法律年︱未直斥中共喉舌掀批鬥 鄭若驊只稱對法官施壓「徒勞無功」(附全文)

更新時間 (HKT): 2021.01.11 18:18

香港的司法獨立過去一年受到衝擊,法官的裁決亦不時受到抨擊,甚至連中共喉舌《人民日報》亦曾加入批鬥行列。律政司司長鄭若驊今天(11日)在法律年度開啟禮致辭時雖提到,過去一年仍有針對某些法官的無理肆意抨擊,意圖向法官施加壓力只會「徒勞無功」,卻未有回應大律師公會的訴求,提出任何具體跟進。

鄭若驊同時力撐人大自行為香港立法的「港版國安法」,指中央擁有就國家安全立法的權力及職責,反駁一國兩制受破壞之說全是誤解,更力撐特首林鄭委任國安指定法官的安排。

稱已向法庭取得相關起底行動禁制令

鄭若驊在致辭開首提及,過去一年仍有不少人針對某些法官的無理肆意抨擊,以至惡意中傷的情況,故要再作提醒,指《基本法》保障司法獨立,法院不受任何干涉,法官必須按司法誓言,公正獨立審理案件,重申「任何別有用心或欠缺理據的不公平言論,意圖向秉行公義的法官施加壓力或作出不當影響,都只會徒勞無功」。

鄭若驊未有在演辭中提及法官受壓的具體例子或如何跟進,繼而稱針對法官及其他執行司法工作人員的起底活動有上升趨勢,又稱自己作為「公眾利益守護者」,已向法庭取得相關起底行動的禁制令,重申所有人及機構都有責任捍衞司法機構及法治免受毫無根據的惡意攻擊,而某些人或機構則不應盲目發表不實言論。

力撐由特首任命國安指定法官

去年中人大常委會自行為香港訂立「港版國安法」,外界質疑條文模糊,亦令香港向有的人權保障受損,不少國家甚至因此制裁香港官員。鄭若驊則指,國家安全屬於中央職權範圍,重申中央有就國家安全事宜立法的權力和職責,反駁有指「一國兩制」已遭破壞的說法全屬誤解。

她又指,《國安法》下,由特首任命法官的做法受到很多偏頗及片面批評,有人指此舉會削弱香港的司法制度,但她堅稱特首只是為不同級別的法院訂立指定法官名單,由該等法官負責聆訊涉及國家安全事宜的案件,並非委派某法官審理某特定案件,重申香港特區各方面的權力都源於中央。

律政司申刑罰覆核大增 重申必須強調阻嚇懲罰作用

至於終院裁定民主派《緊急法》《禁蒙面法》司法覆核敗訴,鄭若驊亦有提及,指相關判決重要,確認《緊急條例》符合《基本法》,稱認同法庭觀點,「權利和自由並不是絕對的,而是受到合法限制,包括公共安全、公共秩序以及對他人權利和自由的保護」。

而律政司據《刑事訴訟程序條例》提出的刑罰覆核申請大幅增加,2019年有4宗,去年則有17宗;而在去已裁決的12宗申請中,11宗申請得直。鄭若驊特別提及,上訴庭在其中4宗案件中,重申黃之鋒案的判刑原則,即在處理牽涉暴力的大型非法集會案件時,必須強調阻嚇和懲罰作用。

演辭全文(中文版)

終審法院首席法官、各位司法機構人員、大律師公會主席、律師會會長、各位嘉賓、各位女士、各位先生:

法律年度開啟典禮今天在終審法院舉行,並向公眾提供現場直播,不但體現了香港深厚的法律傳統,亦充份展現法律界在各種難測難控的挑戰面前逆境自強、迎難而上的精神。冠狀病毒為全球帶來嚴峻考驗,香港亦不倖免。

司法獨立

我在二○一九年致辭時,曾譴責針對某些法官的無理肆意抨擊,以至惡意中傷,並呼籲市民閱讀法院判決,以消除不必要的誤解。去年,我目睹有不少類似情況,不得不再次作出提醒。

