「我離港前到過一間精神科醫院。當時有位病人禮貌地問,一個以作為世上最悠久民主政體而自傲的國家,如何能夠將此地交給一個政治制度非常不同的國家,且既沒諮詢當地公民,又沒給予他們民主的前景,好讓他們捍衞自己的將來。一個隨行同事說,奇怪,香港提出最理智問題的人,竟在精神科醫院。」彭定康 金融時報

“During a visit to a mental hospital before I left Hong Kong, a patient politely asked me how a country that prided itself on being the oldest democracy in the world had come to be handing over his city to another country with a very different system of government, without either consulting the citizens or giving them the prospect of democracy to safeguard their future. Strange, said one of my aides, that the man with the sanest question in Hong Kong is in a mental hospital.”Chris Patten Financial Times

Non Chinese literate friends, please simply switch to English Version provided by LOUSY Google Translation

Please participate in the unregistered demography survey of visitors at the right hand side bar. You are: ?

敬請參與在右下方的不記名訪客分佈調查問卷,你是: ?

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

2010法律年度開啟典禮

2010法律年度開啟典禮




照片來源:明報新聞網



看看照片中的法官們,頭戴英式的假髮,出席香港特別行政區,2010法律年度的開啟典禮,憶起一九九七年的回歸儀式上,也曾當著北京的領導人,上演了類似的畫面。


【明報專訊】終審法院首席法官李國能說,踏入一零年代,司法制度面對的重大挑戰是,如何使人人均可向法院尋求公道。

李國能在本年度的法律年度開啟典禮上致辭,他表示,自1997年以來,法律環境的其中一項重要發展,無疑是司法覆核案件的增加。

撇除居港權案件,2001年共有116宗司法覆核申請,至2005年已升至149宗。過去數年,司法覆核申請的數目介乎2006年的132宗至2008年的147宗。2009年,入稟的司法覆核申請共有144宗。

他指出,引致香港社會出現這個現象的因素包括:隨著社會日趨複雜,法例的制定也日見繁多;還有是《人權法案》及《基本法》的制定;此外,社會各界對公民權利的意識亦日漸提高。

他表明,法庭在司法覆核程序的職能,僅是釐定合法性的界限。政治、社會或經濟問題,只能經由政治過程,而非通過法律程序去謀求解決辦法。

李國能稱,踏入廿一世紀一零年代,本港司法制度面對的重大挑戰是,如何使人人均可向法院尋求公道。富有的人和大公司或能負擔訟費,低收入人士也符合申領法律援助的資格,但社會上大部份人,包括中小企業,卻難以負擔訴訟所招致的法律費用。

他表示,為保持中立公正,司法機構的無律師代表訴訟人資源中心只能就程序事宜給予協助,並不能提供法律意見。要紓緩有關情況,不能一蹴即就,我們要採取簡化程序、提供義務法律服務及採用調解等措施,多管齊下。



一九九七年七月一日的零時,香港終結英國人百多年的殖民統治,回歸中國大家庭。《基本法》容許香港繼續資本主義模式社會,並繼續實行英國人留下的《普通法》 Common Law,香港仍然享有:三權分立的獨立~司法、立法、執法(究竟真否獨立呢?不在本文評論之列。)而且對重大案件保留了:陪審團制度 Jury System,這個暫時在中國內地法律界,還未有設立的制度。


柴九話:”人生有幾多個十年。“ Space 恭逢其會,自香港回歸中國,匆匆十二年又六個月過去了,幸好沒有行差踏錯,也幸宜沒有冶上官非,連交通告票都沒有一張,幸甚!幸甚!


