Skip to main content

一地兩檢司法覆核案（高等法院）

新出爐嘅一地兩檢案判詞[1]好多神奇嘢。不過最有趣係周官[2]論證《廣深港高鐵(一地兩檢)條例》唔違反基本法嘅理據：

- 話《一地兩檢條例》唔符合基本法，其實都好有說服力架！[3]

- 但《基本法》冇話唔俾整內地口岸區喎[4]

- 《基本法》唔可以齋睇字面意思，佢啲條文都係想落實「一國兩制」啫，但我覺得整個內地口岸區出嚟唔會破壞「一國兩制」喎 [5]

- 1990 年通過《基本法》嘅時候都冇諗過需要搞內地口岸，唔可以將啲條文讀得咁死嘅。[6]

- 香港人自行立法實施內地法律，正正係體現香港人嘅「高度自治」呀！[7]

- 考慮埋「一地兩檢」對香港有利[8]，退後一步宏觀啲睇[9]，《一地兩檢條例》都係符合《基本法》嘅⋯

- 如果你仲覺得有疑惑，我攞埋人大常委嘅決定嚟撻你[10]，咁就夠皮嘞！

-------------

嗱老老實實，我咁多年嚟都冇咩點見過啲理據咁薄弱嘅判詞。雖然 first instance 嘅八股通常質素都冇上訴庭咁好，但對於一件有重大影響嘅案例，咁嘅情況我真係第一次見。

不過唔緊要，作為愛國愛黨嘅本土派KOF，我提醒大家要留意幾樣嘢：

1. 原來《基本法》冇話唔做得嘅嘢，係可以做架！ (例如公投？)
2. 原來 「90 年代冇人諗過」可以用嚟繞過《基本法》嘅限制架喎！（我提倡喺九龍東地下掘個窿整返個「小香港國」，呢條橋肯定鄧小平冇諗過啦！）
3. 原來對香港整體有利嘅嘢，可以眼大睇唔到佢違反《基本法》嘅細節架！ (喺美帝壓境嘅情況下，會唔會「港獨」都對香港有利呢？政府都不斷派人去美國話 Hong Kong is not China，我睇到港獨喺《基本法》框架下實現嘅契機！)

係咪好好玩呢。大家諗諗佢，將呢啲法律原則發揚光大，遍地開花，功德無量~！

-------------
[1] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/word/vetted/other/en/2018/HCAL001160B_2018.doc
[2] pun not intended
[3] para 66
[4] para 67 (自己 google 下「香港 剩餘權力」睇下中方嘅人點睇)
[5] para 68, 69
[6] para 70
[7] para 71 (按：CLS?!?! 余狀好嘢呀！)
[8] para 72 (CLSWTF?!?!?!?!?!)
[9] para 73
[10] para 74

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Trump v. CASA, Inc. et al.

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

南丫海難唔夠救生衣祭旗案

HKSAR v. SO PING CHI [2018] HKCA 913 我好少睇完上訴庭判詞唔夠喉睇埋原審判詞。真係痴孖根。 泛民議員涂謹申又走出嚟做show扮爭取正義，但事實就係海事處同業界一早有共識，舊船可以延後執行新例。 喺審訊時，新例實施時嘅海事處處長竟然冇出庭作供(起碼判詞冇提佢)，冇人知佢係咪知情；而港九電船拖輪商會嘅主席又「唔記得」幾時同海事處邊啲官員討論過「舊船用舊例」。後嚟海事處執正嚟做，商會仲發起示威，反對執行新例。留意，新例實施日期係 2007 年 1 月 2 號，示威日期係 2013 年 3 月。中間隔咗 6 年。可見喺呢 6 年以嚟 (包括南丫海難發生之後)，業界一直都認為舊船唔需要跟新例配備足夠救生衣。呢樣嘢唔只係海事處一個官員嘅行為嚟， 而係根本海事處同業界有共識唔去執法 ！ 被告上任嗰陣，好明顯呢個共識已經存在。話佢冇叫停呢個做法，技術上佢的確犯法，但點解得佢一個俾人告？我懷疑係因為佢份人最誠實。 案中證供指出，被告喺出事之後其中一個會議嗰度好誠實咁承認自己俾過下屬咁嘅指示。然後佢就俾人捉咗去祭旗。 至於其他被傳召作供嘅證人，雖然原審話話佢哋誠實可信，但我見到嘅係佢哋喺有啲關鍵地方記憶模糊。法庭話佢哋誠實可信就係誠實可信，我只係話佢哋記性真係幾差咁解。 上訴庭輕判，主要原因都係睇唔過眼。佢哋差在冇講「屌你玩嘢呀？成個海事處都知有咁嘅事，你淨係交一個人俾我，仲要蝦佢老實？唔撚係呀？」（見最後引文） 至於點解冇人喺審訊期間爆其他人大鑊，咁被告的確有叫人唔好執行新例，的確係犯咗法，佢再督多啲人出嚟都唔見得有好處，反而只會喺公務員內部處分俾人玩得更慘烈。而其他人喺關鍵時刻失憶，律政司又未必有足夠證據起訴其他人（或者有 #其他原因 唔起訴啦？），咁咪淨係搵咗個老實人祭旗囉。 原審同上訴庭都一再重申被告品格良好，甚至係「無可挑剔」 "impeccable character"，你都明啦。 講真，馬後炮就好易嘅。你睇個商會喺南丫海難出事之後仲可以示威反對嚴格執行新例，就知道未出事嗰陣，邊個夠膽揸正嚟做都係會下場慘淡啦。 最後引返上訴庭判詞原文。祝各位公務員官運亨通，步步高昇！我真係恭喜你哋呀！ （話時話，點解報告唔出得街，我堅係唔知，不如你哋又估下點解？） /// 70. However, it is the third fa...
Post a Comment
Read more

Reconciling apparent inconsistencies within the Basic Law -- what is the proper approach?

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...
Post a Comment
Read more