15 Feb 2025獨媒#4516
陳嘉信被指司法抄襲 投訴不成立：裁斷及結論「絕大部分內容均出自法官手筆」
Last year, High Court Court of First Instance Judge Chan Ka-shun was accused of “judicial plagiarism” after it was revealed that, when writing the judgment in the Wong To Yick trademark case, he had copied most of the plaintiff’s submissions. He was reprimanded by Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal Andrew Cheung. The injunction case concerning “Glory to Hong Kong”, which he had originally been assigned to hear, was also transferred to another judge, Anthony Kin Keung Chan. Subsequently, litigants in a succession of cases heard by Judge Chan alleged that he had engaged in judicial plagiarism. In one injunction case, the defendant complained that Judge Chan had copied 95% of the plaintiff’s submissions and had failed to analyse the facts, resulting in an erroneous judgment. The Judiciary responded to the complaint on Thursday (the 13th), saying that after reviewing the judgment, a panel of designated judges considered that although Judge Chan had copied more than 90% of the plaintiff’s submissions, the findings and conclusions were “for the most part written by the judge”, indicating that he had independently assessed and analysed the evidence and relevant law. The complaint was therefore unsubstantiated. At the same time, the panel of designated judges, the Advisory Committee on Complaints Against Judicial Conduct and Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal Andrew Cheung all reminded judges that they should avoid extensive judicial plagiarism in future.
高院原訟庭法官陳嘉信去年被揭在黃道益商標案撰寫判詞時涉「司法抄襲」，絕大部分抄襲原告方陳詞，遭終院首席法官張舉能訓誡。他原獲安排審理的《願榮光》禁制令案，亦轉為另一法官陳健強審理。其後接二連三有陳官審理過的案件訴訟方指稱陳官涉司法抄襲，其中一宗禁制令案件中，被告人投訴陳官抄襲了原告人95%的陳詞，亦未有對事實進行分析，因而作出錯誤判決。司法機構周四（13日）就投訴發表回應，指專責法官小組檢視判詞後，認為陳官的判詞雖然抄襲了原告人90%以上的陳詞，但是裁斷及結論「絕大部分內容均出自法官手筆」，反映他曾對證據及相關法律進行獨立評核及分析，因此投訴不成立。同時間，專責法官小組、投訴法官行為諮詢委員會及終院首席法官張舉能均提醒法官，日後應避免大篇幅的司法抄襲。
15 Feb 2025獨媒#4517
馬鞍山火燒人案 林希維被指立場偏頗 投訴不成立：沒表達帶政治傾向言論
On 11 November 2019, a man in Ma On Shan was doused with flammable liquid and set on fire. A married couple were subsequently accused of loudly berating the man, causing people to gather and being highly likely to incite others to breach the peace. After a trial, Magistrate Arthur Hei Wei Lam acquitted them of disorderly conduct in a public place. The Judiciary received a complaint alleging that Arthur Hei Wei Lam was biased. Following an appeal by the Department of Justice, the High Court ordered the decision to be remitted for reconsideration. Magistrate Lam subsequently convicted both defendants and sentenced each to five weeks’ imprisonment. The Judiciary said on Thursday (13th) that a specialist panel of three judges considered that, viewed in the context of the entire trial, the magistrate had not made any improper or politically slanted remarks, and therefore found the complaint unsubstantiated.
The Judiciary said it had received a complaint alleging that Magistrate Arthur Hei Wei Lam was “biased, had failed to give sufficient consideration to all the relevant circumstances of the case, and had wrongly found the defendants not guilty.” The legal proceedings in the case have now concluded. After reading the judgment and sentencing reasons, a specialist panel comprising High Court Court of Appeal judges Au Hing-cheung and Lam Wan-ho, and High Court Court of First Instance judge Keith Kar Hung Yeung, found that the complaint was unsubstantiated.
The specialist panel considered that the magistrate’s decision was a judicial decision, and whether a judicial decision was appropriate did not fall within the scope of complaints against judicial officers. In this case, whether the magistrate’s judicial decision was appropriate had already been dealt with through the appeal process. Although the High Court’s Court of First Instance considered that some of Magistrate Lam’s findings were contrary to common sense and reflected an erroneous understanding of legal principles, it did not find that the magistrate was actually or apparently biased.
