2022年9月24日星期六

法庭泥漿摔角

本週三上訴庭頒佈了跨世紀行人罔顧安全過馬路案的後續裁決, 這後續是兩辯方律師對原審法官判處他們支付虛耗訟費(wasted costs)的上訴, 上訴得直, 虛耗訟費的判決撤銷了。可是, 本案還有後續, 上訴庭轉介兩位律師給大律師公會及律師會處理, 很明顯這兩人都會面對專業失德的紀律聆訊, 結果應該是吊銷牌照一段日子了。過去三年我已評論了這跨世紀的案件多次, 從上訴判詞, 可以更清晰看到審訊過程更多不當的地方, 不單止是暫委特委裁判官何麗明和兩位辯方律師, 連外判主控也牽涉在內, 一言以蔽之, 這審訊是一場在法庭內舉行的泥漿摔角, 又像一班沒有工開的律師, 以拖延手法來揾食 。但最使人費解的是, 一個經濟能力有限的女保安員, 面對最高罰款只是2000元的控罪, 何以有能力請律師出庭抗辯,  就算為了被的士撞倒受傷的索償, 表面看也看不到是嚴重傷殘, 成功索償金額也不會很多, 何況她過馬路自身過失也要負上contributory neglience的責任。所以這是一宗意氣用事,   玩弄法律程序至無所不用其極的官司。  

這審訊是何麗明被炒魷魚後要完成的手尾,  殊不知這婆娘竟然越玩越大, 前途都豁出去了。她在司法機構當然不能再立足, 因為不給她續約已等同解僱, 她2003年開始私人執業, 現在大律師名冊也見不到她的名字, 即是在本案之後, 她已與法無緣了。任何機構都會請錯人, 請錯可以即炒, 司法機構請錯人也可以即炒或調職, 正如那位明顯針對警察的何裁判官調了去死因庭做審死官, 但即炒也要完成未審完的案件, 除非法官審到中途患重病或暴斃, 才會trial de novo。像何麗明這種情況, 不續約後續審未審結的案件屬正常安排,  她要刻意弄權是極無奈的事, 也不能中途扯她下來。我在兩年半前說(Hello不等於Kitty一文), 本案最佳處理辦法, 把傷害減到最少, 就是以enter nolle prosequi來終止聆訊。上訴庭的判詞第73段敘述了助理刑事檢控專員Ira Lui的陳詞:   

73. Mr Lui fairly accepts that, with the benefit of hindsight, the public interest might have been better served by the discontinuation of the prosecution. He however emphasizes that the conduct of the defence remained wholly unacceptable and unconducive to the administration of justice. We agree.

In hindsight, 說甚麼都容易, 有先見之明也不是容易的決定, 此事不能怪律政司, 畢竟審訊的拖延主因是法官及辯方律師太黐線引起, 這種以公眾利益為理由來終止聆訊也是史無前例的。一向講公眾利益作檢控或不檢控, 都不曾考慮法官及律師的能力的。   

我也曾經批評何麗明對本案辯方大律師梁耀祥發出的拘捕令不合法(法官不合法的拘捕令), 也批評梁耀祥因此接受東方日報的訪問的狡辯, 否認對何麗明講過"Are you insane?" (大狀回應的廢話)。上訴判詞以下的段落已說得一清二楚。

51. Another matter that we find disturbing is the Deputy Magistrate’s decision to issue a warrant of arrest against Mr Leung purportedly under section 99. Granted that as a matter of good practice and courtesy, Mr Leung ought to have appeared on Day 41 to inform the Deputy Magistrate that he had been discharged and sought her indulgence. But his absence does not fall within section 99, which deals with contempt in the face of the court. The Deputy Magistrate simply had no basis to issue the warrant of arrest.

有關有沒有說過"Are you insane?"

