官媒抨擊准黎智英保釋 律師會5理事斥干預司法
明報記者 31/12/2020
壹傳媒創辦人黎智英早前獲高等法院批准保釋，律政司其後提出上訴，終審法院今早將處理其上訴許可申請。自黎智英獲保釋以來，《人民日報》、《大公報》等報章連日發表評論批評高院法官李運騰的裁決，律師會5名理事昨以個人名義發表聲明，指評論明顯向法院施加壓力，試圖干預程序公義，呼籲律政司採取行動應對。
聲明籲律政司行動維護司法
律政司不評論 稱需要時會跟進
律政司回覆查詢時表示，案件司法程序仍未完成，律政司不宜評論，又稱社會人士有權在法律容許的範圍內就法庭裁決或相關事宜發表意見或討論。至於任何可能構成藐視法庭的行為，律政司在合適和有需要時會採取適當的跟進措施。
律師會5名理事帝理邁、林洋鋐、彭皓昕、蔡頴德和黃耀初昨以個人名義發表聲明，對《人民日報》本月27日發表的一篇評論文章表示嚴重關注。該文表明不准保釋為「常態」，要求司法機構「作出正確選擇」，更稱已有足夠證據顯示黎智英觸犯《港區國安法》第55條，可由駐港國安公署介入處理。聲明認為，文章由國家政權控制和營運的報章刊登，「令人尤其擔心及被視為是試圖干預我們獨立的司法機關的程序公義」，認為有關攻擊應立即停止。
聲明又表示，公眾有權討論和評論法院裁決，但討論不應流於憑空論斷、政治抹黑，或企圖向法院裁決施加壓力。聲明同時呼籲律政司採取行動，維護司法機構免受有關媒體作出毫無基礎和不實的指控。
左報昨質疑李官「黎的辯護律師」
翻查報道，《大公報》和《文匯報》昨續就黎智英保釋一事發表評論，批評李官決定輕率，質疑李官沒充分考慮國安法的立法原意，又質疑李官「究竟是法官，還是黎智英的辯護律師？」，明言期待終院能及時糾正。
馬道立張舉能李義屬國安法指定法官
終審法院首席法官馬道立、常任法官張舉能，以及常任法官李義今早將審理黎智英保釋的上訴許可申請。特首辦昨回覆查詢時確認，3名法官均為《港區國安法》的指定法官，惟繼續拒絕披露所有指定法官的名單。
翻查資料，負責審理黎智英保釋的終院常任法官李義，2000年獲委任時立法會文件顯示其國籍為英國。目前除了上訴庭，各級法院指定法官相繼曝光，包括高等法院原訟庭法官周家明和李運騰、區域法院法官陳廣池，以及西九龍裁判法院總裁判官蘇惠德。
特首辦回覆查詢時拒絕透露3名法官是否擁有外國國籍以及所有指定法官的名單。特首辦稱，當司法機構從指定法官名單中確定審理個別案件的人選，法官身分便會公開。由於指定法官任期為一年，實際上可能有些法官任期內毋須審理任何國安案件，加上考慮《個人資料(私隱)條例》，以及近期「起底」和恐嚇法官等行為，決定目前不應披露。
司法機構：除終院高院首席法官
無規定其他法官國籍
司法機構回覆查詢時指出，根據《基本法》，除了終院和高院首席法官應由無外國居留權的香港永久居民的中國公民擔任外，無規定其他法官及司法人員的國籍，任命應根據他們的司法和專業才能選用，並可從其他普通法適用地區聘用。
【有關司法機構被官營媒體攻擊及國安法第55條的聲明】
【Statement on Continuous Attacks on the Judiciary and
Art. 55 of the National Security Law】
(Scroll for English)*
近日，一些官方控制和營運的媒體持續發表文章攻擊香港法院的判決，這類評論文章以及其毫無基礎的攻擊和不實的指控，對我們的法治、司法獨立和程序公義可構成嚴重的影響。我們亦留意到當中涉及應否引用國安法第55條，並將某些案件移交中國大陸審訊的討論和建議，委實令人擔憂。因此，我們（Kenneth 和Janet）聯同另外三位律師（Mark Daly, Michelle Tsoi, Davyd Wong ）發表以下聲明：
Recently, some state-run/ controlled media has mounted continuous attacks on the judiciary. We worried that those ungrounded and unwarranted accusations could pose serious threat to the rule of law, judicial independence and due administration of justice by Hong Kong’s judiciary. We also note with grave concern the suggestion of invoking Article 55 of the National Security Law for the purpose of transferring certain type of cases to Mainland China for trial. Accordingly, we (Kenneth Lam &Janet Pang), together with three other solicitors, Mark Daly, Michelle Choi and David Wong, issue the following joint statement:
