#Opinion by Davyd Wong | “While it is far from clear on what basis those judges are picked, we do know that the task of trying to implement the law is one fraught with difficulty for those selected. This is because the NSL is birthed in one distinct legal culture, namely Mainland China’s Civil Law system, but is to be used in a very different one - Hong Kong’s Common Law system."
Read: https://bit.ly/3936nNn
________
📱Download the app:
http://onelink.to/appledailyapp
📰 Latest news:
http://appledaily.com/engnews/
🐤 Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/appledaily_hk
💪🏻 Subscribe and show your support:
https://bit.ly/2ZYKpHP
#AppleDailyENG
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
「common law civil law」的推薦目錄:
common law civil law 在 Facebook 的最讚貼文
(轉)
【有關司法機構被官營媒體攻擊的聲明】
《人民日報》於2020年12月27日發表一篇抨擊香港法院在一宗涉及知名人士的案件中批准被告人保釋的評論文章,而文章發表的時候該獲准保釋的決定已進入上訴程序,我們就此表示嚴重關注。文章攻擊法院的判決,並形容《蘋果日報》創辦人黎智英「惡名昭彰,極度危險」,以及是「亂港禍首」。該報斷言在黎智英案中,不准保釋須是前設的常規,並要求司法機構「作出正確選擇」。文章又認為已經有足夠證據顯示黎智英已觸犯國安法第55條,該條訂明某些案件可以移交中國大陸審訊。當上訴委員會將於2020年12月31日就政府申請上訴許可召開聆訊,由國家政權控制和營運的報章刊登該篇評論文章,令人尤其擔心及被視為是試圖干預我們獨立的司法機關的程序公義。
作為致力守護長久以來珍而重之的法治和司法獨立的法律執業者,我們認為有責任提出以下關注,並以個人名義僅此聲明:
1、 官營媒體對司法機關毫無基礎的攻擊應當停止
在數位親建制人士及官方控制和營運的媒體 - 包括《文匯報》及《大公報》- 要求「司法改革」及嘲諷「黃官」的日益壓力下,出現上述評論文章,我們深表憂慮。我們注意到司法機構自今年9月以來,已就對其日趨激烈的攻擊發表了四份聲明。
誠然,公眾有權討論及評論法院的裁決及其根據的事實及法律,惟討論不應流於憑空論斷、政治抹黑,或企圖向法院就某些案件的裁決施加壓力,否則公眾對司法機構的聲譽、專業和獨立勢必受到嚴重破壞。特別是《人民日報》刊登的評論文章,會被視為明顯地向法院將要審理的案件施加壓力,此舉可以是違反審理中的案件不應評論的原則,以及有損公平審訊。這些攻擊應當立即停止。
我們亦呼籲律政司採取行動,維護司法機構免受官方控制或營運的媒體作出毫無基礎和不實指控。正如高浩文法官在其判詞中指出,「在普通法司法管轄區,例如香港,傳統上法官和司法機構是不會公開地就針對其裁決和個人而作出的不公平和不適當的批評為自己辯護,而傳統上負責律政的官員則有責任反駁錯誤的指控,以維護司法機構和個別法官。」
2、 公平審訊及無罪假定
不論如何解讀,香港特區政府有法律責任保護每一位香港居民的基本權利不受侵犯,包括公平審訊的權利。我們質疑一旦涉嫌觸犯國安法第55條下,該等權利是否仍然受到保障。理由有兩方面:第一,我們質疑中國大陸在刑事審訊的程序中,對公平審訊是否有足夠的保障,那是由於中國尚未落實《公民與政治權利國際公約》,這亦是長久以來為人詬病。第二,12名香港居民於2020年12月28日在深圳鹽田法院受審的案件,沒有公開審訊,他們亦沒有權選擇他們委託的法律代表,令人質疑香港特區政府有否履行其法律責任。
上述關注,反映國安法無法為被告人提供足夠的基本人權保障,並在法律上存在很多不確定性。正如英國最高法院院長賓漢(Lord Bingham)在其著作《The Rule of Law》中說明,法治的核心是在一個地方裡,所有不論屬公共或私人的個人和機構,都必須受法律的約束及保障,而法律必須是公開和預先頒佈,以及由法院公開執行。因此,我們促請有關當局嚴格遵守法治原則,自我約束,以及謹慎運用國安法賦予的權力。
帝理邁
林洋鋐
彭皓昕
蔡頴德
黃耀初
2020年12月30日
【Statement on Continuous Attacks on the Judiciary and
Art. 55 of the National Security Law】
We note with grave concern that on 27 December 2020, l the People’s Daily published anr editorial piece criticizing a decision in respect of a bail application that is currently subject to an ongoing appeal. In attacking the judicial decisions in Apple Daily founder, Mr Jimmy Lai Chee-yin’s case, the People’s Daily has labelled him as a “notorious and extremely dangerous” and an “insurgent”. It added that the presumption against bail should be the norm in cases such as Lai’s and urged the judiciary to “make the right decision”. The commentary further claimed that there were sufficient grounds in Mr Lai’s case for invoking Article 55 of the National Security Law (NSL) - which allows certain cases to be transferred to Mainland China for trial. This type of commentary appearing in a newspaper run/controlled by the Central Government, when the Appeals Committee would soon be hearing the Hong Kong Government’s application for leave to appeal on 31 December 2020, is particularly worrying and borders on an attempt to interfere with the due administration of justice by Hong Kong’s independent judiciary.
