|
|
本帖最後由 孤寂如雲 於 2012-2-24 01:58 編輯
我再批評一次所謂的人大釋法破壞香港法治的說法。
上次的司法覆核中，林文翰已經說明：
para 8. In Director of Immigration v Chong Fung Yuen (2001) 4 HKCFAR 211, Li CJ referred to the difference between the mainland system for interpretation of the Basic Law and the common law approach in Hong Kong. Subject to any interpretation already made by the Standing Committee, the Court of Final Appeal held that the courts in Hong Kong are bound to apply the common law in exercising their power of interpretation, see p.222C to E.
para 9. Thus, there are two different approaches to the interpretation of the Basic Law（兩大釋法手段）,
(a) The mainland system by the exercise of the power of interpretation by the Standing Committee（人大釋法）;
(b) The common law approach applied by the courts in Hong Kong（判例）.
Since these are different approaches, there could be occasions where different conclusions may be reached under the two approaches. Though the Basic Law was enacted as a mini-constitution for Hong Kong, it is also a piece of legislation by the National people’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China. Given that most of the drafters of the Basic Law did not come from a common law background and judges in Hong Kong are not trained under the mainland system, it was deemed necessary for the Basic Law to provide for two systems of interpretation. As decided in Lau Kong Yung and reiterated again in Chong Fung Yuen, in the event of different answers provided by the two systems, the courts in Hong Kong are obliged to follow the interpretations by the Standing Committee.
大概意思是，香港的法例詮釋有兩大方法：
（1）人大釋法
（2）本地使用普通法/習慣法詮釋
林文翰承認，兩種手段可能產生截然不同的判決結果，但是，在兩種結果中，香港的法庭有必要遵守人大釋法所帶來的那一種結果。
|
|
狗仔卡
發表於 2011-10-3 20:05:54
可以推了....
顯身卡
我去
太好了...香港有救~~
普通法下既合約法要注意既point..我系對家網度打左出黎...