解讀馬道立2013法律年開幕演辭兼答客問

2013年香港法律年昨日開幕，近月法律界爭議事情太多，由包致金不獲延任為終院常設法官，繼而拋出的風暴論，梁愛詩批評法官不諳國情，大陸學者對法官國籍看法，以至律政司司長藉外傭案尋求終院提請人大釋法的舉措，都使大家對馬道立今年法律年開幕演辭份外關注。

昨晚在司法機構網頁找到演辭*，已經是悉尼的午夜，昨天開了400公里車，十分疲累，沒有細嚼演辭內容，遑論動筆評論。1月是澳洲網球賽事頻密的日子，電視日日直播，目不暇給，不宜寫blog。

馬道立的演辭，開宗明義，要回應香港近幾個月熱烘烘的討論。有傳媒把他在演辭中提到《基本法》的次數和李國能的作比較，明報的社論也作出中肯分析，我也不想拾人牙慧，重覆有關《基本法》確保香港司法獨立及法官國籍方面的講法。我覺得馬道立在演辭中也間接回應包致金兩個多月以來的言論。包致金在接受Michael Chugani 訪問時，表示人大並非像英國樞密院，由law lords等法律專家組成，包致金對人大釋法不屑的態度溢於言表。馬道立在演辭中雖然講「香港法官所致力維護的是法律，法庭所效忠的也是法律。務須達致法律面前，人人平等」，大前題卻講法官就任時的司法誓言。在誓言中，首先講的是擁護《基本法》。**而《基本法》就訂定了人大可以釋法的範疇，故此在有關範疇中釋法，不會損害法治。

馬道立也重申：「我或任何法官都不適宜評論個別案件，尤其是有待法院審理的案件。」言下之意，是否在打包致金的耳光呢？除了包致金，我見不到任何其他法官走出來評論，捲入政治性的論爭。馬道立亦表達「法庭和法官是不會受近日眾多不同意見所左右」的固有原則，這很明顯與包致金呼籲終院同袍「要在暴風雨中站出來」，相信群眾的講法迥異(可參看風暴中站起來：包致金再開金口 一文)。

讀者Justus Wong昨晚在風暴中站起來：包致金再開金口 留言，我在此回應三點。第一，我同意馬道立可以聽審外傭居權案的上訴，他在吳嘉寧案代表控方而敗訴，不一定要為此避席，只要他展示公正立場，判案理據清晰，受先例約束，應該不會受批評。最使我擔心的是，自稱開明的人，把他標籤為保守派，其實開明保守這二分法似乎沒有明確準則，不少人把判政府敗訴的法官視為開明，相反的就是保守。可是，政府並不是董建華、曾蔭權或梁振英等人，政府應該是指代表大眾市民的行政架構，不要輕易對政府敗訴沾沾自喜。第二，我不覺得包致金可以繼續積極聽審任何提出釋法呈請的案件。自從他不獲延任的消息公佈之後，他的言行已不能使人覺得他能夠恪守公正持平的原則，他的言論已變得政治化。第三，不少人把包致金的暴風雨論等同提請人大釋法，我自始至終都不同意這聯想。包致金自己沒有說明他所指的a storm of unprecedented ferocity為何，如果釋法是storm，何以具有unprecedented ferocity？人大在第一次就《基本法》有關居港權的釋法可稱為unprecedented，外傭案又怎算unprecedented 呢？所以我自始至終都認為，他因為不獲延任，自己認為是法律界的重大損失，香港司法獨立少了他這一員就會坍塌，故此拋出意思曖昧的講法，讓人瞎猜，有人把釋法聯想為暴風雨，他不置可否，最後可能把猜想得最有利自己的當作講法的原意。如果覺得我對他存著偏見，那也是事實，但重要的是，我的看法是否有理據。盲從附和，一味膜拜權威，何來獨立思考？司法獨立也需要獨立思考的人來彰顯。如果我看法有誤，希望有高人指正，使我茅塞頓開。


*
The following is issued on behalf of the Judiciary:

The following is the full text of the speech delivered by the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal, Mr Geoffrey Ma Tao-li, at the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2013 today (January 14):


Secretary for Justice, Mr Chairman, Mr President, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen,

On behalf of the Hong Kong Judiciary, I extend a warm welcome to all of you to this year's Opening of the Legal Year. I welcome our overseas guests and in particular Justice Susan Kiefel of the High Court of Australia.

