胡塗法官

香港特別行政區

高等法院原訟法庭

定罪上訴

案件編號：裁判法院上訴案件2013年第267號

(原九龍城裁判法院傳票2012年第39007號)

______________________

答辯人	香港特別行政區
	訴
上訴人	葉茂基
______________

主審法官：

高等法院原訟法庭法官陳慶偉

聆訊日期：	2013年5月24日
判案日期：	2013年6月4日

判 案 書

1. 上訴人在一暫委特委裁判官席前經審訊後，被裁定一項「不小心駕駛罪」罪名成立，他不服有關的裁決，現上訴其定罪。

控方案情

2. 控方第一證人在事發當晚駕駛警察電單車巡邏至戴亞街紅磡邨停車場對出，他看見兩名行人正站在斑馬線旁等候橫過馬路。稍後，其中一名行人看過左右交通情況後，踏進斑馬線。這時，上訴人駕駛的一輛的士駛進斑馬線管制區後，慢駛停下。

3. 不久，另一名行人亦開始橫過馬路，但當他步至斑馬線中段時，的士突然以時速10 公里向前駛，該名行人亦因此停下及後退，的士的右車身與該名男子最近距離約1 米。

4. 控方第一證人亮起警號，追截上訴人的的士。當上訴人被截停後，他表示「阿Sir，對面架車燦住我，我睇唔清楚嗰個人，下次我會留心啲」。

辯方案情

5. 上訴人選擇保持緘默，他沒有作供，也沒有傳召證人。

上訴理據

6. 上訴人表示他向警員所述是真確的，當時有一輛私家車駛出，私家車燈光影響他的視線，故沒有看到第二名行人的出現。

討論

7. 初審時，上訴人選擇保持緘默，他也沒有傳召證人。裁判官在裁斷陳述書第13 段表示：

「 本席裁定被告需要答辯。被告選擇不作供。本席不會對他存有任何偏見或不利的揣測。」

但是裁判官卻在裁斷陳述書第16 段表示：

「 被告人選擇自辯，本席要謹記獨立謹慎思考雙方的案情証供，不可以把雙方証供及案情作一比較和比較哪一方可靠，縱使不相信被告人的辯護理由，本席不會對他存在任何偏見或不利揣測。本席清晰知道本案屬各執一詞，沒有其他獨立證人向法庭講述事件經過，因此本席會提醒自己在處理控方第一證人的證供時要額外小心。」(本席強調)

8. 本席看過審訊時的紀錄，紀錄顯示上訴人沒有作供，因此之故，本席不明白當裁判官講及上訴人「自辯」時，究竟是甚麼意思？是上訴人沒有律師代表還是上訴人曾在庭上作供？不過，裁判官在口述裁決時卻清楚表示「雖然呢就唔相信被告人嘅口供，本席亦都唔會對佢存有任何偏見同埋不利嘅揣測」，從中可以看到裁判官在頒布口述裁決時是不相信上訴人的「口供」，但是她在撰寫裁斷陳述書時，卻表示不相信上訴人的「辯護理由」，「口供」與「辯護理由」兩者存有很大的分別。

9. 定罪存有不穩妥的地方，上訴得直，定罪撤銷，刑罰擱置。

	(陳慶偉)
	高等法院原訟法庭法官

答辯人：由律政司署理高級檢控官張民焜代表香港特別行政區

上訴人：無律師代表，親自出庭應訊

上面的上訴判辭是昨天上載的，判令上訴得直，是高院法官在毫無選擇下作出的判決。我從未見過有像原審暫委特委裁判官這樣胡塗地審案，一方面講被告保持緘默，沒有上證人台作供，另一方面又講被告人選擇自辯下，不相信他的講法，搞到高院法官要審閱原審紀錄謄本(transcript)，來確定被告究竟有沒有上證人台。沒有比這件案更簡單的案情，寫裁斷陳述書(statement of findings)寫得這樣胡塗，我想大概是把手頭的範本copy and paste落去而貼錯了內容，啼笑皆非。這種能力的人，還可以繼續撈嗎？不如外判給我寫，只需講幾句案情我知，我一定寫得頭頭是道，而且收費廉宜，被告上訴得直的話，可以回水，如何？