香港的司法獨立主要是建基於《基本法》訂明的穩固體制之上,即法官享有任期(註一)和不受法律追究的保障(註二)、不設旋轉門制度(註三),重要的是,《基本法》第八十五條明文保障司法獨立,法院不受任何干涉(註四)。所有法官必須按其司法誓言,以無懼無偏之精神,維護法制,主持正義。法官審理案件必須公正獨立。客觀理性地評論和討論法院判決一向都屬於法律容許的範圍。然而,社會上有部份言論卻非如此。任何別有用心或欠缺理據的不公平言論,意圖向秉行公義的法官施加壓力或作出不當影響,都只會徒勞無功。

起底

針對法官及其他執行司法工作人員的起底活動有上升的趨勢,這必須遏止。我作為「公眾利益守護者」(註五),已經向法庭尋求並取得禁制令,禁制針對法官、司法人員及其家人的起底行為。法庭在批出禁制令時指出: 「法治的關鍵在於訴訟人和公眾能夠依賴和信任不偏不倚的法院制度,以及審理任何案件的法官或司法人員均會根據案中證據和適用法律判案。(註六)」

違反禁制令的後果非常嚴重,任何違反禁制令的人有機會被視為藐視法庭,可被判處罰款或監禁,包括近期法庭在一宗裁決中判處的即時入獄(註七)。

正如我在二○一八年所言,「我們各人須共同承擔責任,尊重、提倡和推動法治,作為本港社會的基礎」(註八)。所有人和機構都有責任積極捍衞司法機構及法治免受毫無根據的惡意攻擊;而某些人或機構則不應盲目發表不實言論。

《香港國安法》

另一個對法治毫無根據的挑戰關乎在香港頒佈的《香港國安法》。國家安全屬於中央職權範圍。全國人民代表大會(全國人大)是中華人民共和國最高國家權力機關,其下的常務委員會獲授權制定《香港國安法》。根據《基本法》第十八條,《香港國安法》納入《基本法》附件三,在香港特區公布和實施。

《基本法》第二十三條並不改變上述基本原則,它要求香港特區履行就關乎國家安全的若干罪行立法的憲制責任。事實上中央一直擁有就國家安全事宜立法的權力和職責,尤其在香港特區未有履行該項責任的時候。因此,「一國兩制」原則已遭破壞的說法全屬誤解。

由行政長官任命法官的做法受到很多偏頗和片面的批評,有人指此舉會削弱香港的司法制度。應當重申的是,行政長官只是為不同級別的法院定立指定法官名單,由該等法官負責聆訊涉及國家安全事宜的案件,並不是委派某法官審理某特定案件。

理解《基本法》

《香港國安法》聚焦於香港的憲制架構。中國是單一制國家,香港特區各方面的權力都源於中央。《憲法》和《基本法》構成香港特區的憲制基礎。正確理解這個概念,對理解本港法律制度至關重要。

《基本法》頒佈三十周年法律高峯論壇以《追本溯源》為主題,提醒我們正確理解《基本法》的必要基礎。該論壇的重點信息與上訴法庭處理《緊急情況規例條例》(《緊急條例》)所作的判決完全相同,即香港特區政府「在很大程度上屬於行政主導」(註九)。

《緊急情況規例條例》

終審法院就《緊急情況規例條例》(註十)宣告的判決尤為重要。該判決確認《緊急條例》符合《基本法》,並認同在危害公安的情況下,「不論立法機關是否舉行會議,行政機關獲授予『寬廣且具彈性的立法權力』『至關重要』」(註十一)。法庭續指:

「必須緊記《緊急條例》的目的是賦予行政長官會同行政會議寬廣且具彈性的立法權力,以迅速及充份應對緊急或危害公安的情況。」(註十二)

我們都目睹了治安在二○一九年急劇惡化,對於《緊急條例》的合憲性和《禁止蒙面規例》禁止在公眾活動使用蒙面物品的相稱性(註十三),法庭認為在權衡社會和個人利益之間的平衡時,香港整體的利益很重要。我贊同這個觀點:權利和自由並不是絕對的,而是受到合法限制,包括公共安全,公共秩序以及對他人權利和自由的保護(註十四)。判辭中末尾的一段話值得留意:

「……最後,本院也須考慮香港的整體利益:蒙面示威者在隱藏身份下,以為不用受到法律制裁而作出損害法治的行為。」(註十五)

刑事上訴

今年根據《刑事訴訟程序條例》(註十六)第81A條提出的刑罰覆核申請大幅增加,與二○一九年四宗相比,二○二○年有17宗。在二○二○年經已裁決的12宗申請中,11宗申請得直。上訴法庭在其中四宗案件中,重申黃之鋒案(註十七)的判刑原則,即在處理牽涉暴力的大型非法集會案件時,必須強調阻嚇和懲罰作用。

願景2030

在「願景2030—聚焦法治」計劃以及專責小組的指引下,我們注意到在確定法治的實踐時,須參考客觀數據,也必須考慮文化、社會經濟和本地傳統(包括法律及風俗)等要素。

本地方面,我們已開展多個項目,以多管齊下的方式(例如動畫短片、戲劇、互動工作坊、參加國際會議等)在社會不同層面推廣對法治、《憲法》和《基本法》的正確理解和認識。這些稱之為「3E」的項目——即參與(engagement)、能力提升(empowerment)和增益(enrichment),旨在提高市民的守法意識,使青年正確理解法治,並且為法律界提供增長知識和擴闊國際視野的機會。

律政司的其他措施

冠狀病毒改變了我們舉辦會議的方式。運用科技和即時影像傳輸,我們可以接觸到更多司法管轄區及更多人,並透過legalhub.gov.hk網站提供影音紀錄,在某程度上可算因禍得福。然而,一些最好以實體形式進行以促進人際溝通的活動,就只能延期舉行,包括亞洲—非洲法律協商組織年會、聯合國國際貿易法委員會(《貿法委》)第三工作組間會,以及由律政司協辦的海牙國際法學院與亞洲國際法律研究院舉辦的高級研討會。

此外,為了令一九九九年的《關於內地與香港特別行政區相互執行仲裁裁決的安排》(註十八)更符合《紐約公約》(註十九)的精神及原意和國際仲裁常規(註二十),我們已經和最高人民法院簽訂《補充安排》(註二十一)。有關安排有需要透過立法措施加以落實。

至於新措施方面,律政司會繼續提倡和推動法律科技的發展。如《施政報告》所述,我們正促進「香港法律雲端」的發展,為本地法律及爭議解決業界提供安全穩妥及可負擔的資料儲存服務。此外,鑑於網上爭議解決的使用日益普及,我們已加入《亞太經合組織網上爭議解決的合作框架》,並設立「律政司與貿法委合作項目辦公室」,研究因增加使用嶄新科技而衍生的相關法律問題。考慮到貿法委的意見,我們現正計劃成立「普惠全球律創新平台」,以促進這特定範疇的研究。

去年,我們舉辦網上國際研討會,慶祝《聯合國國際貨物銷售合同公約》(《銷售公約》)締結四十周年。關於《銷售公約》建議適用於香港的公眾諮詢亦已完成,我們現正分析及整理結果。

有關美國事宜提交世界貿易組織處理

為維護我們的合法權利,香港已根據世界貿易組織(世貿)的機制正式採取行動,以解決有關美國對香港貨品產地來源標記規定的爭端。我們認為美國提出的規定有違世貿涵蓋的不同協議,而且破壞以規則為本的多邊貿易制度,亦不尊重香港的單獨關稅區地位。

結語

各位,今天是非常特別的日子:是二○二一年法律年度開啟典禮之日;是前終審法院首席法官馬道立的六十五歲壽辰;亦是終審法院首席法官張舉能履任之首天。我衷心祝賀新任的終審法院首席法官,深信他定能繼續維護香港的司法獨立和法治。最後,我謹祝各位新年諸事順遂,身體健康。