In the past few months, the law and the Judiciary have very much been the focus of discussion by many people from all walks of life. This is hardly surprising: even if one does not encounter the courts or judges in the course of one's normal life, the law and the decisions of the courts can actually affect one's life, sometimes in a profound way. Last year, I said how critical it was for the community that the courts should be able effectively to resolve disputes. This year, I begin by reminding everyone of what can conveniently be called the integrity of the law. This is the foundation of the operation of the law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region: this integrity and all its facets are what the community can expect - indeed demand - of its legal system.

The integrity of the law

I begin with the constitutional role of judges. Article 92 of the Basic Law declares that judges are chosen on the basis of their judicial and professional qualities. Each judge is required under the law to take a judicial oath - all in the same words - that he or she will uphold the Basic Law, serve Hong Kong in accordance with the law and safeguard the law without fear of or favour from anyone. It is therefore the law, under which all persons are equal, that is served by Hong Kong's judges and to which the courts owe their loyalty.

The core-activity of the courts is to administer justice in accordance with the law. I am often asked whether the courts take into account the public interest when deciding cases, particularly those cases which involve public law or constitutional principles. Of course they do but this does not mean that in the determination of cases, the courts will look to what sectors of the public or the majority of the public or even the Government may desire as the outcome in any given case. That is not what is meant by the public interest. The public interest that is served by the courts is in the adherence to fundamental concepts of fairness, dignity and justice in the application of the law. I refer to these fundamental concepts because the courts are mandated to apply not just the content of the law but, sometimes more importantly, its spirit. But it is always the law and its spirit that dominate. No one, no institution is above the law.

It is in the nature of a decision in a court case that someone will win the case and, correspondingly, for there to be a loser or losers. And in the area of public law where there may be matters of the utmost social, political or constitutional sensitivity at stake (for example, in immigration matters), the interest of the community as a whole may be engaged as well. In these areas, different sectors of the public representing different interests, will each have radically different and diametrically opposed views as to what they regard as the "right result" in a case. In this type of situation, which can certainly pose challenges for the courts, what will guide the courts in making a just and right decision, knowing that whatever the result, substantial sectors of the public may not be satisfied with it?

The answer is ultimately a simple one and one which, I believe, the public expects. As in all cases that come before the courts for determination, the approach is exactly the same: adherence to the law and its spirit. This is what Hong Kong's courts do every day of the week in relation to every case that comes before them, whether the courts are dealing with simple money disputes, petty crimes or cases of the greatest constitutional importance. And no judge approaches the determination of a case with any pre-conceived ideas: a judge will approach a case with an open mind and always apply the law. It is not within a judge's constitutional mandate to do otherwise.

Crucial to what I have just said about the court's approach in the resolution of cases, is that the court's activities are transparent. Transparency in the judicial process - meaning that it is clear for all to see that the courts and their judges are discharging their constitutional duty of deciding cases according to law without fear or favour - this transparency must exist as an important part of the integrity of the law.

The transparency in the judicial process is demonstrated by two facets. First, save for limited exceptions, all proceedings in court are open to the public. Any member of the public is able to attend each stage of a court hearing: the opening of a case, the testimony of witnesses, counsel's submissions and the decision of the court or, where there is one, of a jury. The only limited exceptions to this are where the content of the court proceedings are so sensitive that it would not be in the public interest to have an open hearing, such as where the interests of children are involved.

