哈哈哈, 公關翹楚批評陳慶偉法官的英文: 【名家搶先睇】公關給法官的忠告, 有趣。上一篇Terry問有無人為法官做校對及改英文, 這種問題一般人不會知道答案, 我屬於一知半解的人, 就讓我斗膽講兩句。
司法獨立, 是時常掛在咀邊的一句話。法官在思考判決的過程中, 會考慮法律原則、案例、法律學者的論述, 甚至徵詢同袍的看法, 然後疏理出一番論據來判決, 繼而以文字表述, 寫出理據。這些判決理由, 因應不同級別的法院, 叫「裁斷陳述書」、「判案書」、「判詞」等, 有些根本沒有統一叫法。在編制上, 根本沒有人替法官校對, 更加沒有人潤飾文字(不論中英文)。況且, 判詞未頒佈之前, 有一定保密的需要, 先給別人校對和潤飾可能會在未頒佈判詞就有洩漏之虞。最重要的是怕影響了判決的獨立性。先和別人斟酌, 就有判決不獨立之嫌。這有異於跟同袍商討, 因為那種商討不會是造好了文章叫别的法官替你審閲。我覺得司法機構應該提醒法官在寫判詞後要做grammar check/spell check, 若現有的軟件不夠好, 就裝更有効力的軟件, 以減低手民之誤。
若這種情況可以改善, 就可減少被挑骨頭了。陳官看到審訊滲入公關的現象, 才把不滿和擔心寫入判詞, 除了曾蔭權, 惹起最大不滿的, 自然是吃公關這碗飯的人, 皆因陳官批得辣。由公關手段是否對陪審員構成潛意識裏的影響, 扭曲成港人撐老闆、老友的美德, 更甚者cronies出手, 撐舊上司、老戰友、好同行, 敵愾同仇, 還要下個結論:「陳官本人極需邀請公關或其他專才審閱他的文稿，免得貽笑大方」。我一般先看判詞的法理是否貽笑大方, 其次是看法官行文能否清晰表達意思, 看到些微typo或grammatical errors, 也沒有甚麼大不了。以前老外法官寫的判詞也有不少這類問題, 現在在網上看司法機構上載的判詞, 才間中見到pop up message說有corrigendum (唉, 我講定先, 眾數是corrigenda, 有時超過一個錯處), 別少見多怪喇。法官需要公關幫拖, 咪開玩笑好唔好?
當法官受惡意攻擊、揶揄、辱罵的時候, 他們自己不能站出來反駁, 有幾多人會為他們發聲? 用公關伎倆乎? 慳啲喇, 在任何方面, 法官的工作都無需公關手段, 不是甚麼人都需要塗脂抹粉的。
司法獨立, 是時常掛在咀邊的一句話。法官在思考判決的過程中, 會考慮法律原則、案例、法律學者的論述, 甚至徵詢同袍的看法, 然後疏理出一番論據來判決, 繼而以文字表述, 寫出理據。這些判決理由, 因應不同級別的法院, 叫「裁斷陳述書」、「判案書」、「判詞」等, 有些根本沒有統一叫法。在編制上, 根本沒有人替法官校對, 更加沒有人潤飾文字(不論中英文)。況且, 判詞未頒佈之前, 有一定保密的需要, 先給別人校對和潤飾可能會在未頒佈判詞就有洩漏之虞。最重要的是怕影響了判決的獨立性。先和別人斟酌, 就有判決不獨立之嫌。這有異於跟同袍商討, 因為那種商討不會是造好了文章叫别的法官替你審閲。我覺得司法機構應該提醒法官在寫判詞後要做grammar check/spell check, 若現有的軟件不夠好, 就裝更有効力的軟件, 以減低手民之誤。
若這種情況可以改善, 就可減少被挑骨頭了。陳官看到審訊滲入公關的現象, 才把不滿和擔心寫入判詞, 除了曾蔭權, 惹起最大不滿的, 自然是吃公關這碗飯的人, 皆因陳官批得辣。由公關手段是否對陪審員構成潛意識裏的影響, 扭曲成港人撐老闆、老友的美德, 更甚者cronies出手, 撐舊上司、老戰友、好同行, 敵愾同仇, 還要下個結論:「陳官本人極需邀請公關或其他專才審閱他的文稿，免得貽笑大方」。我一般先看判詞的法理是否貽笑大方, 其次是看法官行文能否清晰表達意思, 看到些微typo或grammatical errors, 也沒有甚麼大不了。以前老外法官寫的判詞也有不少這類問題, 現在在網上看司法機構上載的判詞, 才間中見到pop up message說有corrigendum (唉, 我講定先, 眾數是corrigenda, 有時超過一個錯處), 別少見多怪喇。法官需要公關幫拖, 咪開玩笑好唔好?