獨立的司法,是保證社會:公平、公義、公正 的基石,能否辦得到呢?始終仍然是需要靠人,but nothing is perfect,祇可以說是朝著這個方向,希望做得更加完美。


明報引述李大法官的演辭,指出:

自1997年以來,法律環境的其中一項重要發展,無疑是司法覆核案件的增加。

撇除居港權案件,2001年共有116宗司法覆核申請,至2005年已升至149宗。過去數年,司法覆核申請的數目介乎2006年的132宗至2008年的147宗。2009年,入稟的司法覆核申請共有144宗。

他指出,引致香港社會出現這個現象的因素包括:隨著社會日趨複雜,法例的制定也日見繁多;還有是《人權法案》及《基本法》的制定;此外,社會各界對公民權利的意識亦日漸提高。



司法覆核 Judicial Review《註一》,正面的可以說是,香港各界對公民權利的意識,日漸提高。負面的說,就是香港社會的矛盾日增。其中包含:貧富懸殊,做成社會兩極化,官商勾結,做成不公平不公正,漸漸釀成社會缺乏互信基礎,社會嚴重分化,更每每令到商業活動,變成政治化。


上層的有錢不用愁,並且得到官府偏幫。下層的有綜援網,又得到政府派糖。勤勤懇懇打工的中層,卻祇是有份納稅,但沒得到甚麼援助,也沒有甚麼保障。衣、食、住、行、柴、米、油、鹽、醬、醋、茶,在新年後,樣樣又再加,加完又加,中層中產是壓力最重的社群,怨氣日增。上次曾蔭權上京述職,溫總見曾特首時,就是一句:”香港應解決深層次矛盾。“


要『香港應解決深層次矛盾。』談何容易,已經釋放出了的,就很難收得返!


《註一》【維基百科】司法覆核與違憲審查,雖然都被翻譯為英語的 Judicial Review,但違憲審查包括針對違反基本法的行為與立法,兩者不宜混淆。


Annex 附加:
終審法院首席法官李國能在二零一零年法律年度開啟典禮上發表的演辭全文(譯文):

律政司司長、大律師公會主席、律師會會長、各位嘉賓:

我謹代表司法機構全體人員,熱列歡迎各位蒞臨本年度的法律年度開啟典禮,並衷心感謝在座各位出席支持。本人在法律年度開啟典禮上致辭,實感榮幸;這是我上任以來第十三次,也是最後一次在這典禮上致辭。

今年承蒙多位貴賓光臨,倍感榮幸。當中包括最高人民法院 萬鄂湘 副院長;全國政協 張福森 常務委員;馬來西亞 Zaki Azmi 首席法官;新南威爾士 Spigelman 首席法官及來自多個司法管轄區的法官,他們行將出席在香港舉行的商業訴訟研討會;以及來自內地、澳門、台灣、法國、韓國及菲律賓的法律界領袖。我向他們表示熱烈歡迎,並感謝他們出席典禮。

司法獨立
香港在「一國兩制」的新憲制秩序下回歸中國,至今已超過12年。在此期間,各方面已廣泛認同和接受司法獨立對香港是極其重要。憲制上,對司法獨立的保證已全面落實。此外,與司法獨立相符的慣例及做法亦已形成。

司法任命過程絶不應政治化,這一點對司法獨立,至為重要。在我們的司法管轄區,司法任命過程從不政治化,我深信日後亦會如此。立法會在同意最高級別司法人員任命的過程中,亦當如是。

我樂見立法會就考慮同意司法任命的事情上,已採納既定程序,確保其在履行職責時,過程不會政治化。我有信心,將來立法會在考慮同意司法任命的事宜時,必定會一如以往,不會讓過程政治化。

司法機關的角色
每一個司法管轄區都有各自的憲制安排,分配行政、立法與司法機關的權力,以及三者的相互關係。每一司法管轄區的安排,均反映本身的歷史背景及本身的情況。一個司法管轄區的安排,對另一管轄區而言,未必適合。

對香港而言,一個獨立司法機關所擔當的角色,須予以重申及強調,併爲各界清晰理解,這是很重要的。在香港的制度下,行政、立法和司法機關互相制衡。在憲制上,獨立的司法機關肩負重要任務,確保行政、立法機關的運作完全符合《基本法》和法律的規定,以及確保市民的基本權利和自由得到充分保障。這些基本權利和自由正是香港製度的精義所在。

法律之前,人人平等。我們必須遵守法律,所有政府機關及全部公職人員均須如此。司法機關不單要不偏不倚,還要讓人得見我們行事是不偏不倚的。法官審理糾紛,不論是市民之間,或是市民與政府之間的糾紛,均以不偏不倚的態度作出裁決。

