Skip to main content

丁權覆核案 - 上訴庭真誠擁護《基本法》，丁權性別歧視仍然合法

KWOK CHEUK KIN (and another) v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS etc [2021] HKCA 54

上訴庭就「丁權」司法覆核案判決。政府勝訴。

「丁權」案加上「禁止蒙面規例」覆核案，上訴庭短短一年內命名咗兩個解讀《基本法》嘅法律原則：
  • "theme of continuity"[0] - 97 前合憲嘅嘢，97 後最好都係咪亂咁判違憲
  • "coherence principle" - 睇基本法條文唔可以單單指住一條就話違憲，要睇埋其他條文，嘗試理解基本法整體嘅目的，然後再作判斷 (就算某啲法例明明歧視，違反 ICCPR，都需要睇返其他條文嘅背景)
你話呢啲原則係「新」呢？你可以話係，因為以前根本冇呢啲 terms；你可以話唔係，因為起碼佢搵到先例[1]。不過實際上呢，近一年嘅案例標示風向開始改變，法庭似乎受到一定壓力，要減低司法覆核對政府施政嘅干擾，因而強調某啲以前冇咁受注視嘅原則。就算「丁權」只限男性，表面上違反「自由平等普世價值」(eg. ICCPR) 都一樣冇問題。

我諗香港(某些?)法官曾經都有種偉大理想，就係香港可以行西方民主國家路線，將《基本法》當作「憲法」[2]，法官以條文為憑藉，用「開明」角度演繹，重點保障人權自由，慢慢建立一套香港獨有嘅人權法體制。我諗去到 W 案，佢哋都仲係嘗試緊做呢個工作。

今時梗係唔同往日，人大法工委一出聲，上訴庭就搬出 "theme of continuity" （見上）；望住丁權疑似表面上違反《香港人權法案條例》同《基本法》39 條，上訴庭就命名 "coherence principle"，話雖然係歧視，但《基本法》話 OK 就 OK，你睇下呢條同呢條，明明寫住新界地權不變，你唔可以淨係死捉住 39 條嚟拗架！

《基本法》嘅演繹最基本原則係 "purposive approach"。如果上訴庭呢個判決係 "purposive approach" 兼夾 "coherence principle" 底下嘅正確解讀，咁《基本法》喺呢單案件嘅 "purpose" 係咩呢？唔係保障人權自由 [3]，而係歷史現實嘅一種宣示。法庭唔需要劃蛇添足諗點樣擴充人權自由，只需因循故習，用歷史脈絡將法律合理化。若要取捨，不妨捨棄「自由平等普世價值」，跟返政府論調辦事就夠。例如話，廿幾年前中英兩國政府都曾經講過[4]性別平等公約唔包丁權，香港嘅地區法庭豈敢迕逆？

嗱，我唔係話呢樣一定係啱或錯，起碼喺現時政治環境下呢個係法庭正常嘅表現嚟。我只不過係幫上訴庭畫返條腸出嚟。話晒剛卸任嘅終審法院首席法官馬道立話，大家要睇判詞，睇下法官*點解*咁判，唔好因為唔滿意結論就屌嘛。

咁我唯有寫幾句咁囉。

呢單案咁樣判決，感覺上都真係幾唔顧及香港法庭喺國際上嘅面子。 Which is totally fine, 反正現實政治都已經一早搞成咁。

---

[0] 嚴格嚟講呢個 term 係上年「禁止蒙面規例」覆核案命名嘅，不過同一班法官短期內發明兩個新 term 去解讀《基本法》條文，值得擺埋一齊講。

[1] 至於嗰啲先例係咪咁理解就另一回事。尤其 "theme of continuity" 竟然引用 Ma Wai Kwan 案。Ma Wai Kwan 案基本上係主權移交嘅指定娛樂節目嚟，純粹搵條茂利整個先例出嚟話1997年之前嘅法律同案例仍然適用，本身冇諗住用嚟叫人唔好質疑 97 前嘅法律係咪合憲。我只能夠慨嘆一句：果然是老朋友給人大常委的面子，有黨同國家嘅加持，法官都變得創意無限！

[2] 即係垃圾通識科話「憲法係保障人權自由」嗰種「憲法」

[3] What we all claimed and suspected for a long time, just that now it is proclaimed by the Court of Appeal

[4] 似乎係兩國政府就 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) 所提出嘅保留事項。Google 大神唔知喺邊度搵到疑似原文。我睇完之後覺得，正常嚟講只能夠說明兩件事： #1 政府冇打算將 CEDAW 應用於丁權方面嘅政策， #2 (中英兩國)政府唔認為丁權政策需要改變。 而上訴庭判決中引用呢個事項，基本上係將某一法律文件(基本法)嘅演繹，交予前宗主國嘅行政部門對另一份國際公約(CEDAW)嘅政策判斷。新時代嘅所謂「司法獨立」竟淪落至此。老老實實，我真係覺得呢樣嘢唔提仲好過提。

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

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