《人民日報》於2020年12月27日發表一篇抨擊香港法院在一宗涉及知名人士的案件中批准被告人保釋的評論文章，而文章發表的時候該獲准保釋的決定已進入上訴程序，我們就此表示嚴重關注。
文章攻擊法院的判決，並形容《蘋果日報》創辦人黎智英「惡名昭彰，極度危險」，以及是「亂港禍首」。該報斷言在黎智英案中，不准保釋須是前設的常規，並要求司法機構「作出正確選擇」。
文章又認為已經有足夠證據顯示黎智英已觸犯國安法第55條，該條訂明某些案件可以移交中國大陸審訊。當上訴委員會將於2020年12月31日就政府申請上訴許可召開聆訊，由國家政權控制和營運的報章刊登該篇評論文章，令人尤其擔心及被視為是試圖干預我們獨立的司法機關的程序公義。
作為致力守護長久以來珍而重之的法治和司法獨立的法律執業者，我們認為有責任提出以下關注，並以個人名義僅此聲明：
1、 官營媒體對司法機關毫無基礎的攻擊應當停止
在數位親建制人士及官方控制和營運的媒體 － 包括《文匯報》及《大公報》－ 要求「司法改革」及嘲諷「黃官」的日益壓力下，出現上述評論文章，我們深表憂慮。我們注意到司法機構自今年9月以來，已就對其日趨激烈的攻擊發表了四份聲明。
誠然，公眾有權討論及評論法院的裁決及其根據的事實及法律，惟討論不應流於憑空論斷、政治抹黑，或企圖向法院就某些案件的裁決施加壓力，否則公眾對司法機構的聲譽、專業和獨立勢必受到嚴重破壞。特別是《人民日報》刊登的評論文章，會被視為明顯地向法院將要審理的案件施加壓力，此舉可以是違反審理中的案件不應評論的原則，以及有損公平審訊。這些攻擊應當立即停止。
我們亦呼籲律政司採取行動，維護司法機構免受官方控制或營運的媒體作出毫無基礎和不實指控。正如高浩文法官在其判詞中指出，「在普通法司法管轄區，例如香港，傳統上法官和司法機構是不會公開地就針對其裁決和個人而作出的不公平和不適當的批評為自己辯護，而傳統上負責律政的官員則有責任反駁錯誤的指控，以維護司法機構和個別法官。」
2、 公平審訊及無罪假定
不論如何解讀，香港特區政府有法律責任保護每一位香港居民的基本權利不受侵犯，包括公平審訊的權利。我們質疑一旦涉嫌觸犯國安法第55條下，該等權利是否仍然受到保障。理由有兩方面：第一，我們質疑中國大陸在刑事審訊的程序中，對公平審訊是否有足夠的保障，那是由於中國尚未落實《公民與政治權利國際公約》，這亦是長久以來為人詬病。第二，12名香港居民於2020年12月28日在深圳鹽田法院受審的案件，沒有公開審訊，他們亦沒有權選擇他們委託的法律代表，令人質疑香港特區政府有否履行其法律責任。
上述關注，反映國安法無法為被告人提供足夠的基本人權保障，並在法律上存在很多不確定性。正如英國最高法院院長賓漢（Lord Bingham）在其著作《The Rule of Law》中說明，法治的核心是在一個地方裡，所有不論屬公共或私人的個人和機構，都必須受法律的約束及保障，而法律必須是公開和預先頒佈，以及由法院公開執行。因此，我們促請有關當局嚴格遵守法治原則，自我約束，以及謹慎運用國安法賦予的權力。
帝理邁
林洋鋐
彭皓昕
蔡頴德
黃耀初
2020年12月30日
We note with grave concern that on 27 December 2020, the People’s Daily published another editorial piece criticizing a decision in respect of a bail application that is currently subject to an ongoing appeal. In attacking the judicial decisions in Apple Daily founder, Mr Jimmy Lai Chee-yin’s case, the People’s Daily has labelled him as a “notorious and extremely dangerous” and an “insurgent”. It added that the presumption against bail should be the norm in cases such as Lai’s and urged the judiciary to “make the right decision”. The commentary further claimed that there were sufficient grounds in Mr Lai’s case for invoking Article 55 of the National Security Law (NSL) - which allows certain cases to be transferred to Mainland China for trial.