陪審員的津貼

上一篇講陪審員，順便講陪審員的津貼。

香港的陪審員的每天津貼，1996是280元，2008年增加到360元，2012年11月再加至410元。遇上長案，法官有權打孖計。

標少所住的地方更爽，頭10日每日澳幣104.7元，另加居所至法庭之間的郵政區距離計每公里30.7仙交通津貼。遇上案件審訊超過10天，第11天起，在職人士每天235.65元，沒有工作的就照舊104.7元。今天傳我去的一件案，就傳了100人去，計下數，法治頗貴。還未計三幾個在入口處做安全檢查，六個做核對身位的職員，法官及法庭職員，燈油火蠟，咖啡奶茶餅乾任飲任食的費用。你話法治貴唔貴？

Jury Duty

I was stuck in court for almost the whole day because of jury duty. Jury duty is something no one should complain about. But, in my case, I do have a lot of grievances.

Last year, when I received a letter from the Sheriff Department (it is just like the Judiciary in HK responsible for jury matters) that I was on the jury roll, I immediately wrote back to ask for exemption but to no avail. In May this year, I received a letter asking me to attend court to serve as a juror, I immediately wrote back with a work transcript asking to be excused again. Once again, my request was declined. I arrived there this morning. About a hundred of us congregated in a room. A sheriff officer explained the basics and a DVD started to play the empanelling process. After that, it was not yet 10 am. We waited in the room killing time watching TV, reading books. I brought my tablet along to read some CFA cases I downloaded. I was just waiting for the first opportunity to see the trial judge and spell out my reasons to be excluded. I was pretty sure if the judge did not excuse me, the defence certainly would object to my sitting to decide the plight of the defendant. I waited and waited, wondering why it took so long for the empanelling process. It was 1 pm we were told to have lunch and return afterwards. At 3 pm, I was finally in the court room. I have not been to the court for 10 years. Everything looked so familiar and affable. The defence counsel was gawking at us from time to time. I knew what he wanted. He was to get a peripheral impression as who to exclude. I had eye contacts with him many times. I almost blinked at him to say, man, I would certain send the defendant to hell. It was a rape case.

Finally, it came the moment the judge asked if anyone wished to be excused. I was the first to raise my hand. I walked up to the witness stand with very proper court etiquette, I bowed before I said this, "Your Honour, I had been a xxx for 10 years in another jurisdiction and then another 10 spent as xxx. In all fairness to the defence, I should make him aware that I would normally see things from the prosecution's perspective. I have been a blogger writing legal comments attracting 800 readers a day." He smiled at me and said, "You are excused." The defence counsel said thank you to me too.

While I always feel I am as impartial as can be, but subconsciously, I cannot rule out the indoctrinated propensity to wear the shoes of a prosecutor.When the time has come to decide on credibility, I believe my threshold can be very high and am disinclined to cast a doubt on the prosecution case. If my attitude about the defendant is always that I am not easily fooled by his story, I don't think I can sit as a juror. In court, I just repeated what I told the Sheriff Department the reason for my exemption. They just turned a blind eye to the obvious and wasting the public money and my time.

古思堯的新燒區旗案

聘大律師代表 盼成佔中案例

【明報專訊】早前在同類案件中選擇自辯的古思堯，卻在今次官司聘請大律師詹鋌鏘作代表。古思堯表示，明年的佔領中環行動，支持佔中的李柱銘和何俊仁可能隨時成為被告，因此由李柱銘為首的律師團建議他聘請大律師，希望今次案件能成為案例。

古稱喜歡自辯的原因是審訊有3次陳辭機會，包括求情陳辭，以便他譴責中共政府一黨專政，及譴責特區政府是傀儡政府。

過往喜歡自辯

不過，他與李柱銘律師團商議後，李的團隊認為今次官司不是個人的事，反而希望案件屆時能夠上訴至高等法院成為案例，故古思堯和馬雲祺決定，一切官司的事宜交由律師團處理。

(2013/6/4 明報)

