內地推司法公開改革 邁出公平正義第一步

<轉載自2013年12月2日 明報 社評>

最高人民法院宣布，公眾人士從11月27日起在「中國裁判文書網」（www.court.gov.cn/zgcpwsw）可以直接查詢各省市區高級法院的裁判文書（即判決書）。從明年元旦起，全國各級3000間法院的判決書，7日內都要在網上公開，民眾可以關鍵詞檢索查閱，加上還要對庭審全程錄影，連串司法公開的改革舉措，對於推進中國法治朝向公平、公正的方向發展，具有重大意義。

長期黑箱作業遭詬病 法官質素低拿不出手

長期以來，內地的法院判決書被當做「國家機密」，只有極少數受輿論高度關注的重大案件判決書才會公開。輿論對這樣的審判操作向來風評不佳。普通民眾抱怨法官的貪腐，遂有「大蓋帽，兩頭翹，吃了原告吃被告」之說；律師則抨擊審判過程違反程序與「黑箱作業」；而案件當事人，也經常因判決書未有陳述令人信服的理由而無法口服心服。

不公開判決書的原因，一是法院的「政治化」，執行的是黨的政策而非法律；二是素質不高的法官難以寫出「拿得出手」的判決；三是「保密意識」把一切文件都「機密化」。

在香港、台灣，法庭判決書公開已行之有年。普通法系的法院不但公開判決書，更公開不同法官對判決的不同意見。在奉行大陸法系的德國，二次世界大戰後，所有法庭判決亦都已公開，允許公眾尤其是法律界人士評論。這對法官形成很大壓力，有調查稱，德國法官審一件案，用大約43%時間撰寫判決書。由此可見，無論是普通法系，還是大陸法系，公開判決文書，詳述判決理由，都是法官應當遵循的基本準則。

從已公布的內地法院判決書看，由於過分強調「通俗易懂、簡潔明瞭」，往往存在說理不充分，以一句「上述事實，證據確鑿」取代對證據的分析、引用法律條文過於簡略、缺乏邏輯推理等諸多弊端。允許這樣的判決書面世，除導致一些法官缺乏責任感，亦為徇私枉法、貪贓枉法提供了方便，成為妨礙司法公正的一大障礙。

公開詳述判決理由 普通法大陸法皆然

中國古代雖非法治社會，但古人對公開、公平、公正也不乏論述，戰國時期荀子就明確提出「公生明，偏生暗」觀點，將公正與公開相聯繫，指出偏差源於暗箱操作。

《中華人民共和國憲法》第125條規定﹕「人民法院審理案件，除法律規定的特別情况外，一律公開進行。」第41條規定﹕「中華人民共和國公民對於任何國家機關和國家工作人員，有提出批評和建議的權利。」表明民眾享有司法知情權和監督權。《民事訴訟法》第138條更明確規定﹕「判決書應當寫明判決認定的事實、理由和適用的法律依據。」在標榜「人民是國家的主人」的中國現行政治體制下，網上公開判決書完全符合國家制度，而且有理由比封建社會、西方國家做得更好。

中共十八屆三中全會公報中，首次以「法治中國」取代了以往「依法治國」的表述，取態更加符合國際潮流和慣例。要建設「法治中國」，網上公開判決書僅是第一步，儘管仍設有一些「例外」限制，但是我們仍希望藉此「第一步」減少司法腐敗，提升法官質素，促使各級法院的審判理念和審判方式發生嬗變，從而加速中國司法向公平、公正、公開邁進的步伐。

Editorial

Judicial reforms on mainland

AS the Supreme People's Court has announced, from November 27 onwards, members of the public may access at www.court.gov.cn/zgcpwsw the judgements delivered by the higher people's courts of all provinces, municipalities and regions. From 1 January 2014 onwards, a judgement made by any of the 3,000 courts of various levels should be made public on the Internet within seven days of its delivery so that people may search for it using key words, and all trials should be videoed in full. Such reforms aimed at improving judicial openness are of great significance in making China's legal system characterised by fairness and impartiality.

Judgements delivered by mainland courts have long been regarded as "state secrets". Only those on a very small number of cases on which public attention was focused have been made public. Opinion leaders take a dim view of such trials. Ordinary people complain about judicial corruption. Lawyers criticise judges for their departures from procedures and "black box operations". Litigants are rarely satisfied because few judgements list carefully reasoned arguments.

