蘋果日報 | APPLE DAILY
› 選擇地區
三藩市
紐約
洛杉磯
其他美國地區
2018年12月29日

【UGL案】江樂士再發炮:林鄭應促鄭若驊解釋清楚 張建宗勿埋首沙堆

32,187
建立時間 (HKT): 1229 14:21

律政司不就UGL案起訴前特首梁振英的決定,被批評解釋不足,未能令公眾釋疑。特首林鄭月娥和政務司司長張建宗昨日分別力挺律政司司長鄭若驊,直指鄭判斷專業,林鄭反叫批評者反思在毫無證據下質疑鄭「係咪公平嘅質疑呢?」張建宗更請大眾勿再糾纏此事。熟悉政府檢控程序、提出質疑的前刑事檢控專員江樂士再發炮,直指鄭至今的解釋「完全不足夠」,認為林鄭根據《基本法》第63條,能最起碼要求鄭若驊向公眾解釋清楚,為何她無視律政司訂出在政治敏感案件中,需尋求外間獨立法律意見的政策。

相關新聞:【法政巴絲】假使有日能忘記 — 那一件悲傷的事

江樂士向《蘋果》分別回應林鄭和張建宗的說法,他指今次事件的問題,在於鄭若驊無視律政司的既定檢控政策,未能向公眾展示今次律政司是客觀作出決定:「若要公眾對檢控制度有信心,透明度是十分重要,鄭若驊誤解和錯誤運用部門的(律政司)政策,就不尋求獨立法律意見,未能提供完全足夠的原因。」他狠批張建宗沒有意識到事態的嚴重性,只管把一個令人非常擔憂的情況「掃入地毯底」:「張不能埋首沙堆,或要求公眾視若無睹。」

他批評,或許缺乏檢控經驗的鄭若驊,在沒有充份的理由,便無視向外尋求獨立法律意見的政策,令公眾關注梁振英在今次律政司的決定上獲優待。他強調,曾經替梁振英效力的張建宗,應做一些有建設件的東西去更正錯處,「當每一個人也看到有問題,張建宗不應開玩笑,說一切事情也安好。」

相關新聞:【UGL案】謝偉俊認同需外求法律意見 梁家傑轟鄭若驊囂張無恥

他又指,如張建宗要對事情有所幫助,張亦應該要求鄭若驊向公眾解釋為何她無視律政司的政策:「張建宗應該試圖把事情做對,確保這些問題不會再發生,他應維持正確程序,以保住律政司和香港的名聲。」

江樂士回應張建宗全文

「Matthew Cheung quite clearly does not appreciate the gravity of what has happened here, and is desperately trying to sweep a very worrying situation under the carpet. Nobody disputes that under BL Art 63 the DOJ decides who should be prosecuted and who not. However, Cheung must not bury his head in the sand, or ask the public to do so. There is a long established policy of obtaining independent legal advice when cases are politically sensitive, and involve public figures. This policy was followed by Elsie Leung, Wong Yan Lung and Rimsky Yuen. However, Teresa Cheng, probably through inexperience, has disregarded this policy for no good reason , and this has worried the community and raised concerns about possible preferential treatment of CY Leung. Matthew Cheung, who worked for CY, should be doing something constructive to correct things, and not kidding himself that everything is fine, when everyone can quite clearly see that it is not.
If Matthew Cheung really wants to be helpful, he should request Cheng to explain to the public why this wise policy has been ignored in CY Leung’s case. Instead of seeking to justify obvious failings in DOJ, Matthew Cheung should be trying to put matters right, and ensuring that these problems do not happen again. He should, that is, be upholding proper processes, and thereby protecting the good name of DOJ and of HK. 」

江樂士回應林鄭全文

「The CE is quite correct to say that DOJ would have made the decision not to prosecute in good faith. The problem here, however, is that the SJ, by disregarding her own department’s established prosecution policy, has not demonstrated to the public that the decision was made objectively, without giving CY Leung any favourable treatment. The CE should be familiar with the legal maxim that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done.

By not applying the policy of her own department, as stated in the policy statement given to LegCo in February, and as developed by her predecessors, the SJ has aroused widespread concern. This could have been avoided if her department’s announced policy had been faithfully applied, as it was by Elsie Leung, Wong Yan Lung, and Yuen Kwok Keung.

Although CE is correct to say that she cannot intervene in the decision taken, in light of BL Art 63, she can, at the very least, ask Cheng to explain clearly to the public why she has disregarded the department’s own stated policy of obtaining outside legal advice in politically sensitive cases. As the CE hopefully agrees, transparency is very important if the public are to have faith in the prosecution system. As things stand, Cheng has misunderstood and misapplied departmental policy, and provided wholly inadequate reasons for not obtaining an independent legal advice.

Although the CE’s attempt, as a lay person, to defend her subordinate’s conduct is certainly commendable, she is actually trying to defend the indefensible, as Cheng has acted wholly contrary to her department’s well established policy for no logical reason.」

蘋果日報fb,每日分享精選新聞及網絡新鮮事。
返回最頂
壹傳媒: 香港 台灣 | 私隱聲明 服務條款 刊登廣告 聯絡我們 招聘
© 2019 AD Internet Limited. All rights reserved. 版權所有 不得轉載