反駁的反駁----我撐陳慶偉

標少是老人家, 所以比較長氣, 以前最怕人在庭上long-winded or fishing, 最喜歡快、靚、正, 廢話少講, 但這次為了陳慶偉法官惹起爭議的判詞, 恕我長氣要再講。

我先引用判詞提及公關公司的部份, 然後再解讀及解釋我長氣的理由。

32. On the day in question, Mr To Kit was brought into court by one public relations representative, unlike ordinary citizens who had to queue up for seats. He then sat in an area exclusively reserved for the Defendant’s family and friends. In fact, this was not the first time Mr To Kit had come to court.

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.

39. ...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. ...

40. ...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.

42. ... 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.

43. ...The involvement of public relations firm or consultant in our criminal proceedings is not only undesirable but may perceive as seeking to influence the jury. It does nothing good to the rule of law in Hong Kong. This serves as a warning to all public relations firm or consultant.

我這篇不會跟人爭論陳官沒有機會給辯方解釋, 也不爭論陳官的批評是否合理(我絕對同意他的批評),  本篇只有一個議題,  就是「名人被安排到庭」這講法是否沒有事實根據或弄錯了事實。陳官判詞頒佈後, 黃仁龍否認是應公關要求出庭, 他說是他自己上庭支持曾蔭權的。  其他「名人」就沒有仔細描述, 含糊其詞, 我只能推論他們不爭議是公關安排上庭的。「安排到法庭」有兩個意思, 一個意思是公關公司聯絡他們, 告知日期時間地點, 請他們上庭撐場, 另一意思是這些人到了法庭, 公關招呼他們及替他們帶位引路, 離開時亦陪伴相送。

觀乎上面所引判詞, 陳官所講的「安排」, 只限於陪入陪出法庭。陳官完全沒有講或暗示這些人是由公關公司相約上庭的, 而除了黃仁龍 , 其他人沒有反駁或否認是公關聯絡上庭, 有位建制派立法會議員甚至承認被公關聯絡而上庭。黃仁龍反駁/澄清得比較詳盡, 他是自發上庭的。他說自己一早到庭, 和曾蔭權及家人傾談後, 一起步入法庭。這種講法, 可以排除與此同時公關人員陪伴在他左右嗎?到他走的時候, 公關人員陪他步出法庭(甚至與此同時曾生和家人一起走), 真的沒有發生過嗎?  這些名人, 為了洗脫自己置身該處, 是意圖影響陪審團對曾蔭權的印象之嫌, 而肆意扭曲判詞, 說成是陳官弄錯事實, 但判詞根本就不是像他們所講。隨之而來, 法律學者、公關打手就羣起而攻之, 陳官卻無從反駁。法官可以在網絡平台、大氣電波、新聞媒體作出反駁嗎? 就只有我這種看不過眼的自由人, 才可以出來講幾句, 反駁那些反駁。陳官在判詞中所用的字眼: " brought into court"(32段), "in and out of court"(36段), "taken into the court "(39段), "brought into the court"(42段), 全部都是physical perception, 眼見的事實, 搞錯? 看錯? 抑或只是point of view的分別? 

有人留言問, 法官怎知道誰人是公關帶位的, 言下之意, 法庭開庭前名人已埋位了, 你開庭出到嚟又點知公關帶過位或相伴進出。在開庭時進出, 當然即時見到。開庭前、休庭後, 就有兩個可能。其一, 法官的書記、跑腿、傳譯等人相告。其二, 我以前都講過, 法庭裏有魚眼鏡, 讓負責處理錄音的外判人員監察開庭情況, 以便在錄音適當地方作注腳, 譬如第一證人在甚麼時間進場宣誓, 有了注腳, 日後要找尋相關段落的錄音就比較方便。所以這錄音系統也接駁了看到庭面的鏡頭。為免錯漏, 在開審前及散庭後, 這錄音系統是開着的, 法官只要在內庭開了接駁的電腦, 就可以看到庭面情況, 也可以聽到在庭裏收錄到的聲音。所以, 法官未開庭, 不一定會不知庭面的情況。你夠膽咪未開庭就鬧狗官試下囉。

要質疑陳官搞錯事實, 首先要清楚了解他寫了甚麼, 清楚了解就要看第一手資料, 然後要真正了解法庭的運作, 才可以從不同角度考慮。 網上啲友, 隨口發噏風, 人云亦云, 熱烘烘地沾沾自喜, 就以為自己可以駁到人口啞啞, 殊不知甚麼是事實也分不清。人人都反駁到法官, 因為他不能跳出來跟你辯論, 你咪以為自己贏晒囉, 開心死囉。