聽審上訴法官應讀的判辭

標少閱讀英國上訴庭這宗强姦案的上訴 (連結在此 R v Samuel Freeland [2013] EWCA Crim 928), 讀得很爽。不要想歪了，我對强姦犯十分憎惡，這類案的案情看了都很不舒服，我講讀得爽是指駁回上訴的理據。

香港不少聽審上訴的法官，對原審法官干預審訊視作違反了天條，動輒以此批准上訴，香港常用的字眼叫做法官進入格鬥場(enter into arena)，或者因為控制審案進度，干預辯方律師發問，也是批准上訴，撤銷定罪的理由。Freeland 案判辭其中一段，簡潔地講了英國上訴庭的看法：

1. We start with the complainant, E. Ms Davies complains of a large number of interventions. There are about a dozen episodes in a thirty four page transcript. As has been said in previous cases, it is the quality of the intervention rather than the quantity that matters. Our clear conclusion is that there is nothing untoward in the judge's interventions. They are very largely matters of clarification or appropriate judicial intervention to prevent comment, inaccuracy or over-involved and unnecessary detail.

判辭續點分析原審法官的干預是否合理，其中兩段這樣講：

1. There came a point towards the end of the cross examination where the judge made clear that he wanted to finish the witness' evidence that day, rather than have her part heard overnight. He said that he was doing this "in fairness to the witness". We regard this intervention, of which complaint is made, as a reasonable one to make. It is of a type commonly made by judges, particularly where a sensitive witness has been giving evidence. We observe that notwithstanding the judge's comment, Ms Davies continued cross examination for a reasonable period without giving signs of being under pressure. She then said she thought she had finished. She paused to check and then confirmed that she had.


2. Our view is that there is nothing to complain of in relation to the witness E. The judge was controlling or managing the proceedings firmly, but appropriately. There is no sign that Ms Davies was put off or impeded improperly in what she was doing.

我看到不少不知所謂的人，不講怎樣控制審案的進度，而是自己刻意拖長審訊，目的是可以少審少錯，也驅使我寫了上庭的代價 五篇文來批評。