2018年3月7日星期三

再談《曾蔭權案的陪審員有受到污染嗎?》

陳慶偉法官昨天裁定曾蔭權需要為審訊付三份之一的訟費的判詞, 沒有人討論曾蔭權付訟費的判決, 討論焦點集中於判詞的下小半部, 關於公關安排撐場人士到場的恰當性。 被點名的人出來發聲明或反駁, 連沒有被點名的人也表明心跡。

我一直點名批評的只有三個人, 我覺得黃仁龍要避嫌, 他在審訊時現身會惹起聯想。若果他不是前律政司司長, 我就一句批評的話也不會講。所以曾俊華去撐場, 我沒有批評過。黃仁龍沒有避嫌, 另一方面, 他卻沒有公開評論過此案。

陳方安生沒有去撐場, 卻叫政府「收手」, 用字已包含了檢控是不公平的個人立場。以案論案, 論的應該是案情, 呼籲政府「收手」, 卻罔顧案情事實,  如果要捍衛香港的廉潔形象, 着眼點不應該呼籲公職人員廉潔奉公嗎? 叫犯法的「收手」, 別作奸犯科才對啊。一味覺得曾蔭權抵抗中央, 所以被整, 才終歸有如斯下場。這些廢言論, 只有這些自詡為民主人士才受落的。如果曾蔭權抗共有功, 就可以掩蓋了他收受廉價租樓的事實嗎?

講到陶傑,  我就提不起興趣再講了。朋友落難去撐場打氣, 理所當然。這是陪審員審理的案件, 陪審員在結案閉門討論時討論了甚麼, 裁決的理據是甚麼, 真是天曉得。他們在審訊之前及過程之中, 看過甚麼報導、評論、網台等, 根本無從監察, 也難以量度受到的影響。那些名嘴名筆, 如果懂得法治精神, 就要盡量避免評論審訊進行中由陪審團審理的案件。如果大鑼大鼓那樣, 既現身又在媒體評論, 就難怪被懷疑居心叵測了。

如果硬要誣捏陳慶偉法官, 曲解判詞, 硬要說成他限制市民旁聽的權利, 我就省了為他申辯的氣力, 討論也嘥氣。至於張達明首席講師的批評, 見明報這一段:

港大法律學院首席講師張達明稱,法官未有給予曾蔭權一方回應,便作出如此嚴重及負面的指控,有違最基本的程序公義,而陳官指有被控的有權勢人物會要求將案件交由陪審團審理的說法,在立論基礎上令人詫異,因控方才有權決定案件在哪級法庭審訊,不解為何法官會犯下如此基本錯誤。

陳官的評論, 只屬obiter dictum, 不影響他在此案的任何判決, 不見得需要曾蔭權一方回應。張講師指責陳官犯了基本錯誤, 唉! 咪屈得就屈喇, 睇清楚一下陳官判詞原文, 他說: It came therefore with no surprise that in recent years, when the wealthy and powerful were charged for criminal offences, they tried all kinds of means and ways to list their cases in the High Court before a jury (第43段第1句). 他是用了"they tried", 無所不用其極 (終歸不能得逞)。在上一篇留言, 有識之士已舉了幾宗案例, 闡釋陳官講這句話的基礎, 所舉的包括蔣麗莉、楊家誠等案, 被告都試圖(tried)把案件轉介到高院審訊, 都失敗了。我也不解為何張首席講師會犯下如此基本錯誤。

32 則留言:

  1. //我也不解為何張首席講師會犯下如此基本錯誤//

    邊度係犯基本錯誤,這班人甚麽歪曲事實,誤導嘅嘢講唔出?

    回覆刪除
  2. The comment you quoted from Cheung was not primarily addressing para 43. He was saying that Andrew Chan J should not make such an accusation, which is comparable to the offence of perverting the course of public justice, without giving Tsang a chance to respond.

    You can't sue a judge with libel law. This is why Tsang should be given an opportunity to respond. Whether it is an obiter is trivial.

