阻止粗暴、可鄙、針對司法機構的攻擊 請律政司司長發聲
1 ^: ^) h! k7 ?% z2 |( y& o2 | {
4 }$ ?- ^ S: b1 rTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。 0 G. J+ a& {" A5 Z
www2.tvboxnow.com! n; q( k% D- k2 J4 u* ?! h4 ]
《法政匯思》就有某些團體及人物對司法機構作出抨擊的聲明
0 N; R+ Z1 v& y: Q! _www2.tvboxnow.comStatement of the Progressive Lawyers Group in response to recent comments by certain groups and figures attacking the Judiciarywww2.tvboxnow.com) t; v; R+ x7 B- X7 v) h
tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb" n3 x, w$ J3 X ?- Q1 z
1. 我們注意到最近有報導指某些團體或人士曾就法院審理參與反水貨及爭 取民主示威被捕人士的案件作出評論，例如:-公仔箱論壇& r- i+ q$ z9 G, j% N3 s
(a) 2015年3月15日，由「愛護香港力量」組織、在高等法院外舉行的抗 議活動中，有示威人士叫喊如「警察拉人、法官放人」的口號。 2015年3月26日，葛珮帆議員於立法會內恃著議會特權的保護去覆述 那句口號。公仔箱論壇; [7 \9 \$ Y* w0 v
(b) 在《蘋果日報》於2015年3月25日刊登的訪問中，「愛港之聲」主席高 達斌批評法官輕判示威者，指出「警察咁辛苦拉到人，上到法庭畀你嗰班狗官咁判，真係激死」。(註：底線為後加以作強調)。tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb$ y+ a/ a- i5 d' W) c
(c) 在2015年3月27日，一個稱為「光復香港」的團體在其臉書專頁發 帖，上載了10幅展示了口號的標語相片，聲稱他們會於由其組織、並 在2015年3月28日舉行的抗議司法機構輕判示威人士的集會時使用。 該團體於其臉書專頁發帖上載的相片，顯示他們確曾於上述集會中使 用該等標語。該等標語上展示的口號包括:-tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb+ ]0 Q& J+ n' L9 q, O
(i) 「禍港法官，快快Go Home」;tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb* _3 k. c9 D) ?, g* \
(ii) 「法官亂判亡法治」;
' d2 N% k1 @& d" @9 lTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。(iii) 「黃屍法官首尾門，屋企屎坑水倒灌」;3 ]% z. J# x) Q( v) V
(iv) 廢除司法獨立免責，打擊司法舞弊貪污」;
# a5 K( Z' b& P公仔箱論壇(v) 「警拉官放，謀殺法治」;
. T3 d( h, I, j4 Z' b0 i(vi) 「假髪官有法不依，犯氓更有侍(恃)無恐」; 及
3 {- |3 s) N# |, d! f4 ~" n(vii) 「我要真法官，不要假髪官」。
4 z/ _9 Q* d7 pwww2.tvboxnow.com0 N( G* f3 L" R9 F
2. 在自由社會，司法機構及個別法官不會亦不能迴避批評。然而：
: E9 O7 y5 a. W1 l1 _* M, s公仔箱論壇(a) 在1998年的一個判決中，香港法院曾指出： 「尊重司法機構及維護司 法機構尊嚴為法治非常重要的一部分，否則將會動搖公眾對司法公正的信心，甚至敗壞法律的聲譽。(中文譯本)」www2.tvboxnow.com4 q0 g# G/ s# ?9 V; Y' J
(b) 當有人發表一些批評或一連串批評並旨在 (即具實際意圖或罔顧後果地) 藐視法庭或法官、損害其權威或干擾司法公正，並且造成該等效果的真實風險，便可構成藐視法庭的刑事罪行。tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb% \) Z+ \5 }& D: J
; P, m4 q6 E- X2 A- I% YTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。3. 近期針對司法機構的批評既無合理分析，亦無證據支持。那些批評包括 對司法機構作無理及莫須有般的攻擊，以及更嚴重、涉嫌干犯藐視法庭刑事罪行的批評。法治至上的社會決不能接受此等欠缺理據、打擊社會 對司法程序信心的攻擊。
6 H1 x) S$ _9 W7 Z$ uTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。0 r- Z0 N' E5 s% U
4. 因此，法政匯思促請有關各方立即停止對司法機構作出那些攻擊。我們更促請律政司司長履行普通法傳統及慣例下肩負司法機構最終捍衛者的任務，作出鏗鏘有力的發聲，阻止那些粗暴、可鄙、針對司法機構的攻擊。作為法律界人士，這是我們對律政司司長的基本期望。www2.tvboxnow.com8 ?$ w) K P/ t" c& @- t
. A8 F0 j% R8 Q0 t* Z7 nTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。法政匯思
9 `# d, _1 d* z; k, Owww2.tvboxnow.com2015年3月30日公仔箱論壇8 L' N P, C& f$ r. {8 @
7 f, A" f% V( D$ D
附言：我們將在未來幾天內於我們的臉書專頁上發表更全面的意見書，就本聲明中的法律分析作進一步的闡述。! I( ~. y* z" a8 }( ?1 |
www2.tvboxnow.com% m& i* D1 ?% ~7 m* R7 A6 N
1. We note from recent press reports that, in relation to the handling by courts of cases involving those arrested during various anti-parallel trader and pro-democracy protests, certain groups or individuals have made comments such as the following:
: Z2 ]& E- u0 \公仔箱論壇(a) During a protest outside the High Court organised by “Caring Hong Kong Power” on 15 March 2015, protesters yelled slogans such as “The police arrest, the courts release” (“警察拉人、法官放人”). This slogan was repeated, under the apparent guise of parliamentary privilege, by Legislative Council member Elizabeth Quat inside the Legislative Council on 26 March 2015.
