| 法律系學生服務小市民港大設免費法律診所 | ||
| 【本報訊】為體現法律面前人人平等，港大法律學院計劃今年底開設「法律診所」，由港大準法律系畢業生為經濟能力有限的市民，提供法律意見及撰寫律師信，屬全港首創。該院院長陳文敏強調，各學生均會有教授指導，認為這對社會及學生均有利。記者：梁美寶 陳 文敏表示，許多市民希望諮詢法律意見常求助無門，加上法律諮詢費用昂貴，為協助基層市民、同時也希望為法律系準畢業生提供「實戰」訓練，港大決定年底開設 「法律診所」，免費為有民事訴訟需要的市民提供服務，如寫律師信、給予法律意見等。他估計，首年約有20名學生參與，屬試驗性質，並由一名教授指導8名學 生，確保他們給予的法律意見準確。同時，校方也會依足程序，為有關計劃購買保險，以保障公眾利益。至於服務範疇，則不包括協助處理刑事案件，主要協助市民 處理民事訴訟，但也不包括醫療及勞工個案。 被質疑無律師資格 陳文敏解釋，這項計劃只是為讓學生吸取實際工作經驗，及協助有需 要的小市民，不會構成與同行爭生意，他希望最終獲香港律師會支持。但香港律師會主席黃嘉純坦言，對法律系學生為市民提供法律服務表示關注，他認為給予法律 意見應由持牌律師來做，學生沒有這方面資格，「萬一有問題，咁點樣追討？呢個係對公眾保障嘅問題。」他建議，港大不妨為此成立一間律師樓，並受該會規管。 此外，各律師團體及各大學法律學院較早前召開法律教育會議時，商討未來大學改為四年制事宜，黃嘉純指現時尚未有定案，但他們仍傾向維持法律本科生修讀四 年，不傾向將就讀年份延長至五年。 |
2008年3月20日星期四
法律系學生服務小市民港大設免費法律診所
係就係好事,但我都懷疑法律學生識得有幾多。始終在學校學的一套同出來做野的一套都相差很遠的。不過,始終都是好事來的。
2008年3月7日星期五
2008年3月6日星期四
官訂離婚分產公平原則
官訂離婚分產公平原則
指夫婦均貢獻家庭 「合理需要」分配原則過時 2008年3月6日
【明報專訊】近年本港離婚數字激增，引來不少爭拗贍養費的訴訟，法庭以往按「合理需要」為原則分配婚姻財產，但上訴庭昨日確立有關原則已經過時，認為夫婦 二人在婚姻中均有不同形式的付出，指香港應跟隨英國8年前的改變，以「公平分配」為原則，除非有其他合理的理由，否則離婚雙方應可平均分享婚姻財產。
上訴庭昨頒下判辭，指本港近20年來，均依賴「C對C」的案例，即在分配婚姻財產時，會考慮離婚雙方的年齡、健康情、收入、賺錢能力、離婚前的生活水平等因素後，計算申索人一方的「合理需要」；而在「C對C」案例中，婚姻財產約有9000萬元，身為申索人的妻子最後獲得逾3500萬元，佔婚姻財產的 39％。
上訴庭法官張澤祐昨日在判辭中提到，根據有關案例判決後，發現即使申索人依賴「合理需要」的原則獲分財產，大部分的婚姻財產仍然會落入另一方的手中，因此發現有關原則其實並不公平，故英國法院於2000年出現一個名為「White對White」的案例。
「合理需要原則」造成不公
處理該案的法官提到，現今社會大部分的夫婦雙方都有工作，即使妻子全職照顧家庭沒有工作，亦只屬夫婦的分工問題，事實上兩人均對家庭作出貢獻，故當兩人離婚時若要分配財產，除非有其他合理的理由，否則便應使用「公平分配」原則。
官﹕不代表平分兩份
張官續指出，香港的經濟情與英國相似，自90年代起香港已成為主要的金融中心，人權法及《基本法》均已把「公平原則」包括在內，他認為應摒棄以往的「合理需要」原則，並跟隨英國採用較新的「公平分配」方法。但張官強調，公平對待雙方，並不代表將財產平均分成兩份。
張官再闡釋，在衡量「公平」的標準時，必須考慮雙方的需要，如經濟需要、責任、離婚前的生活水平、年齡、健康狀等，以及雙方在婚姻中的承擔，如對家庭的貢獻、婚姻的長短等。
須考慮雙方需要承擔
本案的離婚夫婦分別為46歲的商人丈夫，以及45歲的無業妻子，兩人於1996年結婚，至2002年一同申請離婚，但就資產分配問題有分歧。丈夫擁有價值 465萬元資產，妻子則擁有52.274萬元，經區院審訊後，妻子獲得丈夫的三分之一資產，即155萬元，但妻子不服，提出上訴。
上訴庭遂裁定根據「White對White」案例中訂立的「公平分配」原則，重新計算兩人的婚姻財產共有536.5萬元，妻子可獲共同資產的一半，即268.25萬元，並下令丈夫要在3個月內繳付，妻子同時要遷出兩人位於深井浪翠園的前婚姻居所。
【案件編號﹕CACV91/07】
律師﹕指引清晰可減訴訟 2008年3月6日