    Cases like Lily Chiang can only support His Lordship's generalisation in para 43, not his accusation against Tsang.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Did Chan J in para 42 also say,

      "Having said that, I wish to emphasise that there is no allegation against any persons who were brought into the court by the public relations firm or consultant and for that matter Mr To Kit."

      Chan J is entitled to express his displeasure at the PR meddling in court.

      刪除
    2. 36. The discharge of Mr Kiu led me at that stage to realise, for the first time, that public relations firm or consultant had been involved in this trial. In fact, they had been present, constantly in and out of court, throughout the first and the second trial but I was not aware of their identities at the time as every citizen was entitled to observe the proceedings.

      看似陳官有證據顯示有PR firms 參與其中。如此,陳官提出警告亦無可厚非。黃仁龍, 薯片話係自發出席,pr firm 有冇建議佢哋出席。

      Terry

      刪除
    3. 爭論是關於公關安排名人撐場是否會影響陪審員的判決

      受批評的辯方明顯犯了 "你有證據嗎" 的謬誤,誤將 "缺乏造成傷害的證明" 當作 "證明沒有造成傷害",這和誤將 "沒有證明" 當作 "證明沒有",是相同的錯誤。

      難題是各方都缺乏充份證據去證明陪審員 "會/或不會" 受到旁聽席的特殊人物影響,為了確保審訊客觀公平,法官和控辯雙方都要盡量排除一切可能影響陪審員判決的不恰當因素。

      電影教父II 或許會給各方一些啟示

      The Godfather II - Michael brings Frank Pentangeli's brother at his trial

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUjjzwIrebQ



      刪除
    4. 還有一點,陪審員要一致或大比數同意才可把疑犯定罪,在不明確的情況下,如辯方不避嫌安排特殊人物撐場,似乎對辯方有利,辯方只需影響少數陪審員便達到目的,就算控方不避嫌做相同動作,也對控方不利,相對控方要影響多數陪審員才能達到目的

      刪除
    5. Terry:

      正是這種似是而非的態度令人懊惱。

      刪除
  3. 曾蔭權時代的新聞統籌專員,現開設公關顧問公司的何安達,立即反撲抽秤陳官英文水平。唔知何生係咪因為無力駁斥判詞的觀點,於是借頭借路話下陳官。睇黎曾生都帶挈過唔少人,個個忙不迭各施各法護主。

    https://hk.finance.appledaily.com/finance/realtime/article/20180307/57916326

    https://hk.finance.appledaily.com/finance/realtime/article/20180307/57916326

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 我都想知其實判詞是否只由法官自已proof read, 有冇人會幫忙proof read 同改改英文呢?

      Terry

      刪除
    2. 呢件事睇黎真係做到越來越核突,更顯示出政治手段是如何黑暗...
      班友繼續盲目地護主,盞令曾蔭權更加無面,連僅餘的一點尊嚴都無埋...

      刪除
    3. 咁鬼慘。始終都有機會鬼遮眼,開d要求 英文強嘅職位,多對眼proof read 同改改英文都好吖。

      Terry

      刪除
    4. 見到Lisa Wong 在TBB - SFC 案要出修改判詞,區官在DQ 案最初判詞都寫錯Oath and Declarations Ordinance, 少了個s. 都要請多d 人做法官助理先得㗎。

      Terry

      刪除
    5. 美國係有legal clerk幫手,但香港又好似冇
      其實學下美國整幾個clerkship位,學生又有實習機會,老爺又冇做得咁辛苦

      刪除
    6. 美國直情份判詞是clerk所draft的

      刪除
    7. 915: 嗯做共狗CHICOM BITCH才是有尊嚴嘛? 向個恐怖政權宣誓效忠很有尊嚴嘛 被雞姦肏得脫肛尚不忘提醒周圍自己是中國人的尊嚴嘛。 *chuckle*

      刪除
  4. //陳方安生沒有去撐場, 卻叫政府「收手」//

    印象中陳好像是在第二次解散陪審團之後先叫政府罷手!

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 對。是在第二次懸峙陪審團將她才叫政府罷手, 她想做資深大律師?