在處理涉及行政或立法機關的案件時,法官既不採取對抗態度,亦不刻意偏袒任何一方。法官的職責是執行司法工作,無懼無偏。若行政或立法機關勝訴,這不是因為法庭有意偏袒。同樣,若判行政或立法機關敗訴,也不是因為法庭有意對抗。無論判決如何,法庭都只是履行憲法職能,公平公正地審理案件。

司法覆核
自1997年以來,法律環境的其中一項重要發展,無疑是司法覆核案件的增加。撇除居港權案件,2001年共有116宗司法覆核申請,至2005年已升至149宗。過去數年,司法覆核申請的數目介乎2006年的132宗至2008年的147宗。2009年,入稟的司法覆核申請共有144宗。

這個現象在許多普通法適用地區亦屬常見。我在此之前已公開表明,引致香港社會出現這個現象的因素包括:隨着社會日趨複雜,法例的制定也日見繁多;還有是《人權法案》及《基本法》的制定;此外,社會各界對公民權利的意識亦日漸提高。我亦早已表明,法庭在司法覆核程序的職能,僅是釐定合法性的界限。政治、社會或經濟問題,只能經由政治過程,而非通過法律程序去謀求解決辦法。

過去兩年的數字值得我們探討。2008年入稟的司法覆核申請有147宗。除卻其後撤回及截至年底尚未判決的申請,已處理的個案共有130宗;其中66宗獲法庭給予許可以進行覆核,其馀64宗(即49%)則被拒絶給予許可。2009年的情況與此相去不遠。在已處理的119宗司法覆核申請當中,63宗獲給予許可以進行覆核,而被法庭拒絶給予許可的有56宗(即47%)。

由此可見,過去兩年有很多司法覆核申請,早在法律程序最初的「申請許可階段」即被拒絶,原因是該等申請未能符合由終審法院於2007年11月所設定「合理爭辯的申索」的門檻。這些數字也許值得社會各界思考。

終審法院
終審法院在過去12年一直運作暢順。法院現時每年聆訊約40宗上訴,以及處理約150宗上訴許可申請,其中約有50-60%的申請是根據檔案處理,而毋須進行聆訊的。

終審法院合議庭由五位法官組成,包括一位海外的非常任法官,這做法一向運作良好,這些海外的非常任法官是澳洲、新西蘭及英國的著名法官。當然,來自海外的法官深明,參與終審法院的聆訊時,他們是在「一國兩制」下的香港,履行香港法官的職責,亦僅限於香港法官的職責。今天,前澳洲首席法官梅師賢爵士,以我們司法體系一員的身份,一同在台上參與典禮,我實感高興。梅師賢爵士對終審法院,實在貢獻良多。

相對來說,終審法院仍是一個比較新的終審法院,還需進一步累積經驗,但終審法院在法理方面的論述,已日漸廣為其他普通法適用地區援引。我敢說,終審法院在建立其地位的過程上,已取得良好進展。

終審法院遷往立法會現址的策劃工作已經展開,至於修建工程,則須待立法會遷出方可進行。預計終審法院可於2014年左右搬遷,相信這會是法院的永久院址。正因如此,我們必須周詳籌劃,讓大樓設施完備,使香港市民以此為榮。

日後,我定會懷念這座前法國外方傳道會大樓,這個地方畢竟見證了法院的成長,還載有我在任內經歷挑戰的回憶。然而,我們都總是要邁步向前。

法官
我們約有180位法官,他們秉持司法機構的理念,同儕共事。過去12年,我們羅致法律界優秀人材,出任裁判法院、區域法院及原訟法庭法官。我喜見有更多法律界優秀人材出任較高級別法院法官,而且已成趨勢。同時,我亦樂見司法機構也不乏優秀人材,他們具備潛質可升任較高級別法院的法官。

然而,法官無論在司法機構身居何職,他們每一個人的工作,對秉行公正,都各有重要貢獻,不可或缺。此外,司法機構政務處支援人員的工作亦屬重要,對他們的表現,我深表認同。

法官深明社會大衆對司法機構抱有殷切的期望。法官在行為上應當嚴守至高標準,這點極為重要。我樂見司法機構已為此訂下法官行為指引,並施行適當機制,處理關於法官行為的投訴。

