亂過馬路案91天審訊的後續之後續

網友紐約律師Thomas問"再請問標少. 辯方律師在那幾個月有曾要叫裁判官recuse herself嗎?"

Recuse是指法官退審/避審, 原因可以是利益衝突或不公正或偏頗等。在91天的審訊中, 辯方大律師梁耀祥及律師侯振輝, 分別要求何麗明退審, 答案在上訴庭的判詞可找到。上訴庭怎會牽涉入這裁判法院的小案呢? 行人非法過馬路案最終被告脫罪, 但何麗明判罰兩位辯方律師「虛耗訟費」(wasted cost), 上訴原本由班太(Judiana Barnes)聽審, 班太引用裁判官條例第118(1)條交上訴庭處理, 所以本案的檔案編號仍然是HCMA (High Court Magistracy Appeal), 而非CACC (Court of Appeal Criminal Case)。

從上訴庭的判詞: HCMA 309/2020 and HCMA 366/2020 可見, 梁大律師及侯律師分別向何麗明申請過退審, 均被何麗明駁回。先看判詞第29段

29. On Day 4, the defendant applied for the recusal of the Deputy Magistrate on the ground of apparent bias as shown by (1) the imposition of the bail; (2) her disrespect and hostility towards Mr Leung who was humiliated, threatened and unduly pressured; and (3) her excessive and inappropriate interruptions during PW2’s cross-examination and entering into the arena by asking PW2 questions which should not have been asked and answering questions for him (“the 1st Recusal Application”). The prosecution saw no reasons for recusal although it is not entirely clear from the materials including the transcripts if Mr Haddon-Cave actually opposed it. Submissions took 4 days to finish and on Day 8, in the morning, the Deputy Magistrate refused the Application.

在這裡要加個註腳, Haddon-Cave是外聘主控(counsel on fiat), 審訊1至16天的主控是他, 但他做到退休, 所以從第17天起由另一外聘主控關文渭頂上。

第二次申請recusal由侯振輝提出, 見判詞61及62段。

61. In the meantime, the Deputy Magistrate’s decision to impose bail on the defendant was quashed on 4 April 2019. The defendant commenced DCCJ 1719/2019 in the District Court against the Deputy Magistrate for damages under sections 125 and 126 of the Magistrates Ordinance (“DC Action”). On Day 63, the defendant mounted a second recusal application based heavily on the DC Action (“the 2nd Recusal Application”). Mr Kwan’s position was ambiguous. Submissions lasted until Day 68 and on Day 69, the Deputy Magistrate refused the Application as well as the application under the Evidence Ordinance.

62. The 2nd Recusal Application caused further disruption. The time taken was unduly long partly because in his submissions, Mr How insisted on playing the DARTS recording in full for the Deputy Magistrate’s explanation to the defendant on her options regarding legal representation, which was wholly unnecessary.

DARTS是Digital Audio Recording and Transcription Services, 是司法機構審訊數碼化的錄音系統, 現已不記得引進的年份, 好像是1992年。

這裡再打個岔, 先看判段詞第21段的描述:

21. The Deputy Magistrate and Mr Leung engaged in bickering from the very early stage of the trial which continued until Day 40 when he last appeared before her. Below are some ready examples:

(1) On Day 2, in the morning, the Deputy Magistrate said she had observed that Mr Leung had thrown things on the table and at Mr Haddon-Cave and gave him warnings. At one point, the Deputy Magistrate commented it was the fourth time Mr Leung had thrown things and said it was the last warning. In the ensuing arguments, Mr Leung denied and said that the court’s CCTV could be checked. He requested to proceed with the trial but the Deputy Magistrate pressed him on whether he wanted to check the court’s CCTV. She allowed him to continue with PW2’s cross-examination only after he said no. In the rest of the proceedings, the Deputy Magistrate kept referring back to those “throwing things” incidents.

