《💻關注條文背後的立法原意》
2月5日，在我主持《法院（遙距聆訊）條例草案》委員會會議逐條審議階段的時候，我就條文內容提出疑問。其中，我發現就未經法院批准而發布法律程序紀錄一事，雖然當局選擇在條例中，把未經授權和獲授權的程序紀錄分成兩點撰寫，但實際上情況非常相似，而且罰則一樣。
因此，我向局方詢問撰寫條文時的原意，把兩個情況分為兩項條文，是代表兩個情況的嚴重程度有分別，還是單純為更清楚地表述各種可能發生的情況。
《💻Paying Attention to the Legislative Intent》
On 5 February, when I was chairing the Bills Committee meeting on the Courts (Remote Hearing) Bill to examine the bill clause-by-clause, I asked for clarification in respect of some clauses. Regarding publishing a court proceeding without permission of the court, I noticed that the Administration chose to draft the provisions by separating publishing an unauthorised proceeding recording and publishing an authorised proceeding recording into two clauses. However, in practice, the situations are very similar, and the penalties for the two kinds of breach are the same.
Therefore, I asked the Administration about the legislative intent in drafting the provisions. Specifically, does separating the two scenarios into different provisions signify a difference in the severity of the violations, or is it simply to articulate the various possible circumstances more clearly?
Ambrose 林新強
Date: 08.02.2025
#AmbroseLam
#林新強
#servewithsincerity
#從新出發
#法律界功能界別