和新進大律師對話

下面張貼了讀者D君給我的電郵，因為沒有徵詢他的同意，故隱其名。標少一時間膨脹了，像在香港海面漂流的大黃鴨，也像李白乘酒捉月，但電光火石之間，驚覺沉水遇溺之險，沒有像謫仙那樣溺斃，故此自己把牛皮戳穿，減去羞慚。多謝D君抬舉，我也希望自己是高人，可惜與事實相去甚遠，人貴自知，我接受現實。至於批評別人，提出自己的看法，純粹是觀點不同，看法迥異，我從來沒有自命不凡。放大一點的微塵，也不外是微塵。有些讀者不吝指正我的觀點，衷心感激，譬如我找不到甚麼法例，讀者不辭勞苦，給我找來，知識得以互動相長，是我最樂見的發展。但我最吃不消的是搬權威人物作招牌那種，吃了自然要吐出來。如果我膜拜權威，我就不幹逆龍麟搣虎鬚之事，講權威不要忘記講論據，否則豈非變成高舉紅皮書山呼萬歲。

我以前講過，不能把我和山中扯在一起談，他在山之中，雲深不知處，我只在山腳爬，望塵莫及。D君說山中是「高手之中的高手， 高人之中的高人」，我完全同意。我佩服山中，但沒有接納他一切觀點，我們並非Siamese Twins，雖然有時有mental telepathy。敬重不等如盲從，他不是上帝，我不是信眾。我多次向讀者推薦山中，希望讀者看高層次的東面，但我從沒叫大家，沐浴更衣，焚香跪拜。只有迷信政治人物的愚民，才會這樣做。在此也呼籲大家到爲何沒有大罷工？處，填了山中的問卷。

我為甚麼要貼這電郵出來呢？理由有幾個。Selina在 笑話一則的留言 裏講後悔沒有入行，認為做律師才是她那杯茶。看到D君認同我小說中講「揾食」艱難，Selina可能慶幸沒有入行，這杯茶如果是稻粱謀，其實可以是冬天的冰水。D君在司法機構工作過之後才私人執業，總算認識一把律師，尚且如此，可想而知，剛從法律學院出來的人，面對競爭之烈。另一個理由是藉此跟新入行的朋友溝通一下，讓我掌握一下他們的工作狀況，當我再寫小說，也能反映實況。時光流逝，這種溝通也能夠喚起往事點滴，填補一些失去的記憶。

"I hope you do not find this email absurd. I wish to thank you for writing an excellent blog which I have benefited so much by visiting it from time to time. Honestly, the practical legal knowledge I learn from your blog definitely exceeds since I commence my legal studies around 10 years ago (fyi, I am a baby barrister and was only called to the bar XXX). Allow me to say, both you and 山中 are 高手之中的高手， 高人之中的高人。

In fact, I find your novel 襲警 full of wisdom. This must be due to your immense legal and judicial experiences. On the evening I first read this novel, I encounter the exact same issue as stated in the following paragraph when I acted as a baby fiat in the XXX Magistracy earlier on that day. The defendant was acquitted because of the inconsistency of evidence given by 2 PWs (both of them were lay witnesses).

「法官閣下，控方有六個證人，我打算傳召三個，另外三個我不打算傳召，若果張律師需要，我可以傳召他們給張律師盤問。」Tender for cross examination，是控方保障自己，避免辯方批評不傳召證人的做法。傳召證人宣誓後告訴他們目的是給辯方盤問，自己無需由頭到尾引導他們作供，可省卻證供不必要的重複。最重要是證人越多，證供出入越大，有時索性不作主問examination in chief，任由辯方盤問，有需要才覆問re-examine。周禮晁一早已盤算好這件案的處理方法。

Also what you state in the following paragraph is utter truth:

大律師可慘了，突然工作量大減，倒霉的甚至一個月只有一天半裁判法院的當值律師做，做一天只賺4500 元。不知就裏的人以為大律師很風光，環境差的時候，租都沒錢交，靠信用咭度日。還有那行頭，西裝皮箱，加一本Archbold，全部都花費不菲。Archbold 幾年一新版，越來越貴，幾年之間已漲到3000 多元一本，這刑事案的權威典籍又不能不置。賴福生做了幾年大狀，不是味兒。自己過於正直，不肯和師爺飲酒跳舞，自然生意不多。經過多番考慮，他決定申請做法官。以前做法官最少要35 歲，接近97 甚麽都本地化，司法機構也希望吸納本地律師做法官，所以降低年齡至30 歲，並開始委任暫委裁判官來試工。

But since your write up, the brief fee for duty lawyer/ counsel onfiat in the magistracy decreases to less than HK$3,000 a day and Archbold already increases to HK$7,500 for a copy.

The paragraph followed also reminds me a bit of legal history of Hong Kong in the late 80's / early 90's. At that time, if I understand correctly, all the magistrates and district court judges were under the management of

the Registrar of the High Court.

I still remember there was a plague that engraved the names of all the Registrar of the Supreme Court right next to the plague that engraved the name of all the Chief Justice of Hong Kong on the G/F of the then Supreme Court Building before 1997.

I believe the power of the Registrar was only curtailed by the creation of post Judiciary Administrator/ Chief District Judge/Chief Magistrate in around 1993/ 94

對賴福生來講，六四也給他帶來做官的機會，很多律師申請移民，想做法官的不多。當他在90年看到招聘裁判官廣告，便立即申請。雖然當法官是地位高崇的工作，申請程序卻十分簡單，賴福生只須一次面試.....

There are so much I wish to discuss with you but I rather not to bother you now. I just have 2 comments that I wish to add at this stage:

1. While the post of Special Magistrate may exist earlier, I believe it was only officially created in Jan 1990:

http://www.legislation.gov.hk/blis_ind.nsf/AllVerAllEngDoc/F72E2CA61713D03D4825789D00263681?OpenDocument

2. I still think Justice of the Peace before the handover did have judicial power (whether they exercised the power is another issue). The reason is the Justice of Peace Ordinance was only enacted in 1997 and prior to that, the Justice of Peace Act 1361 was applied to Hong Kong by virtue of the Application of English Law Ordinance (Cap. 88). As we know, in England and Wales, a bench of justice of peace exercises the power of a magistrate.

Again, many thanks for writing the excellent blog for the benefits of the public (including me), and do allow me to write to you in future."