法政匯思:法治的醬缸

羅馬的傾覆並非一朝一夕,一套制度由運作良好至死亡可能經歷幾代人的時間。香港的法治也不會因為一宗上訴庭的刑期覆核而壽終正寢,但不代表不應以宏觀的角度,定期為香港法治把脈,看他是否仍血氣暢順,抑或已是氣若游絲。

法政匯思:籠牢

19世紀英國哲學家Jeremy Bentham 曾經提出建設一個名叫Panopticon的圓形監獄:用一個360度的環狀建築來囚禁犯人(有點像蝙蝠俠在The Dark Knight Rises裡被囚禁的監獄),每個囚犯的監倉都有窗戶讓人監視。然後,在圓形監獄的中央豎立一座監視塔。有別於監倉的設計,監視塔是完全密封的,這樣一來,裡面的負責監視的獄卒可以隨時透過小窗,360度地監視圓形監獄的犯人,但是囚犯無從得知獄卒在何時進行監視。Jeremy Bentham認為,由於囚犯不知道監視塔裡有沒有獄卒,因此即使不是24小時有獄卒當值,囚犯都會假設任何時候自己都是被監視中。更厲害的是,由於每個囚犯的監倉都能見到其他囚犯,因此Panopticon可以讓囚犯代替獄卒的職責,進行互相監視。這樣,國家就可以減少聘請獄卒,省下經費,但是仍然能維持監獄的運作。

港聞 兩案爭論點不同 終院態度不利4子

4名民主派人士羅冠聰、梁國雄、劉小麗和姚松炎,早前亦被高等法院裁定宣誓無效,撤銷其議員資格,其中梁國雄已表明會上訴。法政匯思成員、大律師石書銘表示,一些法律原則問題,如宣誓的條件、人大釋法等,是無法再爭論,指在DQ4子案中,可以有爭拗空間的包括宣誓的方式「什麼叫莊重」,以及梁游案的法律原則未必可以套用在DQ4子身上。但石說,要挑戰DQ4子案原審時的事實裁斷有困難。

義賣支持DQ4 (Charity Sale in Support of DQ4)

為支援DQ4的訴訟及其工作,法政匯思將出售300條DQ4手中的毛巾,全數不扣除成本撥捐「守護公義基金」。每條毛巾售價$100,閣下亦可額外捐款。如有興趣支持,請留言或私訊本專頁,我們會盡快回覆訂購詳情。敬請有錢出錢,有力出力及廣傳此帖,多謝支持!

【法政匯思月會】與四位前立法會議員之分享

法政匯思昨夜與其他專團有幸邀得四位前立法會議員梁國雄、劉小麗、羅冠聰和姚松炎分享他們的議政經驗,展望將來各專團能發揮所長與議員合作,携手監察政府施政,繼續為民主出力。 (We are honoured to have Mr. Nathan Law, Ms. Lau Siu-lai, Mr. Edward Leung and Mr. Leung Kwok-hung sharing their valuable experience with our members tonight. We look forward to further collaboration between lawmakers and different civil professional groups in examining the Hong Kong Government's for the continuous advancement of the democracy of Hong Kong.)

法政匯思:「沒有敵人」的拷問

林鄭月娥:「香港社會要向前發展、要進步,有時要受影響的人,作出一些犧牲及互相配合,最重要的精神是讓香港向前走。若因為爭拗大家不滿,停滯不前並非香港之福。」這番話,林鄭是受一班鄉議局主席、議員、村民簇擁時所講的。 憑什麼,有些人需要犧牲,為了成就大家的向前?是否因為「發展」就一定是對的?所以有人犧牲也就變成必須?為什麼「發展」就不能無人犧牲? 劉曉波犧牲了。他的一生,似乎在引證,林鄭所言是真理。

法政匯思成員石書銘大律師談『人大釋法』從何而來

七月十五日,梁國雄、羅冠聰、劉小麗及姚松炎被法庭裁定失去議員資格,「梁游事件」引發人大釋法,結果,今次DQ(取消資格)四位議員的主審法官高等法院原訟法庭法官區慶祥,便直接引用人大釋法各點,頒下DQ裁決,判決相關內容:依據《基本法》第104條(連同2016年11月7日全國人民代表大會常務委員會就此條文發出的解釋(“《解釋》”))的恰當詮釋、《宣誓及聲明條例》的條文、以及參考相關案例,法庭指出有關作出立法會誓言的法律規定有以下的原則。

