標少為古思堯案的判辭一文「開片」之二------大佬文化

任何專業都存在大佬文化，但沒有一個比大律師更甚。理由很簡單，如果你是私人執業的醫生，你看你的病人，人家看自己的病人，各不相干，兩個醫生不用同時診斷同一個病症，自然沒有因為資歷深淺產生的衝突比拼。律師，尤其是大律師，在訴訟中打對台引起衝突就容易得多，有些資歷深又欠修養的見到對手年資淺，可以無禮得難以置信。如果你年資淺又夠膽針鋒相對，他道理贏不了你，可能就指責你而講類似這樣的說話：「無大無細」、「你師父喺邊個」、「你邊年call架」。上一篇我收拾匿名大律師，他就是這種心態。想深一層其實十分諷刺，律師吃這行飯，講的是法理依據，邏輯思考，資歷深的大律師，並不是黑社會大佬，年資淺的後進為何不能夠批評你？

我不管你是大法官抑或大律師，我作為一個市民，我提出自己的看法，你奈得我何？我秣兵厲馬，隨時候教。

有時這種大佬文化，法官也有份造成，先看下面張貼這案例。

FAMC No. 10/2012

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 10 OF 2012 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM HCMA NO. 78 OF 2011)

_____________________

Between:

HKSAR	Respondent
- and -
WONG KAM FUNG	Applicant

_____________________

Appeal Committee:		Mr Justice Bokhary PJ,  Mr Justice Chan PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
Date of Hearing:		6 July 2012
Date of Determination:		6 July 2012
	D E T E R M I N A T I O N

Mr Justice Bokhary PJ :

1.                                         In convicting of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, the magistrate accepted the victim’s evidence that the defendants had attacked her in the way which she described.  The appeal judge felt unable to support that conclusion.  So he quashed the convictions for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.  But he noted that one of the defendants, who is now the applicant before us, had admitted in the witness-box that she had slapped the victim.  Upon that admission, he substituted, in the case of the applicant, a conviction for common assault.  There is no reason why the applicant should have made that admission unless it is true.  And the appeal judge was entitled to take the view that the magistrate must have been satisfied of facts which proved the applicant guilty of common assault.  That brings the case within s.119(1)(g) of the Magistrate Ordinance, Cap. 227.

2.                                         We stress that all of that proceeds on the fact of the applicant having made an admission the truth of which there is no reason to doubt.  It does not depend on what the magistrate said.  As for the magistrate’s statement of findings, Mr Martin Lee SC for the applicant is of course correct that the magistrate’s course of referring to the notice of appeal and responding to it, which he did under a heading worded as “My response is as follows”, is to be deprecated.

3.                                         In the result, despite the submissions forcefully made by Mr Lee with his customary ability, we do not consider this to be an appropriate case for an appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  Leave to bring such an appeal is accordingly refused.

先看最後一段的第一行，"submissions forcefully made" "customary ability"等客氣話，其實都是抬花轎的廢話。 "Customary ability"是褒義詞，但沒有實際講是甚麼能力，這個也罷，當它是禮貌的客套話，"submissions forcefully made"這句就是拍馬屁。這陳辭怎樣強而有力？我看不到。終審法院駁回上訴許可的申請，理由非常簡單，就是上訴人在證人台作供時承認襲擊受害人，高等法院聽審上訴時，就憑着這judicial admission，改判了上訴人普通襲擊罪。李柱銘在未向終審法院申請上訴許可前，已在高等法院申請過而遭駁回。"Submissions forcefully made"這評語在終審法院的判辭一點也看不到，包致金純粹在拍馬屁。

我把2012年度所有向終審法院申請刑事上訴許可的判辭看了一遍，只此一宗有馬屁話，除了一宗駡律師：

7. If the application for leave to appeal does not disclose such grounds or does not provide a reasonably arguable basis for such submissions, it may expect to be dismissed summarily under Rule 7 of the Court’s rules.

8. The present application is precisely what the “substantial and grave injustice” ground does not cater for. It represents no more than an attempt to re-argue points disposed of by the Court of Appeal within the proper ambit of its appellate function, in the hope that the Court of Final Appeal might see things differently. It does not come near to satisfying the requirements for the grant of leave and must be dismissed.

(KOSAR MAHMOOD and HKSAR FAMC 31/2012)

其他申請，不論批准或駁回，一句多餘的話也不會講。

唯一可以見到終審法院同意李柱銘看法正確的，是有關裁斷陳述書(statement of findings)不應針對上訴理由作回應這一點(我在法官容易做？ 討論過)，可是這正確論據卻不是可以上訴至終審法院的理由。司法誓言中，administer justice without fear or favour概念來自Magna Carta，without favour除了主持公義判案不作偏私，法官也應在基本態度展示出來。如果同一論據出自junior counsel之口，可能已經給駡unmeritorous而趕出門口。

法官閣下，請謹言慎行，不要成為大佬文化的幫兇。