註一:《基本法》第八十九條保障了法官的任期,指出法官只有在無力履行職責或行為不檢的情況下才可予以免職。

註二:《基本法》第八十五條訂明司法人員履行審判職責的行為不受法律追究。

註三:區域法院或以上級別的法官獲委任時,必須承諾任期完結後不會在香港執業為大律師或律師,這個不設「旋轉門」的決定,是免卻公眾對任何潛在利益衝突的疑慮,加強法官的獨立性。

註四:《基本法》第八十五條列明:「香港特別行政區法院獨立進行審判,不受任何干涉,司法人員履行審判職責的行為不受法律追究。」

註五:律政司司長 訴 非法及故意地作出在申索書中第1(a)、(b)或(c)段所禁止的任何行為的人[2020] HKCFI 2785 (高院民事訴訟2020年第1847號,2020年11月13日)判決第8、35段。

註六:律政司司長 訴 非法及故意地作出在申索書中第1(a)、(b)或(c)段所禁止的任何行為的人[2020] HKCFI 2785 (高院民事訴訟2020年第1847號,2020年11月13日)判決第37段。

註七:律政司司長訴陳健聰[2020] HKCFI 3147(高院雜項案件2020年第744號,2020年12月28日)第59段。

註八:2018年法律年度開啟典禮律政司司長致辭全文載於www.doj.gov.hk/tc/community_engagement/speeches/20180108_sj1.html

註九:見上訴法庭在郭榮鏗及其他人訴行政長官會同行政會議及另一人[2020] 2 HKLRD 771, [2020] HKCA 192及梁國雄訴律政司司長及另一人[2020] 2 HKLRD 771, [2020] HKCA 192一案的判決第92段。

註十:郭榮鏗及其他人訴行政長官會同行政會議及另一人[2020] HKCFA 42及梁國雄 訴 律政司司長及另一人[2020] HKCFA 42。

註十一:郭榮鏗案、梁國雄案[終審法院]判決第44段。

註十二:郭榮鏗案、梁國雄案[終審法院]判決第61段。

註十三:郭榮鏗案、梁國雄案[終審法院]判決第87至97段。

註十四:郭榮鏗案、梁國雄案判決第100段。註十五:郭榮鏗案、梁國雄案判決第146段。

註十六:《刑事訴訟程序條例》(第221章)。

註十七:律政司司長 訴 黃之鋒[2018] 2 HKLRD 699,終審法院在律政司司長 訴 黃之鋒(2018) 21 HKCFAR 35一案中予以認同。

註十八:在1999年6月21日簽訂的《關於內地與香港特別行政區相互執行仲裁裁決的安排》。

註十九:在1958年6月10日簽訂的《承認及執行外國仲裁裁決公約》。

註二十:《補充安排》在四方面對《1999年仲裁安排》進行修訂,分別是:(i)訂明在執行仲裁裁決方面涵蓋「認可」一詞;(ii)更明確地訂明當事方可以在法院接受執行仲裁裁決的申請之前或之後申請保全措施;(iii)使仲裁裁決範圍與普遍採用的「仲裁地」保持一致;以及(iv)免除目前的限制,允許當事方同時向內地和香港特區的法院申請執行仲裁裁決。

註二十一:在2020年11月27日簽訂的《關於內地與香港特別行政區相互執行仲裁裁決的補充安排》。

演辭全文(英文版)

Chief Justice, members of the Judiciary, Chairman of the Bar Association, President of the Law Society, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,

The holding of the opening of the legal year here at the Court of Final Appeal, with its live broadcast to the public, is testimony to Hong Kong’s strong legal traditions and the resilience and tenacity of the legal community notwithstanding unforeseeable challenges beyond one’s control. The coronavirus has posed immense challenges to the world and Hong Kong is not spared.

Judicial Independence

In my 2019 speech, I condemned the totally baseless, arbitrary and even malicious attacks on some of our judges, urging the community to dispel such unwarranted misunderstanding by reading the court judgments. Last year, I have witnessed multiple occasions by which similar reminders have had to be made.