Lawmaker oaths: Experts say Beijing’s actions damaged rule of law and may have violated human rights

Legal experts have raised concerns over Beijing’s interpretation of Hong Kong’s mini-constitution amid the oath row in the legislature, arguing that it damaged Hong Kong’s rule of law and potentially violated human rights. The remarks came after the Court of First Instance unseated four elected lawmakers last Fridayfor failing to take their oaths properly at LegCo last October.

FAQ: How might the ejection of 4 more pro-democracy lawmakers alter Hong Kong’s political landscape?

The slow-motion disaster that is Oathgate has now spread from the pro-independence firebrands to the mainstream pro-democracy camp. After the High Court disqualified localist lawmakers Yau Wai-ching and Baggio Leung nearly nine months ago, four more members of the Legislative Council (Legco) lost their jobs last Friday. Nathan Law, “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung, Lau Siu-lai and Edward Yiu had all strayed from the prescribed oath during the swearing-in ceremony. According to the supreme decisionhanded down by China’s National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) in November, that minor infraction was enough for all of them to each get a pink slip.

The Long Arm of China’s Law Is Coming Down Heavy on Hong Kong

(Foreign Policy) As Hong Kong prepared to mark the 20th anniversary of its handover to Chinese sovereignty, the pro-independence Hong Kong National Party sent instructions to supporters planning to attend a rally: bring masks both for anonymity and as protection against tear gas, encrypt your electronic devices, and carry a telephone number for legal assistance in case of arrest. The spur for this was the Hong Kong authorities’ prohibition of the rally on the grounds that it violated the territory’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law, which has been in effect since 1997 when Hong Kong returned to Chinese sovereignty. The group had issued this precautionary list with the intention of defying the ban, but it backed down after police threatened the organizer with detention for illegal assembly, despite the fact that he was the sole attendee.

DQ一案 輸了制度輸了民主

4名在立法會選舉中勝出的候選人,包括港島區的羅冠聰、九龍西的劉小麗、新界東的梁國雄,及建築、測量、都市規劃及園境界功能界別的姚松炎,都在立法會首次會議上就職宣誓中,有與法律要求不同的演繹。雖然立法會主席其後准許再宣誓,但在人大釋法後,行政長官和律政司長皆指他們應當被視為拒絕或忽略宣誓,議席因而出缺。

【DQ風波.博評】原訴法院「四議員宣誓案」:釋法與法治十問十答

今個星期,按《01博評》邀請,再暫停寫親子,與大家說說法律。 昨日,高等法院就羅冠聰、梁國雄、劉小麗、姚松炎的立法會就職宣誓案頒佈判辭。區慶祥大法官的判辭長達112頁,覆蓋甚廣。各傳媒已就判辭內容廣泛引述,不少法律界人士亦已就判辭的實質法律、法律程序或政治影響發表意見,我亦無意在此重複他人已做的具體法律分析。 不過,我留意到在判辭頒佈後,有些人說它是彰顯法治、有些人說是法治已死。我想趁這個機會以問答形式再重溫一下人大常委釋法機制與法治的關係,然後再簡短地看看今次「四議員宣誓案」的法治討論。

Hong Kong lawmaker disqualification ruling ‘opens huge floodgate’, lawyers say

Progressive Lawyers Group convener Kevin Yam Kin-fung said the judgment was far-reaching. He said a lawmaker could now even be held accountable for holding an umbrella while taking an oath. “It opens a huge floodgate,” he said, and could have a chilling effect on lawmakers in future.

Four pro-democracy lawmakers disqualified from Hong Kong parliament

(USA Today) In a blow to the pro-democracy movement, four opposition lawmakers were disqualified from Hong Kong’s parliament Friday over charges that they did not take their swearing-in oaths seriously. “[The court ruling] will declaw and decimate the opposition bloc,” said Jason Y. Ng, a Hong Kong lawyer, Progressive Lawyers Group member, author and social activist.