法官過往言論是否構成偏頗危險？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：IN THE MATTER OF THE PRUDENTIAL ENTERPRISE LIMITED - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：Hon Le Pichon J - 判決日期：2000年9月27日 ### 案情摘要 本案源於Samuel Tak Lee（第一答辯人）向法庭申請，要求主審法官Le Pichon法官在涉及Prudential Enterprise Limited（PEL）的清盤呈請中迴避。申請理由是Le Pichon法官在先前涉及Samuel Tak Lee的兩宗家族公司清盤案及遺囑認證訴訟中，對其性格和動機表達了強烈負面意見，導致Samuel Tak Lee認為法官無法公正處理PEL的清盤呈請。Samuel Tak Lee的法律團隊認為，法官的言論和命令已構成「偏頗的合理憂慮」。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於，法官在先前案件中對某一方當事人表達的強烈負面意見，是否足以構成「實際偏頗危險」(real danger of bias)，使其必須在後續相關案件中迴避。第一答辯人Samuel Tak Lee主張，法官的過往言論和命令已導致其無法公正審理本案。呈請人則認為，法官的言論是基於證據的合理評估，不構成偏頗。 ### 判決理由 法官在分析案件裁決理由 (ratio decidendi) 時，採納了英國法院的「實際偏頗危險」測試，該測試由R. v. Gough [1993] AC 646案確立，並在Locabail (UK) Limited v. Bayfield Properties Limited [2000] QB 451案中重申。法官指出，法院在應用此測試時，應當「化身為理性人」，並根據現有證據查明相關情況。如果法官的言論是基於充分證據且合乎情理，則不應僅因言辭強烈而認定存在偏頗危險。法官強調，除非言辭的強烈程度與案件情況完全不符，否則不構成偏頗。法官認為其在先前判決中的言論是經過充分說理的，並無不當。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用了英國上議院在R. v. Gough [1993] AC 646案中確立的「實際偏頗危險」(real danger of bias) 測試。此外，亦引用了英國上訴法院在Locabail (UK) Limited v. Bayfield Properties Limited [2000] QB 451案中對該測試的應用及相關觀察。香港上訴法庭在Cheung Francis v. Insider Dealing Tribunal (No.2) [2000] 1 HKC 437案中亦採納了此英國方法。法官還引用了澳洲案例Vakauta v. Kelly [1989] 167 CLR 568，但指出香港應遵循英國的測試標準。 ### 裁決與命令 法官駁回了Samuel Tak Lee要求其迴避的申請。法官認為，根據「實際偏頗危險」測試，沒有理由迴避。法官亦命令第一答辯人支付呈請人的訟費，並發出兩名大律師的證明書。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了香港法院在處理司法迴避申請時，應遵循英國法院確立的「實際偏頗危險」測試，而非澳洲的「合理憂慮」測試。判決強調，法官基於證據作出的強烈言論，只要合乎情理且與案件情況相稱，不應被視為構成偏頗的理由。這對於法官在判詞中坦誠評估證據和當事人行為提供了指引，避免法官因擔心被指偏頗而不敢「直言不諱」。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE PRUDENTIAL ENTERPRISE LIMITED - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Le Pichon J - Date of Judgment: 27 September 2000 ### Factual Background This case concerns an application by Samuel Tak Lee (the 1st Respondent) for the presiding judge, Le Pichon J, to recuse herself from further proceedings in the winding-up petition of Prudential Enterprise Limited (PEL). The application was based on the judge's strong adverse views expressed about Mr. ST Lee, his character, and motivation in previous winding-up petitions concerning two family companies and associated probate proceedings. Mr. ST Lee's legal team argued that the judge's remarks and orders created a "reasonable apprehension of bias," rendering her unable to fairly resolve issues arising from the PEL petition. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was whether a judge's strong adverse comments about a party in previous cases constituted a "real danger of bias" requiring recusal from subsequent related proceedings. The 1st Respondent, Samuel Tak Lee, contended that the judge's past remarks and orders made it impossible for her to preside fairly over the current case. The petitioners argued that the judge's comments were justified evaluations based on evidence and did not amount to bias. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge, in analyzing the ratio decidendi, adopted the "real danger of bias" test established by the House of Lords in R. v. Gough [1993] AC 646 and reaffirmed in Locabail (UK) Limited v. Bayfield Properties Limited [2000] QB 451. The judge stated that in applying this test, the court "personifies the reasonable man" and must ascertain relevant circumstances from available evidence. If a judge's remarks are amply justified and warranted by the evidence, they should not, by themselves, give rise to a real danger of bias. The judge emphasized that unless the outspoken terms were out of all proportion to the circumstances, they would not constitute bias. The judge found her previous remarks to be reasoned and appropriate. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case primarily cited the "real danger of bias" test established by the House of Lords in R. v. Gough [1993] AC 646. It also referred to the application of this test and observations made by the English Court of Appeal in Locabail (UK) Limited v. Bayfield Properties Limited [2000] QB 451. The Hong Kong Court of Appeal in Cheung Francis v. Insider Dealing Tribunal (No.2) [2000] 1 HKC 437 also adopted this English approach. The judge mentioned the Australian case Vakauta v. Kelly [1989] 167 CLR 568 but noted that Hong Kong follows the English test. ### Decision & Orders The judge dismissed Samuel Tak Lee's application for recusal. The judge found no reason to recuse herself based on the "real danger of bias" test. The judge also made an order nisi for costs in favour of the petitioners, with a certificate for two counsel. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms that Hong Kong courts, when dealing with applications for judicial recusal, should follow the English "real danger of bias" test, rather than the Australian "reasonable apprehension" test. The decision emphasizes that strong remarks made by a judge, if justified by evidence and proportionate to the circumstances, should not be considered grounds for bias. This provides guidance for judges to make frank assessments of evidence and party conduct in their judgments without fear of being accused of bias, allowing them to "call a spade a spade." --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.