      刪除
    2. 所以話呢...識人好過識字...永恆不變的定律...

      刪除
  5. 「法官昨天裁定曾蔭權需要為審訊付三份之一的訟費」

    這是控方的要求,如果法官認為辯方所引致的浪費超過三份之一,可否判辯方支付更多訟費?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 這一點留給上訴庭處理吧,被告會為此上訴的。

      刪除
    2. 陳官嚴厲批評被告保持緘默、不合作。被告不是有保持緘默的權利嗎?

      刪除
    3. 你要看判詞, 這批評是釐定應否付訟費的考慮。

      刪除
    4. 我就是不明判詞第23段:
      23. The absence of any explanation inevitably caused the ICAC to probe further into the Defendant and consequentially his wife’s financial situation. The in‑depth financial investigation uncovered the Defendant and his wife’s financial dealings with other people such as Mr David Li and Mr Wong Chor Biu, both shareholders of Wave Media Limited. In fact, it took the ICAC over two and a half years to complete all the fund flow investigation. Undoubtedly, the time and effort spent were huge. When it came to the first trial, the Defendant only admitted all the financial transactions after the formal bankers’ affirmations, had been served as additional evidence. The authenticity of all the banks statements and financial transactions were never challenged during the first trial. In reality, they were all undeniable facts.
      亦不明白判詞第25段:
      25. As a result, an enormous amount of time and manpower had been put into the investigation unnecessarily on undeniable facts. As pointed out by the Prosecution, the present application is not based on the fact that the Defendant chose to exercise his right of silence as he is entitled to, rather, it is based on the totally unnecessary costs which the taxpayer had to pay.

      為什麼控方因被告保持緘默而需要深入調查所取得的資料是 undeniable facts 便是引致unnecessary costs浪費控方的資源? 搜證不是控方的責任嗎?

      刪除
  6. http://mybonafide.com/2018/03/07/%E6%93%BA%E5%AE%98%E5%A8%81-%E3%80%82%E6%94%9E%E6%9E%B6%E4%B8%9F/

    標少點睇

    回覆刪除
  7. never mind whether the jury had been tainted. the one who sat on the bench is a certificable CHICOM biatch!

    all credibility down the drain!!

    回覆刪除
  8. 作為退位高官其實係唔係需要避嫌呢?豬乸們supposedly應以人生經驗,智慧去決定被告有無罪,一兩個前高官、議員名咀坐喺度係唔係真係影響到陪審員觀感?何況Mr. Wong無對案件作任何評論… 請各大大指教!
    個人覺得陳老爺咁講好似講多咗啲同… 唔俾曾先生黃資狀係 as they claimed 自發到庭支持朋友咩?到法庭後公關先至知道及見到有“大人物”到,嗱嗱臨安排入“私家位”,在情在理都無問題喎。唔一家係如老爺咁講,公關邀請佢哋嚟咖喎…

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 「避嫌」不是「涉嫌」, 避免別人不必要的聯想。律政司司長掌管政府法律事務, 包括刑事檢控的決定。前特首被控, 前律政司司長撐埸, 顯示告錯了/誣告/不公的檢控? 別的司長去撐場, 我不置喙。陳官在判詞裏並無明確確講這些大人物是自發或應邀到庭的, 他只是講他觀察到的情況: "...were taken into the court on different days by the public relations firm or consultant sitting at the exclusive area,"

      刪除
    2. peter chan, 難題是各方都缺乏充份證據去證明陪審員 "會/或不會" 受到旁聽席的特殊人物影響, 為了確保審訊客觀公平, 法官和控辯雙方都要盡量排除一切可能影響陪審員判決的因素.

      電影教父II 或許會給你一些啟示

      The Godfather II - Michael brings Frank Pentangeli's brother at his trial

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUjjzwIrebQ

      刪除
  9. ////........were taken into the court on different days by the public relations firm or consultant sitting at the exclusive area....////

    陳官自己嘅觀察,最多咪只可以『見到』某人嘅『出現』

    怎能看到 were taken 呢?

    回覆刪除