2016年4月23日星期六

再談黃毓民的盤問

我上一篇批評黃毓民的盤問涉及評論, 不切題及重複(comments, irrelevant and repetitive), 今天裁判官也忍不住要開腔了, 這是明報今天即時新聞的報導:

【毓民擲杯案】黃問梁為何叫保鑣報警 「點解你唔特事特辦打畀警務處長」 官囑盤問勿加評論 (14:26)
立法會議員黃毓民涉向特首梁振英掟杯案今早續審,無律師代表的黃毓民第3天盤問控方證人梁振英。黃毓民今早再問及與梁錄口供警員身分等問題,梁振英多次露出笑容,稱黃的問題他已「答咗好多次」,主審裁判官亦多次打斷黃的提問,指他的問題已經問過。

裁判官朱仲強對黃解釋說,盤問不是「你問完一次再問一次,再發現有唔同」,黃毓民回應稱梁振英「慣性每一次都可能有唔同答案」,惟裁判官指盤問「唔係咁樣」,指問過一次就不用問第二次,又指黃多數提問的上部分都「唔關事」。

黃毓民庭上質疑,掟玻璃杯事件發生後,梁振英為何要自行拾起玻璃碎片,返回禮賓府後才將之交給保鑣及指示對方報警,「點解你唔『特事特辦』打畀警務處長咪得囉,你最興㗎啦」。主審裁判官朱仲強隨即插嘴,「佢興唔興係第二件事,你直接問佢啦」,並指發問時不應附帶評論,否則會拖長問題。


我覺得奇怪的是代表控方的署理副刑事檢控專員黎婉姬資深大律師為何如此沉默, 這其實是她的責任, 她應該一早就站起來反對這種性質的問題, 而非要由法官出手。反對這種盤問方式其實也是一種上庭訟辯的技巧(advocacy), 反對可以制止對手肆無忌憚的踩過界, 讓對手有所收斂, 否則對手會越踩越過。像看戲一樣不作為, 在我看不管你是否資深大律師, 有失職之嫌。能夠即時反對除了頭腦要清醒, 也要反應快, 一聽問題就知道漏洞在那裏, 也知道違反了甚麼盤問的規則, 若果後知後覺, 證人已答了不應或不准問的問題, 那你就不是一個能征慣戰的大狀。我看新聞報導而得到的印象是Anna Lai SC的反應令人失望。

明報另一則新聞這樣講:

【毓民擲杯案】黃引02年高院判辭指梁振英非可信證人 梁不同意 (20:57)

黃毓民在盤問尾聲,拿出一份高等法院於2002年頒下的判辭。該案件關於華懋在1991年透過附屬子公司獲得如心廣場所在地段的發展權,但最終發展商因未能於限期內完成物業發展,須向政府繳交罰款及補地價。發展商其後在2001年向高院興訟,要求取回已繳付的罰款及額外地價。

黃指出,梁振英當年曾為發展商出庭擔任證人,但法官於判辭批評他是不可信的證人,指他的供辭「模糊、無法令人信納」,而且自相矛盾,令人感到極度奇怪及難以置信。黃認為,既然法庭曾指梁的證供不可信納,顯示他是沒誠信的人,而且梁就本案作供期間,「最鐘意用語言偽術」,故認為梁就本案的證供亦不可信,梁聽罷後表示不同意上述說法。

梁振英完成作供,審訊下周一續,將傳召提供會議廳閉路電視的立法會保安員劉偉權,以及證物警員關善元作供。

黃毓民拿出2002年一份判辭指梁振英的誠信被法庭質疑, 這樣講也算是事實, 他是指這件案: HCA 10834/1998, 是2002年3月4日頒佈的判辭, 有興趣可隨連結登入去看, 不過我勸你別花時間, 悶到抽筋。原審法官麥卓智(Gerard Muttrie)對梁振英確有貶斥性的批評, 但也先下了注腳, 請看這段:

70. These major protagonists give totally different accounts of what happened between them. They are both highly respected men, and in the public eye, Mr C.Y. Leung as Convenor of the Executive Council and Mr Bowen Leung as the present Director of the Hong Kong SAR Government Office in Beijing. They may be expected to tell the truth to the best of their recollection but of course they are subject to the fallibilities of recollection which affect everyone. Indeed the same applies to most if not all of the witnesses here. If we are not dealing in every case with “the good and the great” we are at least dealing with senior professionals. As always it is necessary to look at the evidence in the light of inherent probability and against its factual background including the correspondence and other contemporaneous documents, including those internal Government documents, voluntarily discovered or discovered following my order for specific discovery, and the evidence of the various other Government officers from the Planning, Environment and Lands Branch and the Lands Department.

我只是速讀判辭, 連上訴至終審法院的也畧讀了, 實在太忙碌, 剛為求助者解答疑難兼修改求情信的內容後, 才有機會看新聞。畢竟黃毓民作為被告, 法律對他有高度的保障, 他誠信方面我不能作評論。我對這件案主控官的表現確實失望, 在適當的時候應該約束被告, 法庭不是讓瘋狗亂吠的地方。

23 則留言:

  1. I know Anna Lai, lovely lady, very hard-working. When I was at Arsenal House (and we keep long hours) she'd almost always be at Admiralty Government Offices. She was a former policewoman, CIP - while she was on legal scholarship studying for the bar too. That was Tsang Yam Pui's work, and let me tell you there were grumbling amount the ranks! Still, I don't hold it against her, she isn't responsible for Tsang's nepotism (I DO hold a lot against him for sabotaging the career of several good friends for imagined affronts, but that's another story). She only just took silk and word around the clubs is it's long overdue. She may be just giving Wong enough rope to hang himself, and it be working too. Being lazy or timid just doesn't seen her style.
    -Kolya

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 主控官好有政治智慧

      刪除
    2. I do not look at name and title when I made my comment. I don't know what tactics the prosecutor employed. I look at the duty of the prosecutor and also the danger of the magistrate being accused of entering into the arena. The magistrate is an umpire. Don't let him orchestrate how to attack and defend. He is not there to kick the ball. He is there to blow the whistle and stop foul play.

