“We’re winning big, big, big in the Republican Party for the nomination, like nobody’s ever seen!” Trump declared, dressed in his trademark red tie and matching “Make America Great Again” cap.
“There it is: Trump at 71 [per cent]. Ron DeSanctimonious at 10 per cent.”
我要講的是sanctimonious這個字, Trump的小學雞本色, 把DeSantis嘲弄為DeSanctimonious, sanctimonious即是道貌岸然的意思, 都不知Trump是否也有自嘲的成份。DeSantis一向都乘搭Trump的順風車, 黨同伐異, 自不待言。這次羽翼已成, 當然不搭順風車要自駕遊了, 要出trump card來out-trump Trump了, 老人政治, 單看嘴臉, 不期然想為甚麼老是你! 到了一把年紀, 還戀棧權位, rest in peace的時日之前, 趁未失勢失禁失憶之前, 享受一下人生吧, gerontocracy十分討厭。
黎智英面對國安法的控罪, 12月1日就開審, 他要聘請英國御用大律師Timothy Wynn Owen KC(King's Counsel)出戰, 遭香港大律師公會反對是很正常的事, 因為要保障業界權益, 阻止外援爭飯碗, 所以不論是香港政府或被告一方申請外援, 大律師公會都會反對的。一般而言, 當被告一方申請時, 律政司基本上不會反對, 立場是中立的, 反對會予人欺壓被告的感覺。這種申請由高等法院首席法官聽審, 我不太留意這類聆訊, 印象中沒有人會對首席法官的決定提出上訴的, 畢竟只是申請聘用御用大律師, 又不是定罪或脫罪的上訴。這次律政司不單只是反對, 失敗後更提出上訴, 可能我孤陋, 前所未聞。這種上訴有趣之處是由上訴庭的法官判決上訴庭長是否犯錯。
律政司態度強硬, 為何如此緊張呢? 先從上訴理據找端倪。長話短說, 判詞其中一段概括了律政司上訴的重點:
29. It seems to us the real complaint of Mr Yu is that the unique context of the NSL, which would require “understanding of the unique social, political and constitutional context of the PRC and the HKSAR, should take precedence”[22], and that “new aspects of public interest may emerge or one aspect may become more important than others”[23]. Mr Pang describes it as deploying “national security” as a “trump card” which “uniquely tilts the balance of the public interest” against the admission of overseas counsel. We think this essentially goes to the weighing exercise of the judge of the relevant aspects of the public interest engaged in striking a proper balance in the exercise of his discretion. We do not regard this as a challenge of the exercise of discretion on the ‘Wednesbury’ grounds invoked by Mr Yu.
“There it is: Trump at 71 [per cent]. Ron DeSanctimonious at 10 per cent.”
(Sydney Morning Herald)
黎智英面對國安法的控罪, 12月1日就開審, 他要聘請英國御用大律師Timothy Wynn Owen KC(King's Counsel)出戰, 遭香港大律師公會反對是很正常的事, 因為要保障業界權益, 阻止外援爭飯碗, 所以不論是香港政府或被告一方申請外援, 大律師公會都會反對的。一般而言, 當被告一方申請時, 律政司基本上不會反對, 立場是中立的, 反對會予人欺壓被告的感覺。這種申請由高等法院首席法官聽審, 我不太留意這類聆訊, 印象中沒有人會對首席法官的決定提出上訴的, 畢竟只是申請聘用御用大律師, 又不是定罪或脫罪的上訴。這次律政司不單只是反對, 失敗後更提出上訴, 可能我孤陋, 前所未聞。這種上訴有趣之處是由上訴庭的法官判決上訴庭長是否犯錯。
律政司態度強硬, 為何如此緊張呢? 先從上訴理據找端倪。長話短說, 判詞其中一段概括了律政司上訴的重點:
(Mr Yu是代表律政司的余若海資深大律師, NSL即National Security Law, Mr Pang是帶領本地律師團代表黎智英的彭耀鴻資深大律師)
CACV 425/2022 (判詞連結)
律政司不爭議黎智英案所涉的艱澀法律及憲法爭議, 也不爭論Tim Owen的刑事法專長, 只認為Owen不了解訂立國安法的社會、政治及人大立法的背景, 所以對本案審訊沒有幫助, Owen本人的專長及見解不能掌握及開拓本案法律上的視野, 而且國安法並非雙語立法, 英文版只屬參考之用。故此, 律政司認為引進英國法律界的翹楚沒有幫助。既然如此, 就應聘用本地資深大律師, 他們比老外更熟悉情況。
我的個人見解是, 律政司認為國安法是不能由老外外援沾手的, 這類案件最後上訴至終審法院, 也不會讓老外的非常任法官聽審的, 否則貽笑大方, 國家安全是一國之事, 豈容老外指指點點, 若給他們胡言亂語的機會, 萬一口沒遮欄, 就不止會造成尷尬的場面, 也有辱國體了。在法律上高等法院首席法官是否容許英國御用大律師來港執業, 屬不受約束的酌情決定(unfettered discretion), 連酌情決定也上訴, 可見律政司的緊張程度, 可以做的都做了, 已不能再上訴, 要罵就罵法官判錯, 律政司無懈可擊。所以, 坊間都在罵法官, 他們為律政司擋箭, 律政司這一招叫以進為退。律政司一直都有聘請英國御用大律師作外聘主控的, 有沒有被人罵呢? 可見這並非眷戀殖民地或被並非法佔領時代的問題, 而是香港享有施行普通法制度的權利。
我的個人見解是, 律政司認為國安法是不能由老外外援沾手的, 這類案件最後上訴至終審法院, 也不會讓老外的非常任法官聽審的, 否則貽笑大方, 國家安全是一國之事, 豈容老外指指點點, 若給他們胡言亂語的機會, 萬一口沒遮欄, 就不止會造成尷尬的場面, 也有辱國體了。在法律上高等法院首席法官是否容許英國御用大律師來港執業, 屬不受約束的酌情決定(unfettered discretion), 連酌情決定也上訴, 可見律政司的緊張程度, 可以做的都做了, 已不能再上訴, 要罵就罵法官判錯, 律政司無懈可擊。所以, 坊間都在罵法官, 他們為律政司擋箭, 律政司這一招叫以進為退。律政司一直都有聘請英國御用大律師作外聘主控的, 有沒有被人罵呢? 可見這並非眷戀殖民地或被並非法佔領時代的問題, 而是香港享有施行普通法制度的權利。
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KAShcE3gmw&ab_channel=trainingdays
回覆刪除珠海航展輸晒，注意力全被美國吸去了，厲害
碎片跌到成街都係, 要shutdown highway.
刪除點睇 THAPA KAMALA 覺得自己單不小心過馬路案件浪費咗納稅人無限量金錢之後應該再繼續浪費納稅人無限量金錢上終審法院？[2022] HKCA 1697: -
