評2026年法律年度開啟典禮首席法官的演詞

我已多年不評論法律年度開啟典禮的演詞, 這次評論只限首席法官演詞的其中兩課題。先岔開一筆, 談同唱一台戲, 以下是明報今天的報導:

【明報專訊】全國港澳研究會昨舉辦專題研討會，港澳辦主任夏寶龍發言時46次提及「行政主導」，稱這是特區政制重要原則，行政、立法及司法機關「要同唱一台戲，要多補台，不能拆台」，指明立法會「支持政府不缺位、監督政府不越位」。

香港過去數十年的法治基石, 強調的是司法獨立, 但自2020年後, 取而代之的是行政主導三權合作, 到了現在, 繪形繪聲的同唱一台戲, 不能拆台。以我的智力, 當然未必理解這些說話的睿智, 頭腦很簡單地想是否政府告你你就輸硬, 你告政府你也輸硬, 因為行政立法司法在同唱一台戲, 不能拆台。判你無罪或勝訴等同拆台嗎? 夏主任的定調, 於司法而言, 等同司法指導, 也是司法框架, 不能違反。那麼, CJ今年演詞中提到"香港的《基本法》、一般法律以及有關國家安全的法律均保證法院公正獨立，和人人享有公平審訊的權利。"(演詞原文: Hong Kong's Basic Law and general laws, along with the national security laws, all guarantee the independence and impartiality of the courts, and the right to a fair trial.) 又可以怎去理解? CJ這講法是拆台言論嗎? I lack the wisdom to reconcile the two. It denotes that my comprehensive ability is below average.

言歸正傳。

過往CJ的演詞很少直接評論正審的案件, 這次直接講黎智英案, 可謂迫不得已, 因為呼籲立即釋放黎智英的聲音太多, CJ不得不回應一下。CJ提出一個現實的法律問題: 

As regards calls that are sometimes heard to halt proceedings or prematurely release a defendant, based on reasons such as occupation, background, or political causes, it should be emphasised that such demands not only circumvent the legal procedures established to ensure accountability under the law, but also strike at the very heart of the rule of law itself.

這幾句很明顯在回應立即釋放黎智英的要求。認真講法律程序, 怎樣可以立即釋放被告?  在未定罪之前, 控方可以撤銷控罪, 在定罪之後法庭判處可以立即釋放被告的刑罰, 又或者行政長官在被告被判刑後運用《基本法》第48(12)條賦予的權力, " 赦免或減輕刑事罪犯的刑罰"。現階段控方沒可能撤銷控罪, 法庭也沒可能判黎智英可以立即釋放的刑期, 行政長官更沒可能赦免或減輕眼中釘的刑罰。所以, 要求立即釋放黎智英的人恐怕沒有提出實際的法律可行辦法, 只是一種政治口號及期許。我一直相信黎智英會死在獄中。如果可以繞過法律程序立即釋放黎智英, 相反而言任何人也可以被繞過法律程序無理收押。

至於在審訊黎智英的過程中有沒有展示法庭的公正性, 本案判刑後的上訴就可以看到這方面的分析, 至少我憑審訊時看到的報導的印象而言, 杜麗冰法官在與黎智英作供時的交鋒有關愛國的言論, 明顯是政治的表述而非法律的看法, 杜官已進入政治格鬥場, 現在看是符合夏主任的心意: 同唱一台戲。CJ曾經參加某些國家政策的學習會, 是否也屬於排演一 齣戲呢? 如果不想同唱或合唱或和唱, 甚至被幕後代唱, 可以怎樣? 或者像大馬爺, 到了65歲就享清福, 打下羽毛球和網球, 不再延任做CJ, 現在看就明白是充滿智慧的決定。多年前有次返港, 有人問我想不想跟大馬爺打羽毛球, 我耍手擰頭, 窮酸標少不敢高攀CJ, 況且對一直寫文批評法官也不方便。另一種不合唱的方法就是提早退休, 去年兩位上訴庭的女官就是例子。我以前曾經為前刑事檢控專員梁卓然被架空迫走抱不平, 後來看到近幾年DoJ刑事檢控科幾個猛人紛紛離職, 就知道David Leung沒有被迫走也遲早會走的。舊時人是做不到新香港人的。

第二個課題我想講的是首席法官張舉能在演詞中提及法庭的審訊程序, 講到被告的權利時, 講了以下的說話: 

These fundamental principles govern all criminal proceedings in Hong Kong....A defendant may, if they wish, give evidence in their own defence. If they choose not to do so, the prosecution may not comment on that fact, and certainly no adverse inference may be drawn from it to establish guilt....

熟識刑事法的人都懂得避免批評被告不作供, 這種批評往往是上訴得直的理由。我覺得CJ不是籠統地講法律程序, 而是講終審法院在法律年開啟典禮前幾天(1月16日)聽審而判上訴得直的一宗販運毒品案: HKSAR and HUANG RUIFANG (黃瑞芳) FACC No. 2 of 2025。外判主控在該案的結案陳詞大肆批評不作供的被告黃瑞芳。 I quote from the judgment of the court:

7.  In his closing submissions prosecuting counsel said:

“Now, remember suspicion is not enough. If you only suspect that the defendant had committed the crime that is not enough. You must give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant and you must acquit her. As the learned judge also said, the defendant needs not prove her innocence. She needs not prove anything. She needed not to give evidence. She needed not to call any defence witnesses and she only exercised her right not to give evidence and not to call any defence witnesses and no adverse inference can be drawn against her. The burden is all along on me, on the prosecution, but the fact remains the defendant did not give evidence.”

Later in his closing submissions prosecuting counsel said:

“Now, again the defendant’s case: you will remember the defendant exercised her right not to give evidence, not to go to the witness box. That’s her right. That’s fine. As I have said the burden is on me to prove the case. But I did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the defendant. I cannot ask her any questions. I did not because she elected not to give evidence and I am unable to test her credibility to test whether she is an honest person, to test about her reliability, whether what she says would be reliable. I have no such opportunity. But in any event, of course she had chosen to speak up in the video-recorded interview, but it is my position and it is my case that the defendant had not told you the truth and/or the whole truth about her story. ”

撇開"needs""needed"的文法錯誤不講, 問題都出在我加了綠色的幾句, 終審法院認為主控嚴重侵犯了被告不作供的權利, 也違反了《刑事訴訟程序條例》第 54(1)(b) 條的禁止規定。本案的判詞也為日後陪審團案提供陳詞指引, 詳情請自己閱讀判詞。因為本案的判決提供了程序指引, 才使我推斷CJ該段演詞是有所指的。

近日觀看太多國際羽毛球賽事, 加上澳洲網球公開賽, CJ的演詞一直擱下沒評論, 直到看到夏主任的訓示, 標少這舊時人, 在新時代洪流淹沒之前, 垂死吐槽。海上生明月, 天涯共此時。