與其他司法管轄區的交流
在「一國兩制」下,內地與香港法官對兩地制度,以及彼此的差異都應相互了解,這一點當然重要。過去12年,我們一直致力舉辦會議、互訪及研討課程等活動,促進彼此交流。另一方面,香港是「一國兩制」下中國境內唯一的普通法司法管轄區,我們透過同類交流活動,與其他主要的普通法適用地區繼續維持聯繫,亦同樣重要。

法律專業
稱職而獨立的法律專業,對香港社會至為重要,對司法機構的獨立運作,更是不可缺少。業內競爭日趨激烈,維持高效率固屬必需,但法律執業始終不能僅視為商業活動。法律專業是一門崇高的職業,執業者必須維持高專業道德操守,並以服務社會為理想。所有律師都應為其專業及社會,併爲推動需求殷切的義務法律服務,作出貢獻。

律師在較高級別法院出庭發言權的問題,討論已久,現終能在有關各方支持下,取得令人滿意的成果。所需的法例快將制定,並將於今年稍後施行。屆時,較高級法院出庭發言權評核委員會亦會成立,將由一位法官出任主席。我有信心,委員會定能確保日後有更多出庭代訟人可供選擇,同時,庭上訟辯的高水平亦得以維持。

賦予律師較高級法院出庭發言權一事,早於十多年前由香港律師會首先提出,雖然最近才有定論,但最終能達成凝聚共識的解決方案,討論經年,亦有所值。

民事司法制度改革及調解
民事司法制度改革是大型的改革工作。在高等法院首席法官領導,及其他法官和支援人員協助下,民事司法制度改革已於2009年4月順利實施。然而,要完全穩固改革後的制度,仍需要一段時間。積極的案件管理是改革的重點。

假以時日,這將改變我們的訴訟文化,從而提高成本效益,並確保案件得以迅速處理。另一特點是由法庭藉鼓勵爭議各方採用調解來解決糾紛。有關的實務指示已於1月1日生效。通過調解而圓滿解決糾紛的個案,預期會顯着增加。至於改革後制度的運作,現正由高等法院首席法官擔任主席的委員會監察有關情況。

尋求公道
踏入廿一世紀一零年代,本港司法制度面對的重大挑戰是,如何使人人均可向法院尋求公道。富有的人和大公司或能負擔訟費,低收入人士也符合申領法律援助的資格,但社會上大部份人,包括中小企業,卻難以負擔訴訟所招致的法律費用。

為保持中立公正,司法機構的無律師代表訴訟人資源中心只能就程序事宜給予協助,並不能提供法律意見。要紓緩有關情況,不能一蹴即就,我們要採取簡化程序、提供義務法律服務及採用調解等措施,多管齊下。

公共資源無疑有限。要公共資源用得其所,其中一個方法是為市民提供機會,好讓他們在糾紛最初階段獲得法律意見,從而使糾紛得以避免或迅速解決。要確保人人均可向法院尋求公道,當中會涉及種種挑戰,法律界人士均應責無旁貸,致力面對挑戰,併爲此作出貢獻。

結語
我於八月底才離任,所以不在此跟各位道別,還是留待七月我在終審法院的儀式時,才與各位話別。

今天,我只想說:香港在「一國兩制」下回歸中國,在新憲制下,我出任香港終審法院首席法官,有機會在這新時代出一分力,是我一生的最高榮譽。

最後,我謹代表司法機構全體人員,祝願各位身體健康、新年快樂!多謝各位!



The following is the full text of the speech delivered by the Hon Chief Justice Andrew Kwok-nang Li at the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2010 today (January 11):

Secretary for Justice, Mr Chairman, Mr President, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen,

On behalf of all my colleagues in the Judiciary, I would like to welcome all of you warmly to this Opening of the Legal Year. I thank you sincerely for your support by your presence. This is the 13th and the last address which I have the honour of giving at this event.