Our judicial independence is premised on the solid infrastructure that has been laid down primarily in the Basic Law - the security of tenure (Note 1), the immunity of judges (Note 2), the non-revolving door (Note 3), and importantly the expressed provision in Article 85 of the Basic Law that guarantees judicial independence, free from any interference (Note 4). The judicial oath, taken by all judges, requires them to safeguard the law and administer justice, without fear or favour. Judges are required to adjudicate cases independently and impartially. Comments and discussions on court decisions are always permissible within the boundary of the law if done rationally and objectively. Yet some remarks that have surfaced are nothing like that. Any unfair or unfounded remarks with the ulterior motive of exerting pressure or undue influence on our judges in dispensing justice will be to no avail.

Doxxing

Doxxing activities towards judges and other persons involved in the administration of justice were on the rise and must be curtailed. As “guardian of the public interest” (Note 5), I sought and obtained an injunction order to restrain the conduct of such activities towards Judges, Judicial Officers and their family members. In granting this injunction, the Court noted:

“It remains fundamental to the rule of law that litigants and the general public are able to place reliance on and have confidence in a Court system that is free from bias, and that the Judge or Judicial Officer in any case is the person who decides that case according to its evidence and the applicable law.” (Note 6)

It is a serious matter to act in breach of an injunction order. Any person who acts in violation of an injunction order may be held in contempt of court and is liable to a fine or imprisonment, including an immediate custodial sentence as ordered by the Court in a recent decision (Note 7).

As I have stated in 2018, “(a)ll of us jointly bear the responsibility to respect, promote and further the rule of law as a fundamental basis of our society” (Note 8). It lies in every individual and institution to be forthcoming in defending our judiciary and the rule of law against these baseless and malicious attacks and, for some, to refrain from blindly uttering such statements.

National Security Law

Another baseless challenge to our rule of law relates to the promulgation of the National Security Law in Hong Kong. National security is within the purview of the Central Authorities. The National People’s Congress (NPC) is the highest organ of state power in the People’s Republic of China and its Standing Committee was entrusted to formulate the National Security Law. Pursuant to Article 18 of the Basic Law, it was added to Annex III, promulgated and became applicable to the HKSAR.

Article 23 of the Basic Law does not change the fundamental principles set out above. It imposes a constitutional responsibility on the HKSAR to enact legislation in respect of certain offences relating to national security. Yet the Central Authorities always have the power and duty to legislate on matters of national security, especially when this responsibility of the HKSAR has not been fulfilled. It is entirely misconceived to say that the principle of “one country, two systems” has been undermined.

Many unfair and ill-informed criticisms have been made against the designation of judges by the Chief Executive, with remarks that it will undermine Hong Kong’s judicial system. It should be reiterated that the Chief Executive only designates a list of judges in different levels of courts to hear cases involving issues of national security, rather than assigning which judge to preside over a specific case.

Understanding the Basic Law

The National Security Law brings into sharp focus the constitutional order of Hong Kong. China is a unitary state, and the powers of the branches of the HKSAR emanate from the Central Authorities. The Constitution and the Basic Law form the constitutional basis of the HKSAR. A proper understanding of this concept is of utmost importance to comprehend our legal system.

The Basic Law 30th Anniversary Legal Summit with the theme “Back to Basics” reminds us of the fundamentals necessary for the proper understanding of the Basic Law. A key takeaway from the Summit is entirely the same as a finding in the Court of Appeal decision dealing with the Emergency Regulations Ordinance (ERO): that the HKSAR Government is “very much an executive-led government” (Note 9).