We, the undersigned, in our personal capacity and as lawyers committed to safeguarding the Rule of Law and the independence of judiciary, we feel duty bound to draw attention to the following matters:
(1) Unfounded attacks against the judiciary by state-run/controlled media should cease
The above-mentioned commentary was made amid intensifying calls for “judicial reform” and deriding “yellow judges” from various pro-establishment figures and state-run/controlled media, including Wen Wei Po and Tai Kung Po. To that end, we note that the judiciary has had to issue a total of four statements since September this year, in light of the intensifying attacks mounted against it.
Whilst members of the public have the right to discuss and comment on court rulings for reasons grounded on fact or law, such discussion should not cross into bare assertions, imputations of political bias, or attempts to put pressure on the Judiciary to decide specific cases in a particular manner. Otherwise, public confidence in the integrity, professionalism and independence of the judiciary would be seriously undermined. Notably, the commentary published by People’s Daily, could be perceived as putting pressure on the judiciary to decide a pending case in a particular manner, which breaches the sub judice rule and could prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial. These attacks should cease immediately.
We also call on the Secretary of Justice to take action to defend the Judiciary against unwarranted accusations led by state-run/controlled media. As Judge Russell Coleman noted in his judgment, “it has been the traditional view that Judges and the Judiciary do not speak out in defence of their decisions or to defend themselves against unfair and inappropriate criticism [...] in common law jurisdictions like Hong Kong, it was the tradition that the minister responsible for the administration of justice has the duty of defending the Judiciary or individual Judges against wrong accusations”.
(2) Concerns about fair trial and presumption of innocence
The Hong Kong Government has the legal obligation to protect any Hong Kong residents, whose rendition is sought, from violation of his/her fundamental and non-derogable rights, including the right to fair trial. We question whether such rights can be guaranteed upon invoking of Article 55 of the NSL. The reason is two-folded. First, we question whether China has adequate protection on the right to fair trial during the criminal process, as mainland China has not ratified the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and has been long criticised on such. Second, the fact that the 12 Hong Kong residents who stood trial at Shenzhen Yantian People’s Court on 28 December 2020 were denied the right to open trial and the right to appoint lawyers of their choice, casts considerable doubt on whether the Hong Kong Government can fulfil its legal obligation.
These concerns reflect that the NSL lacks adequate protections to safeguard an accused’s fundamental human rights and lacks legal certainty. As Lord Bingham wrote in his book, The Rule of Law, at the core of the rule of law is the notion “that all persons and authorities within the state, whether public or private, should be bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws publicly and prospectively promulgated and publicly administered in the courts”. Accordingly, we urge the authorities to uphold strict adherence to the rule of law and exercise restraint and caution in invoking its power under the NSL.
Mark Daly
Michelle Tsoi Wing Tak
Kenneth Lam
Davyd Wong
Janet Pang Ho Yan
Dated this 30 December 2020
common law civil law 在 多益達人 林立英文 Facebook 的最佳解答
When tracking the virus means tracking your citizens
Apple and Google on Friday unveiled ( ) a rare ( ) partnership to add technology to their smartphone platforms ( ) that will alert users if they have come into contact with a person with COVID-19. Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android — the operating systems used in iPhone and Samsung Galaxy devices, among others — are used by about 3 billion people around the globe.
Since the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, some democracies ( ) around the world have used technology to avoid having to impose draconian ( ) mass quarantines ( ) that were common earlier this year in China. That’s reassuring — and it’s also worrying, because the very strategies that can help fight a plague can also be abused once it’s over.
Consider Taiwan, where an “electronic fence” allows local police to make regular phone calls to everyone who is home under quarantine; if the citizen doesn’t answer or the phone is out of power, police come to the home within 15 minutes. In South Korea, the government constantly updates a Web site that tracks the movements of people who have been infected, and issues alerts to the mobile phones of people in the geographic vicinity ( ) of an infected citizen. The Israeli government gained access to an archive ( ) of phone data to map the movements of infected people, then alerted those who had been in contact with them to self-isolate.
Invoking ( ) these powers is reasonable during a pandemic. Once the outbreak is over, however, this kind of power can and probably will be abused. What’s to stop a corrupt ( ) (or merely unscrupulous [ ]) leader from using such technologies to learn or even publicize the location of political opponents or dissidents ( )?
“This is a genuine emergency and that justifies ( ) a lot of things that would not normally be justified,” says Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). “But we have to make sure that these temporary ( ) powers do not become permanent ( ) in a way that hurts everybody else.”
