揭盅之後的胡謅

終審法院不批出上訴許可是意料中事, 所以不論是中央或香港政府, 一早就部署了後着。終審法院的裁決全部都屬於學術討論, 說甚麼都沒有用, 因為終審其實未必是終審, 終審有時是終寢。李特首立即宣佈提請人大釋法, 這次釋法屬國安法的第一次, 相對於以往基本法的釋法, 這一次最難看, 最沒有基礎和理由。不過, 我不得不承認, 我一直欠缺這方面的思維, 只懂胡謅。既然自命懂得胡謅, 就繼續胡謅下去。

人大常委有權釋法, 但釋法權的界限去到那裏, 是否可以超出基本法和國安法的範圍, 都有很多自圓其說的理據的, 誰可爭辯? 國安法出爐的時候, 我預言涉及國安法的案件上訴至終審法院的時候, 一定不會安排外籍非常任法官參與的, 但我從沒想過連辯護律師也不可以是海外御用大律師的。所謂海外, 其實一直都只是英國, 法例第159章《法律執業者條例》第27條, 也沒有講一定是御用大律師才獲批到港執業, 但一般並非法律翹楚, 根本就過不了關, 香港都有很多律師, 沒有一定江湖地位的海外律師, 根本不用想, 一定不批准申請來港執業的。故此, 申請來的必然是御用大律師, 批准他們來是有助提升香港在普通法地區的地位, 正如邀請普通法國家的法官到終審法院坐陣的道理一樣。

這次港府提出釋法, 只是按指示行動, 正印未出場, 已經有幾個出來跳樑, 製造氣氛。釋法使一些人大快人心, 尤其視黎智英為賣國賊的, 移了民的人也被視為賣國賊, 可能有人會質疑譚某的兒子不單止移民澳洲成為賣國賊, 還開移民僱問公司協助教唆煽惑賣國。那些年, 老頭子這海外關係也會坐連呢。不過, 何必認真, 講明是胡謅, 認真不認真都輸了。

如果釋法會對香港法治造成傷害, 究竟有沒有兩害取其輕的方法?

要摑終審法院一巴掌的方法很多,  但要盡量維持一國兩制, 由香港自行解決海外御用大律師牽涉國安法案件的問題, 入境處只需把Tim Owen列為不受歡迎人物, 立即撤銷他的簽證, 便解決了這內部事務的問題了。再進一步的做法就是修改法例第159章《法律執業者條例》第27條, 一刀切不准任何律師參與任何案件有可能給人印象會違反國安法立法精神的。相對而言, 入境處對法院大不敬總好過人大常委因釋法被指責。Tim Owen 不會退出本案, 黎智英又不會認罪, 又不會送他北上審訊, 還有更好的辦法解決此事嗎?

第一任終審法院首席法官李國能中途辭職, 不論是否涉及紅粉佳人或其他原因, 在首宗釋法後他總算忍辱赴重。第二任終審法院首席法官馬道立, 在修例延長法官退休年齡至70歲的時候, 他很明智地不享用延長的退休年齡, 在65歲退休。現任的終審法院首席法官張舉能在被扇了耳光後又何去何從呢? 裁決不配合人大常委及政府的思維, 應屬失職。在判詞結尾的時候寫的這一段:

33. The courts of the HKSAR are of course fully committed to safeguarding national security and to acting effectively to prevent, suppress and impose punishment for any act or activity endangering national security as required by NSL 3.[41] That duty would unfailingly be carried out whenever national security issues are properly raised and duly explored, enabling the courts to undertake a proper adjudication of those issues. Thus, in relation to ad hoc admissions, where national security considerations properly arise, such considerations are plainly of the highest importance to be taken into account. In the present case, however, the SJ has fundamentally changed his case only at the stage of seeking leave to appeal to this Court, raising undefined and unsubstantiated issues said to involve national security which were not mentioned or explored in the Courts below. No appropriate basis has been made out for the grant of leave to appeal.

其實终審法院大可寫這判詞寫得峰迴路轉, 乘風破浪, 寫判詞無異於寫文章, 最大分別是引用案例來闡示理據。終審法院引用了Flywin案的原則, 指出上訴不能提出有異於原審的新論據, 除非情況十分特殊。為了捍衛國家安全, 理據還不夠特殊嗎? 駁回律政司司長上訴許可時, 以下這一段精簡地說明了引用Flywin案判司長敗訴的理由:

31. In his skeleton argument,[37] the SJ submits that the Court of Appeal has in substance dealt with the ‘new’ points in its leave judgment[38] so that, he argues, the CFA “does have the benefit of the views of the intermediate appellate court”. With respect, that is untenable and at the hearing, Mr Yuen SC recognised that the points touched on by the Court of Appeal in its leave decision did not reflect a full exploration of the issues. As indicated in the foregoing paragraphs, the new points generate numerous issues that have not been explored below, whether factually or as a matter of law. The Court of Appeal made it clear that it was dismissing the leave application applying Flywin principles and that the matters raised by the SJ did not justify permission exceptionally to be granted.[39] The Court of Appeal added that it considered two of the new points as advanced in any event not to be reasonably arguable.

 

只要終審法院放大國安法的重要性, 就可以把袁資深大律師的新論據視為exception to the Flywin principles, 繼而批出上訴許可, 繼而在正審時判律政司司長勝訴, 一國兩制, 港人治港, 皆大歡喜, 各得其所, 黎智英繼續留在看守所, 反正他都必釘無疑, 還會冤枉他嗎? 他昔日的老同志都大義滅親要指證他, 他還可以狡辯嗎?

可惜終審法院太不懂變通, 搞爛了局, 張舉能應當辭職, 以挽回一點顏面。處理本案的另外兩位英籍法官也應一併辭職, 否則以後怎去處理國安法的上訴? 這陰影揮之不去, 做成後顧之憂, 是會影響判決公正性的。法官擁有外國國籍也可以是另一點人大常委有可能順便釋法處理的課題。

有朋友問我怎會找到時間胡謅, 整夜看世界杯, 早上又打羽毛球。也有朋友說我不務正業, 時間太多, 所以時常胡思亂想。See, there are many facets of a person depending on which angle you want to see him. 跟判詞的觀點一樣, 自圓其說一定可以說到頭頭是道的, 誰有最終話語權, 誰就主宰判案、解釋法律的對錯, 對與錯並非絕對的。