開了這題目，話盒打開了，就算費時，也要講清楚才收筆。上一篇有位匿名越俎代庖，還要自我鳴謝，標少與有榮焉，雖然此君搔不著癢處，我也邯鄲學步，再寫一篇。昨日點擊率2300幾次，那就是一種鞭策，叫我欲罷不能。
另一讀者在上一篇留言，提及《法官行為指引》第36段，問我看法，言下之意即是提出究竟裁判官黃汝榮(Symon Wong)和我的通信，是否違反了指引這一段。讓我們先看下指引第36段的中英文版(因為是pdf file不能copy and paste, 只好寫出來)：
There may be media criticism of a decision or criticism mounted by interested members of the public. A judge should refrain from answering such criticism, for example, by writing to the press or making incidental comments about such criticism when sitting on the bench. Judges should speak only through their judgements in dealing with the case being decided. It is generally inappropriate for judges to defend their judgments publicly.
傳媒和對案件有興趣的公眾人士，可能會對法官的判決作出批評。法官應避免對這些批評作出回應，比如不應寫信給新聞界，也不應在開庭處理其他事務時，加插對這些批評的看法。一般來説，法官公開為自己的判決辯護是不恰當的。
相信這位法律界的留言者第一個質疑是黃汝榮寫給我是否等同回應傳媒的批評。先搞清楚，傳媒有批評黃汝榮的判決嗎？傳媒只是報導上級法院對黃的批評，另外黃也沒有寫給傳媒作回應。寫給上司、同袍、親戚及朋友算違反指引？第二個質疑是，黃汝榮寫給我屬於公開為自己的判決辯護？「公開」當作何解？把事情告訴別人就算公開嗎？告訴同袍、親戚朋友，甚至舊同袍，算是「公開」抑或「圍內」呢？要看第36段的釋義，大概應先看其前置的講法。前置的講法強調不應對傳媒或涉案相關人士(原文「有興趣的公眾人士」這譯法是狗屁不通的中文)，所以著眼點是寫信給新聞界、開庭時加插回應，當然也包括接受訪問等。
標少並非傳媒人士，本札記也不是新聞刋物，我和黃汝榮是相識的，並非網友，他申辯的並非著眼在取消被告擔保本身，而在於受到不公平的批評。我覺得他不屬指引所講的「公開」辯護，而屬「圍內」的傳閱發洩冤屈。如果是我把部份資料發佈，我算是協助及教唆他違反嗎？如果他違反，又與我何干？是我違反，延禍及他，我又不受指引約束。
指引講「一般來説，法官公開為自己的判決辯護是不恰當的」，「一般來説」，即是並非絕對不能，即有例外的空間。那麽若有例外，這例外的情況怎樣決定？包致金法官身為終院常設法官時，寫信給美國駐港總領使訴説對人大釋法的不滿，給維基解密抖了出來，他算是那種「一般來說」的不恰當做法嗎？他接受亞視主持Michael Chugani訪問大談對人大釋法不滿，及日後多次接受傳媒訪問，是否違反了這段指引呢？我不是阿Q精神，和尚動得為何阿Q動不得那種心態，而是要指出，如果上級法官可以做，做完再做，不受譴責，下級做了類似還不很「公開」的申訴，(put it to the highest, Symon Wong defended publicly his judgment)，就要給人罵，這是典型的「大細超」。
我再三強調，並沒有為黃汝榮辯護，我自始至終都不會選擇他的做法，同樣有批評他，那他可以算通過我來提出辯護嗎？如果他算是違反指引，會受處分，我不知他有何話可説，我不禁要問這disparity treatment 怎樣reconcile?包大人那賬又應怎樣去算？據聞在Stuart-Moore頒佈判辭同日，有另外兩宗保釋申請由另一位法官聽審，也嚴厲批評另外兩位裁判官，本來是內庭聽的變成公開聆訊，為何沒有傳媒報導，判辭也無上載，不禁使我質疑對黃汝榮批評是針對性的手段，若然如此，這叫法治？？？？Whether Symon Wong deserves sympathy is immaterial. Fair is foul, and foul is fair/Hover through the fog and filthy air.
