外遊拉雜談

回港探親之前，去了一趟7天江南遊。所謂江南，包括上海、杭州、蘇州、無錫及南京等地。這種團招待美國、加拿大及澳洲等地的華僑，旨在介紹祖國文化歷史及現代發展成就，基本上沒有政治宣傳，導遊反而有意無意的揶揄貪腐的共產官員。這團極為超值，99澳元兩位，包吃包住，當然不連機票。住的酒店值得一提，偏僻的新酒店最好，房間實用面積有400呎，其中有一間還是複式的。單是這種酒店，住一晚就要2、3百美元，還有精美的自助早餐。這種團也要靠帶團友去購物來維皮，但並無逼人買東西，也無拉閘，畢竟團費便宜，團友也買得疏爽。另外值得一提的是，最宰人的店鋪反而是替人治病的「不仁堂」。吹噓怎樣救活本應診斷為植物人在火車意外受傷的名記者也罷，醫術就算真實不虛，推銷手法卻極之卑劣。多個醫師個別邀請團友往房間診治，逐個擊破。終於其中一個團友誤以為幫襯2000元人民幣的療程，簽咭之後，赫然發覺是超過10000澳元的療程，幾經調停才減為4000澳元縮短的療程。恍如入了黑店投宿，給下了蒙汗藥。

早兩晚在上環西港城附近，見到一對中年男女在截的士，幾輛空車都沒有停下，我看見地上漆上雙黃線，以為是大陸同胞不懂法例，不知道那是24小時禁區，於是以普通話對他們講「這裡不行」。殊不知他們隨即成功截停了一輛的士，上車之際，男乘客得意地用本地話向我講「醒唔醒？」如果是10年前的標少，定必電郵給香港交通警察，找出這的士司機來檢控。香港人在駡大陸人不守法不守秩序之餘，有時不外是五十笑百。