This type of commentary appearing in a newspaper run/controlled by the Central Government, when the Appeals Committee would soon be hearing the Hong Kong Government’s application for leave to appeal on 31 December 2020, is particularly worrying and borders on an attempt to interfere with the due administration of justice by Hong Kong’s independent judiciary.
We, the undersigned, in our personal capacity and as lawyers committed to safeguarding the Rule of Law and the independence of judiciary, we feel duty bound to draw attention to the following matters:
(1) Unfounded attacks against the judiciary by state-run/controlled media should cease
The above-mentioned commentary was made amid intensifying calls for “judicial reform” and deriding “yellow judges” from various pro-establishment figures and state-run/controlled media, including Wen Wei Po and Tai Kung Po. To that end, we note that the judiciary has had to issue a total of four statements since September this year, in light of the intensifying attacks mounted against it.
Whilst members of the public have the right to discuss and comment on court rulings for reasons grounded on fact or law, such discussion should not cross into bare assertions, imputations of political bias, or attempts to put pressure on the Judiciary to decide specific cases in a particular manner. Otherwise, public confidence in the integrity, professionalism and independence of the judiciary would be seriously undermined. Notably, the commentary published by People’s Daily, could be perceived as putting pressure on the judiciary to decide a pending case in a particular manner, which breaches the sub judice rule and could prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial. These attacks should cease immediately.
We also call on the Secretary of Justice to take action to defend the Judiciary against unwarranted accusations led by state-run/controlled media. As Judge Russell Coleman noted in his judgment, “it has been the traditional view that Judges and the Judiciary do not speak out in defence of their decisions or to defend themselves against unfair and inappropriate criticism [...] in common law jurisdictions like Hong Kong, it was the tradition that the minister responsible for the administration of justice has the duty of defending the Judiciary or individual Judges against wrong accusations”.
(2) Concerns about fair trial and presumption of innocence
The Hong Kong Government has the legal obligation to protect any Hong Kong residents, whose rendition is sought, from violation of his/her fundamental and non-derogable rights, including the right to fair trial. We question whether such rights can be guaranteed upon invoking of Article 55 of the NSL. The reason is two-folded. First, we question whether China has adequate protection on the right to fair trial during the criminal process, as mainland China has not ratified the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and has been long criticised on such. Second, the fact that the 12 Hong Kong residents who stood trial at Shenzhen Yantian People’s Court on 28 December 2020 were denied the right to open trial and the right to appoint lawyers of their choice, casts considerable doubt on whether the Hong Kong Government can fulfil its legal obligation.
These concerns reflect that the NSL lacks adequate protections to safeguard an accused’s fundamental human rights and lacks legal certainty. As Lord Bingham wrote in his book, The Rule of Law, at the core of the rule of law is the notion “that all persons and authorities within the state, whether public or private, should be bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws publicly and prospectively promulgated and publicly administered in the courts”. Accordingly, we urge the authorities to uphold strict adherence to the rule of law and exercise restraint and caution in invoking its power under the NSL.
Mark Daly , Michelle Tsoi Wing Tak , Kenneth Lam,
Davyd Wong , Janet Pang Ho Yan
Dated this 30 December 2020
*上述言論是以個人名義發表，並不代表香港律師會或其理事會的意見。
We emphasise that anything said in the Facebook post is our personal opinion, and do not represent the views of the Law Society or Law Society Council.