單從明報的報導看，我不知道這團律師在搞甚麼，我無興趣針對李資深，他上一次代表古思堯上訴，案件同性質，還不足一個月，(香港特別行政區 訴 古思堯 HCMA185/2013)上一次為何不嘗試連同定罪一起上訴？我為那件案寫了3個blogs：古思堯案的判辭 ，標少為古思堯案的判辭一文「開片」 ，標少為古思堯案的判辭一文「開片」之二------大佬文化 ，想找人開片，又無人理采。

一般我不會在審訊進行中評論，這一次忍不住手。明報另一則報導這樣講：

確認兩片段同場拍攝

此外，辯方在案件開審前，向杜官提出相關法例違憲的法律爭議。詹稱根據聯合國人權理事會頒布的《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》，人們有表達民主、自由的訴求，不應以任何形式限制；若相關法例限制人們表達民主、自由，該法例就違反人權法。

但杜官反駁，市民毋須以侮辱區旗表達民主及自由的訴求，以其他方式如展示橫額亦能達到目的，故相關法例與限制表達訴求沒有邏輯關係；假如任何方式都可表達民主、自由訴求，那麼人們「做乜都得」，最終杜官拒絕受理辯方提出的法律爭議。控辯雙方今將結案陳辭。

這種争議，不是在13年前已由終審法院判決了嗎？(HKSAR v. NG KUNG SIU AND ANOTHER   FACC4/1999) 何以把這件上訴至高等法院成為案例呢？上訴至高院當然可以，不過，想成為案例，那麼終審法院吳恭劭案的判決算是甚麼？而且，怎可以扯上佔中行動呢？這件案可以成為案例，不過，是敗訴的案例。

從報導看，古思堯再次不争論案情，也預了坐監，如果辯方循那方向想就大錯特錯。今次審訊並不公平。古思堯對上一件案被定罪及判監，犯案日期一件在2012年6月10日在中聯辦外，另一件在2013年1月1日在遮打花園。現在審的案發生得更早----2012年4月1日。不公平之處在於，為何不把這件跟上一件一併處理？一來被告不用受審兩次，二來量刑時可以總刑罰來考慮。此外，辯方大律師在定罪求情時，應該懂得叫杜官不要考慮上次的案底及判刑，因為本案發生當日還未有上次的案底。以前古思堯相同控罪有罰款紀錄，這次應要求非監禁式懲罰。他對上一次相同紀錄是2002年，被判罰款 $3,000或監禁10 天。本案是相隔10年再犯的同類案件，求情應循這方向講。上次上訴處理得差，所以我很擔心這團律師的能力。

今天六四，二十四年前我代表了工作的組織，擬了這八個字登在明報：國何其殤 基本無法。今天再登在此，以悼亡魂。

律政風暴大結局

上一篇講楊鐵樑判Reid 犯錯，先看在上訴案例中引用楊官判刑時所講的話：

"That he has given comprehensive and useful information to the I.C.A.C. at personal risk and risk to his family is not in dispute. However, this assistance, conspicuous and substantial though it may well have been, cannot conveniently be divorced from the evidence he undertakes to give for the Prosecution in a number of future prosecutions.

Whilst some credit should be given for his co-operation in enabling the I.C.A.C. to at least bring a number of charges against a number of suspects, the full impact of his co-operation cannot realistically be weighed until he has actually given evidence. I would, therefore, give a nominal discount of one year for his co-operation, leaving it to the executive to reduce his term of imprisonment until after he has given evidence. If his evidence comes up to proof, I would suggest that the executive might consider a reduction of three years from the sentence I am about to impose to be reasonable."