The Emergency Regulations Ordinance

The judgment delivered by the Court of Final Appeal regarding the ERO (Note 10) is particularly significant. It upheld the compatibility of the ERO with the Basic Law, and recognised that in circumstances of public danger, it is “‘essential’ to give the executive ‘wide and flexible legislative powers’ whether or not the legislature is sitting” (Note 11). The court continued:

“It should be remembered that the purpose of the ERO is to provide the (Chief Executive in Council) with wide and flexible legislative powers in times of emergency or public danger in order to deal quickly and adequately with the situation in question.” (Note 12)

In upholding the constitutionality of the ERO and the proportionality of the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation which restricted the use of facial coverings during public order events we saw in 2019 with deteriorating law and order (Note 13), the Court took the view that when striking a fair balance between the societal and individual interests, the interests of Hong Kong as a whole is important. I echo this view - rights and freedoms are not absolute but are subject to lawful restrictions including the interests of public safety, public order and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others (Note 14). One final statement in the judgment is noteworthy:

“... And finally, the interests of Hong Kong as a whole should be taken into account since the rule of law itself was being undermined by the actions of masked lawbreakers who, with their identities concealed, were seemingly free to act with impunity.” (Note 15)

Criminal Appeals

This year marks a significant increase in the amount of applications for the review of sentence lodged under section 81A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Note 16), with 17 applications lodged in 2020 compared to four in 2019. Of the 12 such applications decided in 2020, 11 were allowed. In four of the cases, the Court of Appeal repeated the sentencing principle as set out in Wong Chi Fung (Note 17) of the necessity to emphasise deterrence and punishment in large-scale unlawful assembly cases involving violence be applied.

Vision 2030

Under the “Vision 2030 for Rule of Law” initiative, and benefiting from the guidance of the Task Force formed under it, we noted that objective data shall be referred to in ascertaining the practice of the rule of law and important elements including cultural, socio-economic and local traditions (both legal and indigenous) are features that must be taken into account.

Locally, we have started projects that will promote the proper understanding and recognition of the rule of law, the Constitution and the Basic Law at various levels of society, through a multi-faceted approach such as animated short videos, drama, interactive workshops, and exposure to international conferences. These “3Es” projects - representing “Engagement, Empowerment, and Enrichment”, aim to raise awareness of a law-abiding society, equip youth with the correct understanding of the rule of law, and provide the legal community with opportunities to broaden their knowledge and international exposure.

Other DoJ Initiatives

The coronavirus has changed the way we deliver conferences. The use of technology and live feed has enabled us to reach out to more people in more jurisdictions and to provide recordings on thelegalhub.gov.hkwebsite. In a way, it is a blessing in disguise. Yet, some of our events which are best conducted by way of physical meetings to facilitate personal interactions have to be postponed. They include the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization annual meeting, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group III Intersessional Meeting and the Advanced Course that my department is co-organising with The Hague Academy of International Law and the Asian Academy of International Law.

We have also reached a Supplemental Arrangement (Note 18) with the Supreme People’s Court to bring the 1999 Arrangement Concerning Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards (Note 19) more in line with the spirit and intent of the New York Convention (Note 20) and international arbitration practice (Note 21). Legislative measures will be needed to implement the same.

As to new initiatives, the Department of Justice will continue to pursue and promote the development of LawTech. As set out in the Policy Address, we will be facilitating the development of the Hong Kong legal cloud to provide safe, secure and affordable data storage services for local legal and dispute resolution communities. Furthermore, with the use of online dispute resolution (ODR) being more prevalent, and apart from already signing up to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation ODR Framework, we have also established a DOJ Project Office for Collaboration with UNCITRAL to study pertinent legal issues stemming from the increasing use of emerging technology. With input from UNCITRAL, we are planning to set up an Inclusive Global Legal Innovation Platform to facilitate studies in this particular aspect.

Last year, an online international conference to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) was conducted. A public consultation on Hong Kong’s proposed application of the CISG was completed and we are analysing and compiling the results.

WTO Case with US

In protecting our legitimate rights, Hong Kong has formally taken steps under the World Trade Organization framework to resolve its dispute with the United States with respect to its origin markings requirement imposed on Hong Kong products. We believe that the US requirement is contrary to a number of WTO-covered agreements, undermines the rule-based multilateral trading system, and does not respect Hong Kong’s status as a separate customs territory.

Conclusion

Ladies and gentlemen, today is a very special day: the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2021, the former Chief Justice Mr Geoffrey Ma’s 65th birthday, and Chief Justice Cheung’s first day in assuming the role of Chief Justice. To the new Chief Justice I offer my heartfelt congratulations, and I am confident that he will continue to safeguard the independence of the Judiciary and the rule of law in Hong Kong. With this, I wish you all a very happy and healthy new year.