2019年11月11日馬鞍山一名男子遭淋易燃液體並放火燒傷，事後兩夫婦被指大聲責罵該男子導致眾人圍觀，相當可能激使他人破壞社會安寧，經審訊裁判官林希維裁定公眾地方擾亂秩序罪不成立。司法機構接獲投訴指稱林希維立場偏頗。案件經歷律政司上訴，高院下令發還重新考慮裁決，林官改裁定二人罪成，各判囚5星期。司法機構周四（13日）發表回應，指3名法官組成的專責小組認為綜觀整個審訊過程，裁判官沒有表達任何不當或帶有政治傾向性的言論，因此投訴並不成立。
司法機構表示收到投訴，指稱裁判官林希維「立場偏頗，沒有充分考慮有關案件的所有相關情況，錯誤地判定被告人無罪。」案件法律程序現已完結，由高院上訴法庭法官區慶祥和林雲浩，以及高院原訟法庭法官楊家雄組成的專責法官小組，閱讀案件的裁決及判刑理由等後，認為投訴不成立。
專責法官小組認為，裁判官所作的裁決屬司法決定，而司法決定是否得當，不屬於投訴司法人員的範疇。就本案而言，裁判官的司法決定是否得當，已透過上訴程序處理。雖然高院原訟庭認為林官的部分裁斷是有悖常情，對法律原則的理解有錯誤，但沒有認為裁判官有實際或表面偏頗之處。
6 Jan 2025法庭線#4391
譚得志煽動案終極上訴周五聆訊 終院安排5本地法官審
People Power former vice-chairman Tam Tak-chi, known as “Quick B”, was accused of making remarks including “Black cops’ whole families die” and “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times” while operating a street booth in 2020. After trial in 2022, he was convicted of 11 offences, including “uttering seditious words”, and sentenced to 40 months’ imprisonment. He has completed that sentence and is serving a separate sentence in the 47-person case. Tam was granted leave to bring a final appeal against his convictions, disputing whether sedition offences must be tried by a jury and whether an intention to incite violence must be proved. The case will be heard this Friday (10th), and is the first sedition case in Hong Kong to reach the Court of Final Appeal on appeal.
The Judiciary’s website shows that the case will be heard by five local judges: Chief Justice Andrew Cheung, permanent judges Frank Stock, Joseph Fok and Lam Man-hon, and non-permanent judge Patrick Siu Oi Chan. No overseas non-permanent judge will take part. The lineup is the same as in the “Lui Sai Yu case” and the case concerning the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China’s refusal to provide information.
人民力量前副主席「快必」譚得志，被指 2020 年擺街站時，發表「黑警死全家」、「光時」等言論，2022 年經審訊後被裁定「發表煽動文字」等 11 罪成，判囚 40 個月，已服畢刑期（另就 47 人案正服刑）。譚不服定罪上訴獲批終極上訴許可，爭議煽動罪須否由陪審團審訊、證明煽暴意圖，案件將於本周五（10 日）聆訊，是本港首宗上訴至終審法院的煽動罪案件。
司法機構網頁顯示，案件將由 5 名本地法官審理，分別為首席法官張舉能，3 名常任法官李義、霍兆剛、林文瀚，以及非常任法官陳兆愷，並沒海外非常任法官參與，名單與「呂世瑜案」、支聯會拒交資料案一致。
4 Nov 2024法庭線#4198
男子九龍城法院持刀企圖襲裁判官 司法機構：嚴厲譴責、裁院將逐步實施安檢
A 32-year-old man allegedly attempted to attack a magistrate with a knife at Kowloon City Magistrates’ Courts this morning (the 4th) and was subdued by police officers at the scene. He was arrested on suspicion of attempted wounding. Three police officers were injured and taken to hospital for treatment.
The Department of Justice strongly condemned the incident, saying that it would not tolerate lawless acts that undermine the rule of law. It said the police would enforce the law strictly and called on members of the public to respect the rule of law. Some media, citing sources, reported that the man involved had earlier been convicted of indecent assault by magistrate Edward Ching Yu Wong.
一名 32 歲男子今早（4 日）涉於九龍城裁判法院持刀企圖襲擊裁判官，被現場警員制服，該男子暫以企圖傷人罪被拘捕，事件中有 3 名警員受傷送院治理。
律政司強烈譴責事件，指絕不容忍目無法紀及損害法治的惡行，警方必定嚴正執法，並呼籲社會人士尊重法治。有傳媒引述消息指，涉案男子早前因非禮罪被裁判官王證瑜裁定罪成。
21 Aug 2024法庭線#3924
FB問「點樣殺死林鄭」 六旬漢警誡下辯稱開玩笑 官問控方何不控煽惑謀殺
A retired man in his 60s is accused of posting “Seriously think about how to kill Carrie Lam” on Facebook in February 2020. He denies a charge of inciting another person, with intent, to cause someone grievous bodily harm. The case began at the District Court on Wednesday (21st).