      刪除
  2. Just adding something by way of background, Bill. To be honest I am a bit surprised myself, it really isn't her style.
    -Kolya

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. I know it is unlike her. At first I doubted if the news report was accurate. Then I read that CY Leung complained some questions were asked 5 times. Then Ck Chu Esq interfered. The potential danger of court interference is on appeal, the defence will accuse the magistrate of entering into the arena and start counting the number of questions he asked. If there are things the prosecutor can and should do, then the prosecutor is duty bound to do so. The trial may be politically oriented but the prosecutor is not a politician and should not be politically "wise". I do not belittle Anna's ability as an advocate. I just query why she gave tacit consent to the series of question breaching the rules of cross examination.

      刪除
    2. I do not mean to say one cannot repeat questions in cross examination.
      A good advocate will not repeat one after another. A good advocate will just lay foundation and then slowly let the witness/defendant fall into the trap and return the questions to contradict. Constantly ask repetitive questions is only done by the mediocre advocate.

      刪除
  3. 我只是一個普通市民,但我都好奇怪何解呢單官司會變成侮辱証人,發表政見的場合...
    一個証據確鑿,毫無疑點的情況下竟然要屈番個証人話"佢睇唔到","佢無擲過"等指控?
    更離奇的是竟然有大狀撐佢表現好?哇...個大狀仇恨掩蓋理性,佢試下用呢種手法去打官司丫,下個客唔換佢就奇...
    標少,你認為這場官司是否把一個莊嚴的庭審環境"爛仔化"?
    立法會已經被"爛仔化","民粹化",如果連莊嚴的法院都搞成咁,真係無眼睇了...

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 所以我批評這件案的主控官的「不作為」, 不管被告或證人是誰, 上庭訟辯有一定規則要遵守, 就算黃毓民被盤問, 也不應受到侮辱性的對待。至於誰撐誰是個人自由, 事實上有些問題黃毓民也問得不錯, 背後的高人指點得好。

      刪除
  4. 所以有人話律政司入面有好多黄絲,應該有一定道理。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 唔係之前有咩可能會有傳票漏上, 律政司入面啲主力咪又係港大人

      刪除
  5. 標少,
    我覺得那主控無可奈何。好像絕大部分港人,
    都當CY和黃生,是ATV節目的嘉賓,除他倆說這是甚麼世紀大事,其他人都不會理!我這幾天食飯時,全酒樓没有人説此事。真好像ATV的亞洲良心節目,99.5%觀眾都已經轉去無線了。想下這其實這2個人幾没趣!
    你擔心 有關費用問題,立法會流會花幾十萬,教育局長出差都過百萬,有人在青馬大橋跳海,直升機都花10萬,不在乎這小小啦。
    Bill hk

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 無人談論?吓!我咪係度自彈自唱?都好, 反正是一場鬧劇。你也說得對, 香港有很多錢, 該花的不花, 不該花的又亂花, 唔爭在呢啲。

      刪除
  6. 有錢還有錢,但這是主控有沒有適當盡她應負責任的問題。

    如果她也是諗住坐係度睇戲,這是嚴重失識。

    回覆刪除
  7. 標少,
    同意樓上,我錯了。我因太氣憤了。Sorry!希望香港盡快回復實事求事的精神!
    Bill hk

    回覆刪除
  8. 反正689做事都常違法,佢做乜都有建制保駕護航,佢—貫視法律如無物,都唔爭在今次拉,都好,揾个顛狗同佢玩吓,香港咁多冤枉錢都洗佐,大家當睇戲,羞辱吓689都出口悶氣

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 你這樣想沒有人可阻止, 我相信不少人有同感, 但以理智去看法律制度, 這是貶低法庭應有功能的事件, 如果其他人上庭也這樣做, 法庭會變成一個劇場, 失去尊嚴。

      刪除
    2. 事實現在就在上演着這鬧劇,誰可以阻止?香港整個社會都在演着鬧劇,法庭只是現實的縮影,你我又可以怎樣?當權者本身都不尊重法律,難道靠手無寸鐵的法官可以撑幾耐?

      刪除
    3. 人地唔尊重法律,你就同佢鬥爛,大家攬住死就係好辦法?
      香港繼續鬧劇落去,唔好話你地口中"無法治"的內地城市,果個"無民主但有法治"的新加坡過香港頭不是難事...

      刪除
    4. 新加坡—早扒着香港頭拉`!

      刪除
  9. 前二个月那些所謂"愛港之聲"在法庭門口侮罵法官,仼由大陸官亂搬龍門戶,踐踏香港法律,律政司敢講—句?只有穩固的司法制度才可以维護法庭的尊嚴

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 97前行政,立法,司法三權各有權威,港督會同行政局幾有尊嚴,立法局議員幾尊貴,首席大法官,穿着黑袍,戴着假發在法庭上多么權烕。如今行政局里烏烟瘴氣,立法局天天上演着鬧劇,連贩夫走卒都可以侮罵司法人員,司法還可以獨善其身,维护他原有的尊嚴?

      刪除