Skip to main content

外交部出聲！黎智英案律師被辭退

 利申：標題黨

tl;dr：

- 某國律師接 job 打官司
- 某國外交部話呢位律師接官司係唯利是圖、違背良心
- 某國律師承受巨大壓力，最後被徹換

(... 某國係英國，唔係中國，咪搞錯。)

818 維園非法集結案未開始審就已經爆出大粒咁大單花生。

案件牽涉多位「老泛民」人物，包括黎智英、李柱銘、李卓人、何俊仁等等。香港政府聘請英國御用大狀 David Perry 代表控方。據報[1]，英國政界普遍質疑 Perry 接官司有違道德。英國外相出聲[2]話 Perry 本身冇必要接官司，而家俾人覺得佢「唯利是圖 (mercenary)」。

既然外交部都已經出咗聲，唔通真係等俾人告 treason 先肯收手？Perry 唯有同香港政府講，#功成不必在我。[3] 香港律政司另聘律師[4]。

其實 97 後香港雖然唔再係大英帝國一部份，但香港仍然係普通法地區，政府都不時聘請英國大狀作顧問同打官司。例如早前「暗角七警案」政府都聘用英國御用大狀，所以今次 818 非法集結案搵英國律師都可以話只係「例行公事」。而 Perry 本身都喺多單案件[5]次代表香港政府，包括許仕仁案、陳振聰案等等。大狀受制於 "cab rank rule"，即係好似的士站嘅的士咁，唔可以拒絕唔接case，所以理論上 Perry 係冇得話唔接呢單案嘅。[6]

咁點解 Perry 今次出事呢？ 咪就係「政治敏感度不足」囉。《國安法》實施之後，香港特別行政區已經唔係任由外國勢力活動嘅地方。《國安法》除咗用嚟對付「港獨」分子，更加係禁絕外國人員喺香港進行任何對中國不利嘅活動。另外，本身同英國 friend 過夾 band 嘅香港政府，而家要公務員宣誓效忠中華人民共和國香港特別行政區。喺外國政權眼中，今時今日嘅香港，已經係等同中國一樣嘅對峙政權。喺咁嘅背景之下，英國嘅御用律師幫香港政府去控告一啲英國公民，已經有種「叛國」意味[7]。

英國律師私人業務變成「外交」問題，要由外交部出手干涉，講到底都係國家利益。喺國家利益之下，法治大國都會俾政治壓力叫律師唔好接官司，你又點可以隨便話 #法治已死[8] 呢？

另一邊廂，據聞英國已經激烈辯論緊究竟仲派唔派退休法官當香港終審法院非常任法官。David Perry 事件可能係英國政府呢件事嘅一種啟示。

----

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/13/hong-kong-hires-british-qc-to-prosecute-pro-democracy-activists
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/17/dominic-raab-calls-qc-acting-for-hong-kong-government-mercenary
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/20/david-perry-qc-quits-prosecution-of-hong-kong-activists
[4] https://www.doj.gov.hk/en/community_engagement/press/20210120_pr1.html
[5] https://www.hklii.org/cgi-bin/sinosrch.cgi?meta=%2Fhklii&method=auto&mask_path=&mask_world=&query=%22Perry+QC%22&results=50&submit=Search+%2F+%E6%90%9C%E5%B0%8B&rank=on&callback=off&legisopt=&view=relevance&max=  似乎 "Re Perry" 案係聘用外國律師嘅重要先例嚟，唔知係咪佢「鍾意代表香港政府」太出名所以英國搵咗佢嚟開刀⋯
[6] 事實係點？你未試過喺的士站俾人拒載咩？少年你太年輕了⋯ (有說外國案件唔計，但問題係 Perry 已經喺香港打咗好多case，係咪作為律司佢每單案都要做政治判斷呢？)

[7] 當然中英兩國仍然係和平，表面友好，所以行為遠遠未至於「叛國」，但只係程度問題
[8] 我不嬲話，「法治」本身就係咁，香港人對法律嘅想像，大概應該叫「發夢」

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