2017年3月24日星期五

法官學畫

今天明報出了這報導: 裁判官法院內學畫 老師獲免費泊車, 其中一段這樣講;

司法機構2016年的年報中「有關法官和司法人員的投訴」的一項透露,去年非涉及司法或法定的決定的投訴中,其中一宗投訴獲證明部分屬實。投訴人指一名裁判官容許私人畫師長時間將車輛免費停放在某法院大樓內,及該裁判官容許該畫師在法院的法官辦公室內授課,耗用政府資源。

這新聞昨天東方報導了, 明報今天執二攤。說新聞當然不新, 早前司法機構的年報已報導了, 根本不是新聞。我都算知道一點來龍去脈, 當然知道誰人涉事其中, 但休想我會爆料。我寫這篇是在思考這件事的處理手法及傳媒怎會報導起舊聞來。有人投訴, 老總調查, 學畫佔用法院處所屬實, 也處理了, 沒有再發生了, 這事理應完結。第一個問題, 為何在年報登這些東西出來? 每年大大小小投訴都不少, 這一宗有需要凸顯報導嗎? 第二個問題, 為何不是一早向傳媒爆料, 而是今時今日才見報?

不論司法機構怎樣標榜透明開明, 裁判官做了不妥當的事, 由內部處理了, 向投訴人交待了, 就完結了, 一般都無需搞得這樣鋪張, 大鑼大鼓的。撇開是否知情不講, 我怎知是內部事件呢? 首先, 街外市民怎會知道法院停車場的車輛是誰的, 怎知那個裁判官利用午膳時間學畫, 動用了公帑買碎紙機。所以投訴人一定是自己人。既然是自己人, 即是可以內部處理而無需公諸於世。又不是作奸犯科, 好明顯是無需要紀律聆訊, 採取處分的。當事人因被投訴而停止了不妥當做法, 還要在年報刋登這件事出來,  即是老總唔妥你囉。如果是老總的自己友, 凑得老總好妥貼, 你估老總會不會揚了這件事出來? 其實老總這樣做不單只行政手法差, 也使司法機構蒙羞。講到尾是把內部矛盾暴露於公眾之前, 可以達致甚麼目的呢? 有沒有需要把appraisal report公諸於世才叫透明度高? 已退休的Symon Wong曾向我投訴, 聽他那宗上訴的大老爺預先招集記者, 印好判辭分發給他們, 讓他們可以為那宗罵他的上訴大肆報導。若果那是事實, 司法機構的處理手法, 不單只使個別裁判官蒙羞, 最終是使司法機構自己蒙羞。如果在年報刋登學畫這件事是要想當事人蒙羞, 司法機構真是可悲!

這次傳媒在炒冷飯, 究竟是有人爆料抑或凑巧看到年報呢? 我相信是有人爆料。去年事發時新鮮熱辣不爆, 事過境遷才爆, 意欲何為? 這就不能說得太白, 否則變成我在爆料, 況且我也只在推論, 並非有人向我承認自己訴諸傳媒。我相信事發時不爆料是因為投鼠忌器, 到了現在屬於攬住一齊死。

可能有人不同意我的看法, 認為法官不妥當的行為應該公開, 公眾有知情權。我想, 知情權要視乎事件的性質, 不是事無大少都要公開的。否則, 豈不是應該把每一宗投訴內容公開, 讓公眾知道那個法官被投訴做了甚麼事, 處理是否恰當, 讓大家判斷。如果這要求不合理, 在年報刋登法院學畫一事又有甚麼理據? 我不是在撐當事人, 只是質疑整件事處理的智慧。

34 則留言:

  1. 97年後的香港 禮崩樂壞

    馬鹿

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 馬兄,

      97前老外也做不妥當的事。

      刪除
  2. I have no inside knowledge, but I think you might have overinterpreted the significance of the publication of the complaint. I don't think CM was involved in the decision to publish. It was actually as a result of queries from the LegCo Legal Panel that the Judiciary released details of justified complaints against judges and JJOs. They did so in 2014 for complaints since 2011, and have continued to do so to-date. I believe you'll be interested to read (or even comment on?) those cases, with the complainants ranging from law student to SC.
    http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr12-13/english/panels/ajls/papers/aj0723cb4-840-1-e.pdf (Read from p.11)

