延續上一篇的討論。
讀者留言說辛苦我分析，坦白講真的辛苦，因為我真的不懂，所以不能夠隨口就講得出案例，也希望有識之士對我有所教誨。上一篇虛擬罵法官的埸景並非好例子，旨在繞過裁判官條例第99條所用的字眼來討論，嚴格講我所舉的例子可以爭拗為insulting manner，所以我刻意撇除那情況。讀者留言問，像那場景的罵法，裁判官在第99條賦予的權力之外，不可運用普通法的權力去懲處被告嗎？如果你覺得被告刻意不罵席前裁判官，但已算behaving in an insulting manner, 我不跟你拗。但我想講，這法例所講的insulting manner應該理解為對席前裁判官語言辱罵以外的情況，譬如向裁判官擲鞋或者在裁判官席前辱罵其他人。這辱罵裁判官的罪行是成文法(statutory)，而懲處的程序才是普通法而來。故此，這common law power所指是不用像其他刑事案的檢控程序一樣，即不用先由警察拘捕被告，帶返警署落案，然後帶上法庭答辯。在裁判法院層面，所謂普通法權力，都在成文法的法律條文裏寫出來，因為裁判官是statutory creature，並無inherent jurisdiction，第99條也講明裁判官可「簡易程序判處」(may summarily sentence the offender)，這是以成文法訂出普通法的權力。
我舉另一例子，在英皇集團主席楊受成涉嫌毆打僱員林義鈞一案，林義鈞在庭上失憶，不肯指證楊受成，被裁判官判監6星期，所運用的是《裁判官條例》第21(4)條，該條雖然沒有summarily sentence the offender的字眼，但用了「裁判官可憑其親筆簽署及蓋印的手令，命令將他監禁12個月(除非他在此期間同意宣誓及就有關事項作答)，或判處該人繳付不超過$5000的罰款」的字眼。即是裁判官簽張committal warrant就可以把證人直送監房。他提出上訴，當時的官階是高院法官的陳兆愷這樣講：
15. In my view, the power conferred upon the Magistrate to punish a witness under s.21(4) is in addition to his Common Law power to commit a person in a summary way for contempt of court. This power serves two purposes : first, to ensure the due administration of justice, and second, to preserve the Court's dignity and the efficacy of its process. There is little difference between committing a contempt in the face of the court, such as throwing something at the Magistrate, and refusing without just excuse to answer questions put to him during the course of a trial. In the one case, it is disrespectful to the Magistrate by throwing things at him and in the other case, it is disrespectful to him by flouting his order. In both cases, it puts not only the dignity of the Court but also the administration of justice at risk. If there is any difference, I should think that the latter case is more serious because it is not only directed at the Magistrate himself but also goes to the very root of our system. In both cases, I have no doubt that the matter must be seriously dealt with and that the Magistrate has the power, one under Common Law and the other under statute, to deal with the matter himself.
(The Queen and Lam Yih Jiun, Michael HCMA791/1995)
故此，無論怎樣演繹裁判官的普通法權力，都會有成文法清楚訂出這權力來。我重複講，都只是想講在裁判法院外面的藐貌視法庭行為，裁判官無權運用第99條去處理，高院法官卻可以運用inherent supervisory power over inferior courts去處理。
讀者留言說辛苦我分析，坦白講真的辛苦，因為我真的不懂，所以不能夠隨口就講得出案例，也希望有識之士對我有所教誨。上一篇虛擬罵法官的埸景並非好例子，旨在繞過裁判官條例第99條所用的字眼來討論，嚴格講我所舉的例子可以爭拗為insulting manner，所以我刻意撇除那情況。讀者留言問，像那場景的罵法，裁判官在第99條賦予的權力之外，不可運用普通法的權力去懲處被告嗎？如果你覺得被告刻意不罵席前裁判官，但已算behaving in an insulting manner, 我不跟你拗。但我想講，這法例所講的insulting manner應該理解為對席前裁判官語言辱罵以外的情況，譬如向裁判官擲鞋或者在裁判官席前辱罵其他人。這辱罵裁判官的罪行是成文法(statutory)，而懲處的程序才是普通法而來。故此，這common law power所指是不用像其他刑事案的檢控程序一樣，即不用先由警察拘捕被告，帶返警署落案，然後帶上法庭答辯。在裁判法院層面，所謂普通法權力，都在成文法的法律條文裏寫出來，因為裁判官是statutory creature，並無inherent jurisdiction，第99條也講明裁判官可「簡易程序判處」(may summarily sentence the offender)，這是以成文法訂出普通法的權力。
我舉另一例子，在英皇集團主席楊受成涉嫌毆打僱員林義鈞一案，林義鈞在庭上失憶，不肯指證楊受成，被裁判官判監6星期，所運用的是《裁判官條例》第21(4)條，該條雖然沒有summarily sentence the offender的字眼，但用了「裁判官可憑其親筆簽署及蓋印的手令，命令將他監禁12個月(除非他在此期間同意宣誓及就有關事項作答)，或判處該人繳付不超過$5000的罰款」的字眼。即是裁判官簽張committal warrant就可以把證人直送監房。他提出上訴，當時的官階是高院法官的陳兆愷這樣講：
15. In my view, the power conferred upon the Magistrate to punish a witness under s.21(4) is in addition to his Common Law power to commit a person in a summary way for contempt of court. This power serves two purposes : first, to ensure the due administration of justice, and second, to preserve the Court's dignity and the efficacy of its process. There is little difference between committing a contempt in the face of the court, such as throwing something at the Magistrate, and refusing without just excuse to answer questions put to him during the course of a trial. In the one case, it is disrespectful to the Magistrate by throwing things at him and in the other case, it is disrespectful to him by flouting his order. In both cases, it puts not only the dignity of the Court but also the administration of justice at risk. If there is any difference, I should think that the latter case is more serious because it is not only directed at the Magistrate himself but also goes to the very root of our system. In both cases, I have no doubt that the matter must be seriously dealt with and that the Magistrate has the power, one under Common Law and the other under statute, to deal with the matter himself.
(The Queen and Lam Yih Jiun, Michael HCMA791/1995)
故此，無論怎樣演繹裁判官的普通法權力，都會有成文法清楚訂出這權力來。我重複講，都只是想講在裁判法院外面的藐貌視法庭行為，裁判官無權運用第99條去處理，高院法官卻可以運用inherent supervisory power over inferior courts去處理。
多謝標少分析，雖然我開始睇唔明。
回覆刪除閱讀你的博文的確增長不少法律知識。
ho