2014年5月28日星期三

違反交通案,連官都做唔到



Judicial Appointment and Motoring Offences
Andrew Keogh, Barrister

Solicitor Graham Jones, who already held appointment as a Deputy District Judge, applied for a full time judicial appointment. As might be expected he was of ‘good character’ in the real sense of the phrase, so no doubt was not too concerned to have to disclose the following matters to the Judicial Appointments Commission (‘JAC’):
As at 21 November 2013, he had seven penalty points on his driving licence. This was the result of two convictions: one for speeding in August 2010, resulting in a conviction of February 2011, for which he was fined £650 and received 4 penalty points; and a second for failing to obey a traffic signal in 2012, for which he received a fixed penalty and 3 points.
So, 2 relatively minor motoring matters, or so you might think. The view of JAC on that subject is somewhat different as they say:
Criminal convictions (including motoring) are regarded as inherently serious matters
Would this matter to the outcome of the application however?

Indeed it would said the JAC, when refusing to let him progress his application any further, despite him being an otherwise exceptional candidate.
In a challenge by way of judicial review Mr Jones argued the following points:
i) The material part of JAC’s good character policy does not rationally reflect the purpose pursued by section 63(3) of the 2005 Act.
ii) Even if the policy is lawful, it was not properly applied in this case.
iii) The good character decision reached in relation to Mr Jones was not a rational decision.
Unfortunately for Jones, the challenge failed, although the court did say this:
Although I would grant permission to apply for judicial review, for the reasons set out above, I would dismiss the claim. Given the outstanding success that Mr Jones otherwise had in the District Judge competition, however, I conclude by hoping that, as the first of his convictions will fall away later this year, he will consider re-applying when the next competition is launched

寫完兩篇就看下CrimeLine這電郵,違反交通條例而定罪,申請做官也 不能,做緊官而犯交通例,是否要罷官呢?香港的交通違例是使用刑事審訊程序的,大部份都稱不上嚴重罪行,英國有點兒那個吧!

9 則留言:

  1. 我印象中起讀english legal system 有英國幾個法官有酒後駕駛的紀錄,但最後都無事,書中無記載係起做官時酒後駕駛定做官前酒後駕駛

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 這樣看來醉駕是做官後的事。司法覆核案中這申請做官的人,也只是超速和衝燈,就算更輕微譬如禁區停車,也會視為inherently serious matters。唉!以前只有馬車,這inherently的看法,不知從何時說起。香港申請做官的也無需為「牛肉干」申明。

      刪除
  2. 都係大英帝國的法理基礎比較堅實,criminal conviction 就是 criminal conviction,JAC:「Criminal convictions (including motoring) are regarded as inherently serious matters」有何問題,點解冇嗱嗱要做個冇謂嘅 qualification:「香港的交通違例是使用刑事審訊程序的,大部份都稱不上嚴重罪行」。

    唔係成日話,純以法理分析事情〈包括食飯、去廁所〉嘅咩,好唔 consistent 喎。

    回覆刪除
  3. 有文共赏:

    http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/supplement/20140528/52523800

    回覆刪除
  4. Actually Sir Brian did address that very last question you asked....at paras 27-29:

    '27. Mr Swift asks why it is consistent with the maintenance of public confidence for a judge (whether salaried or fee paid) to continue to sit even if he has accumulated six penalty points, but maintenance of public confidence requires an applicant with precisely the same driving record to be rejected.

    28. The answer to this question, and to the others raised by Mr Swift, is entirely straightforward. It is the JAC that has been given by Parliament the responsibility for administering judicial appointments pursuant to the 2005 Act. The membership of the JAC (comprising both judicial and independent members) is specifically charged with determining issues of good character and has to draw a line somewhere. To that extent, wherever the line is drawn, it is arguable that it will be considered to be arbitrary and certainly by those just on the wrong side of that line. The responsibility, however, is that of the JAC: it must determine the policies that it believes are required to ensure that public confidence in the standards of the judiciary is maintained and to do so in the way that it deems proportionate.

    29. Furthermore, there are important differences between disciplining those who hold judicial office, whether full time or part time (for which the JAC has no responsibility) and appointing new judges (for which it does). These not only reflect the different status and impact on full time and part time judges but also the fact that the latter are not then seeking to be appointed to judicial office. In any event, the Guide to Judicial Conduct makes it clear that members of the judiciary must report to the Lord Chief Justice minor motoring offences which result in disqualification, the award of six points (for a single offence) or, if a lesser number of points are awarded, where total points endorsed exceed six. It is then a matter for the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor to decide what action, if any, to take. In other words, there is a comparable level of offending which, for those who hold judicial office, triggers the requirement of reporting (which, incidentally, Mr Jones did not follow notwithstanding that he was obliged to do so).'

    E

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Thanks. I can only say the line drawn is draconian.

      刪除
  5. http://www.scmp.com/article/286231/convicted-lawyer-faces-bar-inquiry (South China Morning Post, June 25th, 1999). What happened since?

    回覆刪除
  6. Found the answer here: http://www.scmp.com/article/311905/record-fine-barristers-code-breach

    Barrister Russell Coleman (高浩文大律師) has in the year 1999 been fined $150,000 by a disciplinary tribunal for conduct which may bring the profession of barrister into disrepute.

    回覆刪除