    And I can certainly understand why some legislators or members of public feel strongly about the Judiciary's transparency, on the grounds that the Judiciary is not subject to any external oversight, and the mere publication of justified complaints (being a value-neutral act) can improve its accountability while not compromising judicial independence.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. I may have over-interpreted why this particular incident was mentioned in the annual report. I will not argue with you about the need for transparency. If it is the beginning of particularizing the complaints, then I hope to see a wider scope of examples. In the instant case, obviously the matter was arising from internal disputes between colleagues. However transparent the government should be, should it publish the dispute or demur views in decision making within the government? Say between different Secretaries or the CE and another Secretary. Where is the demarcation line?The instant case gives me the feeling that the Judiciary is turning internal conflict into public sanction. That is pathetic.

      In recent years, public outcries related to judicial decisions which are appellable. They have nothing to do with transparency of the judiciary. Most people just disagree with the judicial decisions (conviction, acquittal and sentence) and lash out scathing attacks without sufficient legal foundation. How does it help to quench of the thirst of the bunch of rogues by the instant publication?

      刪除
  3. "If it is the beginning of particularizing the complaints, then I hope to see a wider scope of examples." <--- I wonder if you have read the many other particularised complaints in the link? As I said, they've particularised each and every justified complaint since 2011.

    And I certainly see your point about publicising an internal conflict. I didn't say I endorse the publication in this particular case, I only meant as a general principle it is understandable that people demand the Judiciary to be accountable. Since the Judiciary has a policy of particularising all justified judicial complaints, the main issue here is whether the complaint should be classified as a "judicial complaint" or a "staff complaint". I'll agree with you that apparently a staff complaint need not be publicised.

    回覆刪除
  4. I did read some of the contents in the link you provided (despite the fact that it contains 264 pages). I did see some of the incidents mentioned and unwittingly, I know at least one being the subject of the complaint. But, I also read the Judiciary Annual Reports. I could see from 2007 onward, a new chapter called Complaints against Judges and Judicial Officers has emerged. Never before did it specify and particularize the detail of the complaints. Only figures were given until the latest issue which published the painting incident. Why wasn't the illegal structure one mentioned in the annual report? It only mentioned in the Legco explanation paper? In the painting complaint, to put it more precisely, it was a complaint between judicial officers. Do they need to tell the public which judicial officer quarrelled with which judicial officer? That is why I sigh and sneer. What kind of transparency is this? It is called pathetic transparency.

    回覆刪除
  5. 塗鴉廢票 個粗口字 放到成個銀幕甘大
    選管會馮官今次真系夠曬 transparent 啦!

    回覆刪除
  6. 標少的匿名 blog 友都估得好準, 在3月13日已估算鬍鬚攞350至400票, 結果鬍鬚攞365票。

    亞Q


    匿名2017年3月13日 下午4:04
    郭大狀同胡官的說法其實沒有大分別。郭大狀要清楚回應胡官:300+估計鬍鬚勝出的機會(P1)有幾高?是P1=0.5? P1>0.5? 還是 0.5<P1?[或且P1很低]

    如300+估計鬍鬚勝出的機會是 0.5<P1?[或且P1很低],算他攞到350至400票又怎樣,對團結泛民起到甚麼作用?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 上一次起碼都出個何俊仁, 今次建制泛民在爭那個建制獲勝, 有趣。

      刪除
    2. 當年長毛恥笑何俊仁。
      今年長毛變得理性,敢於打倒昨日的自己 (鼓掌)。

      刪除
  7. 今次泛民陷入左傳統土共「敵人既敵人就是朋友」既思維。大哥,今日共產黨都唔行這套好耐啦

    為左意氣同造皇連政治倫理都放埋一邊,搞到胡官兩邊不是人。以後除左機會主義者之外點會有人同泛民合作?曾生仲慘,政治生命就此完結。你估泛民會俾機會佢選立法會?想下就好啦!都唔知幫曾生搞strategy 既團隊搞乜?係唔係太年青而唔識幫曾生留後路,定係已經好似外間講佢身不由己?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 大哥, 有冇搞錯? 後路要自己去諗喎, 媒人唔包生仔。至於胡官, 佢自己攞黎, 仲話要再戰江湖, 唉! 維園又多咗個搶咪嘅阿伯。