/ m2 |5 J& x: N& J3 a! E6 _" F(b) In an interview with the Apple Daily published on 25 March 2015, Patrick Ko of “Voice of Loving Hong Kong” complained about the leniency of sentences handed down by judges against protesters, saying that “The police worked hard to arrest these people, but when they get to court these dog-judges rules in such a way, it’s so upsetting” (“警察咁辛苦拉到人，上到法庭畀你嗰班狗官咁判，真係激死”, emphasis added).
! V0 r' F, K, C( rwww2.tvboxnow.com(c) On 27 March 2015, a group known as “Clean Hong Kong” (“光復香港”) released a post on its Facebook page. The post contains ten photographs of signs with slogans which the group claimed would be chanted during a protest that it has organised for 28 March 2015 against judicial leniency against protesters. Based on photographs posted by this group on its Facebook page, it would appear that such signs were in fact used during the protest itself. The slogans contained in these signs include:
. a( k8 y5 j6 b! J4 ^ t; N公仔箱論壇(i) “Judges who ruin Hong Kong, hurry up and go home” (“禍港法官，快快 Go Home”);
5 o! m D- w+ D! @) s9 o: g3 twww2.tvboxnow.com(ii) “Judges ruling recklessly have killed the rule of law” (“法官亂判亡法 治”);3 ]1 s7 h3 e6 o" f
(iii) “With yellow corpse [being a homonym in Cantonese for ‘yellow ribbon’] judges as gatekeepers, the water in our home’s s**thole is poured out backwards” (“黃屍法官首尾門，屋企屎坑水倒灌”);. [' G/ S; }2 k$ N* B
(iv) “Abolish the judiciary’s independent immunity, hit out at the juidicary’s malpractice and corruption” (“廢除司法獨立免責，打擊司法 舞弊貪污”);
1 e9 U, c& l7 a* |公仔箱論壇(v) “The police’s arrests and the judges’ releases murder the rule of law”www2.tvboxnow.com/ ~ m4 c. f4 [3 z3 c% ]
(“警拉官放，謀殺法治”);4 G& |! z. \% `# X
(vi) “Fake wig judges do not follow laws, guilty hooligans [being a homonym in Cantonese for ‘pan-democrats’] become daring and fearless” (“假髪官有法不依，犯氓更有侍無恐”); and4 _7 s# l7 r, K+ |1 _% _# T' K
(vii) “I want real judges, not fake wig judges” (“我要真法官，不要假髪官”).
. V9 ]2 K1 F0 v2 S
! x, R+ S. e n" j3 @8 y2. In a free society, the judiciary and individual judges are not and should not be immune to criticism. However:, ~" o# k6 x- S# Y+ \9 |
(a) In a 1998 ruling, a Hong Kong court noted that “t has always been regarded as vital to the rule of law for respect for the judiciary to be maintained and for their dignity to be upheld. If it were otherwise, public confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined, and the law itself would fall into disrepute.”tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb* e' M4 m8 Q$ w: [ z' Y+ @
(b) Where there is a real risk that certain comments or series of comments were calculated (ie such comments were made with actual intent or with recklessness) to bring a Court or judge into contempt or lower their authority or to interfere with the administration of justice, they would constitute criminal contempt of Court.
+ b U8 G% a6 s; D3 vtvb now,tvbnow,bttvb$ n! p# @2 e4 n
3. The recent comments against the judiciary as noted above do not contain any reasoned analysis, nor backed by any evidence. Such baseless undermining of society’s confidence in the judicial process is unacceptable in a place where the rule of law is paramount. These comments range from being at best unreasonable and unwarranted attacks on the judiciary, to being at worst outright criminal contempt of court.
* I7 t3 z% x' | B- O8 |tvb now,tvbnow,bttvbtvb now,tvbnow,bttvb* I" [$ _$ _6 W _, a3 K
4. The Progressive Lawyers Group therefore call on these recent attacks on the judiciary to cease immediately. We further call on the Secretary for Justice, who under common law tradition and convention is tasked with being the ultimate defender of the judiciary, to speak out clearly and forcefully against such outrageous and scurrilous attacks on the judiciary. As members of the legal profession, we expect no less.TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。1 X" |" e# \' _' [2 R- @- P2 w: H
TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。0 o& x4 S) H1 u A* ? Y2 Y- W: X2 X
Progressive Lawyers Group2 `' S3 q' j' Y+ X# B& V2 | W
30 March 2015www2.tvboxnow.com2 A, x- D" W* ~% K* Q: y" {
公仔箱論壇6 i+ r# O3 V( w. W- C- H
Postscript: We will, in the coming days, release through our Facebook page a fuller set of submissions setting out in more detail the underlying legal analysis behind this Statement.! u3 s! I6 F. `) v
tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb) M9 |: K& S9 U
（文章標題由編輯所擬） |
發表於 2015-3-29 09:51 AM
| 
公仔箱論壇! I ^# ^2 v9 g' D) D
TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。; `" K, p0 A6 u& P4 w" x
; Z7 {5 W- A! o+ N6 O/ e( a