The good news is that the pandemic is not an endless war. Once there is a treatment or a vaccine ( ), there will be a clear end date to the state of emergency.
Stanley says it’s crucial to set up strict rules beforehand ( ). Any location data, for example, should only be used by public health authorities for public health purposes. The programs should be temporary and the data should be deleted after the crisis ( ) ends.
Along these lines, Freedom House released a set of principles on March 24 for protecting civil and human rights in the fight against COVID-19. It says any surveillance ( ) programs that use new technology to fight the spread of the disease should be “subject to ( ) independent oversight ( ), and ‘firewalled’ from other commercial and governmental uses such as law enforcement and enforcement of immigration policies.”
In the middle of a crisis, all of this might seem theoretical. The most essential tasks for democratic leaders are providing for the public’s safety and working to revive ( ) the economy. Yet it’s also important to remember that the state rarely relinquishes ( ) powers it amasses ( ) in a crisis.
After 9/11, the FBI was given broad new powers to demand data from private businesses. A dozen years later, both the ACLU and the Justice Department’s inspector general found that the use of that extraordinary power had become routine ( ) and unchecked. As Americans grapple ( ) with the current pandemic, they must be vigilant ( ) that their government not repeat the same mistake.
當監控病毒與監控人民劃上等號時
蘋果和谷歌兩大公司上週五破天荒宣布一項合作,將在他們的智慧手機平台新增技術,如果用戶接觸了武漢肺炎患者,便會發出警示。蘋果的iOS和Google的安卓(iPhone和三星Galaxy手機等使用的操作系統)在全球約有三十億人使用。
自冠狀病毒大流行爆發以來,世界各地一些民主國家已運用科技,以避免實施像中國今年年初所實施的那種嚴苛的大規模隔離。這令人寬心——卻也令人憂心,因為一旦疫情結束,這些可幫助打擊瘟疫的戰略也可能會被濫用。
以台灣為例,台灣採用「電子圍籬」技術,讓當地的警察可以定時打電話給每位居家隔離者。若電話沒人接或沒電,警察在十五分鐘內就會到他們家去。在南韓,政府有追蹤染疫者動向之網站,會不斷更新,並對染疫民眾附近的人發出手機警示。以色列政府可以調出電話數據檔案,以便將染疫者的活動在地圖上定位出來,然後提醒與其接觸的人進行自我隔離。
在疾病大流行期間訴諸這些權力是合理的。然而,疫情一旦結束,這種權力很可能會被濫用。怎樣阻止腐敗的(或只是不道德的)領導人使用此種技術來得知甚至公開政敵或異議人士的所在位置?
「美國公民自由聯盟」高級政策分析師傑伊‧史丹利說:「這是真正的緊急情況,它使許多通常是不合理的事有了正當性」。「但我們必須確保這些臨時權力不會變成傷害其他人的永久權力」。
好消息是,這場疾病大流行不會是一場無休止的戰爭。一旦有了治療方法或疫苗,緊急狀態就會有明確的結束日期。
史丹利表示,事先訂定嚴格的規範至關重要。例如,任何位址資訊僅應由公共衛生主管機關用於公共衛生目的。此應為臨時程序,這些資訊在危機結束後應予以刪除。
同理,人權組織「自由之家」在三月二十四日發布了一套原則,以便在對抗武漢肺炎期間保障公民權與人權。自由之家表示,任何使用新技術來對抗疾病傳播的監視程序都應「受到獨立監督,且不能作為其他商業及政府之用途,例如執法及移民政策之執行」。
在危機之中,這些似乎都是理論上的。民主國家之領導者最重要的任務是確保公眾安全,並努力振興經濟。但同樣重要的是要記住,國家很少放棄它在危機中所集聚的權力。
九一一恐怖攻擊發生後,美國聯邦調查局獲得了新的、廣泛的權力,可以要求私人企業提供資訊。十幾年後,美國公民自由聯盟和司法部總監察長都發現,這種非常時期權力的使用已成為常態,且沒有受到約束。美國人在與當前的病毒大流行奮力搏鬥之同時,也必須保持警覺,確保政府不會重蹈覆轍。
#高雄人 #學習英文 請找 #多益達人林立英文
#高中英文 #成人英文
#多益家教班 #商用英文
#國立大學外國語文學系講師
common law civil law 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最讚貼文
common law civil law 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳貼文
common law civil law 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最讚貼文
common law civil law 在 Civil law (legal system) - Wikipedia 的相關結果
Unlike common law systems, civil law jurisdictions deal with case law apart from any precedent value. Civil law courts generally decide cases using codal ... ... <看更多>
common law civil law 在 THE COMMON LAW AND CIVIL LAW TRADITIONS - Berkeley ... 的相關結果
To an American familiar with the terminology and process of our legal system, which is based on Eng- lish common law, civil law systems can be unfamiliar and ... ... <看更多>
common law civil law 在 What is the Difference Between Common Law and Civil Law? 的相關結果
The main difference between the two systems is that in common law countries, case law — in the form of published judicial opinions — is of ... ... <看更多>