城中熱門話題, 12國際大炮級律師批評「雙學三子案」的判刑, 下面是這封聯署信, 我是從Hong Kong Free Press 的連結下載的, 該文章是 In Full: Top int’l lawyers condemn Hong Kong’s jailing of democracy activists as ‘a serious threat to the rule of law’:

As lawyers, we regard the imprisonment of Joshua Wong, Alex Chow and Nathan Law in Hong Kong as a serious threat to the rule of law and a breach of the principle of “double jeopardy” in Hong Kong – in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

These student activists led the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong in 2014 – one of the most peaceful public protests the world has seen. Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow were already punished by a court a year ago. Joshua and Nathan respectively served 80 and 120 hours of community service, and Alex received a three-week suspended sentence. Yet the Hong Kong government decided to reopen the case and sought tougher punishments.

The law under which they were charged, the Public Order Ordinance, has been criticized by the United Nations for “facilitat[ing] excessive restrictions” to basic rights, and is incompatible with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which applies to Hong Kong. Human rights organisations have long urged Hong Kong to revise the ordinance to comply with the ICCPR.

Serious concerns over the independence of the judiciary arise. Court of Final Appeal judge Kemal Bokhary warned of “storm clouds” over the judiciary five years ago. Hong Kong’s judges want to protect its independence, but they face increasing pressure from Beijing. In 2014, China issued a White Paper declaring that Beijing has “comprehensive jurisdiction over Hong Kong” – instead of “the high degree of autonomy” provided for in the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s constitution. China also announced that Hong Kong’s judges are merely “administrators” who must love the country and be “subject to oversight by the central government”. The independence of the judiciary, a pillar of Hong Kong, risks becoming a charade, at the beck and call of the Chinese Communist Party.

Hong Kong’s rule of law and basic freedoms, at the heart of the principle of “one country, two systems”, now face grave threats.
Kirsty Brimelow QC
Lord Carlile of Berriew CBE QC
Sir Desmond De Silva QC
Lord Falconer of Thoroton QC – former Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
Jared Genser – Freedom Now
Justice Richard Goldstone (South Africa)
Andrew Khoo (Malaysia)
David Matas (Canada)
Michael Mansfield QC
Rajiv Menon QC
Sir Geoffrey Nice QC – former chief prosecutor in the trial of Slobodan Milosevic
Patrick Burgess – President of Asia Justice and Human Rights

上一篇有網友叫我寫評論, 我粗略講兩句, 1仔及BBTW也講了幾句, 我之前評過另一類似的國際學者聯署, 寫了聯署和亂署一文, 在該文也吸引了大炮級的網友留言, 把國際學者聯署批評得體無完膚。面對國際重量級的律師的聯署, 標少這村夫講甚麼也沒有味道, 不過講道理卻無需論身分, 看得出聯署的謬誤的話, 平凡普通人也可擲地有聲, 我開筆先講幾句, 後續接力要靠有識之士替我啓蒙。

首先, 本案3名被告已提出上訴終審法院許可的申請, 在此階段國際級律師發聲, 於法於理於禮儀於司法獨立於sub judice皆不合, 尤其是講double jeopardy, 聯署講得含糊, 只提出這法律詞語, 而沒有把他們所指說明。我看明報訪問陳文敏教授的報導, 陳教授似乎想替這聯署解脫, 但講得軟弱無力。這是據報導陳教授的看法:

香港大學法律學院教授陳文敏認為，本案不涉及「一罪兩審」，惟他認為近年不少事件例如人大於本港法院處理梁游宣誓案時釋法等，顯示中央嘗試向法院施壓，情况引起國際關注。

如果指責違反「一罪兩審」原則, 我就不再評論, 因為在聯署和亂署一文已評過, 陳教授要併盤式來說項, 我就覺得太軟弱了。

其次, 指責《公安條例》違反《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》, 我一下子找不到聯合國批評香港過份限制市民集會示威權利的原文, 但這課題在終審法院不只一次詳盡討論過, 譬如在梁國雄及其他人對香港特別行政區政府 FACC 1/2005案, 已是一例。當中終院4比1判決, 包致金法官持異議。聯署提及包大人, 我也不妨講下。

2012年終審法院包大人任期屆滿, 爆了"storm clouds"這「天氣預告」的講法, 掀起一場風暴。他及後解釋, 說只希望法官同袍能夠站起來扺抗干預。我在寫這篇之前, 再聽他去年在The Foreign Correspondents' Club, Hong Kong的演說(約40分鐘連提問), 他被問到有關沒直選之下的司法獨立及法官對外來影響會不會退縮, 他的看法是 "A Judiciary can remain independent even in the absence of democracy..."(28 mins onward), "The mere fact that the judges are independent doesn't mean that all will be well...but just because the judges are independent doesn't mean that the legal system will deliver on all the things they should deliver..." 當被問到有沒有跡象顯示司法獨立的退損(receding and erosion), 包大人的答覆是, "In so far as the integrity of the judges are concerned, I see no such sign." 該演講的youtube 連結在此: