2013年5月24日星期五

刑事檢控專員(Director of Public Prosecutions DPP)


貪曾遲遲未落鑊 廉署「令人費解」

律政司前任刑事檢控專員江樂士致函東方報業集團,炮轟廉署調查「貪曾」前特首曾蔭權爵士的貪腐指控將近十五個月,仍未檢控任何人或作出交代,是「難以置信(incredible)」和「令人費解(inexplicable)」,此舉有可能導致涉案被告獲減刑甚至終止檢控。他又特別提到當年獲貪曾委任做廉政專員的「貪湯」湯顯明,最近被揭多宗與貪曾類同的涉嫌以權謀私醜聞,令人懷疑貪曾案在貪湯任內未獲妥善處理。他認為梁振英須要求廉政專員白韞六及律政司司長袁國強解釋,並向公眾作出交代,否則有違基本公義原則。

(24/5/2013 東方日報節錄)

江樂士(Grenville Cross)這厮活得寂寞,時常寫去東方批評檢控事宜,我以前也寫過文批評他的論據(曾蔭權貪婪事件前刑事檢控專員的厥詞) ,當然標少這小市民,講出來的說話,怎會及得上前刑事檢控專員動聽。江樂士活得寂寞,我不禁要猜測一下寂寞的由來。下面這表列出過去30年當此職歷任人士。


  1. Joseph Duffy, QC (1984-1986)
  2. James Findlay, QC (1986-1989)
  3. Anthony Duckett, QC (Acting, 1989-1990)
  4. John Wood, CB, JP (1990-1994)
  5. Peter Nguyen, QC, SC (1994-1997)
  6. Grenville Cross, QC, SC (1997-2009)
  7. Ian McWalters, SC (2010-2011)
  8. Kevin Zervos, SC (2011- )

落任的刑事檢控專員,都會成為高等法院法官,幾乎是法律傳統,現任的薛偉成(Kevin Zervos)也盛傳退休後會委為高等法院法官。上面所列,8個之中只有3個不獲委任。Duckett不屬正庒,之後返回澳洲做Crown Court Judge。他在律政署期間,英國幫、本地幫都不喜歡他,所以DPP這個位他坐不到。繼任的John Wood是律政風暴時由倫敦招聘過來,他原本是Fraud Office主管,不過能力頗弱,飲飲食食才是強項,女士給他起了「咸水蛇」的花名,即咸濕水皮蛇王也。他也無打算也無能力吃法官這行飯,所以他不會獲得任命。正庒DPP不獲任命的只有江樂士一個。原因為何,我不知道。東方日報應該訪問他,等他自圓其說。

8 則留言:

  1. Ha ! Do u know ? i actually wanted to ask u when i saw Cross’ article in SCMP today. Am also puzzled
    i recall some newspapers said he had grudge with Wong Yan-lung .
    but today SJ is a different person.I wonder if he wants to save Tsang obliquely (complete wild guess ) or stir up trouble with his former foe(s) still serving in govt . I note though,he is the longest -serving DPP .btw what is the 律政風暴 in 90‘s ?

    Timothy Tong ‘s explanation at Legco today is both laughable ..and lamentable. Feel ashamed that he used to to be one of the heads in civil service. Bring image of whole government to a low low.sigh

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. selina,

      I did not subscribe the SCMP for quite sometime. So I am not aware what Cross said. He is just too bored and he just tried to grab something to get some attention. He is not saving Donald Tsang. He just made rambling remarks.

      Timothy Tong is a joker. He is a laughing stock now. What can you expect to get from his answers? He is such a shame. He was cultivated by Tsang to protect his backyard.

      刪除
    2. cross's article here:
      http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1244292/donald-tsang-deserves-know-his-fate-icacs-graft-probe

      i did a google search on Reid and found two articles:
      http://www.bayofplentytimes.co.nz/news/disgraced-lawyers-new-role-causes-outrage/1758550/
      http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1151312/former-top-hk-prosecutor-warwick-reid-tells-his-shame-over-crimes

      u may be right when u said cross is probably too bored. It reminds me of Wong Wing-ping, who similarly 月旦 govt frequently after his retirement (rolling eyes).

      there are too many bribery/acceptance of advantages cases recently. police (wong koon-ho), icac (tim tong), top govt official (raphael hui). Hui's case being most notable, and his trial most eagerly- awaited, by the press, govt, and the public. such cases are simply too many, too many. just...a bit eye-soring. perhaps we should not be naive to forget the age-old adage: power corrupts.


      刪除
    3. selina,

      Thank you for the news and articles.

      Cross is not right to say Tsang's case is straightforward. The legal maxim he quoted has become a legal cliche devoid of substance if not put in context. This maxim derived from Magna Carta and is too generalised to put forward as a criticism of the progress in the investigation. Cross is just too bored and wants to put himself back into the limelight from time to time. As a blogger myself, I know the trick to flare up sentiment and at the same time I know what kind of comments should be valued. So far, as I could see in a limited extent, I have not seen Cross criticise with insight. In some of his comments, one may doubt whether he had been the DPP for 10 odds years.

      Reid was such a disgrace. Clive Grossman was his ex-colleague and I can understand why he is irate about Reid. Egan ganged up with Reid and I will tell his involvement in Reid's flight when I have time. Of course, I have to write with care in order not to get into trouble of defamation. Today is too busy to attend to this matter.

      刪除
  2. 律政風暴 is the Warwick Reid case. see http://www.icac.org.hk/new_icac/eng/cases/ddpp/homepage.htm or http://www.icac.org.hk/new_icac/big5/cases/ddpp/homepage.htm

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. The above is the official story. There are some other stories as well, the Reid related stories. I can tell you some when I have time.

      刪除
    2. I thought 律政風暴 was a TV program by TVB; no wonder I cannot find it in their filmography.

      We, the people, of course would like to see a scandal this smelly; we practically live for it (the comment about it being a TV program is not wholly a joke). The government, any government, knows it and they'd inevitably installed some mechanisms or people inside for damage control. Unless there is a chance of government, or CY Leung's life depends on it, which could happen if the scandal escalated, it would not be politically feasible to involve Tsang.

      刪除
    3. meant to say “change of government”...

      刪除