先不要以今天的準則來評論當時量刑的思維，以今天的準則，楊官的判刑起點為9年的話，今天的折扣會變成4年半，服刑期間行為良好，實質只坐3年。楊官當年犯錯，是建議如果Reid 肯合作指證其他人，行政當局減他3年刑期的講法，無形中邀請行政當局介入法庭判刑的責任。Reid 在Egan 案違反赦免被控(breach of immunity)的條件，但他沒有因此再被檢控。他事後向港督要求赦免刑期，港督只赦免了1年，他因此提出司法覆核，最後都被駁回(In Re CHARLES WARWICK REID CACV149/1993)。

當年港督赦免刑期的權力來自《英皇制誥》第15條(article XV of the Letters Patent)*，1997回歸之後，特首的相關權力來自《基本法》第四十八條(十二)「赦免或減輕刑事罪犯的刑罰」，但寫得簡單。楊鐵樑建議行政當局減 Reid 3年刑期的講法，史無前例。他親自操刀為Reid 判刑，可能隆重其事，為開埠以來律政第一貪來個下馬威，以儆後效，可惜做成自己跌一跤的蠢事。當然，蠢極都比不上出來陪跑選特首那次蠢。
我去過亷署參觀兩次，第二次去的時候Reid 已刑滿返回新西蘭，看過他居住的囚室及放風的天台籃球場。亷署成立以來只有兩個人在那裏服刑，第一個是 Reid，另一個是謝霆鋒串謀妨礙司法公正案的證人成國定，目的是為了保護證人。Reid 收押及服刑初期，連天台也不准上，怕他會被長距離有瞄準器的槍滅口，誰會滅他的口？為何他作供反口？都是只能作揣測性的遐想，(不要搞錯，遐想與性無關，遐想只是超現實的fanciful thinking)。這種揣測，只能在小說以fictitious 手法來寫，碩士論文提供了一些端倪，講及Reid 的老婆收了證人傳票，因為自身安全問題嚇破了膽，立即返回新西蘭，寄醫生紙回來告病，說不宜遠行。在亷署單獨囚禁的Reid，居住條件儘管比赤柱好得多，每星期都可以吃外賣麥當勞或家鄉雞，孤獨卻是一種折磨。麥列菲菲(Felice Lieh-Mak)也曾經為他做精神評估。
The Professor spent three hours with Reid on 4 February 1991 again in his cell. In her very detailed report Professor Lieh Mak described how Reid developed panic attacks once in custody, hiding their occurrence "because he did not want to show any evidence of weaknessTM7 When she examined Reid she found him to be tense and tearflul. He explained to her his fear of solitary confinement and imprisonment in an open Hong Kong system of prison. He felt be would cope better in the United Kingdom. He also added the thought the psychiatric reports would help him get to the United Kingdom. At one point he said to Lieh- Mak and she recorded it in her report, "if not allowed to go to a prison in the United Kingdom - his only alternative is not to co-operate and refuse to act as a witness".

(p.51 The Kevin Egan's case)

懂得法律的人，知道怎樣守法，也懂得怎樣鑽空子。我時常都跟朋友講謝霆鋒案，一開始懂得合法鑽空子的辦法，根本就不會惹禍上身，逃之夭夭，不會留下串謀妨礙司法公正的刑事案底。不用嘗試留言問我謝霆鋒可以怎樣鑽空，當我吹牛好了，我不會教你的。我只想講，反手為雲，覆手為雨這道理。

我又重覆思考selina 那問題 「香港有冇法官試過受賄被控」，被控的就沒有，可疑的就有一單。當年Barker 審佳寧(Carrian)串謀詐騙案，很不尋常地判no case to answer，搞到控方上訴無門，只能用AG's Reference 向上訴庭釐清法律，無名無姓的上訴案，我找了很久才找到(REFERENCE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL UNDER SECTION 81D OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ORDINANCE CACC1/1987)。涉佳寧案多人死於非命，包括Barker 自己，這裏是New Straits Times 1989年11月17日有關他死訊的報導。有時問少一點，知少一點，才不會有"panic attack"，也不怕死於非命。

山中在律政風暴之二 留下的大問題，我思前想後，都答不來。自己層次太低，見到的只是事情片面的一角，沒有能力從大方向評論，評論了也沒有味道。我相信Reid 案是很個別的案件，對當時律政署的打擊很大，但時間已漸漸洗脫這深入肌理的斑漬，新一代已看不到這件事的一鱗半爪。