The second facet of the transparency of the judicial process is in the reasoning of the court in arriving at its decision. It is an established feature of Hong Kong's system of law that every decision or judgment of the court will have the reasons for it clearly and explicitly available for all to see. This process of providing reasons serves at least two purposes. First, it enables the immediate parties to the relevant dispute before the court to know the precise grounds for the judgment. This will have particular relevance to the losing party, who would be given an opportunity to appeal the adverse judgment. In Hong Kong, the system of appeals is made effective by the fact that the appellate courts are able to scrutinise closely the reasons for any judgment of the court below. Secondly, from the public's point of view, the court's reasoning in a judgment will enable everyone to see for themselves exactly how the court has applied the law and fulfilled its constitutional mandate. This last point is crucial in my view. As I have indicated earlier, particularly in public law and other high profile cases, sections of the public may hold quite radically different points of view as to what should be the result of a case. It is only by looking at a court's reasoning that the respect for the integrity of the law can be maintained: this reasoning makes acceptable to the public what might otherwise be an unpopular result. It is made acceptable precisely because it can be seen that in arriving at a decision, the court has applied and remained faithful to the law. The Hong Kong community expects its courts and judges to apply the law fairly and equally rather than to determine cases by vague and arbitrary notions of what may be more popular or more attractive as an outcome. The reasoning of our courts is there for all to see. From the District Court to the Court of Final Appeal, the judgments of the courts are readily available to the public on the Judiciary's website without charge.

Of course the feature that provides the foundation of the integrity of the law is the independence of the Judiciary. I am often asked about the independence of the Judiciary and what evidences the existence of the independence of the Judiciary in Hong Kong. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that Hong Kong has a fearless and independent Judiciary, and that the concept of the independence of the Judiciary - a concept that is synonymous with Hong Kong's success in many people's minds - very much exists in Hong Kong. I do not, however, expect that everyone should merely take my word for it, even though it comes from the Chief Justice, but to look at two objective facts. The first of these is the content of the Basic Law itself: that Hong Kong should have an independent Judiciary as part of the constitutional model for Hong Kong, is stipulated in no fewer than three Articles of the Basic Law (Articles 2, 19 and 85).

The second objective fact which demonstrates the existence of an independent Judiciary is something to which I have already made reference: the reasoning that is contained in the court's judgments. This, perhaps more than anything else, shows exactly how the courts and judges in Hong Kong operate in practice.

I have now discussed at some length the way I view the integrity of the law in Hong Kong. As I remarked earlier, the law has been the focus of much attention recently. It is of course inappropriate for me or indeed any judge to comment on individual cases, particularly those cases yet to be heard by the courts, but it is right to remind everyone of the basic framework and foundation of the law in Hong Kong. I would also like to remind everyone of the fact that although the courts do on occasion have to deal with the legal questions arising out of political matters, the courts and their activities ought not to be politicised. I entirely respect the rights of individuals to exercise their freedom of speech - indeed I think it is healthy in a society for this to happen and it is in any event guaranteed as a fundamental right here in Hong Kong - but the courts and judges will not be influenced by the very many different points of view to which one is exposed these days. The courts and judges will at all times adhere only to the law and to its spirit - the community expects nothing less from the Judiciary

Hong Kong's judges

The independence of the Judiciary requires judges of the highest quality and standing to serve the administration of justice. I have earlier made reference to Article 92 of the Basic Law which provides that members of the Judiciary shall be chosen on the basis of their judicial and professional qualities. These stated qualities provide the only criteria for the appointment of judges and it is of course not difficult to see why. Apart from the Chief Justice and the Chief Judge of the High Court, there is no nationality requirement in the Basic Law for any other judge. Quite the contrary, the Basic Law (in the same Article 92) refers to members of the Judiciary being able to be recruited from other common law jurisdictions. Consistent with this is Article 94 of the Basic Law which states that the Hong Kong Government may make provision for lawyers from outside Hong Kong (as well as local lawyers) to work and practise in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is after all a common law jurisdiction and recognised worldwide as one. Our courts enjoy an enviable and respected reputation internationally. The Basic Law of course provides that Hong Kong applies the common law. The common law system has served Hong Kong well in the past and will continue to do so in the future. The common law and its operation are ultimately founded on fairness and justice being administered for the benefit of the community and its people.