【明報專訊】事實上高院法官辛達誠遠在2001年12月，即英國的「White對White」案例頒下近1年後，已在律師會會刊《香港律師》中撰文，形容此破天荒的判決是「向沿用的英國婚姻法制投下一枚原子彈」。
資深大律師余若薇昨指出，其實本港是否應跟隨英國的有關案例，在業界內討論已久，只是欠缺較權威的判決，她認為，今次上訴庭的判辭，是婚姻分配財產上一個重要的原則改變。
她解釋，由於大部分離婚爭產案中的申索人是女方，而以往本港法庭沿用的「合理需要」原則，只計算女方每個月的財政需要直至她去世，但大部分個案顯示，在計算「合理需要」後，大部分的婚姻資產會落入男方手上，但其實一個家庭中，雙方均有付出，這樣分配對女方不公平。
律師謝連忠亦認為，以往法庭依賴的「合理需要」原則較含糊，今次上訴庭訂下清晰指引，有助減少夫婦離婚後就財產分配問題的訴訟。
婦權界讚官肯定主婦地位 2008年3月6日
【明報專訊】群福婦女權益會主席廖銀鳳讚賞法官肯定了家庭主婦的地位，她認為社會一直以來忽視家庭主婦的價值，她們的角色儼如家庭管家、會計師、家庭助理，卻全年無休，即使受傷亦要繼續照顧家庭各成員。
廖銀鳳指出﹕「打工仔受傷都有工傷假、可以休息，但婦女受傷亦要工作，甚至連『進修』時間也被剝削。」
群福婦女權益會經常協助不少被虐婦女辦理離婚手續，當分身家時多數是分現金及物業，法官會要求事主將單位變賣後，各分一半賣樓錢。
「法庭不明白單親母壓力」
但廖銀鳳表示，由於男方不少是麻煩的施虐者，故有時她反而游說女事主放棄或爭取家產一半以下的分配，以免日後麻煩，例如曾有一名婦女成功爭取獲得聯名單位業權，但其前夫數年來一直以未到價為由拒絕賣樓，女方向他追數時反遭大瘗。
最令廖銀鳳不滿的是，法庭有時會質疑女事主不願工作，調低女方領取的贍養費額，例如一名需要帶養兒子的婦女申請向前夫索取每月2500元贍養費，法庭卻同情男方，指她可出外工作，只判給她2000元。
廖銀鳳認為，有些法官不明白照顧子女的單親婦女所面對的經濟壓力，故希望今次案例，可讓其他法官參考。
指夫婦均貢獻家庭 「合理需要」分配原則過時 2008年3月6日
【明報專訊】近年本港離婚數字激增，引來不少爭拗贍養費的訴訟，法庭以往按「合理需要」為原則分配婚姻財產，但上訴庭昨日確立有關原則已經過時，認為夫婦 二人在婚姻中均有不同形式的付出，指香港應跟隨英國8年前的改變，以「公平分配」為原則，除非有其他合理的理由，否則離婚雙方應可平均分享婚姻財產。
上訴庭昨頒下判辭，指本港近20年來，均依賴「C對C」的案例，即在分配婚姻財產時，會考慮離婚雙方的年齡、健康情、收入、賺錢能力、離婚前的生活水平等因素後，計算申索人一方的「合理需要」；而在「C對C」案例中，婚姻財產約有9000萬元，身為申索人的妻子最後獲得逾3500萬元，佔婚姻財產的 39％。
上訴庭法官張澤祐昨日在判辭中提到，根據有關案例判決後，發現即使申索人依賴「合理需要」的原則獲分財產，大部分的婚姻財產仍然會落入另一方的手中，因此發現有關原則其實並不公平，故英國法院於2000年出現一個名為「White對White」的案例。
「合理需要原則」造成不公
處理該案的法官提到，現今社會大部分的夫婦雙方都有工作，即使妻子全職照顧家庭沒有工作，亦只屬夫婦的分工問題，事實上兩人均對家庭作出貢獻，故當兩人離婚時若要分配財產，除非有其他合理的理由，否則便應使用「公平分配」原則。
官﹕不代表平分兩份
張官續指出，香港的經濟情與英國相似，自90年代起香港已成為主要的金融中心，人權法及《基本法》均已把「公平原則」包括在內，他認為應摒棄以往的「合理需要」原則，並跟隨英國採用較新的「公平分配」方法。但張官強調，公平對待雙方，並不代表將財產平均分成兩份。
張官再闡釋，在衡量「公平」的標準時，必須考慮雙方的需要，如經濟需要、責任、離婚前的生活水平、年齡、健康狀等，以及雙方在婚姻中的承擔，如對家庭的貢獻、婚姻的長短等。
須考慮雙方需要承擔
本案的離婚夫婦分別為46歲的商人丈夫，以及45歲的無業妻子，兩人於1996年結婚，至2002年一同申請離婚，但就資產分配問題有分歧。丈夫擁有價值 465萬元資產，妻子則擁有52.274萬元，經區院審訊後，妻子獲得丈夫的三分之一資產，即155萬元，但妻子不服，提出上訴。
上訴庭遂裁定根據「White對White」案例中訂立的「公平分配」原則，重新計算兩人的婚姻財產共有536.5萬元，妻子可獲共同資產的一半，即268.25萬元，並下令丈夫要在3個月內繳付，妻子同時要遷出兩人位於深井浪翠園的前婚姻居所。
【案件編號﹕CACV91/07】
律師﹕指引清晰可減訴訟 2008年3月6日