六四之後，九七之前，社會的訴求改變很大。到了現在，自由討論的廣播及平台多不勝數，我滿以為社會在進步，可是，觸目皆是《宋史》所謂，謬種流傳，是非颠倒愈甚。可惜我已醪醴不沾，否則必然找神交已久的山中，破帽遮顏，漏船載酒，浮一大白，醉眼朦朧，看這混沌的香港。

寫到這裏，律政風暴，曲終人散，已到謝幕的時候，再為公義痛飲三杯，一醉方休。

*article XV of the Letters Patent

"When any crime or offence has been committed within the Colony, or for which the offender may be tried therein, the Governor may, as he shall see occasion, in Our name and on Our behalf, grant a pardon to any accomplice in such crime or offence who shall give such information as shall lead to the conviction of the principal offender, or of any one of such offenders, if more than one; and further, may grant to any offender convicted of any crime or offence by any court of law in the Colony (other than a court martial established under any Act of Parliament), either free or subject to such conditions as the Governor may think fit to impose, a pardon or any remission of the sentence passed on such offender,or any respite of the execution of such sentence for such period as the Governor thinks fit, and may remit any fines, penalties, or forfeitures due or accrued to Us. Provided always that the Governor shall in no case, except where the offence has been of a political nature unaccompanied by any other grave crime, make it a condition of any pardon or remission of sentence that the offender shall be banished from or shall absent himself or be removed from the Colony."

律政風暴之五

首先多謝閱讀，本blog5月份有超過23,000點擊，平均每天近800，有5天過千，最高紀錄是1241次。我自己卻是山中的擁躉，他的文章寫得蠻有意思，我怎樣努力也學不到，所以請移玉步，多看他的文章。

我一開始寫這題材的時候，selina就講明想看有關艾勤賢(Kevin Barry Egan)在Reid 這件案所扮演的角色。我現在就寫。我相信對他引起興趣的原因是，因為他和律師林炳昌(Andrew Lam)，同被譽為廉署剋星有關。剋星這兩個字對我來講並無魅力。林炳昌是廉署高級調查員出身，了解亷署查案程序和手法，所以接了不少亷署的案來辦，嬴了一些，就成為剋星，那麼大部分主控官就是罪犯剋星，一街都是剋星。你google一下，徐家傑及清洪都是廉署剋星，這都是傳媒的噱頭。

Egan 跟廉署結怨，是因Reid 案而起。在Reid 這件案，究竟Egan 是策劃他逃亡的人，抑或是受 Reid 誣捏呢？如果你讀那篇125頁的碩士論文 The Kevin Egan's case，作者的結論是誣捏。無謂問我的看法，因為我pro-prosecution，立場一向鮮明，不過你也見過我時常為被告抱不平，以事論事，我相信自己十分公正。我最近幫助的其中一件案，跟事主通電郵差不多80篇，她上一封其中幾句這樣寫 " I totally understood the motive of why you helped and i got the positive message you are trying to send. I have learnt things from it and that would made me remembering for the rest of my life." (原文照錄，文法錯誤也不改)。看到同一件事，控辯雙方看法迥異，十分平常，誰是誰非，是天長地久，爭論不休的事。只要不把幸運的結果視為公義彰顯，不幸的結果視為法治已死就好了。我寫過先科案裁決的啟示 一文，在該案中，兩位廉署剋星都被定罪，若果是現在終審法院的班子聽審上訴，這兩位廉署剋星，會在香港消失了。此一時彼一時，命懸一線。他們得以脫罪，一言以蔽之：好命。

言歸正傳。

控方指證Egan，依靠Reid 一個人，成敗繫於一人。Reid 1990年3月，跟律政署協商，承認受賄12,500,000元，換取不檢控其他控罪，他會成為特赦證人，指證同案其他人，包括Egan，但Egan 自始至終都不涉及貪污。Reid 1990年7月6日在高院認罪，判監8年。由首席按察司楊鐵樑親自處理，楊官的判刑備受批評，那是後話。