Note 1: Article 89 of the Basic Law guarantees the security of tenure for judges, and states that they can only be removed for inability to discharge his or her duties or for misbehaviour.

Note 2: Article 85 of the Basic Law provides that members of the judiciary shall be immune from legal action in the performance of their judicial functions.

Note 3: Upon appointment, judges at the District Court level and above are precluded from returning to practice in Hong Kong as a barrister or solicitor. This “non-revolving door” system prevents perceived conflicts of interest and enhances the independence of the judiciary.

Note 4: Article 85 of the Basic Law reads:

“The courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall exercise judicial power independently, free from any interference. Members of the judiciary shall be immune from legal action in the performance of their judicial functions.”

Note 5: Secretary for Justice v Persons unlawfully and wilfully conducting themselves in any of the acts prohibited under paragraph 1(a), (b) or (c) of the indorsement of claim [2020] HKCFI 2785 (HCA 1847/2020, 13 November 2020) at paragraphs 8 and 35.

Note 6: Secretary for Justice v Persons unlawfully and wilfully conducting themselves in any of the acts prohibited under paragraph 1(a), (b) or (c) of the indorsement of claim [2020] HKCFI 2785 (HCA 1847/2020, 13 November 2020) at paragraph 37.

Note 7: Secretary for Justice v Chan Kin Chung [2020] HKCFI 3147, (HCMP 744/2020, 28 December 2020) at paragraph 59.

Note 8: Speech by the Secretary for Justice at the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2018 atwww.doj.gov.hk/en/community_engagement/speeches/20180108_sj1.html.

Note 9: See the Court of Appeal judgment in Kwok Wing Hang & Others v Chief Executive in Council & Anor [2020] 2 HKLRD 771, [2020] HKCA 192 and Leung Kwok Hung v Secretary for Justice & Anor [2020] 2 HKLRD 771, [2020] HKCA 192 at paragraph 92.

Note 10: Kwok Wing Hang & Others v Chief Executive in Council & Anor [2020] HKCFA 42 and Leung Kwok Hung v Secretary for Justice & Anor [2020] HKCFA 42.

Note 11: Kwok Wing Hang, Leung Kwok Hung [CFA] at paragraph 44.

Note 12: Kwok Wing Hang, Leung Kwok Hung [CFA] at paragraph 61.

Note 13: Kwok Wing Hang, Leung Kwok Hung [CFA] at paragraphs 87 to 97.

Note 14: Kwok Wing Hang, Leung Kwok Hung [CFA] at paragraph 100.

Note 15: Kwok Wing Hang, Leung Kwok Hung [CFA] at paragraph 146.

Note 16: Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 221.

Note 17: Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung [2018] 2 HKLRD 699, which was endorsed by the Court of Final Appeal in Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35.

Note 18: Supplemental Arrangement Concerning Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, signed on November 27, 2020.

Note 19: Arrangement Concerning Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, signed on June 21, 1999.

Note 20: Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, signed on June 10, 1958.

Note 21: The Supplemental Arrangement amends the 1999 Arbitration Arrangement in four aspects, namely: (i) expressly including the term “recognition” when referring to enforcement of arbitral awards; (ii) providing that a party may apply for preservation measures before or after the court’s acceptance of an application to enforce an arbitral award for greater certainty; (iii) aligning the scope of arbitral awards with the prevalent approach of “seat of arbitration”; and (iv) removing the current restriction and allow parties to make simultaneous applications to both the courts of the Mainland and the HKSAR for enforcement of an arbitral award.

-----------------------------

《蘋果》英文版免費試睇:了解更多

英文版已登錄《蘋果》App,立即下載/ 更新iOS / Android

-----------------------------

支持蘋果深度報道,深入社區,踢爆權貴,即Like蘋果專題及調查組FB專頁

一格照片,一個故事,Follow蘋果Instagram!
BannerBanner