何麗明和梁耀祥都無知, 看甚麼CCTV? 在法庭內安裝的鏡頭是沒有錄影的, 只是方便負責數碼錄音的外判人員看到法庭審訊的進程作些註腳, 方便日後找尋, 譬如甚麼時候第一證人開始作供, 甚麼時候律師開始陳詞。真的去看梁耀祥有沒有扔東西, 根本就沒有錄影, 枉未登神檯之前已在司法機構工作的何麗明連這也不知道。

兩位律師索償2140萬, 我今早重溫3年前上訴庭這88段的判詞, 當年兩位已被臭罵了, 今次可謂要再自取其辱。今早起床時氣溫只有12度, 全身短打的標少興緻勃勃地寫這一篇, 向神交已久卻無緣識荊的Thomas交差, 花了兩小時的光景。Thomas兄欠我一杯咖啡。

亂過馬路案91天審訊的後續

醫生QS在上一篇留言, 告訴我有這宗訴訟:

亂過馬路案審91天 辯方律師團隊入稟高院 向時任裁判官何麗明及律政司等索賠共2140萬元 

是星島頭條的報導, 本案並未聽審, 很明顯有人刻意放料給星島記者, 先喝頭啖湯, 後續會怎樣, 我相信是食白果, 這入稟申索理據unmeritorious。The application should be dismissed.

本blog過去寫過好幾篇本案的評論, 把原審的暫委特委裁判官何麗明, 代表被告的大律師梁耀祥及律師侯振輝, 罵到狗血淋頭, 我有恃無恐, 不怕被人告誹謗, 除了評論是fair comments外, 就是依賴法庭在不同階段的上訴判詞作後盾, 事實搞得很清楚, 完全沒有歪曲事實的成份。法庭審訊一般都很沉悶的, 有的刑事案案情像武打片, 看起來尚有一點趣味, 其他就大部份是文藝片, 悶到抽筋。亂過馬路案是武打片, 因為前述3人都夠瘋癲, 完全不像是正經的審訊。我離開香港太久了, 以前也未遇過這3儍(The Three Stooges)。暫委特委裁判官這銜頭一般人看起來有點怪怪的, 我要解釋一下。何麗明未被委任為特委裁判官之前是大律師, 因為官聲差、投訴多, 臭名遠播, 所以司法機構不續她的約, 她臨近終止合約的時候開審了亂過馬路案, 司法機構的一貫做法是離了任的法官會暫時委任下去直至案件審結為止, 殊不知會生產出使司法界蒙羞的事件來。我最後評論本案是2022年, 寫了法庭泥漿摔角一文, 以為塵埃落定, 何麗明也沒有再執業, 大律師名冊已找不到她的名字, 這次申索就繼續看後續發展好了。

對本案的評論第一篇是2019年2月寫的, 下面排了時序及連結, 不知來龍去脈的讀者可以隨連結看發展過程, 足以使你發癲。

法官不合法的拘捕令 (12/2/2019)

大狀回應的廢話 (13/2/2019)

Hello不等於Kitty (14/4/2019)

「奶豬」和"line G" (17/4/2019)

法庭泥漿摔角 (24/9/2022)

我對上兩篇寫了警察的非禮案, 預測判刑最重8個月, 最輕3個月, 今天判了6個月監, 一點也不重, 刑期上訴無望。

無題

顧名思義, 無題即是沒有主題的一篇, 這是東拉西扯的雜談。

毒菰案既落幕也未完全落幕, 我3個月前評論毒菰案, 說被告Erin Patterson會被定罪, 並處以終身監禁不准假釋, 也說被告會上訴。2025年9月8日, 她被判終身監禁, 但33年後可假釋。被告更換了律師提出定罪上訴, 暫時看不到上訴理由。控方也對被告的刑期提出上訴, 認為刑罰嚴重不足(manifestly inadequate):

"The sentencing judge erred in finding that there was a 'substantial chance' the respondent would be held in 'solitary confinement for years to come' when such a finding was not open on the evidence, and that finding infected his assessment of the respondent's likely future conditions in custody and his decision to fix a non-parole period," the appeal filing notes.

The filing also stated it was inappropriate for the judge to fix a non-parole period.