Reid 指證 Egan 的證供，簡潔地描述是這樣：Reid 告訴 Egan，面對貪污控罪，他必死無疑，他想逃回新西蘭，Egan 叫他留下來抗辯到底，但最後卻把自己的護照及一枝筆型手槍(pen-gun) 及子彈給他旁身，叫他逃亡。Reid 在逃離香港之前，把這些東西扔掉。Reid 從菲律賓遞解出境返回香港之後，帶亷署人員到聶高信山(Mount Nicholson) 起回筆型手槍及子彈。

Egan 在1990年1月2日走入跑馬地警署報失護照，翌日前往澳洲領事館申請新護照。Egan 當然全盤否認指控，指控的詳情，請參閱The Kevin Egan's case 這碩士論文。但我要指出，我並不同意作者的分析，我只參閱文中提供的資料，因為我沒有該案的資料，上訴判辭都只是有關ancillary applications的，觸及Egan部份的案情過於簡單。具豐富處理刑事案經驗的人看這論文的立論，實在有很多不值一哂之處。我依賴論文的資料，因為缺乏選擇。Egan 最終面對4項控罪，包括協助Reid 潛逃、向他提供軍火、護照及無牌藏械等。4項控罪全部都無需答辯，有3項是一邊審控方一邊撤罪，最後一項有關藏有筆型手槍，在控方結案之後，是法官引導陪審團作無罪判決。故此所有控罪都no case to answer。

Egan 案1993年1月13日開審，一開審控方就撤銷了協助潛逃罪。在審訊期間一路撤罪，原因當然是Reid 的證供。在辯方律師 John McNamara (之前也是律政署中人) 盤問下，Reid 表示很多對話都是醉酒之後講的，這種供辭，Reid已近乎成為敵對證人(hostile witness)，控方撤不撤銷控罪，結果都會是no case。其實在開審之前，McNamara去律政署要求見律政司馬富善 (Jeremy Matthews) ，但只獲刑事檢控專員John Wood 及副手Duckett 接見，McNamara 要求撤銷所有控罪，因為辯方得悉 Reid 在1992年12月31日錄取了一份新供辭，指出不再肯定指控屬實(saying he could no longer be certain of his allegations)。請示律政司後，控方決定繼續去馬。

唉！讓我打個岔。我相信繼續檢控的決定來自Duckett。馬富善根本不懂得刑事法，他是solicitor出身，他出任律政司已充滿争議。The AG, by tradition, is the titular head of the bar. 香港開埠以來，馬富善第一個由solicitor 做律政司，第二個是梁愛詩。叫他做決定，別開玩笑。John Wood 也不是那料子，只有Duckett一個是真正搞刑事的。當時的檢控科青黃不接，因為Reid這件案，攆走了Marash, Chandler, Cagney, Cahill 及Whitehouse。如果Reid的證人態度軟化，這件案控方必輸無疑，夠膽的決策者，無論要面對多大壓力，都只好撤銷檢控。今時今日無論你問律政司裏面，抑或私人執業的律師，我相信聽到Reid 有份新口供話 "he could no longer be certain of his allegations"，還有甚麼選擇，只有drop charges。認為無需撤銷檢控的讀者，請勿吝嗇，留言教下我。

律政風暴之四

我寫這幾篇，不會直叙式寫，有時倒敍，有時加入自己記得的事穿插其中，但一定不會有意識流(stream of consciousness)，現在是寫如煙的往事，並非懸疑小說。因為我沒有構思過怎樣寫，鬆散之處，敬請原諒。

