吹水玩樂

時事理財

由家出發

媽媽天地

育兒教養

情報分享

意見反饋

聯絡管理員

我的中心

Baby Kingdom - 親子王國香港討論區 › 首頁 › 時政擂台› 大家對法官的睇法是。。?(純統計)

時政擂台今日: 0|主題: 60275

收藏本版

發帖

返回列表

跳至頁

樓主: 小ice

大家對法官的睇法是。。?(純統計)

[複製鏈接]

5 678 9...10

KCWO

子爵府

積分: 10386

121^#

發表於 17-2-25 14:55 |只看該作者

香港法官的不公平判诀令我鄙視他們，對律師也冇好感

私人傳訊

1997112

大宅

積分: 4692

122^#

發表於 17-2-25 15:09 |只看該作者

牛子發表於 17-2-25 09:54
妖........世事都被你看透了, 我還能有什么好說呢
我睇完基本法起草委員會名單之後, 覺得你應該係認識李柱 ...

理解Basic Law，重點係在於立法原意，但「立法原意」不等於「立法者的原意」，我地根本唔需要知道班起草委員當時係點諗，that's totally irrelevant (節錄Chong Fung Yuen v Director of Immigration [2001]):

" The courts' role under the
common law in
interpreting the Basic Law is to
construe the language used in the text of the instrument in order to ascertain the legislative intent as expressed in the language. Their task is not to ascertain the intent of the lawmaker on its own. Their duty is to ascertain what was meant by the language used and to give effect to the legislative intent as expressed in the language...

The courts do not look at the language of the article in question in isolation. The language is considered in the light of its context and purpose. See Ng Ka Ling at 28-29. The exercise of
interpretation requires the courts to identify the meaning borne by the language when considered in the light of its context and purpose. This is an objective exercise."

另外，關於起草委員會當時嘅一些文獻紀錄，明顯係屬於 pre-enactment extrinsic materials，在Chong Fung Yuen一䅁中法庭係咁講的

" To assist in the task of
interpretation of the provision in question, the courts consider what is within the Basic Law, including provisions in the Basic Law other than the provision in question and the Preamble. These are internal aids to
interpretation.

Extrinsic materials which throw light on the context or purpose of the Basic Law or its particular provisions may generally be used as an aid to the
interpretation of the Basic Law. Extrinsic materials which can be considered include the Joint Declaration and the Explanations on the Basic Law (draft) given at the NPC on 28 March 1990 shortly before its adoption on 4 April 1990....

Because the context and purpose of the Basic Law were established at the time of its enactment in 1990, the extrinsic materials relevant to its
interpretation are, generally speaking, pre-enactment materials, that is, materials brought into existence prior to or contemporaneous with the enactment of the Basic Law, although it only came into effect on 1 July 1997."

但係要澄清一點，pre-enactment extrinsic materials雖然對解釋Basic Law係有幫助，但唔係必然有影響，當基本法的文字含義已經足夠清𥇦，就無需要藉助任何extrinsic materials：

" Extrinsic materials, whatever their nature and whether pre or post-enactment, cannot affect
interpretation where the courts
conclude that the meaning of the language, when
construed in the light of its context and purpose ascertained with the benefit of internal aids and appropriate extrinsic materials, is clear.

The meaning of the language is clear if it is free from ambiguity, that is, it is not reasonably capable of sustaining
competing alternative
interpretations.

Once the courts conclude that the meaning of the language of the text when
construed in the light of its context and purpose is clear, the courts are bound to give effect to the clear meaning of the language. The courts will not on the basis of any extrinsic materials depart from that clear meaning and give the language a meaning which the language cannot bear."

所以當時嘅起草委員係點諗，對理解基本法根本無幫助，最緊要係基本法嘅文字裡面到底包含咩意思先重要

補充內容 (17-2-25 15:28):
此篇作廢

私人傳訊

1997112

大宅

積分: 4692

123^#

發表於 17-2-25 15:15 |只看該作者

牛子發表於 17-2-25 09:54
妖........世事都被你看透了, 我還能有什么好說呢
我睇完基本法起草委員會名單之後, 覺得你應該係認識李柱 ...