(9News)

上訴結果今年是不會知道的。Erin Patterson因為更換律師, 多獲28日提出上訴, 現階段未呈理由。

上周五諾貝爾和平獎揭盅, 特朗普落選不在話下, 下屆他也沒有機會得獎的。和平獎一向頒予民主鬥士的, 若特朗普這種黑老大也得獎就侮辱了和平, an affront to democracy。要頒就頒給身陷囹圄的大律師鄒幸彤, 也不應該給特朗普。特朗普首先爭取個人利益, 以關稅手段興波作浪撈油水, 再而為美國霸權欺凌別國, 所以, 特朗普不論性格、人格及品格, 無一合格, 和平獎落選是理所當然的。只有特朗普的發言人Steven Cheung, 才會替他吹噓:

Steven Cheung, White House Director of Communications, said in a post on X: “President Trump will continue making peace deals around the world, ending wars, and saving lives”.

“He has the heart of a humanitarian, and there will never be anyone like him who can move mountains with the sheer force of his will.

“The Nobel Committee proved they place politics over peace.”
(news.com.au)

Steven Cheung凡事都只說一半, 對特朗普較全面的評價應是: President Trump will continue creating turmoils and then making peace deals around the world, commencing wars and ending wars, killing lives and saving lives. 俗語所云, 神又佢鬼又佢, 沒有特朗普撐腰, 以色列也不敢在加沙肆意屠殺那麼多巴勒斯坦平民。

上周看了The Guardian這篇文章: Human stupidity is nothing new in politics

...

Human beings have always lived with a psychological structural stupidity, a kind of symbolic impoverishment contained within our intelligent capacities, a tendency to mythologise events, distort memory and behave as if half aware of our own misperceptions. We idealise leaders, invent grandiose theories and develop conspiracy stories hoping that they will all fulfil our deepest yearnings; they feel real enough to shape collective behaviour, whether in politics, religion or social movements.

Psychologists map this terrain with concepts such as “bullshit receptivity”: the readiness to accept superficial slogans, pseudo-scientific claims or comforting myths, rather than engaging in critical thinking. As the historian Rick Shenkman observed, this manifests either as “wooden-headedness” (believing what we wish were true) or “bone-headedness” (succumbing to cliches and stereotypes). None of this requires malevolence, but it demonstrates an unacknowledged wilful attitude.

...

又有幾多人能夠擺脫包圍着我們日常生活的各種宣傳、偽資訊、"Truth Social", "fake news", 耳濡目染, 不知不覺地上釣?

我很少看沈旭輝的文章, 最近開始看梁慕嫻的《覺醒的道路: 前中共香港地下黨員梁慕嫻回憶錄》, 沈旭輝寫其中一篇序文,  現在節錄其中使我産生共鳴的一小段:

"......要活出另外的人生, 其實很簡單: 時刻提醒自己是有自由意志, 有獨立思考能力的人, 人有人性的光輝, 有人性的陰暗; 會成功, 也會犯錯。但去到最後, 有一點是肯定的: 人性是立體的, 靈魂是自主的, 命運應該是自己掌握的。我沒有資格說大義凜然的話, 只能在有限的時空內, 做力所能及的事, 維繫香港人應有的元氣和精神。我相信, 這也是每一個香港人不論在牆內、牆外的共同責任。

......"

我一向都不是政治人, 但政治和法律在某程度上綑綁在一起, 難以分割。所以自佔領中環開始, 我的法律評論離不開政治。我批評戴教授一些謬誤的理念, 歸根究底我一直呼籲以身試法的人冷靜思考後果, 一時間那些"藍絲"誤以為我是同路人, 直至國安法出爐遭到我大肆批評, "藍絲"又把我視作叛黨, 不斷進來漫罵洗版, 蠢蛋不知critical thinking為何物, 只懂圍爐取暖, 做豬也不懂做特立獨行的豬。不懂做豬的竅門, 就應找王小波的《一隻特立獨行的豬》來看。

梁慕嫻這本書我看後也不會寫書評的, 畢竟我從沒搞過政治, 甚麼黨也與我無關, 有興趣的是看回憶錄。這本書在台北主流書局是找不到的, 我在網上買, 到酒店附近的7/11取, 然後直接寄回來, 一共寄了兩箱共19本不同的書, 也只是花了幾百澳圓, 就當買了兩斤凍頂烏龍。

有病不求藥, 無聊才讀書, 看別人敢有歌吟動地哀, 覺今是而昨非。凑巧地魯迅這句「敢有歌吟動地哀」的古詩也叫《無題》。