【明報專訊】事實上高院法官辛達誠遠在2001年12月，即英國的「White對White」案例頒下近1年後，已在律師會會刊《香港律師》中撰文，形容此破天荒的判決是「向沿用的英國婚姻法制投下一枚原子彈」。
資深大律師余若薇昨指出，其實本港是否應跟隨英國的有關案例，在業界內討論已久，只是欠缺較權威的判決，她認為，今次上訴庭的判辭，是婚姻分配財產上一個重要的原則改變。
她解釋，由於大部分離婚爭產案中的申索人是女方，而以往本港法庭沿用的「合理需要」原則，只計算女方每個月的財政需要直至她去世，但大部分個案顯示，在計算「合理需要」後，大部分的婚姻資產會落入男方手上，但其實一個家庭中，雙方均有付出，這樣分配對女方不公平。
律師謝連忠亦認為，以往法庭依賴的「合理需要」原則較含糊，今次上訴庭訂下清晰指引，有助減少夫婦離婚後就財產分配問題的訴訟。
婦權界讚官肯定主婦地位 2008年3月6日
【明報專訊】群福婦女權益會主席廖銀鳳讚賞法官肯定了家庭主婦的地位，她認為社會一直以來忽視家庭主婦的價值，她們的角色儼如家庭管家、會計師、家庭助理，卻全年無休，即使受傷亦要繼續照顧家庭各成員。
廖銀鳳指出﹕「打工仔受傷都有工傷假、可以休息，但婦女受傷亦要工作，甚至連『進修』時間也被剝削。」
群福婦女權益會經常協助不少被虐婦女辦理離婚手續，當分身家時多數是分現金及物業，法官會要求事主將單位變賣後，各分一半賣樓錢。
「法庭不明白單親母壓力」
但廖銀鳳表示，由於男方不少是麻煩的施虐者，故有時她反而游說女事主放棄或爭取家產一半以下的分配，以免日後麻煩，例如曾有一名婦女成功爭取獲得聯名單位業權，但其前夫數年來一直以未到價為由拒絕賣樓，女方向他追數時反遭大瘗。
最令廖銀鳳不滿的是，法庭有時會質疑女事主不願工作，調低女方領取的贍養費額，例如一名需要帶養兒子的婦女申請向前夫索取每月2500元贍養費，法庭卻同情男方，指她可出外工作，只判給她2000元。
廖銀鳳認為，有些法官不明白照顧子女的單親婦女所面對的經濟壓力，故希望今次案例，可讓其他法官參考。
2008年3月4日星期二
2008年3月3日星期一
Judicial review legal aid bids on the rise
Judicial review legal aid bids on the rise (SCMP) 03月 03日 星期一 00:03AM
The public's level of frustration with the government is far higher than can be gauged from everyday courtroom scenes, statistics from the Legal Aid Department show.
The number of applications for legal aid for judicial reviews increased from 138 in the 2002-03 financial year to 212 in 2006-07. However, as many as 110 to 150 applications were turned down each year.
For last year, the department said a total of 234 applications for aid had been lodged. But only 99 of them were approved, after the department assessed their merits.
In recent years, about 140 judicial reviews were filed with the High Court each year. This figure could have been higher, if the unsuccessful legal aid applicants had found alternative means to foot their legal bills.
Judicial review refers to the power of the court to review the legality and reasonableness of the decisions of the government and other public bodies.