另一讀者在上一篇留言，提及《法官行為指引》第36段，問我看法，言下之意即是提出究竟裁判官黃汝榮(Symon Wong)和我的通信，是否違反了指引這一段。讓我們先看下指引第36段的中英文版(因為是pdf file不能copy and paste, 只好寫出來)：
There may be media criticism of a decision or criticism mounted by interested members of the public. A judge should refrain from answering such criticism, for example, by writing to the press or making incidental comments about such criticism when sitting on the bench. Judges should speak only through their judgements in dealing with the case being decided. It is generally inappropriate for judges to defend their judgments publicly.
傳媒和對案件有興趣的公眾人士，可能會對法官的判決作出批評。法官應避免對這些批評作出回應，比如不應寫信給新聞界，也不應在開庭處理其他事務時，加插對這些批評的看法。一般來説，法官公開為自己的判決辯護是不恰當的。
相信這位法律界的留言者第一個質疑是黃汝榮寫給我是否等同回應傳媒的批評。先搞清楚，傳媒有批評黃汝榮的判決嗎？傳媒只是報導上級法院對黃的批評，另外黃也沒有寫給傳媒作回應。寫給上司、同袍、親戚及朋友算違反指引？第二個質疑是，黃汝榮寫給我屬於公開為自己的判決辯護？「公開」當作何解？把事情告訴別人就算公開嗎？告訴同袍、親戚朋友，甚至舊同袍，算是「公開」抑或「圍內」呢？要看第36段的釋義，大概應先看其前置的講法。前置的講法強調不應對傳媒或涉案相關人士(原文「有興趣的公眾人士」這譯法是狗屁不通的中文)，所以著眼點是寫信給新聞界、開庭時加插回應，當然也包括接受訪問等。
標少並非傳媒人士，本札記也不是新聞刋物，我和黃汝榮是相識的，並非網友，他申辯的並非著眼在取消被告擔保本身，而在於受到不公平的批評。我覺得他不屬指引所講的「公開」辯護，而屬「圍內」的傳閱發洩冤屈。如果是我把部份資料發佈，我算是協助及教唆他違反嗎？如果他違反，又與我何干？是我違反，延禍及他，我又不受指引約束。
指引講「一般來説，法官公開為自己的判決辯護是不恰當的」，「一般來説」，即是並非絕對不能，即有例外的空間。那麽若有例外，這例外的情況怎樣決定？包致金法官身為終院常設法官時，寫信給美國駐港總領使訴説對人大釋法的不滿，給維基解密抖了出來，他算是那種「一般來說」的不恰當做法嗎？他接受亞視主持Michael Chugani訪問大談對人大釋法不滿，及日後多次接受傳媒訪問，是否違反了這段指引呢？我不是阿Q精神，和尚動得為何阿Q動不得那種心態，而是要指出，如果上級法官可以做，做完再做，不受譴責，下級做了類似還不很「公開」的申訴，(put it to the highest, Symon Wong defended publicly his judgment)，就要給人罵，這是典型的「大細超」。
我再三強調，並沒有為黃汝榮辯護，我自始至終都不會選擇他的做法，同樣有批評他，那他可以算通過我來提出辯護嗎？如果他算是違反指引，會受處分，我不知他有何話可説，我不禁要問這disparity treatment 怎樣reconcile?包大人那賬又應怎樣去算？據聞在Stuart-Moore頒佈判辭同日，有另外兩宗保釋申請由另一位法官聽審，也嚴厲批評另外兩位裁判官，本來是內庭聽的變成公開聆訊，為何沒有傳媒報導，判辭也無上載，不禁使我質疑對黃汝榮批評是針對性的手段，若然如此，這叫法治？？？？Whether Symon Wong deserves sympathy is immaterial. Fair is foul, and foul is fair/Hover through the fog and filthy air.
Did Mr Symon Wong intend to influence the contents of your blog when he wrote to you (suddenly, out of the blue, after x years of non-communication) to talk about a judicial decision he made?
