關於 hong kong national security law judicial independence ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

（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

#Opinion by Martin Lee 李柱銘 | "Yet the CCP has deliberately stirred up controversies over “Hong Kong independence”. Last year, it took the opportunity arising from the extradition bill disputes to adopt totalitarian and coercive measures and create chaos in Hong Kong. Then it formulated a national security law for Hong Kong on the pretext of curbing violence, so that the CCP can implement its overall jurisdiction over the city. It hopes to make Hong Kongers embrace Chinese rule through its controls over the SAR’s administrative, legislative, and judicial organs."

Read more: https://bit.ly/3hfIYuT

"中共卻特意在港挑起「港獨」爭議，並以去年送中修例為契機，採取極權高壓手段製亂，然後藉詞平亂，為港制訂國安法，讓中共可名正言順地落實其全面管治權，務求全面控制特區的行政、立法、司法，迫令港人民心回歸。"
____________
📱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

My recent article😎😎😎

https://apps.orangenews.hk/app/common/details_html…

Opinion | Ulterior Motives behind Opposition Camp's refusal to recognize HKSAR political system

HK Current

2020.09.03 11:39

By Athena Kung

In fact, the political system adopted by the HKSAR is executive-led. Under this structure, the executive authorities, legislature and judiciary complement each other, with built-in checks and balances.

In the year of 1840, Hong Kong was occupied by Britain after the Opium War. In accordance with the Sino-British Joint Declaration signed on 19th of December, 1984, the Chinese and British Governments had a hand-over ceremony on 1st of July, 1997, which marked the resumption of sovereignty by China over Hong Kong. Meanwhile, the HKSAR of the PRC was formally established. The Hong Kong Basic Law, which was adopted in April 1990 at the Third Session of the Seventh National People's Congress, formally came into effect. The Basic Law clearly states and defines the specifications as to how the high degree of autonomy as well as the political, economic, cultural and educational systems of the HKSAR to be run.

To comply with the Basic Law, since 1st of July 1997, the Chinese government has been carrying out the basic policies of "One country, Two systems," "administration of Hong Kong by the Hong Kong people" and "a high degree of autonomy" in the HKSAR. Under "One country, Two systems", even though China is a unified country and the mainland practices the socialist system, Hong Kong's previous capitalist system before 1st of July 1997 and way of life has been remaining unchanged for 50 years. To properly implement "administration of Hong Kong by the Hong Kong people", the HKSAR has all along been administering by the Hong Kong people on their own, and the central authorities have never sent officials to the HKSAR to fill any local official posts. To fulfill "a high degree of autonomy", apart from foreign and national defense affairs which should be administered by the central authorities, the HKSAR has fully enjoyed the power to decide all other matters within its autonomous jurisdiction. The central authorities has never interfered in affairs within the scope of autonomy of the HKSAR. All along, the HKSAR government has been making the final decisions on all matters within its autonomous jurisdiction as prescribed in the Basic Law.

Under the political system of the HKSAR, its major organs of power include the Chief Executive, the Government, the Legislative Council and the Court of Final Appeal. The Executive Council assists the Chief Executive in policy-making and advises the Chief Executive on matters relating to the introduction of bills and subsidiary legislation. Being independent agencies, both the Commission Against Corruption and the Audit Commission are directly accountable to the Chief Executive. In accordance with the conditions procedures as prescribed by law, the Chief Executive shall have the power to dismiss the legislative organs whereas the legislative organs shall have the power to impeach the Chief Executive and the administrative organs shall be accountable to the legislative organs. The Chief Executive, administrative and legislative organs shall supervise and cooperate with each other, which is however not the separation of powers as described by the Opposite Camps from time to time.

The Chief Executive of the HKSAR is both the head of the HKSAR and the head of the HKSAR government. His or her dual status enables him or her to have extensive functions and powers. The Chief Executive shall be selected from among residents of the HKSAR by election or through consultations held locally, and be appointed by the Central Government. Thus, the Chief Executive who is appointed by the Chinese Government to manage the HKSAR plays a very superior role in the HKSAR political system.

In short, the Chief Executive is responsible for implementing the Basic Law, signing bills and budgets, promulgating laws, making decisions on government policies and issuing Executive Orders. Article 48 of the Basic Law empowers the Chief Executive a variety of powers and functions:
" Article 48
The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall exercise the following powers and functions:
(1) To lead the government of the Region;
(2)To be responsible for the implementation of this Law and other laws which, in accordance with this Law, apply in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region;
(3)To sign bills passed by the Legislative Council and to promulgate laws;
To sign budgets passed by the Legislative Council and report the budgets and final accounts to the Central People's Government for the record;
(4)To decide on government policies and to issue executive orders;
(5)To nominate and to report to the Central People's Government for appointment the following principal officials: Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries of Departments, Directors of Bureaux, Commissioner Against Corruption, Director of Audit, Commissioner of Police, Director of Immigration and Commissioner of Customs and Excise; and to recommend to the Central People's Government the removal of the above-mentioned officials;
(6)To appoint or remove judges of the courts at all levels in accordance with legal procedures;
(7)To appoint or remove holders of public office in accordance with legal procedures;
(8)To implement the directives issued by the Central People's Government in respect of the relevant matters provided for in this Law;
(9)To conduct, on behalf of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, external affairs and other affairs as authorized by the Central Authorities;
(10) To approve the introduction of motions regarding revenues or expenditure to the Legislative Council;
(11)To decide, in the light of security and vital public interests, whether government officials or other personnel in charge of government affairs should testify or give evidence before the Legislative Council or its committees;
(12)To pardon persons convicted of criminal offences or commute their penalties; and
(13)To handle petitions and complaints.

Indeed, the judicial independence plays a vital role to ensure that the acts and policies of the executive and the legislature fully comply with the Basic Law whereas all fundamental rights and freedoms to be enjoyed by all Hong Kong citizens in accordance with the law can be completely safeguarded. However, from the point of view of separation of powers, the relationship between the executive, legislature and judiciary in the HKSAR should be one of mutual-supervision, checks and balances. It is purely a kind of division of work.

The Opposition Camps has been keeping on refusing to recognize the executive leadership role played by the Chief Executive in accordance with the Basic Law. On the other hand, they intentionally and wrongly deny the executive-led political system adopted in the HKSAR so as to weaken the powers, functions and authorities of the Chief Executive. At the same time, they have been trying their best to expand the powers of the Legislative Council. Clearly, the Opposition Camp aims at making a change in the political system of the HKSAR, namely from executive-led to legislative-led in the hope of controlling the whole HKSAR Government once they can obtain more than 35 seats in the Legislative Council Election. Such step is a common strategy adopted in “Colour Revolutions” instigated by the U.S. Government. In reality, the Opposition Camp has been keeping on spreading rumors to provoke the public's hatred towards the Chief Executive so as to crack down the prestige of the executive-led system in the HKSAR and achieve its ultimate goal of Hong Kong Independence.

The author is Barrister-at-law.

The views don't necessarily reflect those of Orange News.

責任編輯：CK Li
編輯：Whon