任懿君法官自從於Dato Tan Leong Min vs The Insider Dealing Tribunal 1997 一案中被 Sears J猛烈批評, 為什麼還能留在司法界? 及至在2004 Nina Kung vs Wang Din Shin 幾個終審法官再猛烈批評, 此高院法官的判辭內容把家翁王廷歆一方的陳辭「搬字過紙」, 但仍然能夠繼續成為法官, 這是什麼道理?
此外，多位終審庭法官在判辭中批評，原審法官任懿君在審案時有缺漏。先是李義質疑任懿君，在判決時能否做到獨立思考。他指任懿君在原審判決時，抄寫王廷歆代表律師的結案陳詞，令他質疑任官是否已清楚考慮到所有證供是否真實才作出判決，而上訴庭在審訊時，亦無顧及到任官是否曾作出過獨立思考。”
上面是讀者的發問，先答制度的問題。香港區域法院或以上的法官，任命全屬終身制，使其斷案公正獨立，就算作出不為大眾看法所接受的或者不利政府當局的判決，也不怕飯碗不保，可以無後顧之憂，代價是一入官門，就不能重操故業，想再私人執業也無可能。區域法院以下的法官情況不同，隨時都可以私人執業，不繼續任命的可能性也較大。法官都做到已屆退休之齡，才不再做下去，很多時都會延任或被委為暫委法官。以前有些裁判官會自行離任，再私人執業，這現象近年不復見。
終身任命的法官可以被「炒魷魚」嗎？當然可以，就算終審法院首席法官也可以被炒，法例第484章《終審法院條例》第14條説明了首席法官被免職的程序，而一般免職的理由是
(6) 法官只可因他無力履行其職責(不論是否因其體力或智力衰弱或其他因由所致)或因其行為不檢而被免職，但須按照第(7)、(8)或(9)款的規定被免職。(第484章第14條第6款)。
高等法院上訴庭及原訟庭法官及區域法院法官的任免，卻沒有清晰的描述。以下級別的法官，則由法例第433章《司法人員（職位任期）條例》所規範，譬如該法例第3條講
(1) 如有人向終審法院首席法官作出申述，指某司法人員無能力執行其職責或行為不當，終審法院首席法官可將收到的申述的詳情通知該人員；如終審法院首席法官作出該項通知，他須同時要求該人員在終審法院首席法官指明的合理期間內，以書面陳述該人員為自辯而所據的理由。
我不清楚讀者單單提任懿君出來講的原因，但事實上Dato Tan Leong Min vs The Insider Dealing Tribunal 案聽審司法覆核的Sears確實把任懿君罵得很不客氣，他們當時其實同為高院法官。我印象中終審法院在龔如心案反而沒有批評得比Sears 嚴厲。但無論如何批評，只不過是能力的問題，並非嚴重到要免職。任命甚麼人都有可能用錯，是終身職就不易罷免。繼續任命，理所當然。現在在高等法院或以下的各級法院都存在這種問題。況且，終審法院龔如心案的判決也未見得無械可擊。Sears的判決也同樣受上訴庭嚴厲批評，故此無需驚訝。
I recall there was a tribunal formed during the governorship of Chris Pattern for considering in removing a District Court judge. The said judge claimed some foreign parties tried to influence his judicial decision-making. But shortly after the tribunal was formed, the said judge resigned.
回覆刪除I also understand that at least there was one case in considering to remove a judge from office after 1997. However, in the said case, even before the tribunal was formed, the judge resigned.
On an incidental matter, in FALCON PRIVATE BANK LIMITED v BORRY BERNARD EDOUARD CHARLES LIMITED & ANOTHER, a CFI judge was found by the Court of Appeal for being bias against counsel of one party and the Court of Appeal setting aside all orders made by the judge and remitted the case to be heard before another CFI judge. I recall this is the first time in history that a CFI/ High Court judge found to be bias against a party. Bill, correct me if I am wrong.
Judgment can be found in this link:
http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=89044&currpage=T
I know the first case you mentioned. It related to drinking problem. Not too sure the second case you mentioned.
刪除I am not sure the appeal case you referred me to is the only such case since there are always more than one reason for a decision to be overturned. In the appeal, Kwan JA concluded there was a real possibility of bias and I can see it was on the basis that the CFI judge's criticism of counsel and solicitor's professional integrity.
Many tanks Bill for pointing out my mistake about the first case. Also sorry that I was not able to express myself clearly in my previous post.
回覆刪除