回覆刪除10. The disturbing course of the proceedings below was set out in detail in the Judgment. For the reasons that we gave, we found that the Deputy Magistrate, the defence and, to a lesser extent, the prosecution were all responsible for wastage of judicial time and resources (see in particular [71] to [75]; and [86]). Having contributed significantly to the wastage, reliance on the faults of the prosecution and the Deputy Magistrate would not assist the appellant on costs. In any event, there was no ruling in the Judgment that the conduct of the prosecution and the Deputy Magistrate should not be taken into account. Both Questions 2 and 3 do not arise and do not in any event raise any arguable point of law of great and general importance. They are plainly unarguable, too.
11. The application for certification is accordingly refused with costs to the respondent, to be taxed if not agreed.
Mr Kelvin Y. C. Leung, instructed by How and Co, for the Appellant
https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=148633&currpage=T
Do you agree with the HKCFA that Barrister Philip Wong (Wong Chi Wai) Was Incompetent? 你同唔同意終審庭嘅講法 - 黃志偉大律師「無能」?
回覆刪除http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=89271&currpage=T
HKSAR v Wong Chi Wai (FACC No. 10 of 2012, September 23, 2013)
121. There can be no doubt that Barrister Philip Wong's level of competence as a lawyer was low. In particular, he had a poor grasp of LPP as a legal doctrine.[127] In cross-examination, Mr Wong stated that he could see no difference between confidentiality and LPP and thought that a court could override them both:
“Q: No, this is confidentiality not LPP?
A: Well I see no difference.
...
Q: No, LPP is different, isn’t it, because LPP the court cannot order that the matters be disclosed if they are coved by privilege, confidentiality the court can, that’s the difference, isn’t it?
A: Well I don’t think so, I don’t think so.”
....
Q: .... there are two things there, confidentiality and privilege, they’re different?
A: Yes, yes different but the effect of a court order is the same. The court, the order can override the privilege as well as the confidentiality, that’s my understanding.”[128]
122. Mr Clive Grossman SC, called as a character witness for Mr Wong described him as “a man of integrity who worked hard for his client, but ... not of the highest intellect.”[129] Another character witness, Mr Philip Dykes SC said he was “a man of integrity whose style was enthusiastic and combative” adding that “he had spoken to [Mr Wong] on occasion and advised [him] to moderate [his] approach”.[130]
123. Stock VP pointed out that:
“One has in a case such as this to take the greatest care to distinguish between misguided professional enthusiasm or even incompetence, on the one hand and, on the other, dishonesty.”[131]
124. His Lordship continued:
“...although it is clear enough that Wong wished, if possible, to avoid a contested argument in court on the issue of privilege, and although I have not had the advantage, as did the trial judge of hearing the evidence, I still retain some doubt if the suggestion be that Wong had no belief at all in the point. That doubt arises from the evidence of Wong’s aggressive tenacity on behalf of his clients and of the evidence which suggests that he is a facts advocate, not much at ease with arguments of law.”[132]
125. The opinion of Mr Dykes SC that Mr Wong was “a competent lawyer, well able to look up the law”[133] does not appear to be borne out by the evidence. Mr Wong does not appear to have done more than look at Blackstone and, when asked by the Judge to produce authority overnight, only managed to re-cycle the case which had been mentioned, with reservations, by Mr Ngai in an earlier note.