六旬退休漢被指於 2020 年 2 月，在 Facebook 發布「真係認真諗吓 點樣殺死林鄭」的私人帖文。他否認「煽惑他人有意圖而導致有人身體受嚴重傷害」罪，案件周三（21 日）於區院開審。
控方播放被告與警方的錄影會面，被告承認因為不滿時任特首林鄭月娥的管治，「講啲比較刻毒嘅說話」，旨在開玩笑「吹下水」，無意使用暴力，更無意殺害對方，只希望朋友「笑下開心啲，等大家冇咁多怨氣」。
法官陳廣池一度關注，帖文字面上「嚴格嚟計呢個係謀殺㗎喎直頭」，詢問控方為何不控以煽惑他人謀殺罪。控方解釋已考慮《檢控守則》，認為控罪合適。審訊周四續。
8 Aug 2024法庭線#3891
《立場》案三度押後裁決 主審法官郭偉健屆退休之齡 政府延長其任期至2025年
The Stand News case, in which the news outlet is charged with conspiracy to publish seditious publications, has spanned more than two and a half years since the formal charges were brought in December 2021. After three postponements, the verdict will be delivered on the 29th of this month. Presiding District Court Judge Kwok Wai-kin reaches retirement age this year, but the District Court Ordinance provides that a judge may remain in office as necessary if a case is being heard.
According to the May 2024 Government Gazette, Chief Executive John Lee, acting under the District Court Ordinance and on the recommendation of the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission, extended Kwok’s tenure by 18 months, from 15 May 2024 to 14 November 2025.
The Judiciary told The Witness that, generally speaking, during an extension of tenure, judges at all levels may continue to receive fringe benefits and allowances apart from their salaries, such as housing, medical and dental benefits, and children’s education allowances.
《立場新聞》被控「串謀發布煽動刊物」案，由 2021 年 12 月正式起訴至今橫跨逾 2 年半，經三度押後，將在本月 29 日裁決。主審的區院法官郭偉健今年屆退休之齡，惟《區域法院條例》訂明，如有案件正在審理，可按需要留任。
翻查 2024 年 5 月的政府憲報，特首李家超按《區域法院條例》及司法人員推薦委員會建議，延長郭的任期 18 個月，由 2024 年 5 月 15 日起至 2025 年 11 月 14 日止。
司法機構回覆《法庭線》指，一般來說各級法官在延任期間，可繼續享有除薪金外的附帶福利和津貼，例如房屋福利、醫療及牙科福利、子女教育津貼等。
3 Apr 2024獨媒#3303
終院批評陳慶偉法官錯用民事上訴標準審刑事 導致明顯嚴重不公
In a shop theft case involving HK$648.7, a five-judge panel of the Court of Final Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal. It named Court of First Instance judge Andrew Hing Wai Chan, saying the judge had departed from the established standard for a rehearing by wrongly applying the civil appeal standard at the appeal hearing, without considering whether the charge had been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and had failed to properly discharge the duty of rehearing, resulting in manifest and serious injustice.
一宗涉及648.7元的店舖盜竊罪，在上訴至終審法院後，5名法官一致裁定上訴得直，並點名原訟庭法官陳慶偉偏離「重審」的一貫標準，在上訴聆訊錯誤採用民事上訴標準，沒有考慮控罪是否在毫無合理疑點下獲證明，未有妥當進行重審職責，導致案件出現明顯和嚴重不公。
27 Mar 2024法庭線#3260
7.21非白衣人案｜第三被告折返元朗站見警到場 官：有咩感覺？覺唔覺得遲咗嚟？
Former Legislative Council member Lam Cheuk-ting and six other “non-white-shirted people” are charged with taking part in the riot at Yuen Long Station on 21 July. The trial entered its 38th day at the District Court on Wednesday (27th). The third defendant, Jason Wing Hei Chan, returned to the station after leaving, and police arrived at the scene. Judge Chan Kwong-chi asked: “How did you feel when you saw the police arrive… Did you think they came late?” Chan replied: “I felt that a little.”
During prosecution cross-examination, Chan was challenged that he had remained inside the gate and had “turned a blind eye” to the conduct of those inside, and that after spraying water he handed the hose to someone else, thereby “dividing the work with those inside the gate and tacitly carrying out provocative acts.”
Chan asked what “turned a blind eye” and “dividing the work” meant. He later said he felt he had no influence to stop them and understood that those inside the gate “wanted to defend themselves”, but said he would not engage in such conduct. He also said: “I did not cooperate with anyone in any form, nor do I agree that spraying water was a provocative act.” The trial continues on Thursday.
