The Civic Party respects your personal privacy and is committed to maintaining your trust and confidence. We believe in ensuring the security of your personal information. Please contact us if you have any questions or concerns. The purpose of collecting the information in this form is to complete the purchase concerned and allow the Civic Party to contact you in the future. We are the sole owner of any information we collect. Your personal information is not lent or sold to anyone for any purpose.
12/01/2020
法庭今昔
在高等法院旁聽政府上訴「緊急法」判決。代表政府的資深大律師向上訴庭力陳，「緊急法」是1997 前已在香港存在已久的法律，行使該法已是香港人生活的一部分。基本法的基本精神是「延續性」（continuity），故法庭應裁定「緊急法」繼續有效。
資深大律師的邏輯令人神往。但最諷刺的是他引用1997 年7 月1 日上訴庭裁決的《馬維騉案》為根據。當年，也是在這個法庭，李志喜、我和夏博義三名大律師不請自來，要求介入爭辯臨立會是否合法。且不論結果，諷刺的是，那時法庭與大律師之間的關係密切，大律師視協助法庭免陷錯誤為己任，而法庭對真誠盡責、有學問修養的大律師十分禮待，視為司法體制的一分子。今日我們須憑票入座，儼然已是陌路人，甚至障礙物。
此時恰巧重新發現1999 年2 月美國最高法院副庭長Anthony Kennedy 在此向香港司法界發表談話的講稿原文，講及司法獨立的真正意義與大律師角色的關係。原文字字打動人心，篇幅所限，無法在此翻譯而不失原文風采，只能撮錄，以饗讀者：「It is my respectful submission that one requisite for judicial independence is that judges have the jurisdiction, the right, and the capacity to decide all matters, susceptible to judicial resolution, that are necessary to ensure liberty and human freedom. If a judiciary does not have jurisdiction to this extent, then the members of the bar and members of the larger society must continue to expand the jurisdiction. This is vital, because if the bar and the society seem indifferent to a too-narrow judicial charter,there is a risk that the judiciary will in fact or perception aid and abet a larger scheme to deprive persons of their liberty.」