The power of final adjudication in Hong Kong rests with the Court of Final Appeal, the highest court for Hong Kong. Article 82 of the Basic Law specifically provides that the Court may "as required invite judges from other common law jurisdictions to sit" on the Court. Since July 1, 1997, the Court of Final Appeal in almost all its full appeals has invited a judge from an overseas common law jurisdiction to sit on the Court. These common law judges, comprising holders and former holders of the very highest judicial offices in their respective jurisdictions, have been tremendous assets for the Court of Final Appeal and for Hong Kong. At present, there are 10 judges in the panel of judges from common law jurisdictions: two former Chief Justices of the High Court of Australia, a former Justice of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, three former members of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, two present members of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the immediate former President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and the present President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The presence of these judges has without doubt added a significant dimension to the Court of Final Appeal and its work. Many of the leading judgments in the appeals heard by the Court of Final Appeal have been written by the common law non-permanent judges. It is widely recognised by judges, the legal profession and legal scholars that the "Fifth Judge" (as the common law non-permanent judges have been called) has made a significant contribution to Hong Kong's jurisprudence. They enjoy the confidence of the community and will continue to do so for very many years to come. It is to be remembered that when a common law non-permanent judge is appointed to the Court of Final Appeal, that judge takes the same judicial oath as every other judge in Hong Kong and becomes a Hong Kong judge.

The relocation of the Court of Final Appeal

Finally, I want just to provide an update on the planned relocation of the Court of Final Appeal from its present address at Battery Path to Jackson Road. It is now anticipated that the move will take place in the middle of 2015. This may seem to be a long way off but the project, involving as it does structural tests, careful restoration of the historical features of the old building and of course the design of a functional (and larger) chamber for the Court itself, is a large project. I look forward greatly to seeing the building welcome not just the users of the Court of Final Appeal but also members of the public. It will provide a constant, imposing and unshakeable reminder of the rule of law in Hong Kong.

Conclusion

As we approach the Lunar New Year, having just celebrated Christmas, this is a time to think about one's family. On behalf of all my colleagues, I wish all of you and your families good health and much happiness. Thank you.



　　以下是終審法院首席法官馬道立今日（一月十四日）在二○一三年法律年度開啟典禮上發表的演辭全文（中文譯本）：

律政司司長、大律師公會主席、律師會會長、各位嘉賓﹕

　　我謹代表香港司法機構全體仝人，熱烈歡迎各位蒞臨本年度的法律年度開典禮。藉此機會，讓我向遠道而來的海外貴賓，特別是澳洲高等法院的Susan Kiefel法官表示歡迎。

　　過去數月以來，社會各界人士討論的焦點總離不開法律及司法機構。這實在不足為奇。即使人們在平常生活中與法庭或法官沒有接觸，法律及法庭的判決仍會為他們的生活帶來實際的影響，有時甚至是深遠的影響。去年，我提及法庭能夠有效地解決糾紛，對社會至為重要。今年，讓我跟大家重申一下香港特別行政區法律運作的基礎，就是可稱之為「法律持正的精神」這個議題。法律持正的精神以及它所包含的各個層面，是社會對本港法律體制所抱的期望，更是社會對法律體制的訴求。

法律持正的精神

　　首先，我想從法官的憲制角色開始。《基本法》第九十二條訂明，法官應根據其本人的司法和專業才能選用。法律規定，每名法官就任時必須宣讀一式一樣的司法誓言，宣誓擁護《基本法》，奉公守法，為香港服務，以無懼無偏的精神維護法制。因此，香港法官所致力維護的是法律，法庭所效忠的也是法律。務須達致法律面前，人人平等。

　　法庭的核心職能是依法秉行公義。我常被問及，在法庭判案時，尤其是當案件涉及公法和憲法原則時，會否考慮公眾利益。法庭當然會考慮公眾利益，但這並不表示法庭在判案時，會受社會某些界別，或大多數人士，甚至政府所樂於得見的判決結果所影響。公眾利益的意思並非如此。法庭致力維護公眾利益，所指的是法庭在執行法律時，必會遵循公平、公義和維護尊嚴的基本理念。我提及這些基本理念，是因為法庭不單必須引用法律條文的內容，有時候更重要的是要體現法律條文的精神。但無論如何，一切均須以法律及其精神為依歸。不論任何人士或任何機構都不可凌駕於法律之上。

　　基於法庭判決的性質，每宗案件必會有一方勝訴，同時亦有一方或多方敗訴。以公法範疇而言，案件可能關乎極為敏感的社會、政治或憲制事宜（例如入境事務），而社會的整體利益亦可能受到影響。在此等範疇內，社會中各個界別人士對案件持有不同的利益，對於何謂案件的「正確判決結果」，亦會各持完全不同甚至截然相反的意見。這類案件定必會為法庭帶來挑戰，因為我們都明白到，無論結果如何，社會上眾多界別的人士仍會對判決感到不滿。在這種情況下，法庭在致力作出公正及正確的判決時，又會以甚麼為依歸？

