Loading

香港亲民主媒体大亨黎智英的案子 【中英对照翻译】

新闻来源:HONG KONG FREE PRESS

作者:蒂姆·哈姆利特(Tim Hamlett)

翻译/简评:leftgun

PR:Julia Win

PAGE:玄天生

简评:

一两年前听郭先生说香港的法治已经全面沦陷了, 当时候我还将信就疑,觉得没有那么厉害吧!看完这法官和法院人员竟然用如此荒谬的理由和违反普通法基本原则的思路来拒绝黎智英的离港权利, 我真相信香港又失去了它的另一项核心优势和价值 - 用普通法运作的独立司法制度!

可是黎智英先生是不怕你禁止他离开香港的,因为他从来没想过要离开 - 特别是在“香港国安法”来临之际。

陈方安生是“香港良心”, 李柱铭是“香港民主之父”, 黎智英则是“反X战士”(不能给黎先生扣帽子,大家自己理解)。 陈已公开退出政事,可也受央视出言恐吓,未审先判,要秋后算账。李被高调逮捕候审, 但他却以此为荣并勉励年轻人不要放弃。 “香港国安法“刚通过, 在港有敏感政治目标的组织纷纷解散。黎先生知道“国安法”通过以后,他会面临被起诉,被送中的危险,可是他一直都坚持香港是他的家,他无意弃港不顾, 他要坚守阵地,继续他的伟大理想。他要给香港, 特别是香港有良知,有理想的年轻人做榜样!他愿意牺牲自己和家人的生命、财产和事业来支持香港人,并唤醒更多沉睡和被洗脑的人们, 起来抵抗强权暴政, 争取自由民主和法治。他的情操是无比高尚和让人敬仰的!

在香港像黎智英先生这样敢说敢做又能坚持又有分量的人不多。众多有财有势的人都因为蓝金黄原因,要么是噤若寒蝉,要么就埋没良心地站队去了,以致抗争运动举步维艰,光靠年轻人的一腔热血在血泪和压制中匍匐前行。黎先生一定是不想香港年轻人失去他这火把和光明的动力。他出走容易, 留下来才是非凡的决定。换了是你, 你能做到他这样、有他的境界吗?

祝愿香港,祝愿香港人,祝愿黎先生,在逆境中能坚守信念, 守护香港精神和核心价值,为我们下一代和广大的中国人争取真正的民主、自由、和法治!

原文:

Coronavirus and the court: The case of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy media tycoon Jimmy Lai

冠状病毒与法院:香港亲民主媒体大亨黎智英的案子

by TIM HAMLETT, 09:59, 28 JUNE 2020

由蒂姆·哈姆利特(Tim Hamlett),2020年6月28日09:59

Mr Jimmy Lai seems to have suddenly become a major focus for the law and order industry. Far be it from me to offer any opinion on the merits of any or all of the charges he faces, but there do seem to be a surprising number of them for someone who has reached the age of 70 without clocking any previous convictions.

黎智英先生似乎突然成为法治行业的主要焦点。我对他所面临的任何或全部指控不会提出任何意见,但对于一位已经70岁却从来没有任何前科的人来说,这些指控的数目确实多得令人惊讶。

For starters, there is a case of intimidating a reporter three years ago. I am sure all journalists will be delighted by the discovery that this is an offence and that the Department of Justice is taking it with becoming seriousness. Those of my colleagues who do street reporting will look forward to similar efforts in defence of journalists who have been obstructed, abused, pepper-sprayed, shot, tear-gassed, or beaten up in the last year or so.

首先,有一个在三年前恐吓记者的案例。我相信,如果发现这是一种犯罪行为,而且司法部正在认真对待这一件事,所有记者都会感到高兴。我那些从事街头报道的同事们将期待为那些在过去一年左右的时间里被阻挠、虐待、喷胡椒、枪击、催泪弹或殴打的记者们作出类似的努力。

Jimmy Lai. Photo: Todd Darling.

Then there are three variations on unlawful assembly, with another one to follow when the cops have finished the paperwork. There was also a story last week about some legal problem involving a factory being used as an office.

然后,有三种不同形式的非法集会(的指控),还有另一种会在警察完成文书工作后提出来。上周还有一篇报道,是涉及将工厂用作办公室的法律问题。

I live in Fotan, where there are many factory buildings. As there is very little demand for factories these days many of the units in them are used for other purposes: shops, restaurants, art studios, and even, surreptitiously, residences.

我住在火炭,那里有许多厂房。由于如今对工厂的需求很少,其中许多单元被用作其他用途:商店,餐馆,艺术工作室,甚至偷偷地用来居住。

It appears that Mr Lai, who by sheer coincidence owns a newspaper which is often critical of the government, may be outstandingly unlucky.

完全巧合的是,黎先生拥有一家经常批评政府的报纸,看来,他可能非常的不幸。

Photo: inmediahk.net.