理解Basic Law，重點係在於立法原意，但「立法原意」不等於「立法者的原意」，我地根本唔需要知道班起草委員當時係點諗，that's totally irrelevant (節錄Chong Fung Yuen v Director of Immigration [2001]):

"The courts' role under the common law in interpreting the Basic Law is to construe the language used in the text of the instrument in order to ascertain the legislative intent as expressed in the language. Their task is not to ascertain the intent of the lawmaker on its own. Their duty is to ascertain what was meant by the language used and to give effect to the legislative intent as expressed in the language...

The courts do not look at the language of the article in question in isolation. The language is considered in the light of its context and purpose. See Ng Ka Ling at 28-29. The exercise of
interpretation requires the courts to identify the meaning borne by the language when considered in the light of its context and purpose. This is an objective exercise."

另外，關於起草委員會當時嘅一些文獻紀錄，明顯係屬於 pre-enactment extrinsic materials，在Chong Fung Yuen一䅁中法庭係咁講的

"To assist in the task of interpretation of the provision in question, the courts consider what is
within the Basic Law, including provisions in the Basic Law other than the provision in question and the Preamble. These are internal aids to interpretation.

Extrinsic materials which throw light on the context or purpose of the Basic Law or its particular provisions may generally be used as an aid to the interpretation of the Basic Law. Extrinsic materials which can be considered include the Joint Declaration and the Explanations on the Basic Law (draft) given at the NPC on 28 March 1990 shortly before its adoption on 4 April 1990....

Because the context and purpose of the Basic Law were established at the time of its enactment in 1990, the extrinsic materials relevant to its interpretation are, generally speaking, pre-enactment materials, that is, materials brought into existence prior to or contemporaneous with the enactment of the Basic Law, although it only came into effect on 1 July 1997."

但係要澄清一點，pre-enactment extrinsic materials雖然對解釋Basic Law係有幫助，但唔係必然有影響，當基本法的文字含義已經足夠清晰;，就無需要藉助任何extrinsic materials：

"Extrinsic materials, whatever their nature and whether pre or post-enactment, cannot affect interpretation where the courts conclude that the meaning of the language, when construed in the light of its context and purpose ascertained with the benefit of internal aids and appropriate extrinsic materials, is clear.

The meaning of the language is clear if it is free from ambiguity, that is, it is not
reasonably capable of sustaining competing alternative interpretations.

Once the courts conclude that the meaning of the language of the text when construed in the light of its context and purpose is clear, the courts are bound to give effect to the clear meaning of the language. The courts will not on the basis of any extrinsic materials depart from that clear meaning and give the language a meaning which the language cannot bear."

所以當時嘅起草委員係點諗，對理解基本法根本無幫助，最緊要係基本法嘅文字裡面到底包含咩意思先重要

私人傳訊

ning..

珍珠宮

積分: 33778

2018復活節勳章好媽媽勳章醒目開學勳章畀面勳章 BK Milk勳章親子王國15週年勳章

124^#

發表於 17-2-25 16:24 |只看該作者

引用：Quote:牛子發表於 17-2-25 09:54 妖......

原帖由 1997112 於 17-02-25 發表
理解Basic Law，重點係在於立法原意，但「立法原意」不等於「立法者的原意」，我地根本唔需要知道班起草委 ...

基本法…用 Bacic Law 理解？

高見呀！

補充內容 (17-2-25 16:28):
Basic

補充內容 (17-2-25 16:32):
你個Basic Law 的前設，好正！人大常委會被代表了

私人傳訊

1997112

大宅

積分: 4692

125^#

發表於 17-2-25 16:33 |只看該作者

ning.. 發表於 17-2-25 16:24
基本法…用 Bacic Law 理解？

高見呀！

基本法咪即係 Basic Law

我意思係，解讀基本法嘅立法原意，唔需要當年起草基本法時班草委到底點諗，只需要based on基本法本身嘅文字含義去解讀就得

補充內容 (17-2-25 16:34):
*唔需要知道

補充內容 (17-2-25 16:41):
人大常委會如果解釋基本法，人大解釋就係最權威，法院一定要跟隨 (劉港榕案已證實)；但如果人大冇解釋，就由香港法院自行解釋，人大無被代表喎

私人傳訊

ning..