　　這問題最終只有一個簡單的答案。我相信這答案亦是合乎公眾期望的。法院處理所有訴諸法院的案件的方式都是完全一致的，就是恪守法律條文，依據法律精神判案。香港法院一日復一日，都是以此方式處理每宗案件，不論是簡單的金錢糾紛、輕微罪行或具重大憲法意義的案件。法官判案時，絕不會抱有既定的看法。法官在處理案件時，必定會保持開明態度，貫徹始終地依據法律判案，絕不偏離憲法所賦予他們的權力範圍以外。

　　剛才所談及法院處理案件的方式，關鍵在於法院工作是高度透明的。高度透明的司法程序，意味着法院及法官在履行憲法職能，無懼無偏依法斷案時，大眾可以有目共睹。法律持正的精神當中一個相當重要的元素就是司法程序必須有透明度。

　　司法程序的透明度，展現於兩方面。首先，除僅有的例外情況外，所有法院程序都是對公眾人士公開的。任何市民皆可旁聽法院每一階段的聆訊︰開案陳詞、證人證供、大律師陳詞，以至法院或陪審團（如有的話）作出的決定。僅有的例外情況是指當法律程序涉及過於敏感的內容時，例如有關兒童權益的案件，若案件進行公開聆訊，則不符合公眾利益。

　　展現司法程序透明度的第二方面，是法院會為其所達致的決定提出理據。香港法律體制久已確立的特點之一，就是法院會為其所作出的每一決定或判決，提出清楚明確的理據，讓所有人都可以得知。法院提供理據，最起碼可以達到兩個目的。首先，直接參與相關訴訟中的各方，均可得悉法院作出判決的明確理由。這對敗訴的一方尤為重要，以便它有機會就對其不利的判決提出上訴。在香港，上訴制度行之有效，是由於上訴法院可以仔細審核下級法院所作每項判決的理由。第二，從社會大眾的角度來看，任何人皆可從法院判決中的理由，得知法院具體上如何引用法律，如何履行其憲制職能。我認為最後這點正是關鍵所在。正如我剛才提到，就關乎公法的案件和其他備受矚目的案件而言，社會各界人士對於法院應如何判案，或會持有完全不同的看法。唯有提供法院的判決理據以便公眾人士參閱，才可維持他們對法律持正精神的尊重。這些理據使公眾人士接受一些看似不受歡迎的判決結果。案件結果之所以令人接受，正正因為大家得以見到法院在達成判決的過程中，引用法律並一直忠於法律。香港社會期望法院和法官能夠公平、公正地引用法律，而非依據一些含糊、任意的概念來斷案，以圖得出或會較受歡迎或較易接受的裁決。本港法院的判決理據是公開的，讓所有人都可以得知。由區域法院至終審法院，法院的判決書均會上載至司法機構的網站，方便公眾人士免費查閱。

　　誠然，獨立的司法機構是法律持正精神的基礎。我經常被問及有關司法獨立的情況，以及如何證明香港的司法機構是獨立的。毫無疑問，香港的司法機構是無懼和獨立的，這是一個確實存在的概念，一個在許多人心目中等同於香港成功的概念。我並不期望人人只單憑首席法官的話，便欣然接受香港的司法制度是獨立的。反而大家更應考慮兩項客觀的事實。首先是《基本法》本身的內容︰香港應有獨立的司法機構，它是香港憲制體系的一部分。此項規定，至少在三條《基本法》的條文中訂明（第二條、第十九條及第八十五條）。

