顯示具有 黃汝榮 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章
顯示具有 黃汝榮 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章

2015年7月20日 星期一

黃汝榮判辭屢遭上級批評 - Magistrate Symon Wong's Verdicts Get Criticised Repeatedly

http://news.mingpao.com/pns/%E9%BB%83%E6%B1%9D%E6%A6%AE%E5%88%A4%E8%BE%AD%E5%B1%A2%E9%81%AD%E4%B8%8A%E7%B4%9A%E6%89%B9%E8%A9%95/web_tc/article/20150720/s00001/1437328630713

【明報專訊】裁判官黃汝榮現年60歲,他於1990年在英國威爾斯大學取得法學士學位,兩年後於香港大學取得法學專業證書,其後一直私人執業,2001年獲委任為裁判官,現時在東區裁判法院任職。黃汝榮曾審理著名練馬師簡炳墀於上水鄉事委員會選舉的賄選案、有「小辣椒」之稱的社運人士嚴敏華襲警案,以及音樂人周啟生獨留兒子在家案等。
指偷竊犯自辯怪誕愚昧 被批偏激

黃汝榮在庭上言行不時惹起爭議,甚至被上級法官批評。例如2007年他審理偷竊羅漢松案時,形容被告的自辯屬「靈魂之說,怪誕愚昧」、「露骨無比,幼稚難耐」,批評有關證供「就像替文章起了題目,內容卻空無一物」,當時的上訴庭法官張澤祐直言,「從沒有在近代法官所撰寫的判決書中,看見過如此偏激、嘲諷及含侮辱成分的用詞」。

非禮案判辭 高院批花巧欠莊重

黃汝榮於2006年裁定一名被告非禮罪成,他在判決書中形容事主女童不可能說謊,因為她「縱有仙人點路,指點迷津,還得配合自然演繹,及經得起盤問,才可瞞天過海」,相反他批評被告「敲鑼擊鼓,高調地反覆強調」其清白,但被控方盤問後, 「整條狐狸尾巴, 已展露無遺」。當時負責處理上訴的高院法官湯寶臣雖然維持原判,但批評黃官的判決書應該「重理性分析而不重花巧」,認為黃官「這種誇張的形容,在一份嚴肅的法律文章裏出現,難免會令人覺得有欠莊重」。

此外,黃官於2002年曾以控方證人身分,為一宗律師行文員涉意圖妨礙司法公正案作供,他曾被辯方指他曾與該文員到澳門新花城夜總會消遣,並叫了4名「小姐」,但黃只承認曾到夜總會。

Crazy Magistrate Symon Wong Called the Police and Accused the Chief Justice of Conspiracy to Defraud

被斥濫權裁判官黃汝榮指串謀阻調查報案質疑馬道立妨司法

http://news.mingpao.com/pns/%E8%A2%AB%E6%96%A5%E6%BF%AB%E6%AC%8A%E8%A3%81%E5%88%A4%E5%AE%98%E6%8C%87%E4%B8%B2%E8%AC%80%E9%98%BB%E8%AA%BF%E6%9F%A5%20%E5%AE%98%E5%A0%B1%E6%A1%88%20%E8%B3%AA%E7%96%91%E9%A6%AC%E9%81%93%E7%AB%8B%E5%A6%A8%E5%8F%B8%E6%B3%95/web_tc/article/20150720/s00001/1437328626844

裁判官黃汝榮去年7月遭高等法院暫委法官司徒冕嚴辭批評,指他在處理一宗案件的保釋申請時濫權及令司法機構蒙羞,黃不甘受辱向上級法官投訴,司法機構考慮是否跟進期間,黃稱在好友、主任裁判官吳蕙芳游說下,簽署了一封承認上級法官有權批評裁判官的信件望獲「平反」,終審法院首席法官馬道立最終決定不作調查。黃認為事件中馬道立、吳蕙芳及總裁判官李慶年串謀誤導他,涉妨礙司法公正及公職中行為失當,於是報警。警方已為黃錄取口供,正等候律政司指示。不過,法律界人士認為有關指控難以成立(見另稿)。
明報記者

本報得到的消息指出,警方今年2月24日接報後,曾到黃汝榮於東區法院的辦公室蒐證,並於4月14日為他落口供。黃原本負責審理刑事案件,現時則只處理兒童法庭案件,極少審理刑事案。

撤保被高院批濫權 向馬投訴

根據黃汝榮的證人供辭,他於去年7月14日主理涉及藏毒等被告梁家傑的審訊(見圖),黃應梁要求請律師而押後聆訊,但最終撤去保釋。黃交由法庭書記代為填上撤保原因,但表格最終空空如也。

黃的供辭指出,梁於4天後到高院申請保釋,暫委法官司徒冕提早通知傳媒採訪,沒有聽取理據便批准梁的保釋。根據司徒的判辭,司徒指摘黃撤保卻不提供理由,收押無律師代表的被告,公然濫權,最後更代表司法機構向梁道歉。最終梁於7月22日案件開審當天潛逃,直至今年2月落網,終被判入戒毒所。

審訊日聆訊不成,黃汝榮當天下午便向馬道立發電郵,附件給司徒冕、總裁判官李慶年、主任裁判官吳蕙芳及東區主任裁判官錢禮。他在信中解釋7月14日聆訊時,6次押後讓梁找律師,最後認為梁的要求欠理據才撤保。黃承認疏忽漏填撤保理據,但認為已口頭交代;他又在信中稱,對司徒批評他濫權感不公,「向傳媒發出未求證的說法,魯莽撕裂我的專業聲譽、可信及誠信」。他有意去信傳媒澄清,但明白法官不能接觸傳媒,因此希望馬提供指示。馬道立回應「正調查」事件,並知悉黃已提供撤保理由,又提醒黃「不應去信傳媒」。

同事贈「還清白」高人信 後認上司指示

黃的供辭續稱,7月26日黃偕妻子與吳蕙芳及其丈夫用膳,吳指黃的信件措辭過分強硬,無助事件,但有「高人」欲助黃,着黃發出一封由「高人」代撰的信件,之後便會有人還他清白。吳於7月28日派人把「高人信」交給黃,黃檢視內容後不認同要向司徒道歉,遂刪除該些內容,僅承認司徒有權批評裁判官。黃稱因信任吳,希望事件早日了結,修改信件後發予馬道立和李慶年。黃發信後繼續就事件與馬聯絡,黃認為司徒的做法攻擊個人聲譽和誠信,同時打擊司法機構成員的士氣。據了解,黃、馬於去年10月28日開會討論事件,而該次會議不准黃錄音,亦不讓黃解釋。

馬引「高人信」內容 不再查投訴

黃於供辭稱,去年11月4日偕妻再次與吳官及其丈夫晚膳,席間表明打算在內部調查傳召吳作供,解釋「高人信」。但吳坦承並無「高人」,僅受李慶年的指示而準備該信。馬道立於一天後發信給黃,引述黃於7月28日的信件已承認未向被告明示撤保原因,黃亦在信中同意司徒有權就此提出意見。馬亦認為司徒的評語僅針對案件,並非針對黃個人,認為毋須追查事件,並稱「事件帶來一些教訓,我有信心你察覺得到」。

黃懷疑馬道立撰「高人信」

據黃的供辭,他認為已展開內部調查,屬司法程序,但吳、李、馬設局令他發出信件認錯,藉此令調查告終,遂投訴3人涉嫌妨礙司法公正。黃更懷疑「高人信」乃由馬道立撰寫,藉此不作內部調查,則影響司法機構公信力,有公職中行為失當之嫌。黃汝榮認為有關信件文筆風格似來自外籍人士,不似來自吳或李手筆,而馬只能以英語書寫流利文章,故黃認為信件是由馬撰寫。

本報曾兩度向警方查詢案件詳情,對有否任何人被捕及現時進度,警方均「不作評論」。本報亦向律政司查詢進度,及透過司法機構要求4名涉案法官回應,均只獲「不作評論」的回應。

2014年7月18日 星期五

東區裁判法院裁判官黃汝榮無理反對被告保釋被高院法官司徒冕斥責濫權 - Magistrate Symon Wong Slammed by the High Court for His Unreasonable Denial of Bail