當法官受惡意攻擊、揶揄、辱罵的時候, 他們自己不能站出來反駁, 有幾多人會為他們發聲? 用公關伎倆乎? 慳啲喇, 在任何方面, 法官的工作都無需公關手段, 不是甚麼人都需要塗脂抹粉的。
會有保密協議簽署，如只是多對眼審查typos 及grammar 都不會影響判詞內容及獨立性。反而讓法官休息吓或思考法律原則，更有效利用資源。
回覆刪除另，法官警告了PR firms. 但實際上又點會有證據話係pr firms 安排的，即管在法庭上pr firms 叫親朋戚友坐在哪裡都不能說出pr firms 參與了些什麼事情。
Terry
「安排」兩字看你怎界定。
回覆刪除I read the judgment repeatedly. I paid attention to the part when PR firm/consultants were mentioned. What Andrew Chan said was that a PR firm was engaged in this trial to the knowledge of the defendant. He saw PR people brought people in and out of the court. He did not say anything beyond his perceptions. There is no way he can tell or venture to speculate that the PR people contact the defendant's ex-subordinates, friends, Legco members etc and tell them to go to court.
還有, 你未做過政府, 你以為可以開個乜team嚟幫啲官proof read and grammar check? Qualifications? Job nature confines to proof reading and grammar checking? There is no justification to create such a team.
刪除其實叫自己clerk幫手睇吓又有咩大不了？一個高院官都有幾個人跟：庭內一個，另外仲有。信唔過佢哋啲英文係另一回事，要做spellcheck唔太難。
刪除我反而覺得錯grammar無咩大不了，睇得明就夠。不過你寫啲預咗被cite/quote嘅嘢就另作別論。
Corrigendum通常都係喺影響文意嘅時候出，無影響就無謂啦。
自己個clerk 只是judiciary clerk rank, 未夠班做assistance. 好似聽到有裁判官上high court 做「書童」，呢D官夠班D。
刪除法庭書記學歷好似要求唔高，冇大學畢業都夠資格申請。
刪除無論如何，就算陳官英文有瑕疵又如何? 係咪證明陳官英文屎就可以改變到佢就曾生請公關搞搞震一事嘅評語呢?
其實邊樣唔妥咪針對嗰樣野黎反駁囉。例如你覺得上司批評得你唔啱，但係你就淨係一味話佢樣衰咁, 喂大佬呀你反擊得黎都要講返同個核心問題 relevant 嘅野架嘛。講埋啲不著邊際嘅野，抹黑別人都還不了自己清白啦。
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/judicial-assistants-in-the-court-of-appeal-civil-division
刪除Judicial assistants. 工作包括review draft judgement 都得啩。
Terry
39. Prior to both the first and second trials, the Defendant through his solicitors sought approval from the court to reserve exclusive seats for his family and friends. His request was acceded to by the court. Throughout the second trial, especially towards the end, former colleagues of the Defendant, for example, his former Financial Secretary and former Secretary for Justice, past Legislative Councillors from the Democratic Party, present Legislative Councillors from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong and prominent religious figures, were taken into the court on different days by the public relations firm or consultant sitting at the exclusive area, similar to Mr To Kit’s situation. The objective was undoubtedly to inform and impress upon the jury that the Defendant was a good person and had support from people across the whole spectrum of the society.
刪除40. The Defendant in this case, knowing that good character evidence cannot be introduced from witnesses testifying for the prosecution, had decided to introduce such evidence through the back door. There was of course no direct evidence suggesting the public relations firm or consultant had been engaged by the Defendant himself, the inference however was overwhelming and it would be an affront to common sense to conclude that there was not some consent, acquiescence or involvement by the Defendant. Had the engagement of public relations firm or consultant been brought to my attention earlier, I might consider discharging the entire jury.
其實這兩段對我來說比較難明陳官想說什麼的。第39段：” the objective was undoubtedly to”. 陳官一方面沒有說名人係PR firm 事先安排及邀請（PR firm嘅計劃，但用了objective 及undoubtedly 字。咁係是說各人出庭, 即使係自發出庭，唧目的是inform and impress ... 嗎？如自發出庭, 我咁睇，陳官點解要對這方面有意見。另一方面，如陳官假設各人係pr firm 事先計劃安排下出庭, 咁説the objective was undoubtedly to ... 亦可以， 但最好先說這是一個假設。
Terry
公關技窮, 自劃龍門自己射波, 千錘百鍊入一球, 阿Q精神勝利法, 無價值.
回覆刪除無辦法,依家社會越來越小學雞化...
刪除有咁既讀者,就有咁既論點...