　　第二項證明司法獨立的客觀事實，可從法庭判決中的理據看到，就是我剛才提及的一點。這也許比任何其他的事情，更能確切地顯示香港的法院和法官實際上如何運作。

　　剛才，我詳細闡述了我對香港法律持正精神的看法。正如我之前所說，法律最近成為備受關注的焦點。當然，我或任何法官都不適宜評論個別案件，尤其是有待法院審理的案件。然而，必須提醒各位有關香港法律的基本架構和基礎。我們應當謹記，雖然法庭有時候須要處理由政治事件衍生的法律問題，但是法庭及其工作不應被政治化。我完全尊重個人行使言論自由的權利。事實上，我認為可以自由表達言論的社會是健康的社會，而在香港，言論自由始終是受保障的基本權利之一。不過，法庭和法官是不會受近日眾多不同意見所左右。法庭和法官從不間斷恪守法律及法律的精神。這絕對是社會大眾對司法機構的期望。

香港的法官

　　獨立的司法機構，仗賴才能卓越、地位尊崇的法官來秉持公義。剛才我已提及《基本法》第九十二條，此條文規定司法人員應根據其本人的司法和專業才能選用。這些法律所訂明的才能是委任法官的唯一準則，原因亦當然不難理解。除了終審法院首席法官和高等法院首席法官外，《基本法》並沒有對其他法官的國籍作出規定。實際上，《基本法》（同樣是第九十二條）訂明司法人員可從其他普通法適用地區聘用。《基本法》第九十四條與此相符，訂明香港政府可作出有關外來的律師（和本地律師）在香港工作和執業的規定。香港畢竟是普通法的司法管轄區，並獲世界各地承認為普通法適用地區。我們的法庭在國際社會間享有盛譽，備受推崇。《基本法》清楚訂明普通法在香港適用。普通法制度過往在香港行之有效，將來亦會如此。而普通法及其運作，是以能為社會及市民的利益秉持公正公義作為依歸。

　　終審法院作為香港最高級的法院擁有香港的終審權。《基本法》第八十二條特別規定，終審法院可「根據需要邀請其他普通法適用地區的法官參加審判」。自1997年7月1日起，終審法院在差不多所有的上訴案件中，均邀請一名來自海外普通法適用地區的法官參加審判。這些來自普通法適用地區的法官，包括目前及曾經在其本身的司法管轄區擔任最高級別司法職位的人士。他們對於終審法院和香港來說，一直是不可多得的骨幹成員。目前，我們有10名來自普通法適用地區的法官：兩名前任澳洲高等法院首席法官、一名前任新西蘭最高法院法官、三名前任英國最高法院成員、兩名現任英國最高法院成員、前一任英國最高法院院長及現任英國最高法院院長。這些法官無疑為終審法院及其工作開拓了重要的層面。終審法院審理的上訴案件中，不少權威性的判決書是由其他普通法適用地區非常任法官撰寫的。法官、法律界及法律學者廣泛認同，終審法院的「第五名法官」（對其他普通法適用地區非常任法官一貫的稱謂）對香港的法學發展作出了莫大的貢獻。他們獲得市民的信任，將來也必如是。我們必須謹記，當一名普通法適用地區的法官獲委任為終審法院非常任法官時，他與香港其他法官一樣，必須作出相同的司法誓言，成為香港的法官。

終審法院遷址

　　最後，就終審法院從炮台里現址搬遷至昃臣道的計劃，我想簡述一下最新情況。我們預期，終審法院將於2015年年中遷至新址。乍眼看來，這似是很久以後的事，然而搬遷計劃涉及結構測試，仔細修復這座古老的建築物，使它重現昔日的風貌，當中需要為終審法院設計實用（及更寬敞）的法庭，因此是一項規模龐大的計劃。我熱切期盼大樓日後不僅可供終審法院使用者使用，亦歡迎市民大眾到訪。這座莊嚴的建築物將屹立不倒，時刻標誌香港的法治精神。

結語

　　聖誕節剛剛過去，農曆新年即將來臨。這是我們與家人歡聚慶賀的日子。我謹代表司法機構全體仝人，祝願各位和你們的家人身體健康，生活愉快！謝謝。



**
PART V

THE JUDICIAL OATH

I swear that, in the Office of a Judge/a judicial officer of the Judiciary of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, I will uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, bear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, serve the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region conscientiously, dutifully, in full accordance with the law, honestly and with integrity, safeguard the law and administer justice without fear or favour, self-interest or deceit.

(name of person making the oath)

Oaths and Declarations Ordinance Cap 11, Laws of Hong Kong