話說Reid 逃亡馬尼拉期間，即1990年1月至1990年3月之間，亷署當然擺了surveillance。講出來都難以置信，有一日，陳德立 (Jim Chandler) 在馬尼拉一間夜總會和 Reid 相見。Chandler花名叫燦叔，譯音而來，當時是律政署其中一個副刑事檢控專員，兩人都曾經在新西蘭 Tauranga 的一間律師樓共事過，燦叔比 Reid 早一點加入律政署，1987年升至副刑事檢控專員。燦叔在律政署期間，「給」了兩隻黑豬(1 admonishment and 1 reprimand)。竟然在「偶然」的情況下，坐飛機去碰到個逃犯，大家摸着酒杯，談了一個晚上。「偶然」這兩個字可圈可點，也可以加括號。燦叔現在還在香港揾食，標少夠膽寫他，不只是標少「沙卜」(Andrew簡喜歡這樣形容我，沙膽也。Andrew為陳振聰抗辯，現在一定不亦樂乎)，當然有事實作後盾。這兩個同鄉，談了甚麼呢？Reid 的講法是他叫燦叔捎口信給艾勤賢(Kevin Barry Egan)，燦叔矢口否認。

Reid informed the ICAC that whilst on the run in Manila, he met by chance, Chandler. They had a drink and arranged to meet again the next day. Chandler then decided against further contact and returned to Hong Kong. In his evidence, Reid said he asked Chandler to relay a message to Egan, a fact Chandler denies.
(p.57 The Kevin Egan's case)

燦叔因為沒有把偶遇告知上級，所以要執包袱，法庭紀錄這樣講：

8. The upshot of the non-disclosure, and I quote from a letter written by the Attorney General on the 23rd of March, was that:

"On 5 December 1990 Mr Chandler's service (with the Crown) was brought to a premature end. That was achieved by way of mutual resolution of his contract."

Mr. Chandler had been interdicted from his duties since the 30th of August. The Attorney General further explained:

"My Law Officers and I took the view that in failing promptly to report his meeting with Warwick Reid ... Mr Chandler had fallen short of the proper professional standards which are expected of lawyers in the service of the Crown; and that his continued employment in my Chambers was unacceptable."

(pare 8, RE JAMES PETER CHANDLER HCMP3721/1990)

上面這引文，跟下面的另一段引文取自燦叔執包袱後，申請私人執業，遭大律師公會反對，而向署理首席按察司申請執業的裁決判辭。他最後獲准執業，箇中道理，我欠缺理解的智慧。不要錯怪別人，標少的智商往往都看不明判辭的大道理。

Alick Au收了1,000,000元，陪伴Reid逃亡，他抗辯的時候也講過不知道Reid是誰。有時難以置信的事情或者是事實呢。有一次，老友結婚擺酒，安排了個前香港小姐冠軍坐在我身旁，可能我視力欠佳，渾然不覺，(靚女法官Adriana肯定比這香港小姐冠軍漂亮得多)。(當然，坐在我身旁一定不會加餸吃鹹豬手，飲醉了起身也不會衣衫不整)。事後講起，我還否認，最後才知道她真的是香港小姐冠軍。用這種推理，Alick Au真的收了不知名人士1,000,000元，馬尼拉只有一間夜總會，所有人當時去馬尼拉的夜總會，都會碰到Reid，飲番兩杯。Cheers！For Justice！Hip Hip Hurray！


6. The opposition to his admission rests upon a flaw of character revealed by his conduct early last year. He was on leave in Thailand, returning to give evidence for the defence in what at the time was a notorious criminal proceeding. It had been agreed with Government that he could return to Thailand to continue his leave when his evidence had been completed. Unfortunately, due to a combination of circumstances and in particular very heavy rainfall, he was unable to catch the Saturday flight to Thailand as he had arranged and decided instead to spend the weekend in Manila, returning to Hong Kong on the Monday to continue his original flight. That Saturday night in Manila, and by absolute chance, he met Warwick Reid in a city nightclub. Mr. Reid was then a wanted man in Hong Kong, having absconded while on bail granted by the Independent Commission Against Commission following his arrest upon suspicion of offences of corruption. In Hong Kong at that time his whereabouts were generally thought to be unknown. Yet Mr. Chandler made no effort to acquaint the authorities here with the fact of his presence in Manila, despite the obvious opportunities of the telephone and his meeting with another crown counsel during his transit through Kai Tak the following morning.
(pare 6, RE JAMES PETER CHANDLER HCMP3721/1990)