引用:
原帖由 飛毛腿 於 2008-2-19 12:48 發表
...順便稟告老兄
刑事檢控案件, 就算被告冇請律師代表
政府都會派一個律師去代表 ...
請恕老納多嘴，雖然在刑事檢控案件中，誠如施主所言：就算被告冇請律師代表，政府都會派一個律師去代表被告。
問題是案件尚未進入檢控的過程，而只是由律政處根據警方提供的資料，單方面向法庭申請羈押令。可以想像，此項申請是在鍾君缺席下進行，跟警方月前申請禁制民間電台的廣播差不多，見夏正民法官判詞的第一頁如下 （請留意夏法官在第一段判詞已經開宗明義指出這是一項由律政師單方面的申請 - ex-parte application）:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO. 70 OF 2008
---------------------
BETWEEN
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE Plaintiff
and
OCEAN TECHNOLOGY LIMITED 1st Defendant
TSANG KIN SHING 2nd Defendant
CHAN MIU TAK 3rd Defendant
POON TAT KEUNG 4th Defendant
YANG KUANG 5th Defendant
LEUNG KWOK HUNG 6th Defendant
----------------------
Before : Hon Hartmann J in Chambers
Date of Hearing : 18 January 2008
Date of Delivery of Judgment : 21 January 2008
-----------------------
J U D G M E N T
-----------------------
1. On 9 January of this year, the Secretary for Justice applied
ex parte – but on notice to the defendants – to restrain them from making unlicensed radio broadcasts contrary to sections 8 and 23 of the Telecommunications Ordinance, Cap.106. It was
an unusual application, indeed an exceptional one . I say that because the Telecommunications Ordinance makes it a
criminal offence to make unlicensed radio broadcasts. The Secretary for Justice, however, felt it necessary to invoke
the assistance of the civil courts in aid of the criminal law.
如果各位施主對該判決書有興趣，可以細看夏法官對該個案經過的舖排，從控辯双方考慮的因素，考慮對言論自由和社會的影響，期間引用的案例和法例，最後他的判決內容，充分顯示法官的智慧和香港法治精神的可貴：
民間電台禁令
為香港的法治精神和言論自由