This year, we are particularly honoured by the presence of a number of distinguished visitors, including Vice-President Wan Exiang of the Supreme People's Court; Mr Zhang Fusen of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference; Chief Justice Zaki Azmi of Malaysia; Chief Justice Spigelman of New South Wales and judges from various jurisdictions attending the Commercial Litigation Seminar; and the leaders of the legal profession from the Mainland, Macau, Taiwan, France, Korea and the Philippines. I would like to welcome all of them to Hong Kong and to thank them for their attendance.

Judicial Independence
It is now over 12 years since Hong Kong entered the new constitutional order as part of China under the principle of "one country, two systems". During this period, judicial independence has been universally recognised and accepted to be of pivotal importance to Hong Kong. The constitutional guarantees for an independent Judiciary have been fully implemented. Further, conventions and practices which accord with judicial independence have developed.

It is essential to judicial independence that the process of judicial appointment should never be politicised. In our jurisdiction, it has not been politicised and I trust that it will never be. This includes the endorsement process in the Legislative Council for the most senior judicial appointments.

I am glad to see that the Legislative Council has adopted a procedure for dealing with endorsement which ensures that whilst enabling it to discharge its duty, the process is not politicised. I am confident that the Council will continue to deal with the process of endorsement without politicising it.

Role of the Judiciary
Each jurisdiction has its own constitutional arrangements distributing power between the executive, legislative and judicial branches and providing for the relationships between them. The arrangement for each jurisdiction reflects its own history and its own circumstances. The arrangement for one jurisdiction may not be appropriate for another.

It is important for the role of the independent Judiciary in Hong Kong to be reiterated and strongly emphasised and for its role to be clearly understood. The Hong Kong's system involves checks and balances between the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. The independent Judiciary has a vital constitutional role to ensure that the acts of the Executive and the Legislature comply fully with the Basic Law and the law and that our fundamental rights and freedoms, which are at the heart of Hong Kong's system, are fully safeguarded.

Everyone, including all organs of government and all public officials, are subject to and equal before the law. The Judiciary is and must be seen to be impartial. Judges resolve all disputes, whether between citizens or between citizen and government in an impartial manner.

In dealing with cases involving the Executive or the Legislature, Judges adopt neither a confrontational approach nor an approach designed to favour them. They simply administer justice without fear or favour. So where the Executive or the Legislature is successful in a case, this is not the result of the court seeking to favour them. Equally where a judgment goes against the Executive or the Legislature, the court is not seeking to confront them. In either case, the court is simply discharging its constitutional duty of adjudicating the dispute fairly and impartially.

Judicial review
A major development in the legal landscape since 1997 has undoubtedly been the growth of judicial review. Excluding the right of abode cases, 116 applications for judicial review were filed in 2001. In 2005, the number had grown to 149. In the last few years, the number ranged from 132 in 2006 to 147 in 2008. In 2009, 144 applications were filed.

This is a common phenomenon in many common law jurisdictions. I have previously explained publicly the factors which have led to it in the Hong Kong context: the growth in the volume of legislation to deal with an increasingly complex society, the enactment of the Bill of Rights and the Basic Law and the greater awareness on the part of citizens of their rights. I have also previously made clear that the court's role on judicial review is only to define the limits of legality. And that the solution to political, social and economic problems cannot be found through the legal process and can only be found through the political process.

It is interesting to examine the figures in the last two years. In 2008, 147 applications for judicial review were filed. Leaving aside those which had been withdrawn and those which were still pending at the end of the year, 130 applications were dealt with. Leave was granted in 66 cases and refused in 64 cases, that is, 49%. The picture for 2009 was not materially different. Of the 119 cases dealt with, leave was granted in 63 cases and refused in 56 cases, that is, 47%.

So, in the past two years, a substantial number of applications for judicial review were refused at the initial leave stage because they failed to meet the threshold test of a reasonably arguable case laid down by the Court of Final Appeal in November 2007. These figures provide food for thought and the community may consider it worthwhile to reflect on them.

The Court of Final Appeal
Over the last 12 years, the Court of Final Appeal has been functioning smoothly. The Court is now hearing about 40 appeals a year and dealing with about 150 applications for leave to appeal, of which about 50-60% are disposed of on the papers without a hearing.