His run of bad luck continued last week in the High Court, where Mr Lai applied unsuccessfully for the lifting of a condition of his bail, that he not leave Hong Kong, so that he could visit his daughter and do some business in the US.

他的厄运上周在香港高等法院继续上演。黎先生申请取消其不能离开香港的保释条件,以便他能探望女儿并在美国做一些生意,但未获批准。

In the saddle on this occasion was Mr Justice Alex Lee. You might have supposed that the learned judge would have been particularly careful, in view of the legal avalanche dropping on Mr Lai’s head, to avoid any appearance that some sort of campaign was in progress. Alas, not careful enough.

处理这次申请的是大法官亚历克斯·李先生。您可能会认为,鉴于黎先生所面临的大量官司,这位博学多才的法官会格外谨慎,以免被看成某种活动正在进行中。 噢,(他)还是不够小心。

Lee J correctly stated the applicable principle, which is that the defendant has a right to bail pending trial, so it is not up to the defendant to prove that his trip, if as in this case he asks for permission to make a specific trip rather than a general freedom from restrictions, is necessary.

李大法官正确说明了适用的原则,即被告有权在审讯中保释,因此,被告无需证明这次旅行的必要性,因为他不是请求允许进行特定的旅行,而是不受限制的普通自由。

Two paragraphs later Lee J gets down to his reasons for refusing the application and kicks off with “I am unable to be satisfied that the applicant’s proposed trip to US is really necessary.” This point is expatiated on at some length.

两段话后,李大法官说明了拒绝申请的原因,并以“我不能满意申请人提议赴美旅行是确实必要的。”他这一点上进行了不少阐述。

Photo: Wikicommons.

It appears that the judge has managed to forget his own advice. It is not for a defendant to prove that the exercise of his freedom is necessary; it is up to the prosecution to prove that a restriction is necessary. We are all innocent until proven guilty. Mr Lai is entitled to leave Hong Kong if he wishes to, whether his purposes impress a judge or not, unless the prosecution can demonstrate a serious risk that he will not return to face trial.

看来法官似乎已经忘记了自己的建议。被告无需自行证明行使自由是必要的,反而是控方应证明有必要加以限制。在证明有罪之前,我们都是无辜的。黎先生如愿意,他有权离开香港,不论他的意图是否给法官留下深刻印象,除非控方能证明他有可能不会重返法庭受审的严重风险。

The judgement goes on to some rather inconclusive muttering about the temptations for defendants outside the jurisdiction of the court to refrain from returning, and then comes catastrophe.

裁判继续进行了一些相当不确定的喃喃自语,其中涉及被告身处法院管辖范围之外而不回来的诱惑,然后灾难来了。

I quote the offending passage in full:

“I agree with Mr Bruce’s submission that account should also be taken of the attendant risks of the applicant contracting CONVID-19 while he was travelling. The United States is now the country with the highest number of confirmed cases of the pandemic and that the applicant’s proposed itinerary would require him to travel extensively in those parts of that country which are worst hit by it. There is yet to be any vaccine available for the disease and the remedies for which are still being tested. For all we know, the virus is highly infectious.

我完整引用了令人反感的文章:

“我同意布鲁斯先生的意见,即应考虑到因申请人在旅行期间感染CONVID-19而做成的出席风险。美国现在是大流行确认病例数最高的国家,而申请人的拟议行程显示他将会在该国受灾最严重的地区广泛旅行。目前尚无任何针对该疾病的疫苗,其治疗方法仍在测试中。就我们所知,该病毒具有高度传染性。

Photo: Andrew Palmer via Unsplash

“Thus, the risk of inflection whilst in the United States or on plane journey cannot be ignored. This is especially so when the applicant happens to fall within the age group of people who are most vulnerable.”

“Moreover, if and when the applicant returns as proposed, he will be subject to a 14-day quarantine, the end of which is just about two weeks before the trial. In the unfortunate event that the applicant is confirmed to have caught the disease whilst he is still in the United States, then the likelihood is that he would ‘fail to surrender to custody as the court may appoint’, albeit unintentionally.”

“因此,在美国或乘飞机旅行时受到感染的风险不容忽视。尤其是申请人正好是处于最易受染的年龄段中。”“此外,如果申请人按提议返回时,他将受到14天的隔离,结束时将在审判前约两周。如果不幸的是,申请人在美国期间被确认感染了该疾病,则他可能会’无法身服被法院指定的羁押’,尽管他是无意的。”

“Furthermore, should he be confirmed to have the virus after return, the trial would almost definitely have to be derailed. The said attendant risks, which in my assessment is real rather than fanciful, would have an adverse effect on the due administration of justice.”

“此外,如果他在返回后被确认感染了病毒,那么审判几乎肯定会脱轨。上述伴随而来的风险,在我看来是真实的,而不是凭空想象的,会对正当的司法管理造成不利影响。”

The Department of Justice. Photo: GovHK.

Mr Bruce was the brief for the Department of Justice and he is, of course, entitled to advance whatever arguments he think will help his case. On the other hand the finer points of epidemic statistics are not a matter on which three expensive lawyers deploying the knowledge they have gleaned from the newspapers are likely to come to a very satisfactory conclusion.

