香港奇案

The recent Trump case was one of the most eye-opening and confusing judgments I've read. For context, Trump signed an executive order to re-interpret "birthright" citizenship limiting it to children born in USA by at least one parent with US citizenship. A couple district courts ordered preliminary injunctions against its enforcement. The government eventually argued to the Supreme Court that the preliminary injunctions were too broad in scope. The court with an apparently 6:3 majority decided that the lower courts had no right to award "universal injunctions" beyond the scope of the plaintiffs seeking the injunction. Federal courts' power to issue injunctions apparently stems from the Judiciary Act of 1789, which endowed federal courts with jurisdiction over "all suits... in equity". This is nothing exciting, except that the USSC then declares that the scope of "equity" is basically the jurisdiction of the High Court of Chancery in Engla...

最近追緊套動畫番背景係九龍寨城。所以就多手望下啲相關嘅無聊嘢。 由於唔熟書，啱啱先知道原來九龍寨城雖然本身係俾清政府駐軍，但好似屁股未坐熱就俾英軍趕走咗。我仲以為駐守咗一段時期𠻹。 再查落去就開始有少少得意，乜唔係《展拓香港界址專條》寫明個地方留俾清政府㗎咩？點解可以趕人走？ 睇返啲條文就覺得件事真係十分之on9。條約係咁寫： "... within the city of Kowloon the Chinese officials now stationed there shall continue to exercise jurisdiction except so far as may be inconsistent with the military requirements for the defence of Hong Kong." 另外有一段 "It is further understood that there will be no expropriation or expulsion of the inhabitants of the district included within the extension, and that if land is required for public offices, fortifications, or the like official purposes, it shall be bought at a fair price." 之後冇幾耐 (過咗一年)，英方就話清兵喺度駐守有礙香港防務，趕晒佢哋走。然後就有個 order in council 話將九龍寨城當係一般英殖香港領土： "The City of Kowloon shall be, and the same is hereby declared to be, for the term of the lease in the said Convention mentioned, part and parcel of Her Majesty's Colony of Hong Kong, in like manner and for all intents and purposes as ...

In Hong Kong, it's well known that there is a cap on the interest (48%) one can charge for loans per Money Lender's Ordinance. Now let's say Mr. X needs $100.  He has an apartment that is valued at approx $1000. He takes a $100 loan from an unscrupulous money lender, repayable over 10 years, at 20% p.a. secured against the apartment. The loan contains a clause that says if the borrower defaults on any payment, the whole loan including future interests would be immediately payable. Now, the kind of person who'd take a loan from "money lenders" at 20% interest instead of "banks" is the kind who's not particularly creditworthy. So, almost inevitably, Mr. X fails to make a payment towards the loan, let's say 2 years later. So, in the first year principle+interest=$100+$20,  let's say repayment is $30 second year, principle+interest=$90+18, let's say $30 is repaid as well after the second year, principle is $78 If Mr. X defaults at this po...

 「扮女同志」比較似「呃蝦條」多過似「強姦」。馬後炮咁講，如果呢單案唔係告「強姦」而係「呃蝦條」，入罪機會可能會高啲。喺香港「呃蝦條」係犯法嘅，罪名係「以虛假藉口促致他人作非法的性行為」(Crimes Ordinance s120 "Procurement by false pretences")。呢條罪嘅條文用字有啲怪，斷估本身係用嚟阻止迫良為娼之類嘅犯罪行為。 不過偉大嘅香港特區律政司發現啲條文可以用嚟告人「呃蝦條」。當年嘅「性交轉運案」就係用呢條 s120 嚟告。 喺我眼中，「性交轉運案」有一大堆法理問題，包括條文寫到一嚿屎咁，字面解讀似乎係違心講句「I love you」嚟呃蝦條都會入到罪；另外就係明明香港喺基本法下有宗教自由，但法庭就好隨意咁批判民間嘅迷信。呢樣嘢我每隔一兩年就會「年經」提一次，因為真係講唔撚過去 (不過你提呢啲嘢，唔通你支持性交轉運呃蝦條？會俾人人格謀殺架）。 今次俾我留意到原來有 Cornell 學者寫咗篇文詳細探討，所以唔係我講架，美帝大學學者講架。 link: https://ww3.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/ILJ/upload/Chen-final.pdf

黎智英保釋案終極上訴結果出爐。結果唔意外，又係政府勝訴。 其實冇咩特別好講，不過見到蕭雲轉述「一位法律界朋友」嘅評論[1]，批評 CFA 否定原審法官嘅「負負得正」推論，我就真係要講返兩句以正視聽。 保釋申請係一個控辯雙方都未有機會向法庭提供十足證據嘅情況下進行。任何關於案情嘅問題（例如「疑犯保釋其間會唔會再犯？」），法庭通常未能夠作出非黑即白嘅判斷，只能夠有一個好模糊嘅主觀印像。呢個係保釋程序嘅根本限制嚟。相對地，入門邏輯學教嘅 Boolean Logic 就係假設所有嘢一係 true 一係 false，喺保釋申請嗰度應用，就會論推出錯誤結果。 事實上，如果要 model 呢種情況，更適合嘅邏輯系統係 Ternary Logic [2] 或者 Fuzzy Logic[3]，兩者都唔會推論出原審法官嘅所謂「負負得正」結論。 當然，《國安法》寫明「除非法官有充足理由相信其不會繼續實施危害國家安全行為」，本身係屈機嘅。如果分「會繼續犯」、「唔會繼續犯」、「唔肯定」三種狀況嘅話，咁只有「唔會繼續犯」先可以保釋，「唔肯定」係唔得嘅。  而喺香港過往喺普通法同 CPO 9G 嘅做法係「唔肯定」通常都 OK。 問心嗰句，CFA 呢個結論先至係「正常」解讀方法。普通法法庭當然有各種手段夾硬解讀成另外意思，CFI 就係例子。不過咁做已經係明顯「刻意抗拒」國安法。人大法工委一年前嘅警告言猶在耳[4]，究竟香港啲「法律界朋友」係咪真係咁想攬炒，挑動中港雙方司法大亂鬥呢？情感、政治嘅嘢就話好主觀，好似梁振英同志話齋，Let's be real，你哋在座各位都收過肥佬黎錢[5]，撐佢係人之常情。但喺法理上，真係冇任何理性論據去支持佢哋對國安法嗰種嘅另類解讀。 [1] https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1894690557336547&id=100003868649005 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic [4] http://www.xinhuanet.com/legal/2019-11/19/c_1125246732.htm [5] 利申：我冇，...

What happens when two different pieces of legislation contradict each other? In common law, one could apply the principle of "implied repeal", where the subsequent legislation would be considered to have repealed the earlier one. But the Basic Law has not undergone amendments since its promulgation in 1990, so this does not apply. Another common way to resolve apparent contradictions is to consider that the more general provision be qualified by the more specific one. Yet in cases where fundamental rights are at issue, courts may instead adopt a " generous interpretation ", restricting the scope of those provisions that appear to restrict fundamental rights. Indeed, this was the approach laid out by the Court of Final Appeal in 1999 in Ng Ka Ling : The courts should give a generous interpretation to the provisions in Chapter III that contain these constitutional guarantees in order to give to Hong Kong residents the full measure of fundamental rights and freedoms so...