回覆刪除Well I need not guess. I know what I am doing. Reading the first blog on this topic, you can see my stance. All along I am consistent. Like I said before, I concentrate on a bigger picture. I do not like to connect with people in the Judiciary so that I can have unfettered freedom to criticise. Non communication is probably my character. I am a bit aloof. Once I read wrote to JA to inform a High Court judge about a mistake in the judgment I saw repeatedly. I did not write to the judge directly though I know the person. I eventually received a personal email of thanks from the judge. I did not write again to establish any relations. It is simply my style. Supposing Symon makes use of me to divulge the information, the unusual publicity of the case has still left much to be desired. You may suspect his ulterior intention, but cannot see the forest for the trees.
刪除I know you know what you are doing. I am not sure if you know what he is doing (or trying to do).
刪除「前置的講法強調不應對傳媒或涉案相關人士 ..... 所以著眼點是寫信給新聞界、開庭時加插回應，當然也包括接受訪問等。」
回覆刪除Your effort to advocate is appreciated, but have to respectfully disagree.
第 36 段的頭兩句，頗明顯是解說字句，帶出「法官公開為自己的判決辯護是不恰當」的一般原則，「公開為自己的判決辯護」，怎可倒過來理解為只侷限於「寫信給新聞界 ...... 等」。
I would like to know how Symon writing to Bill in email is equal to writing publicly? Would you mind to elaborate more?
刪除I am a different "匿名" and the way I look at this, we should start by asking why Mr Symon Wong would write to Bill Siu in the first place. According to Bill Siu, Mr Symon Wong had not written to him for many years and in fact had to ask around to find his email address. So why contact Bill Siu all of a sudden? Why now? Why talk about this particular judicial decision he made (instead of recent travels, children's homework, or the weather)? Is there any real difference between writing to the author of a blog, and writing to a reporter of a newspaper?
刪除It should be reminded that the quoted paragraph 36 is the content of the “Guide to Judicial Conduct” and not statutory provisions. I think a plain reading of the wording is good enough and need not go into over-complicated technical interpretation.
刪除I also think emphasis should be placed on “publicly” but not the particular means of communication (e.g. writing to the press, etc.). “Publicly” has its literal meaning, and reference can be made to the dictionaries or the bank of legal authorities on “publicly”. Mr Siu in his article seemed to conclude that Wong’s emails did not cross the threshold of “publicly”.
As to why Wong suddenly wrote to Mr Siu, you actually made good analyses in your writing and your questions themselves are the answers.
法律上總有可爭議的地方,各有演譯,但樓上「匿名」總是對人不對事的作出針對,不知是否和「標少」從前在庭上有牙齒印的律師 ?
回覆刪除VL
你可以唔信，我和博主絕無過節，也不喜歡瞎纏。
回覆刪除如你所說，我只是說出我的不同演譯，那字那句是「對人不對事」，看來是你對我「對人不對事」啊。
是不是留言說不同意見就是「對人不對事」，留言大力支持就是「對事不對人」。
你應該是不同意我的看法，那就請狠評我的分析，對人對事都得。
各自表述無問題喎，可能匿名太多所以搞亂晒。就算有過節，也要看論據的道理，是朋友看法也未必認同。總之，多謝參與討論，這不是個人榮辱的問題。
刪除Bill, would you mind to share your view on the incident in the following link?
回覆刪除https://www.facebook.com/funnyclinic/photos/a.329109083912221.1073741829.328791257277337/345123818977414/?type=1&relevant_count=1
我要澄清一點。標少要批評司法機關內某些制度或做法(不管是什麼)，我全力支持贊成。但標少拿黃汝榮來當例子以支持他的立場，我反對。
回覆刪除想睇反對的理據？
刪除zz
退一萬步來說，《法官行為指引》訂立的目的是「向法官提供他們日後處事的實用指引」，是指引，而不是紀律命令。只集中放大黃官有可能違反指引，無視更大的不公義，則流於見樹不見林。
回覆刪除