22. The bickering, sometimes childish, sometimes bitter, had hugely disrupted the proceedings and prevented the Deputy Magistrate and Mr Leung from using the time meaningfully. With tension and mutual animosity mounting, it eventually escalated into a most personal insult levelled by Mr Leung against the Deputy Magistrate on Day 40. They were then embroiled in another exchange arising from an objection by Mr Kwan in DW1’s evidence-in-chief. In response to her comment that the defence had not challenged PW2’s expertise, Mr Leung said: “I am afraid I have to use this words: Are your insane? Sorry.” After the Deputy Magistrate said that she would note it down, Mr Leung withdrew the remark. The Deputy Magistrate then said she would consider invoking section 99 of the Magistrates Ordinance.[10]

23. Mr Leung’s crude remark, although withdrawn almost immediately but without any apology, is most unbecoming. Viewed against the continuous bickering preceding it and the context in which it was made, it was more than a personal insult. It amounted to a frontal attack against a presiding judicial officer in ongoing proceedings in open court, thereby undermining the public confidence in the judicial authority that the Deputy Magistrate represented. As such, we consider it a very serious disciplinary matter that the Bar Association should look into. Mr Leung said that the Deputy Magistrate was very difficult to deal with. With respect, when what transpired between bench and bar is viewed objectively, the same can be said about Mr Leung. In any event, it does not detract a bit from the impropriety of his conduct.

我對上訴庭最後的判決也有意見:

81. In our view, having regard to what transpired in the entire proceedings, how the Deputy Magistrate conducted the trial, including the continuous bickering with Mr Leung and Mr How, the arguably wrongful decision to impose bail on the defendant, her baseless order to issue a warrant of arrest against Mr Leung, the fact that the defendant had in the course of the trial commenced the DC Action against her, the circumstances are obviously that a fair-minded and well-informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility that the Deputy Magistrate would be biased. Tainted by apparent bias, the Deputy Magistrate’s costs orders cannot stand.

上訴庭從審訊紀錄的謄本分析此案,  毫無疑問對一眾人等不當拖延已有判斷, 何麗明雖然偏頗, 律師嚴重虛耗法庭時間, 玩弄手段, 上訴庭不能獨立斷定罰取虛耗訟費嗎? 

2022年9月16日星期五

皇朝末落

英皇乃澳洲國家元首, 女皇崩殂, 澳洲總理把9月22日訂為國殤日公眾假期, 此舉引起不少小型企業經營者不滿, 因為公眾假期僱主要額外支薪給僱員, 小老闆叫苦。一些病人安排了的手術也要取消, 也引起不滿。從不敬畏皇權的標少, 看到訂出公眾假期的日子, 即時反應是發電郵到球場查詢是否如常開放, 並非涼薄, 畢竟他媽不是我媽, 查皇不是我皇。雖然有人祭奠女皇出於感懷身世, 借古諷今, 我總覺得有點那個, 因為皇權受到君主立憲下削弱實權, 實權歸國會及執政的政府, 女皇在位做得稱職的是履行皇室的責任, 在艱難時可凝聚國民團結, 在國策方面基本上影響有限, 不應過譽。以平民化的講法, 英女皇只是公關高手。

查皇不是我皇, 出自我口毫無問題, 不會推出午門手起刀落, 可是, 在不同環境下, 命運並不一樣。今天看到Legal Cheek這一篇, 總算開了眼界:


A barrister who held up a blank piece of paper at Parliament Square in London claims he was told he risked being arrested if he wrote “not my king” on it.
......

警察首長立即出來解話:

The Metropolitan Police’s deputy assistant commissioner Stuart Cundy said on Monday:

“We’re aware of a video online showing an officer speaking with a member of the public outside the Palace of Westminster earlier today. The public absolutely have a right to protest and we have been making this clear to all officers involved in the extraordinary policing operation currently in place and we will continue to do so. However, the overwhelming majority of interactions between officers and the public at this time have been positive as people have come to the Capital to mourn the loss of Her Late Majesty the Queen.”

說得頭頭是道, 卻與事實不符。


這是3天前的新聞, 不止拘捕一人, 而是幾個。

Police in Edinburgh have arrested a man who heckled Prince Andrew as he walked behind the Queen's coffin during a solemn procession on the city's Royal Mile.