      刪除
    2. 泛民好成功高調利用曾生來整走cy, 但冷不提防半路殺出個程咬金, 真係人算不如天算。

      刪除
  8. 《法官學畫》

    我最不能明白的是爲何會出現在年報,不過,單憑案情摘要來看,學畫的法官食得禾米多了,食得過飽了,上得山多終遇虎了......



    這裏有轉載標兄這篇文章:

    http://realblog.zkiz.com/greatsoup38/242695

    回覆刪除
  9. 只許州官老師泊車,不許百姓上職員厠所,很多同事忍得好辛苦啊......

    回覆刪除

  10. 你説得全對,厠所 charge 確實是 acquitted,但一衆和畢加索法官駐守過同一法院的小職員都知道,本案這 acquittal 跟大家每天在裁判署見到的案件一樣,被告人有做過,但只是因種種原因甩咗。

    未見到厠所 charge 之前,我們一衆蟻民認爲一定是畢加索的兄弟姐妹篤出來,泊官有蓋車位泊得你老師咁過癮......

    原來還有厠所之爭,這個嘛,可能是小職員有厠所去不得,忍不住囉......

    回覆刪除
  11. 所以呢,做人就唔好做得咁過份,唔好厠所都唔俾人去........... 你有便意,小職員都有便意!

    回覆刪除
  12. Morning break 你/ 妳要小便,職員仔都要小便呢!

    回覆刪除
  13. 要忍的不是我,是很多忍者告訴過我。

    畢加索太過份了,獵犬終須山上喪。

    畢加索是誰,上個月已經有 judicial notice 了。

    不過,對畢加索公道一點,霸碎紙機的事我毫不知情,不知道是否真有其事,有 doubt 呢,但霸厠所是千真萬確的,沒理由有那麽多職員在不同區域告訴我有人霸厠所嘛。 我一直覺得匪夷所思,天曉得此舉原來已經種下又深又廣的禍根.............

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Judicial notice唔係咁解。你是指circular?

      刪除
  14. 畢加索,又不是你/ 妳家的厠所,霸來幹嘛?

    回覆刪除
  15. 我是想以諷刺形式說全港司法界已經知道畢加索是誰。

    回覆刪除
  16. 畢加索多年來常常不停欺負小職員,各樣手法層出不窮,比報章所述的還要多得很,現在終須埋單了。

    希望一衆小職員不會再被欺負。

    回覆刪除
  17. 好主意!

    不過,已經告了三條,甩了兩條。 幸好釘了最嚴重的一條。

    此官踏進司法機構之後自以爲高人多等,要小職員爲奴為婢,幸好也有一些不識時務的蛋散企硬,不爲奴,也不爲婢。 你/ 妳是人,我們也是人,你/ 妳凴甚麽?

    希望你/ 妳看到這裏的《法官學畫》,做人/ 做官都唔好做到你/ 妳咁 Cheap!

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 我一錢不值, 沒有人看。況且我批評的跟你申訴的很不一樣。

      刪除
  18. 怎會沒有人看? 我不是人嗎?

    對,你的批評跟我的申訴很不一樣,不過真的很想說,如此頻頻欺壓小職員的官,我還是第一次見識。

    政府部門通常家醜不想外揚,例如當年 ICAC 拉了冼錦華,警隊最高層也炮轟 ICAC 過早報導,但今次本部門主動外揚,我也不明所以。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 沒有人看是張揚式的自眨, 當然不會當讀者不是人, 反正不是人也可以看、可以寫。

      刪除
  19. 我真是沒有幽默感,也沒有想象力。

    回覆刪除