Magistrate Symon Wong Slammed by the High Court for His Unreasonable Denial of Bail - 東區裁判法院裁判官黃汝榮無理反對被告保釋被高院法官司徒冕斥責濫權

東區裁判法院裁判官黃汝榮,涉無理反對被告保釋,被高院法官司徒冕斥責濫權。與立法會議員梁家傑同名的34歲被告,涉於今年4月30日在中環碼頭,藏有0.55克冰毒及吸毒工具,被控一項藏毒及一項管有吸毒器具罪,一直獲准保釋,本周一(14日)在裁判官黃汝榮席前提訊時,提出聘請律師、押後案件及繼續保釋,但黃汝榮沒有提出理由下,不准被告保釋。

被告之後向高院申請保釋,律政司認為裁判官做法有問題,按緊急情況處理,高院法官司徒冕今日即時批准被告以500元現金保釋,案件於下周二在東區裁判法院續審。高院法官司徒冕斥黃汝榮明目張膽濫權,將沒有律師代表的被告還押,違背法律制度,令司法機構蒙羞,而以往從未發生同類事件。司徒冕又指,律政司其實可更快處理,若當日即時提出高院可即日解決,他又代司法機構向被告道歉。
 

The South China Morning Post (Saturday July 19, 2014): -

Magistrate rapped for refusing bail request without giving reason

Eastern Court's Symon Wong, who gave no reason for refusing man's request for time to get a lawyer, 'brought disgrace to judiciary'

A High Court judge has rapped a magistrate for "bringing disgrace to the judiciary" over his decision to refuse bail to a defendant in a drug case who had requested time to get a lawyer.

Deputy judge Mr Justice Michael Stuart-Moore said he was "utterly shocked" that Magistrate Symon Wong Yu-wing, of Eastern Court, did not give any reason on Monday for remanding Leung Ka-kit in custody.

Leung, 34, had earlier been granted bail twice, by the police and the courts. But Wong's decision landed the defendant in jail for four nights, until he had the opportunity to present his application for bail afresh at the High Court yesterday, in a hearing brought forward by Stuart-Moore to remedy the situation.

"There is not one single valid reason either by the magistrate or by the fact, for the withdrawal of the bail," the judge said.

He called it an abuse of power "to lock up an unrepresented defendant who was highly powerless to do anything".

The judicial system was built on the principle of equal treatment and all parties who were brought before the court should be treated fairly, Stuart-Moore said.

Not only was Leung not legally represented, but the prosecution had not challenged his request for bail, he said.

Stuart-Moore apologised to Leung on behalf of the judiciary and said he hoped it would not happen again. He also allowed the defendant to be released on bail of HK$500.

The judge further noted that the bail document Wong signed listed 15 reasons from which the magistrate could select to explain why the defendant was required to be taken into custody.

But Wong did not choose any of those reasons, writing only "remand in custody" and signing the form, he said.

The magistrate, by abusing his judicial power to control someone who was entitled to his liberty, "has brought disgrace to the judiciary", Stuart-Moore said.

The court heard that the suspect was arrested in Central on April 30 and later released on police bail.

On June 10, Leung attended Eastern Court and denied the twin charges of possessing 0.5 grams of the dangerous drug Ice and of possessing apparatus for inhaling drugs. Magistrate Bina Chainrai set July 14 as the trial date and granted the defendant bail of HK$500.

Leung, who had no legal representative, returned to Eastern Court for his trial on Monday. He asked Wong for an adjournment so he could have more time to seek a lawyer.

The prosecution indicated that it had no objection to extending Leung's bail, but Wong revoked it.

Leung applied for bail again at the High Court two days later. Prosecutor Annie Li read the document and found the situation unusual, so she alerted the court.

Leung's bail application was to be heard next Monday, but Stuart-Moore found it an urgent matter and fixed a hearing for yesterday afternoon.

The judge expressed appreciation for the Department of Justice's assistance. He said such a case should be marked "urgent" so that the courts could deal with it as soon as possible.