被指“立场偏颇、判决不公”的裁判官何俊尧，再次以“警方证供不可靠”为由，判涉黑暴被告无罪释放。“警方抓人、法官放人”的一幕又上演，这是香港司法的耻辱，也再次印证了“烈显伦之问”：香港法院助长街头混乱！

　　去年11月2日，中环一带有黑衣人聚集，警方驱散时拘捕多人，包括一名17岁中学生，他被搜出藏有雷射笔及喷漆，被控有意图损坏财产及在公众地方管有攻击性武器两罪。案件昨日由备受争议的何俊尧主审。何官指雷射笔本质上不是攻击性武器，喷漆只是平常之物，警方未能举证被告有使用该工具的不法意图。何俊尧更质疑，现场有不少人手持长型硬物，为何警方只锁定被告？他认定警方证供不可靠，裁决被告的两项控罪不成立。

　　诚然，雷射笔及喷漆都是平常之物，可作非法及合法之用，但在当时的暴乱现场，作暴徒打扮的被告除了用雷射笔照射警方眼睛及用喷漆毁坏公私财物，还会作出其他的用途吗？何俊尧不可能不知道这些基本道理，但他在裁决时彷彿忘记法官身份、变身被告的“辩护律师”。

　　按照此案判决的逻辑，警方一定要等到杀人犯拿刀将人砍死、强姦犯作案成功，才能将之拘捕，否则无法举证其有犯罪意图？今后，法律上还会有“防範及制止犯罪”一说吗？这令人联想起近日有匿名信举报在7月3日司法机构的讲座上，有法官就黑暴案提供指南：“除非有十分稳妥证据定罪，否则可以疑点利益归被告将其脱罪。”而所谓“疑点利益”，如今都成了无罪释放的理由。

　　何俊尧作此判决并不令人意外。他过去处理的涉黑暴案，被告要麼无罪释放，要麼轻判了事。在一些人眼中，警方似乎都是“不诚实的证人”、“以一个大话冚另一个大话”，而被告则是“未来的社会栋樑”、“要留有用之身”。无怪乎有人认为，有何官在，“手足”大可放心！

　　司法系统常标榜“法律面前人人平等”，可惜，法官内部都未必平等。法官郭伟健被指同情“蓝丝被告”后，立即被勒令停止处理相关案件，而何俊尧一再放生黑暴被告，不仅可以继续处理相关案件，更获得加薪晋级。有报道指，何官将上调高等法院，出任“刑事案件排期官”，月入增加六至八万元，令人侧目。

　　但儘管司法判决引发争议不断，在“司法独立”之下，外界说不得也碰不得，否则随时被扣上“干预司法”的大帽子。不受公众监察、有如“独立王国”的司法机构，已在破坏公众的信心。烈显伦批评本港司法机构百孔千疮、自赋权力，绝对不是无的放矢。

　　“吾恐季孙之忧，不在颛臾，而在萧墙之内也。”对法治威胁最大的不是外在因素，而在司法机构本身。司法若不能与时俱进，自我革新，迟早有被改革的一天。

The Judiciary must have the courage to reform itself

　　[Eastern Court] Magistrate Stanley Ho Chun-yiu, who is criticised for his "biased stand and unfair judgements", has once again *acquitted* an accused black-clad rioter *on the grounds that* "the arresting police officer is an unreliable witness". The play of"a judge letting a suspect arrested by the police go away unpunished" is put on the stage again. This is a shame for Hong Kong's judiciary, and once again justifies "[former permanent judge of the Court of Final Appeal] Henry Litton's query": "Hong Kong's courts have helped to create the social environment leading to the mayhem wrought on the streets!"

　　On November 2 of last year a number of black-clad demonstrators gathered in Central. In a dispersal operation, the police arrested some of them including a 17-year-old high school student. He was found possessing a laser pointer and spray paint, and charged with two accounts of possessing an article with intent to damage property and possessing an offensive weapon in a public place. The trial *was presided over* by Stanley Ho Chun-yiu yesterday. Magistrate Ho said that a laser pointer in nature was not an offensive weapon and spray paint simply some ordinary item, and that the police failed to prove the defendant had any unlawful intent to use them. Stanley Ho Chun-yiu further cast doubt on the officer's decision to prioritise Wong's arrest while there were protesters wielding long, hard objects. He thus ruled the police officer's testimony as unreliable and cleared the defendant of the two charges.

　　It is true that both laser pointers and spray paint are ordinary things, which can be used lawfully and unlawfully. But at the scene of rioting concerned, for what other purposes would the accused, clad like a rioter, use them apart from using the laser pointer to shine a laser light into the eyes of police officers and using the spray paint to damage public and private properties? It is impossible that Stanley Ho Chu-yiu has no such rudimentary knowledge. But in making his ruling, he seems to have forgotten his role as a judge and transformed himself into the defendant's "defence counsel".

Following the logic of his ruling in this case, surely the police must wait to arrest a murderer until he has successfully chopped someone to death with a knife or a rapist until he has finished the raping, otherwise there is no way to prove their criminal intents. Hereafter will the saying of legally "preventing and stopping crime" still be held valid? One cannot help but associate this with a recently reported anonymous letter claiming that on a seminar organised by the Hong Kong Judicial Institute of the Judiciary on July 3, a certain judge provided a guideline that "the accused [rioters] should be given the benefit of the doubt and acquitted unless there is very strong evidence to convict them". The so-called "benefit of the doubt" now become the excuse to set all the accused free.

　　It is not surprising that Stanley Ho Chun-yiu would pass down such a verdict. In cases involving black-clad rioters he has handled prior to this one, the accused was either acquitted or punished leniently. In certain people's eyes, police officers all seem to be "unreliable witnesses" and "telling one lie to cover up another", while the accused [rioters] are the"future pillars of society" who "must be saved to preserve their potential usefulness". No wonder some people think that the "hands and feet (comrades in arms)" [in riots] can *put their minds at rest* with Magistrate Ho handling their cases.

　　The judicial system often gives favourable publicity to "everyone being equal before the law". It is too bad that inside the system, even judges are not treated equally. Judge Kwok Wai-kin was immediately ordered to stop presiding over similar trials after being complained about showing his sympathy with a "blue-ribbon" defendant. However, Stanley Ho Chun-yiu, who has set free accused black-clad rioters one after another, can not only continue to handle similar cases but also receive pay raise and get promoted. As reported, he will be promoted as a temporary deputy registrar of the High Court, and receive $60,000 to $80,000 more in his monthly pay. This *raises quite a few eyebrows.*　　

　　Nevertheless, while court rulings lead to endless controversy, outsiders cannot say or do anything with the banner of "judicial independence" over their heads, otherwise they would be slammed for "interfering with the judiciary". The Judiciary, behaving as if it were an "independent kingdom" not subject to public supervision, is damaging public confidence. Henry Litton's criticism, that the Judiciary is afflicted with ills and empowering itself, is by no means aimless.

　　"I'm afraid that for Ji Kangzi, the real threat does not come from Zhuanyu, but lies within the walls of his own palace."The greatest threat to the rule of law does not come from any outside factors but lies within the Judiciary itself. If the Judiciary cannot progress with the times and reform itself, it will be reformed sooner or later. 10 September 2020