But cases against the administration always take up the largest portion of the judicial reviews. For example, 100 of the 150 judicial reviews in 2004, 130 of the 155 reviews in 2005 and 128 of the 132 reviews in 2006, involved the government, statistics from the Department of Justice show.
The trend has prompted many legal experts and politicians to criticise a Court of Final Appeal decision in November to raise the bar for seeking leave for judicial reviews. In future, the court ruled that cases have to be "arguable", not just "potentially arguable", in order to obtain leave for judicial reviews.
"Judicial review is one of the most unique and renowned features of our judicial system. Its popularity reflects the flaws in our political system and public confidence in the courts," legislator and barrister Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee said.
"I am extremely concerned about what would happen to the powerless people if the route to JR - their only resort to seek justice - is taken away from them," Ms Ng said. However, a spokesman for the Department of Justice said that over the years as many as 80 per cent of challenges taken out against the government by way of judicial review were unsuccessful. "The increasing number of judicial review applications has been contributed to by, among others, a greater awareness of the public in asserting their rights by way of legal proceedings," he said.
Mark Daly, a human rights lawyer who has represented many refugees and right of abode claimants, said: "In many of the cases we deal with in the immigration area, I think there's too much discretion with the authorities. If the legislation was more specific, that would cut out uncertainty, people would know more where they stand. More transparency and fairness may result in less likelihood that they would resort to JR," he said.
Legislator "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung said he had always been unfairly portrayed as putting on a show when he challenged the government through judicial reviews. "One of the biggest deficiencies in our mini-constitution is the limited role of the legislature, which has no teeth to effect major changes in policymaking. The remedy should be given by expanding the role of the courts, and more specifically, judicial reviews. But the Court of Final Appeal has done the opposite," he said.
The Department of Justice spokesman said it was inaccurate and unfair to say that a higher threshold would mean meritorious cases would be screened out.
He cited Chief Justice Andrew Li Kwok-nang's ruling in the top court: "The public interest in good public administration requires that public authorities should not have to face uncertainty as to the validity of their decisions as a result of unarguable claims."
The public's level of frustration with the government is far higher than can be gauged from everyday courtroom scenes, statistics from the Legal Aid Department show.
The number of applications for legal aid for judicial reviews increased from 138 in the 2002-03 financial year to 212 in 2006-07. However, as many as 110 to 150 applications were turned down each year.
For last year, the department said a total of 234 applications for aid had been lodged. But only 99 of them were approved, after the department assessed their merits.
In recent years, about 140 judicial reviews were filed with the High Court each year. This figure could have been higher, if the unsuccessful legal aid applicants had found alternative means to foot their legal bills.
Judicial review refers to the power of the court to review the legality and reasonableness of the decisions of the government and other public bodies.
But cases against the administration always take up the largest portion of the judicial reviews. For example, 100 of the 150 judicial reviews in 2004, 130 of the 155 reviews in 2005 and 128 of the 132 reviews in 2006, involved the government, statistics from the Department of Justice show.
The trend has prompted many legal experts and politicians to criticise a Court of Final Appeal decision in November to raise the bar for seeking leave for judicial reviews. In future, the court ruled that cases have to be "arguable", not just "potentially arguable", in order to obtain leave for judicial reviews.
"Judicial review is one of the most unique and renowned features of our judicial system. Its popularity reflects the flaws in our political system and public confidence in the courts," legislator and barrister Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee said.
"I am extremely concerned about what would happen to the powerless people if the route to JR - their only resort to seek justice - is taken away from them," Ms Ng said. However, a spokesman for the Department of Justice said that over the years as many as 80 per cent of challenges taken out against the government by way of judicial review were unsuccessful. "The increasing number of judicial review applications has been contributed to by, among others, a greater awareness of the public in asserting their rights by way of legal proceedings," he said.
Mark Daly, a human rights lawyer who has represented many refugees and right of abode claimants, said: "In many of the cases we deal with in the immigration area, I think there's too much discretion with the authorities. If the legislation was more specific, that would cut out uncertainty, people would know more where they stand. More transparency and fairness may result in less likelihood that they would resort to JR," he said.
Legislator "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung said he had always been unfairly portrayed as putting on a show when he challenged the government through judicial reviews. "One of the biggest deficiencies in our mini-constitution is the limited role of the legislature, which has no teeth to effect major changes in policymaking. The remedy should be given by expanding the role of the courts, and more specifically, judicial reviews. But the Court of Final Appeal has done the opposite," he said.
The Department of Justice spokesman said it was inaccurate and unfair to say that a higher threshold would mean meritorious cases would be screened out.
He cited Chief Justice Andrew Li Kwok-nang's ruling in the top court: "The public interest in good public administration requires that public authorities should not have to face uncertainty as to the validity of their decisions as a result of unarguable claims."
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)