這是明報今天頭條的標題及連結: 高院國安案脫罪 倡可上訴翻案 修例賦權律政司「案件呈述」 原只能就法律爭議上訴
秉承英國法律, 以案件呈述的上訴(appeal by way of case stated), 是控辯雙方都可提出的就法律觀點的上訴。我們日常看到刑事案的上訴, 絕大部份是被告提出對定罪或判刑的上訴, 而控方提出的上訴, 因制度上的限制, 可以提出上訴的空間是甚少的。因為刑事案是為免產生寃案而對被告傾側的, 只要一句合理疑點使被告脫罪, 控方幾乎完全不能上訴, 所以控方只有「案件呈述」方式來上訴, 我這裏只講律政司就被告脫罪的上訴, 不包括要求上訴庭訂立判刑指引的上訴。「案件呈述」的上訴只限於法律上犯錯, 但對案情事實的裁決有悖於常理也屬法律上犯錯, 所以裁判官及區域法院法官判被告無罪而被律政司以「案件呈述」方式的上訴, 上訴庭可以推翻原判決, 直接改判被告有罪或下令重審或續審。為甚麼高院案件被告脫罪後, 律政司以「案件呈述」方式的上訴結果只作釐清法律而無權像裁判法院及區域法院那樣, 上訴庭可以推翻原判決, 直接改判被告有罪或重審或續審呢? 分別在於高院審訊被告是否被定罪是陪審團的決定, 而下級法院是法官的決定。陪審團退庭商議下判被告無罪是無需說明理據的, 只需講guilty or not guilty, 而下級法院的法官卻要清晰說明理由, 說出理由就可以被找到上訴的依據了。國安法案件在高院由3位法官審理, 一定有書面裁決理由, 自然應該像下級法院一樣, 在律政司以「案件呈述」方式的上訴中, 由上訴庭糾正錯誤, 實屬同一思維。儘管我對國安法有質疑, 我覺得律政司這次提出修例, 屬於合理的做法。既然國安法已存在, 因國安法產生的其他法律程序跟進梳理, 以法律思維考慮, 錯在哪裡?
看明報報導: 港大法律學院客席教授陳文敏表示，若3個國安指定法官錯誤理解法律而判被告無罪，控方已可就法律原則上訴、不一定介入裁決，「係唔係國安法被告就一定要入罪，先無漏洞呢？」同一思維, 裁判法院和區域法院的「案件呈述」上訴, 豈不是又只釐清法律, 不用糾正錯誤脫罪的判決? 所以教授這批評是矛盾的, 也假定上訴庭一定會使被告入罪, 過往的「案件呈述」的上訴, 也未必一定判下級法官犯錯的。當然, 隨着社會的變化, 法庭也會改變看法的。若果發生在今時今日, 那位把幾宗反修例案的被告「夾硬」判無罪的何裁判官, 會否作同一裁決也難料, 若以「案件呈述」提上訴, 當年不會, 今天一定會, 而且糾正他悖於常理的判決的可能性也很大。法律沒有改變, 改變的是社會氛圍。
我以前提出, 當23條訂立後, 可以廢除國安法, 神針定海後, 無需自己輕波作浪, 港獨份子、勾結外勢力份子都打殘了, 為甚麼還不斷要處於鬥爭狀態? 廢除國安法只是一廂情願白痴想法。國安法是由黎智英及黑暴等締造出一個中央提早宣示全面管治的契機, 多方面改寫了香港的法律, 也是目前唯一由中央直接頒佈的刑事法, 意義重大, 又怎會放棄!
後記:
昨晚(4月22日)寫了這篇,發表後不久就抽起了, 原因在《無題》解釋了, 縱然抽起過, 除了增添了後記外, 上面原文重登, 一字不改。我寫這些文章, 原先是為了分享生活點滴, 法律觀點, 可惜劣質的讀者多了, 有些人可能因為患了暴亂創傷後遺症, 對動盪猶有餘悸, 活在惶恐中, 又像long covid一樣, 病癥種類多但難以斷定病因, 最明顯是閱讀理解能力奇差, 幻想力卻奇高, 把現實和幻想交織成一股唐吉訶德式的鬥心, 唯一自我復甦法就是遠離網上平台討論。
3個法官咁都可以判錯,錯誤理解法律,咁就死得啦
回覆刪除脫罪上訴,不如由人大直接講有無罪啦
保證能百分百
立法,執法,審判一條龍服務
洗乜借法官走走過場?
這樣看吧, 終審法院5名法官也不時推翻上訴庭3位法官的判決, 這是上訴可能產生的結果, 我談的是法律制度。至於人大出手就最好無好過有, 但到了一國一制之後, 終審權就不會在香港了, 到時都要接受現實的。
回覆刪除到了火星之後, 吃火星菜
回覆刪除法官是中國人，是中國人就不是法官。
回覆刪除既然案件陳述只是纯粹的陳述，對該判決不存在影響，而這些陳述又不是案例，但又能存有影响法官判斷的果，因果問題世十分明顯吧！
回覆刪除打茅波啊？
刪除不知你想說甚麼, 是呈述不是陳述。
刪除哈哈哈，哥，你沒弄清楚咩情況
刪除Hogan Lovells Solicitor Hazel Law was heavily criticized by Judge Herbert Au-Yeung in JTM324 v Permex [2023] 1 HKLRD 1437 [2023] HKCFI 403 for failing to put her duty to the Court above her duty to her client. What do you think about this?
回覆刪除https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=150553&currpage=T
Hong Kong High Court Judge Wilson Chan Guilty of Plagiarism - 98% of His Judgment Was Just Copy and Paste - Is He Mentally Ill?
回覆刪除高院原訟庭法官陳嘉信，繼早前被揭發就民事商標案件撰寫判詞時涉「司法抄襲」，有98%內容均來自原告的陳詞，令案件須發還重審後，再被揭發處理其他案件時亦有同類情況。上訴庭今日(14日)處理鷹君集團羅氏家族信託基金更換受託人的上訴案時指，發現陳官在處理該案的原審時，其判詞同樣有廣泛整合及應用律師的陳詞。不過上訴庭認為，處理該上訴時不會就陳官的判詞給予比重，並將自行分析證據後重新考慮裁決。
https://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20230614/bkn-20230614154101918-0614_00822_001.html
A Hong Kong judge has been lambasted for copying virtually all of his judgment from the claimant's submissions, resulting in a retrial of the case.
回覆刪除Judge Wilson Chan's ruling in a trademark dispute found in favour of the claimant, a medicinal ointment company, against seven defendants.
However, it seemed that the judge approved of the claimants submissions so much that he copied “over 98%" of the document for his judgment. "Among the remaining 2%, there is not one full sentence written by the trial judge in his own words” said the defendants.
In appealing the decision, the defendants argued that the main differences between the claimants' submissions and Chan's judgment were "cosmetic changes" such as replacing abbreviations (e.g. “Ds” with “the defendants”) and also a “wrap up” section at the end which contained orders and directions only.
Judge Chan had failed to make an independent judgment and did not provide sufficient reasons for finding in favour of the claimant, said the defendants. And his actions demonstrated a lack of "independent thinking."
The Court of Appeal agreed, commenting that it was important that judges should make independent judgments and not copy a party's submissions to an excessive degree. The appellate judges also noted that Chan's ruling had failed to mention the defendants' written submissions.
The Court of Appeal has ordered a retrial under a new judge. The Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal, Andrew Cheung, completed the bollocking as he reprimanded Chan.
https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/judge-caught-plagiarism-shocker
High Court judge Wilson Chan Is Disgusting. Brainless plagiarism is a sign of mental illness, or incurable laziness.