Mainland court judgements have been held back because (a) politicised, courts carry out the Party's policies instead of enforcing the law; (b) of poor quality, judges can hardly write "decent" judgements; and (c) the mainland authorities are so secretive that they tend to have all documents classified.

It seems clear from judgements made public that mainland judges place excessive emphasis on "accessibility" and "succinctness". Court judgements are flawed in many ways. Few decisions are fully argued. Instead of analysing evidence, a judge may just write "the facts set out above are irrefutable evidence". He may not adequately cite statutory provisions. He may fail to draw logical inferences. When judges are allowed to deliver such judgements, some of them may become irresponsible, and things may be easy for those who would show partiality or bend the law for bribes. That is a huge obstacle to the proper administration of justice.

Article 125 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China states, "Except in special circumstances specified by law, all cases in the people's courts are heard in public." Article 41 of it states, "Citizens of the People's Republic of China have the right to criticise and make suggestions regarding any state organ or functionary." Clearly, people have the right to know what the judiciary does and supervise it. Furthermore, Article 138 of the Civil Procedure Law states, "The written judgement on a case shall clearly state the facts of it, the reasons on which the decision in it is based and the laws applicable to it." Under the political structure of China, where the people are advertised to be "its masters", it is totally in keeping with its systems to have court judgements published online. It stands to reason that this can be done better in China than in a feudalistic society or a Western country.

"Rule the country in accordance with the law" has for the first time been replaced with "construct a rule of law country" in the communiqu of the third plenum of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. This attitude is more in line with international practice and the global trend. It is only the first step in bringing about a China where the law rules to have judgements made public on the Internet. There are still exceptions, but we hope it will help prevent judicial corruption, improve the quality of judges, bring about changes in the courts' ideas and ways of conducting trials and quicken the pace at which the administration of justice in China moves towards fairness, impartiality and openness.

明報社評2013.12.02﹕內地推司法公開改革 邁出公平正義第一步

最高人民法院宣布，公眾人士從11月27日起在「中國裁判文書網」（http://www.court.gov.cn/zgcpwsw）可以直接查詢各省市區高級法院的裁判文書（即判決書）。從明年元旦起，全國各級3000間法院的判決書，7日內都要在網上公開，民眾可以關鍵詞檢索查閱，加上還要對庭審全程錄影，連串司法公開的改革舉措，對於推進中國法治朝向公平、公正的方向發展，具有重大意義。

長期以來，內地的法院判決書被當做「國家機密」，只有極少數受輿論高度關注的重大案件判決書才會公開。輿論對這樣的審判操作向來風評不佳。普通民眾抱怨法官的貪腐；律師則抨擊審判過程違反程序與「黑箱作業」；而案件當事人，也經常因判決書未有陳述令人信服的理由而無法口服心服。

不公開判決書的原因，一是法院的「政治化」，執行的是黨的政策而非法律；二是素質不高的法官難以寫出「拿得出手」的判決；三是「保密意識」把一切文件都「機密化」。

從已公布的內地法院判決書看，由於過分強調「通俗易懂、簡潔明瞭」，往往存在說理不充分，以一句「上述事實，證據確鑿」取代對證據的分析、引用法律條文過於簡略、缺乏邏輯推理等諸多弊端。允許這樣的判決書面世，除導致一些法官缺乏責任感，亦為徇私枉法、貪贓枉法提供了方便，成為妨礙司法公正的一大障礙。

《中華人民共和國憲法》第125條規定﹕「人民法院審理案件，除法律規定的特別情外，一律公開進行。」第41條規定﹕「中華人民共和國公民對於任何國家機關和國家工作人員，有提出批評和建議的權利。」表明民眾享有司法知情權和監督權。《民事訴訟法》第138條更明確規定﹕「判決書應當寫明判決認定的事實、理由和適用的法律依據。」在標榜「人民是國家的主人」的中國現行政治體制下，網上公開判決書完全符合國家制度，而且有理由比封建社會、西方國家做得更好。

 

中共十八屆三中全會公報中，首次以「法治中國」取代了以往「依法治國」的表述，取態更加符合國際潮流和慣例。要建設「法治中國」，網上公開判決書僅是第一步，儘管仍設有一些「例外」限制，但是我們仍希望藉此「第一步」減少司法腐敗，提升法官質素，促使各級法院的審判理念和審判方式發生嬗變，從而加速中國司法向公平、公正、公開邁進的步伐。