陳慶偉連facts 都 misapprehend 錯 薯片和黃都是自發去支持都 陳真是頭給支那共產黨丟臉的狗啊 什麽垃圾狗屎都昇。。。。。。
回覆刪除我以為免仔英咁好不會犯這低級錯誤, 原來不外如此。你實際上有看過判詞的嗎? 找出判詞中那一句說這些人自發不自發到庭給我看。
刪除兔兔沒看過啊 但有關係嘛 words from Chan project this image he was falsely accusing 黃和薯片 without any evidence. in the process Chan made himself look like the laughable CLOWN he has always been.
刪除In that case you have made grave error. A lawyer should read the original text before entering into the arena. No where did Andrew Chan say these bunch of people went to court on their own volition or otherwise. You have made yourself a clown. It is time for you to throw in the towel.
刪除“Throughout the second trial, especially towards the end, former colleagues of the Defendant, for example, his former Financial Secretary and former Secretary for Justice, past Legislative Councillors from the Democratic Party, present Legislative Councillors from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong and prominent religious figures, were taken into the court on different days by the public relations firm or consultant sitting at the exclusive area, similar to Mr To Kit’s situation.”
刪除roll eyes....老大。。。。。自己讀啦
"40. The Defendant in this case, knowing that good character evidence cannot be introduced from witnesses testifying for the prosecution, had decided to introduce such evidence through the back door. There was of course no direct evidence suggesting the public relations firm or consultant had been engaged by the Defendant himself, the inference however was overwhelming and it would be an affront to common sense to conclude that there was not some consent, acquiescence or involvement by the Defendant."
刪除看完上文下理, 我認為陳官從觀察看到有pr 嘅人參與帶名人入座留位..., 但冇直接證據這些pr 人是被告請的, 話雖如此, 他認為如得不到被告同意這些pr人參與, 是有違常理
Mr Bunny, you need an eye examination or brain scan. The paragraph you cited only said what Andrew Chan observed, namely, these bunch of people were taken into court and seated by the PR people. How did Andrew Chan wrong them? Whether these people were phoned and requested to go to court to "flex their muscle" or they go there on their own volition was never commented by Chan J. "Taken into" means they were taken to the exclusive area reserved for the defendant's family and friend and seated.
刪除“were taken into the court on different days by the public relations firm or consultant。。。。。 ” taken into the curt... apparently Chan became convinced the celebrities came to his curt room in support of donald on the lobbying persuasion on part of the PR firm. thats how i read and understand it.
刪除personally i believe Chan is delusional ...
兔兔見到老大 歇斯底里 死皮賴活 地要為個可笑卑賤的港共kangaroo curt 塗脂抹粉得爭取點尊嚴 diginity 不禁莞爾
回覆刪除不好 老大生氣了 兔兔下了
你又病發了, 我會體諒的, 怎會生你氣, 生豬生狗的氣也不會生病兔的氣, 別擔心。
刪除當有人話建制鼓勵人們侮辱法官，呢D泛民媒體又何嘗不是做緊同一個行為。。。
回覆刪除講到潛意識呢家野,燈光柔和度,各人衣著色系,現場氣溫,擺設,空間感,去法庭時沿途景觀,有無塞車,等等,都可以對潛意識造成影響.學界對呢d環境因素同潛意識之間既關係有唔少研究,相信大家都聽過下.在席親友對陪審員潛意識有無影響?呢個我反而未聽個!
回覆刪除在席親友對[裁判官]判刑有影響, 是眾所週知的, 都唔講潛意識.
刪除http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20180309/mobile/bkn-20180309161101966-0309_00822_001.html
回覆刪除法官表示，本案2被告在受審時沒有案底，並在受審時有作供自辯。原審裁判官在裁斷他們的證供是否可信時，有需要根據案例，像提醒陪審團般提醒自己，他們屬品格良好人士，其證供可信性較有案底人士高。不過裁判官沒有這樣做，這屬關鍵性遺漏，是法律上犯錯。
－－－－－－－－－－－
標少，如果當初法官下判詞時有講「本官有提醒自己被告屬品格良好的人士…」，係咪就無問題？
個法官想放時，就會說是過失。
回覆刪除想釘時，就會說是專業裁判官，不需事事提醒，從判詞中，已看到裁判官在實質上已小心考慮各証人，包括上訴人的証言。
真係幾兒嬉。
刪除請問邊度有得睇判詞?
刪除唔係兒嬉, 只不過是presentation姐~
刪除唔係你想上訴判詞再複雜生澀些?
9:40, 判詞的連結在《曾蔭權案的陪審員有受到污染嗎?》
刪除如果2018年3月9日下午9:06匿名說的是現實,豈不是真的「官字兩個口」?被告人真的要賭彩數,看看遇到甚麼官!
刪除主觀vs客觀！個point係在裁判法院審時，大部分官都係为求快用主觀判，費時用腦，釘錯又如何？這是我主塲！
回覆刪除香港唔係行使無罪推定原則、寧縱無枉嘅咩?
刪除