Skip to main content

以超越 Boolean Logic 嘅邏輯解讀黎智英保釋案

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，一蚊都冇，亦都冇俾過錢佢


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