The participation of one non-permanent overseas judge in the collegiate court of five judges drawn from a panel of eminent judges from Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom has worked well. Of course, as is well appreciated by the overseas judges, when they sit on the Court, they function as and only as Hong Kong judges in Hong Kong's own circumstances under "one country, two systems". I am delighted to have on the platform today as part of our Judiciary, Sir Anthony Mason, the former Chief Justice of Australia, who has made such a signal contribution to our Court.

The Court is a relatively young court and we have much to learn. The Court's jurisprudence has been increasingly cited in other common law jurisdictions. I would venture to suggest that it has made good progress in establishing its stature.

Planning work is proceeding on the relocation of the Court to the present Legislative Council Building. Renovation works cannot start until the Council moves and the relocation may be made in around 2014. The Building will presumably be the Court's permanent home and in order to ensure that the people of Hong Kong can be justly proud of it, we should make haste slowly in getting it ready.

I for one shall be nostalgic for the French Mission Building where the Court spent its formative years and which holds so many memories of the challenges during my tenure. But it will be time to move on.

Judges
The approximately 180 judges in the Judiciary have a strong collegiate spirit. In the last 12 years, we have recruited good talent from the legal profession at the magisterial, District Court and the Court of First Instance levels. I am pleased that the number joining at the higher levels has increased and that we have developed some momentum in this regard. And I am glad that we also have good judges who have the potential of advancing to higher levels.

But whatever position the Judge occupies in the Judiciary, his or her work is essential and makes an important contribution to the administration of justice. The work of supporting staff in Judiciary administration is also important and is greatly appreciated.

Judges are deeply conscious of the community's high expectations of the Judiciary. It is of fundamental importance that judges should observe the highest standards of conduct. I am glad that we have developed the Guide to Judicial Conduct and have operated a proper system for dealing with complaints against judges' conduct.

Exchanges with other Jurisdictions
Under "one country, two systems", it is of course important that Judges in the Mainland and Hong Kong have a mutual understanding of each other's system and the differences between them. In the last 12 years, we have made great efforts to develop this through conferences, visits, courses and the like. As the only common law jurisdiction in China under "one country, two systems", it is equally important that Hong Kong continues to maintain its links with leading common law jurisdictions through similar activities.

The Legal Profession
A competent and independent legal profession is of crucial importance to our community and is indeed essential to the functioning of an independent Judiciary. Conditions in the profession are increasingly competitive. But whilst efficiency is necessary, ultimately, the practice of law cannot be treated merely as a business. It is an honourable profession with high ethical standards and with ideals of service. All lawyers should contribute their fair share to service of the profession and public service. They should also do their part to develop pro bono services which are much needed.

The long standing issue of higher rights of audience for solicitors has been satisfactorily resolved with the support of all stakeholders. The necessary legislation will soon be enacted and will be brought into force later this year. The Higher Rights Assessment Board to be chaired by a judge will then be established. I am confident that the Board will ensure that whilst widening the choice of advocates for users, high standards of advocacy will be maintained.

This issue was first raised by the Law Society well over a decade ago. Although it had taken some considerable time to settle, it has been worthwhile to take time to evolve a consensus solution.

Civil Justice Reform and Mediation
Civil Justice Reform has been a major exercise. Under the leadership of the Chief Judge of the High Court and with the support of judges and supporting staff, its implementation in April 2009 went smoothly. But it will take some time for the Reform to fully settle in. A central feature is active case management by the court. In due time, this will bring about a change of culture in the conduct of litigation which would increase cost-effectiveness and ensure expedition. Another key feature is the facilitation by the court of the settlement of disputes by encouraging parties to engage in mediation. The relevant Practice Direction came into force on 1 January. It is expected that mediated settlements satisfactory to the parties will significantly increase. A Committee chaired by the Chief Judge is monitoring the working of the reformed system.

Access to Justice
As we stand at the threshold of the second decade of the 21st century, our judicial system faces the major challenge of seeking to ensure access to justice for all. The rich and the big corporations may be able to afford to litigate. Those with low income are eligible for legal aid. But the bulk of the population, including small and medium enterprises, find it difficult to afford the legal fees involved in litigation.

To maintain the Judiciary's impartiality, our Resource Centre for Unrepresented Litigants can only assist on procedure but cannot provide legal advice. There is no magic wand which can be waved to solve the problem. A number of measures are necessary to alleviate the situation, including making procedures less complex, the availability of pro bono services and the use of mediation.

