標少在
鳴冤一文提及張慧玲法官批評Wahab不應拘押被告以索取精神報告，認為就算要索取有關報告，也可以給予被告保釋。我相信有關課題在高院法官之間引起討論，我這樣講是看了賴盤德法官(Peter Line)在
HKSAR and Su Wei HCMP2589/2011的裁決而來。第7段這樣講，
7. The reason I am taking the course of adjourning these proceedings into chambers open to the public, giving reasons is this: that there has been some publicity recently about the use of section 51 of the Mental Health Ordinance, and it is a section that does merit some close reading, and what becomes apparent on reading it is that the power to make a remand under that section only arises where it may be or is alleged that the Defendant is a mentally-incapacitated person and the purpose of the remand is for observation, investigation and treatment.
案件的背景是這樣的：被告公幹後回港，在機場等候行李期間，盜取了他人的行李而被捕。他即時對警方承認出於貪念，帶回警署錄口供時卻說自己有一股偷東西的衝動，這樣做帶給他興奮及挑戰性的感覺。他在裁判官席前認罪，被收押兩星期索取精神、心理、社會服務及背景報告。被告聘請律師到高院申請擔保，賴盤德法官批准被告擔保之餘，撤銷了精神報告，還判令控方賠堂費。
這件案有兩點值得注意，第一，高院最近兩件案的判法，會改變以後裁判官索取被告精神報告的傾向，如果沒有明顯證據顯示被告有精神問題，裁判官會傾向不索取報告，以免受到批評，連給予被告擔保索取報告也不用考慮，到頭來有否維護社會和被告的利益呢？
第二，賴盤德法官在原審法官還沒有判刑前，干擾原審法官的判刑考慮，是否干擾得太早呢？他有權這樣做嗎？是富爭論性的。賴盤德法官認為倚賴刑事程序條例第9J條，他有權改變原審裁判官索取的報告。9J是這樣講：
| Chapter: |
221 |
Title: |
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ORDINANCE |
Gazette Number: |
|
| Section: |
9J |
Heading: |
Review of refusal of bail or conditions of bail |
|
(1) Where a District Judge or magistrate has refused to admit a person to bail or has so admitted a person subject to any condition, that person may in the case of a refusal, apply to a judge to be admitted to bail or in the case of an admission to bail subject to any condition, apply to a judge to be admitted to bail without bail being subject to that condition.
(2) On the hearing of an application under subsection (1), a judge may by order confirm, revoke or vary the decision of the District Judge or magistrate, and may make such other order in the matter including an order as to costs as he thinks just.賴盤德法官的看法是，他有權撤銷裁判官索取精神報告的命令，他的理據如下：
4. I granted bail yesterday, and what I did was replace the order the magistrate had made with a new order pursuant to my powers under section 9J of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 221. I made it a three-week remand and not a two-week remand, and I said the remand would be on unconditional bail, and the reports I requested were a psychologist’s report, which is going to be organised by the Social Welfare Department, who would also be responsible for the community service report and the background report.
5. I thought carefully about what my powers were in regard to dealing with the reports. Section 9J of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance allows me to confirm, revoke or vary the decision of the District judge or magistrate, and it says I may make such other order in the matter, including orders as to costs, as I think to be just, and it is that wide power that I have used here, because I think the order I have made now is the just one.
我完全不同意他闡釋9J的看法，9J賦予高院法官干預被告的擔保及擔保條件的權力，及衍生出來的堂費問題，而並不包括其他權責。9J的標題也說明是
Review of refusal of bail or conditions of bail，再者索取精神報告，本身也不是一種擔保條件，高院法官應該無權干預。不能罔顧法律原文的大前題，而把such other order的意思無限放大。我覺得賴盤德法官為了干預原審裁判官的命令，而曲解了法律釋義，如果such other order蘊含無限權力，為何不乾脆直接判罰被告。上級法院肆意批評下級法官的判決，造成了很多裁判官，尤其是暫委裁判官，索性用不同理由判被告無罪，好過上訴時受到批評。