前立法會議員林卓廷與另外 6 名「非白衣人」，被控參與 721 元朗站暴動，周三（27 日）在區院展開第 38 天審訊。第三被告陳永晞，離開元朗站後折返，當時有警員到場。法官陳廣池問「見到警察到場有咩感覺…覺唔覺得佢哋遲咗嚟？」陳稱，「有少少覺得。」
控方盤問時質疑，陳一直在閘內，對閘內人的行為「視若無睹」，而他在射水後將水喉交給他人，是「同閘內人士分工合作，有默契做挑釁行為」。
陳反問「視若無睹」及「分工合作」意思，其後指覺得沒影響力制止，並理解閘內人「想防衛自己」，但自己不會做相關行為。他又指，「冇同任何人有作出任何形式合作，亦都唔同意射水係挑釁行為」。案件周四續。
11 Jan 2024獨媒#2804
【12港人】喬映瑜認妨礙司法公正 官指屬「跨境罪行」 質疑其他被告判刑過輕、但律政司無覆核
QUINN Moon, one of the defendants in the case involving the 12 Hong Kong residents, admitted in a mainland court in 2020 to organising others to illegally cross the border and was sentenced to two years in prison. She completed her sentence in August last year and was transferred to Hong Kong, where she has been remanded for more than a year. Kiu Yuen was wanted in connection with the Mong Kok bomb case. She pleaded guilty at the District Court today (11th) to three charges—perverting the course of justice, possession of explosives and making explosives—and was remanded until 30 January for sentencing. The facts of the case revealed that the defendant was responsible for reporting to her accomplices by satellite phone during the voyage. Judge Chan Kwong-chi asked whether Morse code had been used. The defence explained that English letters and numbers were transmitted in a coded manner; the defendant reported “all safe” several times, but said “law enforcement officers” on the final occasion. The defence also said that the other seven people involved in the same incident had previously been sentenced to between seven and 10 months in prison. Judge Chan asked the prosecution: “Don’t you think the sentences were too light?” The prosecution said the Department of Justice had not applied for a review of the sentences. Judge Chan stressed that the case involved a “large-scale operation” and was a “cross-border offence”, adding: “So I am very surprised that there has been no subsequent action” by the Department of Justice. The defence stressed that it would be unfair to the defendant if she received a heavier sentence than the others involved in the same case. Judge Chan responded: “She can appeal,” and said: “Justice is not only for the defendant; there is also social justice.”
12港人案之一的喬映瑜，於2020年在內地法院承認組織他人偷越邊境，被判監兩年，去年8月服刑完畢並移交本港，至今已還柙逾一年。喬原涉旺角炸彈案被通緝，她今（11日）在區域法院承認「妨礙司法公正」、「管有爆炸品」及「製造爆炸品」共3罪，還柙至1月30日判刑。案情透露，被告在航行期間負責用衛星電話向同夥匯報。法官陳廣池問是否用「摩斯密碼」，辯方解釋以保密方式傳送英文及數字，過程中數次表示「平安」，惟最後一次表示「有執法人員」。另外，辯方表示涉同一事件的其餘7人，早前被判囚7至10個月。但陳官問控方：「唔覺得判得輕咩？」控方指律政司無提出刑期覆核。陳官強調，本案屬「大規模行動、跨境罪行」，「所以我好詫異點解（律政司）無後續行動。」辯方強調，若被告判刑比同案人士更重，會對她不公。陳官反駁：「佢（被告）可以上訴㗎」，並指：「公義唔係只係對被告，亦都有社會公義。」
6 Dec 2023獨媒#8775
時任裁判官鄭紀航審反修例案 被投訴立場偏頗 法官小組裁定不成立
Kei Hong Cheang, then a magistrate of the Eastern Magistrates’ Courts and now a deputy district judge, convicted a 17-year-old student in 2020 of two offences, including possession of an instrument fit for unlawful purposes, in an anti-extradition bill protest case, and sentenced him to a detention centre. One of the convictions was quashed on appeal. The public subsequently complained that the judge was biased, had convicted the student without sufficient evidence, and had imposed an unreasonable sentence. After an investigation, a panel of judges tasked with handling the matter found the complaints unsubstantiated, citing, among other reasons, a lack of factual basis. The panel stressed that whether a conviction and sentence were appropriate did not fall within the scope of complaints about the judicial conduct of judicial officers. It said some people might disagree with a judicial decision because of their positions or political views, but that did not mean the decision or the judicial officer was biased. It also said that, in accordance with the fundamental principle of judicial independence, the panel should not and would not interfere with judicial decisions.
時任東區裁判法院裁判官、現為區域法院暫委法官的鄭紀航，於2020年審理一宗反修例示威案時，裁定一名17歲學生「管有適合作非法用途的工具」等兩罪成，並判他入勞教中心，他上訴後其中一罪獲撤銷。事後有公眾投訴鄭官立場偏頗、在證據不足下定罪，以及判刑不合理。專責法官小組調查後裁定投訴不成立，理由包括投訴欠缺事實基礎。小組強調，定罪及刑罰是否恰當，並不屬於投訴司法人員司法行為的範疇。部分人可能會基於立場或政見，而不認同司法決定，但不等同有關司法決定或司法人員偏頗；而且基於司法獨立的基本原則，小組不適宜亦不會干預司法決定。
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