珍珠宮

積分: 33778

2018復活節勳章好媽媽勳章醒目開學勳章畀面勳章 BK Milk勳章親子王國15週年勳章

126^#

發表於 17-2-25 16:49 |只看該作者

1997112 發表於 17-2-25 16:33
基本法咪即係 Basic Law

我意思係，解讀基本法嘅立法原意，唔需要當年起草基本法時班草委到底 ...

你上面Basic law 的解釋，係你自己認為吧！
睇返你前面舉的雙非案吧！當年有關居港權釋法說要參考有一份附件，附件內容就是立法委員的立法原意。

你的自創basic law 解釋，令我明白當年法官點解會剔除那附件呈堂。

原來，有人咁理解基本法

補充內容 (17-2-25 17:04):
莊豐源案～我一路唔明點解附件會被忽視。如果附件有被呈堂，結果可能不一樣！睇完你的高見～明白晒！

私人傳訊

1997112

大宅

積分: 4692

127^#

發表於 17-2-25 17:33 |只看該作者

ning.. 發表於 17-2-25 16:49
你上面Basic law 的解釋，係你自己認為吧！
睇返你前面舉的雙非案吧！當年有關居港權釋法說要參考有一份 ...

引用維基百科Chong Fung Yuen案嘅資料，就會明白居港權案唔係單一或偶然事件，而係歷時十幾年醞釀而產生嘅連鎖問題，用英文來講就係 "It's not a single error, but a series of errors".

***********************

" 1996年8月10日香港特別行政區籌備委員會通過了《關於實施香港基本法第24條第2款的意見》，提出該條該款第（1）項規定的「在香港出生的中國公民」，「是指父母雙方或一方合法定居在香港期間所生子女，不包括非法入境、逾期居留或在香港臨時居留的人在香港期間所生的子女。」

另一方面，1999年6月26日全國人大常委會通過的《關於香港基本法第22條第4款和第24條第2款第（3）項的解釋》指出：「本解釋所闡明的立法原意以及香港基本法第24條第2款其他各項的立法原意，已體現在1996年8月10日全國人大香港特區籌委會通過的《關於實施香港基本法第24條第2款的意見》中。」根據基本法，香港法院的判決需遵守是次人大釋法對基本法的解釋。

終審法院及入境事務處處長均同意1999年6月26日的釋法並沒有解釋第24條第2款第1項（該次釋法解釋了基本法第22條第4款和第24條第2款第3項，二者皆和本案無關）。終審法院因而按普通法原則詮釋該段基本法（第24條第2款第1項，本案的關鍵），只考慮條文的字義所表達的立法意圖，而不考慮所謂「立法者的真正原意」。"

***********************

簡單來講，無論吳嘉玲案定係莊豐源案，其實一開始官司形勢都係有利於政府，但當時保安局長葉劉嘅立場太偏激強硬，執意要即時逮捕同大規模遣反呢班無證人士，令到法院覺得政府霸王硬上弓嘅做法違反基本人權，所以先作出不利於政府嘅裁決

而人大同基本法草委亦都有不足之處，就係當初起草基本法時，冇留意到了24條存在漏洞；而99年人大釋法，亦都只片面解決左24條存在的部分缺陷，而無注意到雙非呢個潛在嘅新問題

既然居港權呢個問題，係中央、特區政府、無證人士三方都需要負上責任，點可以話只係法院有錯，難道根據法律同人道原則判案都有錯嗎?

私人傳訊

牛子

禁止訪問

積分: 12303

128^#

發表於 17-2-25 17:53 |只看該作者

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

私人傳訊

calvin1230hk

侯爵府

積分: 22944

129^#

發表於 17-2-25 17:56 |只看該作者

回覆樓主:

1
有幾公正，近年大家有眼睇。
就呢單迷姦犯嘅結果，個官仲要讚佢，夠竟有幾公正，大家心裡有數。
https://hk.mobi.yahoo.com/news/%E9%8F%A2%E5%A0%B4%E8%80%81%E9%97%86%E9%9D%9E%E7%A6%AE%E5%A5%B3%E5%AE%A2%E5%88%A4%E7%A4%BE%E6%9C%8D%E4%BB%A4-%E5%AE%98%E8%AE%9A%E8%A2%AB%E5%91%8A%E6%9C%89%E7%94%9F%E6%84%8F%E9%A0%AD%E8%85%A6-032300261.html