布鲁斯先生是司法部的辩护律师,当然,他有权提出任何他认为对他的案子有帮助的论点。另一方面,三名昂贵的律师利用他们从报纸上收集到的知识并不能让他们对流行病学统计的精要得出令人满意的结论。

Alternatively, they may come up with a load of garbage. Lee J would have done a service to the cause of justice and his own reputation if he had told Mr Bruce that if counsel wished the court to consider the chances of Mr Lai catching an infectious disease he should call an expert witness on the subject.

或者,他们可能会带来大量的垃圾。李大法官应告诉布鲁斯先生,如果律师们希望法院考虑黎先生感染传染病的机会,他应该传召一位专家证人,那么他就能保存了司法公正和自己的声誉。

File photo: Coronavirus. Photo: Centre for Disease Control and Prevention via Unsplash

Let us look at Mr Lai’s chances of catching COVID-19 if he had been allowed to travel to the US for two weeks. For the sake of simplicity let us assume that he will spend the whole time in New York State, though actually the second week was to be in Virginia, which is less dangerous.

让我们看看黎先生如被允许前往美国逗留两周而染上COVID-19的机会。为了简单起见,让我们假设他将整个时间都花在纽约州,尽管实际上第二周是在没有那么危险的弗吉尼亚州。

The latest figures for the incidence of COVID-19 in New York State give us just under 2,000 cases per 100,000 people in the population. This means that if you had been in New York since January your chances of catching the virus would be two per cent. Of course if you are only staying two weeks it drops considerably lower, to something like 0.2 per cent.

But even this is unfair to New York State, which has made considerable progress since the days when it was “the part of the country worst hit” by the virus. Currently, according to CNN Health, New York State is discovering just over 600 cases every two weeks.

根据最新数据,纽约州COVID-19的感染率为每10万人中有接近2,000例。这意味着,如果您自一月份以来一直在纽约,那么你感染该病毒的几率将是2%。当然,如果您仅停留两周,几率会大大降低到约为0.2%。但是,即使这对于纽约州来说也是不公平的,自纽约州成为该国“遭受病毒打击最严重的地区”以来,纽约州已取得了巨大进展。根据CNN Health的数据,目前,纽约州每两周只发现600多例。

New York. File photo: Nout Gons via Pexels

The population of New York State is, in round numbers, 20 million. This allows us to say with some confidence that the chances of Mr Lai catching the virus in two weeks are 0.003 per cent, or three for, 100,000 against? This is probably an over-estimate because the virus disproportionately affects the poor and non-Caucasian, who generally live in parts of the state which are unlikely to feature on the itinerary of visiting millionaires.

纽约州的人口总数是2000万。这使我们可以放心地说,黎先生在两周内感染病毒的几率是0.003%,或者说是十万分之三?这可能是高估了,因为该病毒会偏重地影响穷人和非高加索人,百万富翁们一般都不会往这些人群在该州聚居的地区去。

Lee J also perpetrates an elementary layman’s error by adopting the idea that “the applicant happens to fall within the age group of people who are most vulnerable.” The official position according to the WHO is that: “People of all ages can be infected by the new coronavirus. Older people, and people with pre-existing medical conditions (such as asthma, diabetes, heart disease) appear to be more vulnerable to becoming severely ill with the virus.”

李大法官还采用“申请人恰好属于最易受感染人群年龄组”这一想法,从而犯了一个基本的外行错误。根据世界卫生组织的官方立场是:“所有年龄的人都可以被新冠状病毒感染。老年人和先前患有疾病的(例如哮喘,糖尿病,心脏病)的人受感染后病情似乎更容易变得严重。

World Health Organisation headquarters in Geneva. Photo: WHO.

In other words your age has nothing to do with your chances of catching the virus. We older folk are more likely, if we catch it, to get very ill, though whether that is due to age or because we are more likely to have asthma, etc., remains to be seen.

换句话说,您的年龄与您感染病毒的机会无关。年纪较大的人如果感染后,其病情更有可能变得非常严重,尽管是否由于年龄还是因为我们患有像哮喘等的原因,还有待观察。

So, “[t]he said attendant risks, which in my assessment is real rather than fanciful” is wrong on two counts. It is unjustified, because the risks are, in fact, fanciful. And it is ungrammatical, because the risks are plural so ‘is’ is an error.

Do I need to remind Your Lordships generally that people are watching? Or, in what seems to be the preferred legal terminology, people is watching.

因此,“他说的伴随而来的风险是真实的,而不是凭空想象的”在两个方面都是错误的。这是不合理的,因为风险实际上是不切实际的。而且它不符合语法,因为risk(风险)是复数的,所以“is”是一个错误。

我是否需要提醒各位法官大人,人们一般都在看着呢?或者,用首选的法律术语来说,人们正在观察着。

编辑 【喜马拉雅战鹰团】