Public resources are inevitably limited. But one area where they could be usefully employed is to provide citizens with the opportunity of obtaining legal advice at an early stage so that a dispute could either be avoided or resolved speedily. Everyone in the legal community should be concerned with and should contribute to meeting the challenges involved in ensuring access to justice for all.

Conclusion
Since I shall only be stepping down at the end of August, I shall not be bidding farewell now. This will be done at a farewell sitting in the Court of Final Appeal in July.

On this occasion, I shall only say that it has been the greatest honour of my life to serve as your Chief Justice and to be given an opportunity to contribute at this dawn of the new constitutional order of Hong Kong as part of China under "one country, two systems".

It remains for me to wish you on behalf of all my colleagues in the Judiciary good health and every happiness in the new year. Thank you.






伸延閱覽:

司法獨立:
Chief Justice's speech at Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2010 (Full Text) gov.hk
Chief judge rejects judicial politicisation gov.hk
李國能:司法任命不應政治化 gov.hk
李國能冀人人可尋求公道 雅虎新聞網
終審法院李國能致辭全文 新浪新聞網
溫總:香港應解決深層次矛盾 文匯新聞網
李國能生平 維基百科
普通法 Common Law 維基百科
香港法例~第三章——陪審團條例 Jury Ordinance 維基百科
司法覆核 Judicial Review 維基百科
司法覆核在香港 Judicial Review in Hong Kong 維基百科

社會分化:
新社會運動並非世代之間的戰爭 雅虎新聞網
80後反高鐵群組「準備暴動」 雅虎新聞網
認識「80後」不能靠舊思維 雅虎新聞網
80後十時苦行往立法會- Yahoo! 新聞 雅虎新聞網



我的舊文:
李國能突然宣報退休


8 comments:

新鮮人 said...

司法獨立是很很重要的,
因為這樣才可以維持公義,
(相對朲說),
尤其在一個不是民主選舉出來的政府,
如果司法受到干擾,
很容易成為政府的工具,
我們今天可以看到阿拉伯酋長個細佬打人無罪,
就可見司法不能獨立不受影響的危險了!

the inner space said...

新鮮兄:香港特區政府罕有在 GOV.HK 網頁:
《李國能:司法任命不應政治化
終審法院首席法官李國能表示,司法任命過程絕不應政治化,這點對司法獨立至為重要。

他指出,香港的司法任命過程,和立法會同意最高級別司法人員任命的過程,從不政治化,深信日後亦當如此。》

相信特區政府正和阿公在任命李國能的繼任人角力中。

啲尊貴立法會議員,顧著玩“高鐵”牌,另一方面又攪“五區總辭”,漏了這則暗露玄機的新聞,將來香港連“施法”獨立都無埋,渣都無剩囉!


GOV.HK: 司法任命不應政治化

新鮮人 said...

希望班議員唔好漏眼啦!

鹿米館 said...

候任者的能力和堅持,比起李國能更有難度,候任者其實都幾難做。

若能夠保持李國能的態度,是香港之福。

the inner space said...

新鮮兄:翻看今天曾蔭權特首,在立法會的答問大會的新聞報導,no trace 有個別議員,提及問及 Andrew Li Kwok Nang 的 successor 繼任人,看來沒有議員關心,這個議題:“李國能:司法任命不應政治化。”

the inner space said...

鹿米館兄:歡迎來訪首次留言交流。
然而在李大法官在任內,三次”人大釋法“,喬曉陽多次來港,四大護法的評論,到如今李大法官在新的法律年度開啟,Gov.hk 以:“司法任命不應政治化” 為題報導,個中的尖銳化,不言而喻!

Haricot 微豆 said...

Space:

Thank you for the reference you posted at my May 05, 2010 blog article "拉羊毛蒙蔽別人的眼睛 / Pull the wool over someone's eyes".

I hope 三權分立 (司法、立法、執法) will continue to work for the HK ppl.

the inner space said...

Hari big brother,戴了假髮,對“三權分立: 司法、立法、執法,沒有 added value 呱!