行李引起的司法風波

別誤會, 我不是炒作梁特首的行李事件, 十分慶幸香港人漸漸忘了這事。這篇寫英國高院法官Peter Smith的行李事件簿。大法官去年從意大利佛羅倫斯渡假完畢返歸, 乘搭了英航(British Airways), 人很順利抵埗, 行李卻不知所蹤。大老爺跟普通人一樣, 偶然會遇到這種不快事, 最終這行李沒有丟失, 也能物歸原主。不過, 大老爺卻耿耿於懷。之後大老爺湊巧聽審針對英航的一件涉及三數十億(港元)的訴訟, 在訴訟期間大老爺33次對代表英航的御用大律師表達丟失行李一事的不滿, 甚至說要傳召英航的行政總裁上庭解釋。這是與訴訟無關的丟失行李事件, 大法官的權力確實至高無上, 比梁特首地位更加超然。終於, 英航代表成功要求大老爺迴避(recuse)審訊該案。之後, David Pannick QC在Times 撰文, 嚴厲批評大老爺的傲慢越權行為, 認為首席法官應對其採取紀律處分。大老爺對此極度不滿, 寫信給Pannick的大律師行Blackstone Chambers的Chambers' Head Anthony Peto QC表達不滿, Legal Cheek這法律評論網把信件披露出來, 有讀者把Legal Cheek這篇文的連結傳給我看: ‘I will no longer support your Chambers’: Top judge’s incredible letter to elite set Blackstone emerges in bias row.

除了這信, 也可從連結看到Legal Cheek對這件事的評論。這封信的內容確實可以叫司法掃地, 很有商家口脗。大老爺曾經推薦大律師成為御用大律師, 就要求別人投桃報李, 那麼如果判某方勝訴, 豈不是要封個大利是給他, 意思意思。好一句 "It is obvious that Blackstone takes but does not give."(信中第5段末句)。真攞命, 想人家"give"即是要感恩圖報? 這是相當離譜的想法, 推薦合適的大律師成為御用大律師是資深法官的職責, 不是私相授受, 利益交換及輸送的誘因。如果大法官潛意識裏想着要人感恩圖報, 那麼就很有可能發展成收取利益的格局了。

另一法律網HEADOFLEGAL收錄了傳媒一些評論:

Pannick on Mr Justice Peter Smith
by CARL GARDNER on SEPTEMBER 3, 2015

Today’s Times has a piece by Lord Pannick QC (behind the Times paywall) on the extraordinary behaviour of Mr Justice Peter Smith in a case involving British Airways earlier this summer. The case, he says,

raises serious issues about judicial conduct which need urgent consideration by the Lord Chief Justice.
The case was reported on at the time by the Independent and was explained by Rupert Myers in the Guardian:

When Mr Justice Peter Smith sat in the high court on a case involving British Airways and demanded to know what had happened to his bags on a recent romantic trip to Florence, he had unusual powers that the rest of us do not possess. Injudiciously, he threatened to use them. Smith even entertained the idea of summoning British Airways’ chief executive to explain the mishap in a competition case heard at vast expense. The judge was finally invited to realise that his remarks left him completely unsuited to hearing the case.
The transcript of the hearing was published by Legal Cheek.
Lord Pannick writes that there are three “troubling features” of this “unhappy episode”. First, Peter Smith J’s personal irritation made it impossible for him to act fairly. Second, what Pannick calls the judge’s “inexcusably bullying manner and threats”. And third—

the judge’s arrogant comments concerning the decision of the Court of Appeal in 2007 to remove him from an earlier case in which he had been unable to recognise that his personal interests made it inappropriate for him to sit …
Here’s the the Court of Appeal judgment in that earlier case, Howell v Lees Millais, in which Sir Igor Judge had said (para. 32)

The application to Peter Smith J to recuse himself was entirely justified … His irritation is obvious … It arose exclusively and directly from the judge’s personal affairs …
Legal Cheek’s transcript of this summer’s hearing quotes Peter Smith J as saying about that earlier case—

I have no regrets about Millais. I have plenty of regrets about the way in which the Court of Appeal went about their decision, but … we are no longer surprised by what happens in the Court of Appeal.
Pannick concludes today’s Times piece by saying:

On hearing about this latest episode, no-one at the bar or on the bench would have said, “What, Mr Justice Peter Smith? Surely not?” Litigants are entitled to a better service than this. The reputation of our legal system is damaged by such behaviour. The Lord Chief Justice should consider whether action to address Mr Justice Peter Smith’s injudicious conduct has, like his luggage, been delayed for too long.

作為法官或任何公眾人物, 甚至不是公眾人物, 只是小組織的搞手, 都要心存公正, 才能服眾。我一向對公正公義的要求都很高, 任何涉及公家的事都不會徇私, 惹來無知的人說我患了公正病。當然, 這些無知的人完全不懂甚麼叫防微杜漸, 到了自己因為制度不公而身受其害時才懂呱呱大叫, 自己平時就肆無忌憚地公器私用, 這就是我看不起這些人的原因, 這也是我時常不怕得罪任何人為公義吭聲的理由。面對這些無知的人, 我高傲, 層次太低的人根本不值得花時間, 你花時間去教育他們也只是浪費生命。

香港司法界在這方面基本上表現優良, 對法官亂扣帽子的, 主要都是由社會運動產生的案件而來。不論法官把人定罪或判人無罪, 都會受到各式政治團體的攻擊, 除此之外, 不論你同意或不同意法官的裁決, 都很少聽到私相授受那種不公正的指控, 像Peter Smith J那類行為不當的事件, 始終在香港是罕見的, 這是香港之福。

港英兩地都發生的行李風波, 性質有所不同難以比較, 真的讓我二擇其一, 我寧願Peter Smith那種破壞司法公義的事情不在香港發生。