126. The picture that emerges is therefore of a barrister of low competence with a poor understanding of the relevant concepts; doing no effective research; “thrilled” to have discovered the bill of costs, which was regarded as a justification for pursuing the LPP argument; coupled with an aggressive tenacity reflected in the three letters sent to Ms Mak – an unedifying vision, but distinctly more plausible, in my view, than the prosecution’s theory of a barrister well aware of the law but cynically using LPP as a pretext for what in truth was what the Judge had called “a threat simpliciter” aimed at deflecting Ms Mak from her duty.
國家就要偉大復興了 苦日子要結束了
回覆刪除https://youtube.com/shorts/EHIlZ9_LD6U?feature=share
4:24見識少, 鄉港都有過億身家的垃圾婆隨街摷垃圾筒, 中環大把穿名牌手戴名錶的窮白領欠一身債一世人都還唔欠債。話唔定片中人也有過億身家。
刪除//香港确实还有一位全城闻名、充满传奇色彩的“拾荒富豪”，港媒是这么介绍的：她每天拾荒露宿，长期睡街，一日三餐都从垃圾堆捡来，但寒酸背后，原来是身家高达一亿三千万的富婆。
刪除梁美春已经70多岁了，既不疯也不傻，还是个富婆，名下有差不多20个物业，保守估计坐拥过亿身家。//
https://kknews.cc/zh-sg/house/kyl9x8p.html
「4:24本人」的苦日子是天天搜集這些以惡心為目的的媒界資料.
刪除你幾時才結束苦日子啊~
疑似陽性肉品 被執法人員當即帶回檢查
回覆刪除https://youtube.com/shorts/Rebyhwfv2C4?feature=share
真係好嬲~韓仔又落大陸面
回覆刪除播錯國歌?
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0KM5nPMgJz7AvrA9rHVZr2YuRoe7YtH75et6QURQWGW4baEthRaNMabMEmpx8KC18l&id=100067319133361
國際小醜, 有乜好嬲?
刪除畀人丙.
如果南韓有「不誠實取用電腦」罪的話，那個惡意播錯歌的人應該罪責難逃。
刪除播歌系統沒有記憶系統、不能剪歌, 不算電腦.
刪除明明是卡式機功能.
電腦 ( computer ) 指任何用作儲存、處理或檢索資料的裝置
刪除有無辦法過去拉左人先,先囚幾年,調查完先上庭
刪除咁先可以展示到香港係一個仁治社會,彰顯港府堅決維護國家主權既決心
葛珮帆：七欖播港獨歌涉違國安法須徹查
https://youtu.be/M_rNbLBmr5g
7:09 係你先會諗埋D蠢「辦法」
刪除慧雲李明起出任常任裁判官.
回覆刪除所以問題係鬼佬律師打國安法，不過法官可以決定案件用中文審訊，你鬼佬自己搵翻譯翻文件，甚至庭上即時傳譯返中文，法官先肯聽。好容易玩死鬼佬律師，就睇法官究竟係唔係真中國人，定係特首指定國安法官都係藍血黃皮白芯。
回覆刪除這案上訴到終審法院了，我起初以為這案只不過是表過態作反對，去到上訴庭就完了，但現在看不是，就是國安處、中聯辦官員不同意由洋大狀去打這場官司，性質不同了。是否容許洋大狀來港打官司可以透過立法修改的，且法律可以即時生效，就算有終審法院的判決也不冲突。如果堅持要洋大狀來港打這場國安法官司，恐怕會因少失大，現在只不過國安法的官司洋大狀不能打，但如果立法會立法，民事刑事要用洋大狀就難上加難了。
回覆刪除其實香港官員法律界市民都習慣洋大狀打官司了，但事實上，我們的法律跟英國澳大利亞很多不一樣的地方，請洋大狀打官司不一定就是好。
Article 94
On the basis of the system previously operating in Hong Kong, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may make provisions for local lawyers and lawyers from outside Hong Kong to work and practise in the Region.
第九十四條
香港特別行政區政府可參照原在香港實行的辦法，作出有關當地和外來的律師在香港特別行政區工作和執業的規定