2014年1月14日星期二

2014年法律年開啓典禮演辭

昨日終審法院首席法官馬道立的2014年法律年開啓典禮演辭,並沒有特別啓示,他再三強調司法獨立、司法程序透明及法治要靠優質的各級法院法官來鞏固。他花了不少篇幅來講法官的任命的四項準則:法律知識、為官性情、言行操守及案件管理能力(knowledge of the law, judicial temperament, propriety of conduct and case management)。跟去年不一樣,他今年沒有特别回應社會對法庭裁決的爭議。

反而是律政司長袁國強對辱罵式的批評法院裁決有所回應,主要是針對早前愛字頭那班小丑的言論,而並非最近終院對新移民到港未滿7年可領綜援而引發社會對法官的批評。袁司長演辭一開始就講司法獨立,再三强調辱罵式批評法官會削弱公眾對司法信心,那並非法官個人榮辱的問題,其中一段這樣講:

Amidst the usually healthy discussion of judicial decisions and judges we had during the past year, one sign of concern is the emergence of abusive attacks. Some have even indicated that they would compile a list of judges whom they considered politically biased and would request their removal. However well-intended their subjective motives might be, such conduct should not be encouraged. As pointed out by the then Chief Justice Andrew Li in his speech delivered at the Opening of the Legal Year in January 2000, when the courts come under unwarranted attack, it is the constitutional responsibility of the Government to explain and defend the fundamental principle of judicial independence. The Department of Justice would have no hesitation to take such steps as may be necessary to defend judicial independence.
袁司長這段説話,不就是跟標少在愛字頭炒法官魷魚一文批評這班愛字頭的狐羣狗黨的言行一樣嗎?可惜袁司長只留在空口講的階段,而沒有履行憲法上的責任,對愛字頭這夥小丑提出檢控。我拭目以待,看律政司怎樣毫不猶豫採取行動去捍衛司法獨立。





14 則留言:

  1. 可以對他們提出檢控?

    回覆刪除
  2. 藐視法庭。可參考The Secretary for Justice v. The Oriental Press Group Ltd. and Others; Reported in: [1998] 2 HKLRD 123 or HCMP407/ 1998 http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=31079&QS=%2B&TP=JU

    回覆刪除
  3. why not comment on Paul Shieh's speech?

    回覆刪除
  4. like what he said about legal aid and public consultation on universal suffrage.

    回覆刪除
  5. 袁國強似乎有暗指佔中是不可接受的: "Deliberate attempts to act in breach of the law, even for causes which may sound noble, should not be encouraged."

    而石永泰有一句說: "if all we have are laws and the machinery to enforce those laws against ordinary mortals, then law will be nothing more than a mere tool to govern the people, and the Government would be able to justify everything on the basis that it was only doing things according to law." 被指有駁斥袁之意。而他亦指提出某些普選方案的人應解釋該方案的法理基礎, 而反對的人亦一樣, 而且政府應該光明正大跟公眾討論。(pg. 8)

    (http://www.hkba.org/whatsnew/chairman-corner/speeches/2014/Speech%20for%20the%20Opening%20of%20the%20Legal%20Year%202014%20-%20webpage%20(E).pdf)

    另外, 獨媒有人談及刑事法援: http://www.inmediahk.net/node/1020174

    (還以為標少會作出很多討論。)

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 劍文兄,

      標少不是事事討論,不清楚的情況不會胡説,加上日日忙於看網球,連寫文的時間也少了。

      袁國強和石永泰是否對佔中較勁?不如看下陳兆愷法官(當時署任終院首席法官)怎樣講:

      The means to achieve a legitimate end must not only be peaceful, it must also be lawful. Violent or unlawful means cannot justify an end however noble. It may also attract criminal liability. (HKSAR v. CHOW NOK HANG AND ANOTHER FACC14/2012) 18/11/2013

      袁國強跟陳官的講法有分別嗎?所以我看到時,也不作評論。這個恐怕要拗上終院再詳細討論。我通常只會拿一兩點我有看法的事情來討論。

      刪除
  6. 陳兆愷否定了世上大部分政權的合法性。法官不宜討論政治問題。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 山中,

      我唔明喎,你講清楚啲。

      刪除
    2. 世上絕大部分的政權都是透過當時非法或暴力的活動而形成的。假如陳兆愷是中共司法體系的法官,他這番説話的意義就會變得大不一樣。我亦明白法官的職責是維護現有制度。假如我們考慮到在很多政治體中,合法與和平的抗議在法律該國的法律體系中是不合法的,這時法官是否需要修正他的説話?他可以說exhausted all lawful means,看似比較合理,但在事實中沒有法官可以說得出口,除非他打算辭職。所以我表示法官不宜討論政治問題,因爲在某個場合,某個時空,他們的言論會給人看成是身份的衝突,而非在論説什麽是正義。

      刪除
    3. 或許可以這樣說,legitimate end,是社會契約的問題;法官祇能就法律既定法律判案,並不一定能考慮legitimate 和 lawful的問題和差異。法院有時會在憲法解釋上提出更接近社會契約的解釋,但這權力一直在政治和法律界中有爭議。對這個問題,我不認爲世上有完滿的答案,要看具體情況,而法律與政治也難以明確分清。

      刪除
    4. 我不能過份解讀陳官那段説話,畢竟大原則沒有錯,但仍有爭論空間,每件案的案情及違法的目的手法都有所不同,可爭議的論據也不一様。源於政治性質的行為引發的法律裁決,當然不能夠把兩者完全分割,或者很明確的劃清界綫,因為每個人在潛意識裏都存著一些傾向,一些取態和看法,法官也一樣。

      我引用陳官那番話,只想提示參與社會運動的人,不要單純以為袁國強的講法只是警方及政府的看法,而石永泰的較勁講法顯示公民抗命行為是具說服力,在法庭可以成功爭拗的理據。要以身試法,就要清楚可能的後果。當然,革命是會犧牲性命的行為,一樣有人勇往直前,死而後矣。為追尋理想,清楚後果而去行動的人,我佩服。盲目跟從的人,我服。空口講轟轟烈烈的話,實際上龜縮的人,我呸。

      刪除
  7. To me, the speech of Paul Shieh SC is quite touching. He did pour his heart in writing it.

    回覆刪除