拉雜談

終審法院批出許可(leave to appeal), 准許蔡玉玲上訴, 未見判詞, 所以不知理據, 只能說有點意外, 批出上訴許可並不等同將會勝訴, 不少案件批出上訴許可最後駁回上訴的。另一宗上訴是律政司向終審法院上訴, 想推翻上訴庭批准黎智英聘用英國御用大律師一事, 還未看到任何有關本案進展的報導, 所以不知終審法院會不會批出許可。但昨天閱讀明報, 看到這則新聞:

【明報專訊】終審法院首席法官張舉能昨日出席第十八屆亞太區首席法官會議說，在《基本法》訂明的「一國兩制」框架下，香港的普通法在奉行大陸法的中華人民共和國內繼續蓬勃發展，並提到國家主席習近平在慶祝香港回歸25周年大會上的講話，肯定了司法機關依法獨立行使審判權和香港保持普通法制度。

想普通法在香港繼續蓬勃發展, 是否意味着容許傳統普通法國家的法律翹楚登場是其中一種方法, 就要拭目以待了。律政司的上訴使我訝異, 史無前例, 政治味濃。

上一篇討論Campbell-Moffat判錯案, 有些留言似乎說得太武斷。我已奉行任何留言也不回應的政策, 以免纏擾, 禮數不周之處, 在此致歉。Thomas應是故人, 原本在香港執業的大律師, 移居紐約執業。任何不對題的留言, 我基本上就不會看。

我說錯了所涉毒品是冰毒, 其實是可卡因。留言中說「警方」處理本案, 事實並非如此, 本案一直由查獲毒品至檢視手機內容, 都由海關一手包辦的。從判詞看, 也看不到海關在處理上的任何失誤, 除了Campbell-Moffat無中生有的看法。至於裁定whatsapp不准呈堂後, 永久終止聆訊是必然結果的講法, 我看未必。就算voire dire剔除了whatsapp呈堂, 被告還可作供revisit the same issue, 他一樣可以講whatsapp的內容。He can say whatever he likes to say. 跟一般被告上證人台作供無異, 控方也無可能反對他講whatsapp的內容, 控方自始至終都會指the content of the whatsapp is just a premeditated sham, 所以Campbell-Moffat錯得厲害。

判詞有這一段:

62. A permanent stay of criminal proceedings is a highly exceptional course since it is only in very unusual circumstances that a court will conclude that a fair trial is impossible and thus, as a last resort, abort the trial.[50] The prosecution has contended, on this appeal, that in any event, even if the voire dire ruling were correct, a fair trial would still have been possible.[51] However, since the prosecution’s appeal against the stay decision is based on the substantial and grave injustice ground and succeeds on the straightforward basis that the judge took an irrelevant consideration into account, it is unnecessary to burden this judgment by a discussion, on a hypothetical basis, of whether, even if the judge’s voire dire ruling were correct, she should not have granted a permanent stay of proceedings. It is sufficient to record that the arguments advanced by the prosecution as to the practical measures by which any perceived unfairness to the respondent might have been avoided or alternatively adequately mitigated were reasonably arguable.

其中一句顯示了控方擬爭論的另一點:

The prosecution has contended, on this appeal, that in any event, even if the voire dire ruling were correct, a fair trial would still have been possible.

而終審法院認為是reasonably arguable。

終審法院表明Campbell-Moffat批准永久終止聆訊是錯誤的, 所以不處理控方在這方面的論據, 故此控方的論據是甚麼我們也無從稽考,   我只能猜測。很多行李藏毒案被告都說不知毒品的存在或沒有懷疑過自己携帶的是毒品, 也未必有whatsapp, email or document來支持自己的講法,  有也屬self-serving, 最終都是由陪審團判斷信不信被告不知情的講法, 所以whatsapp被判不准呈堂, 被告一樣可以重提。Without it shouldn't be fatal。相反而言, 控方想呈遞對被告不利的口供被法庭裁定不准呈堂後, 控方就不能提及內容。

法官犯錯也非fatal, Campbell-Moffat多宗案錯得離譜才因顏面無存而提早退休。她入職的時候, 退休年齡是65歲, 一般可以屆退休年齡再3+3延任6年, 她的情況是不會獲延任的, 但約3年前把退休年齡改為70, 所以她可以做到70, 她獲准提早退休就享有退休金了。

PS (19/11/2022)

我昨晚看即時新聞搞錯了,  蔡玉玲案只是在高院批出證明書, 終院未批上訴許可,  不批的機會大。