Eyewitness footage showed the man shouting: "Andrew, you're a sick old man".

It came as the prince, King Charles III, Prince Edward and Princess Anne walked behind their mother's coffin on the way to the city's St Giles' Cathedral.

Bystanders started chanting "God save the King" to drown out the heckling.
The man, who appeared to be wearing the shirt of A-League club Melbourne City, was wrestled to the ground by other spectators and led away by a police officer.

他犯了甚麼法? 把他推倒在地上的人明顯犯了Common Assault, 除非英國佬也抄襲了尋釁滋事罪, 否則屬於非法拘捕。皇室都把Andrew的公職褫奪了, 奔喪示眾都不能穿上軍服. 正正因為他是sick old man, 罵他也犯皇法? 只有慣於下跪叩頭謝恩的豬才會貼貼服服地等待施與吃餿, 感到天威浩蕩, 膝蓋就立即騷軟了。

ABC的報導還舉了幾宗其他的例子:

A 22-year-old woman, who had been pictured holding an anti-monarchy sign, was arrested and charged with breaching the peace on Sunday.

In a separate incident, a 74-year-old man was arrested on Sunday, according to Reuters.

Thames Police on Monday said that a 45-year-old man had been arrested after a disturbance at Oxford's county proclamation ceremony of King Charles.

Media reported he had shouted "who elected him?" as the proclamation was read out.

季世皇朝的末落有跡可尋, 女皇風光大葬後, 下一個走向共和的國家大概會是澳洲了。

皇朝末落, 皇室搞地產卻賺個滿堂紅。Sydney Morning Herald兩天前轉載了The New York Times這一篇:


皇室坐擁百億地產, 還未計算個人財富。普天之下, 莫非「皇」土, 雖然16世紀Oliver Cromwell處決了Charles I弒君之事不會再發生, 隨着世代更替, 女皇崩後, 皇室已走向滅亡。

2022年9月10日星期六

新君皇

女皇駕崩, 新君登基, 垂垂老矣, 由ER改為CR, 即Elizabeth Regina改為Charles Rex, 我有看St James Palace一眾樞密院成員第一次公開新君登基儀式的直播(Proclamation of King Charles III), 我看直播主要是見識下登基程序,  誰駕崩誰繼位就一點興趣也沒有, 96歲崩殂已屬笑喪, 理應沒有遺憾。世上君皇已不多, 想復辟的同樣不多, 但慣了叩頭下跪的子民卻不少, 可能是文化承存, 不能一日無君, 因此造成了天子心態, 子民膜拜的現象。在位70載的國家元首已難復見, 這條件太難遇上, 既要年輕登基,  又要長命百歲, 已後無來者。新君皇與皇后都貌似人瑞, 女皇遲幾年走的話,  這新君可能沒此福份, 老態龍鍾, 看樣子也當不到多少年。Camilla搖身一變成為皇后(Queen Consort), Queen和Queen Consort分別在於前者是繼承皇位的女皇, 後者是皇帝的配偶, 在稱謂上是Queen Camilla而不叫Queen Consort Camilla, 也可叫Camilla, the Queen Consort。King Charles III在簽署登基文件時有點失儀, 幾乎打翻了墨水瓶, 這墨水瓶座是兩位皇子送的禮物。

新君皇登基後的第一篇演說相當感人, 似乎對Harry及Meghan伸出橄欖枝, 但前文後意卻顯得冷冰冰的, Harry在繼位排名第5, 此生無緣矣。演說最後引用沙士比亞名劇Hamlet作結:

May “flights of Angels sing thee to thy rest.”

Hamlet劇中最後一幕, Hamlet王子及一眾人都死掉, 只剩下友人Horatio一個。Horatio看着王子的屍體說:

Good night, sweet prince, and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest.

意思是安息吧。

御用大律師即時由Queen's Counsel改為King's Counsel了。