| 释义 |
法律問題 A question to be resolved by applying legal principles, rather than by determining a factual situation; an issue involving the application or interpretation of a law and reserved for a judge. The way the concept is applied varies to some extent according to the jurisdiction.
Administrative law - The question of whether a court or tribunal has misdirected itself as to the law (Edwards v Baristow [1956] AC 14), wrongfully interpreted a statute (Re A Compensation Board, ex p A-G [1971] HKLR 338 (FC)) or any other legal document or a rule of common law; or asked oneself and answered the wrong question, took irrelevant considerations into account or failed to take relevant considerations into account when purporting to apply the law to the facts (CIR v Aspiration Land Investment Ltd (CACV 32/89, unreported)); admitted inadmissible evidence or rejected admissible and relevant evidence (R v Industrial Injuries Comr, ex p Ward [1965] 2 QB 112, [1964] 3 All ER 907 (DC)); exercised a discretion on the basis of incorrect legal principles (Instrumatic Ltd v Supabrase Ltd [1969] 2 All ER 131, 1 WLR 519 (CA); gave reasons which disclose faulty legal reasoning (Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997, 1 All ER 694 (HL) or which are inadequate to fulfil an express duty to give reasons (Crake v Supplementary Benefits Commission [1982] 1 All ER 498), and misdirected oneself as to the burden of proof (CIR v HK-TVB International Ltd [1992] 2 HKLR 191 (PC)). If the question is one which only a trained lawyer can be expected to decide correctly, there is a presumption that it will be categorised as one of law: Hoveringham Gravels Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1975] QB 754, 2 All ER 931 (CA). See also Judicial review; Prima facie; Question of fact; Standard of proof.
Criminal law - A question that involves a principle capable of some general application, as opposed to a ruling that is dependent upon the manner in which an assessment is made of particular factual situations which are not readily capable of wider application to other situation. The judge of the court of trial may, on his own motion or on the application of the Secretary for Justice or defence, reserve for the consideration of the Court of Appeal any question of law which may arise on the indictment: Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap 221) s 81; HKSAR v Ma Wai Kwan [1997] 2 HKC 315, HKLRD 761. The Secretary for Justice, may refer the question of law to the Court of Appeal for consideration where a person tried on indictment has been acquitted (the whole or part of the indictment): s 81D. The choice of question and whether to refer a question at all is entirely a matter for the Secretary for Justice: A-G’s Reference No 1 of 1987 [1988] 1 HKLR 374. Also known as ‘point of law’.
Practice and procedure - The distinction between fact and law can be difficult to make and a question may be one of mixed fact and law. Drawing inferences from primary facts to reach findings or conclusions of fact is a question of facts (British Launderers’ Research Assn v Borough of Hendon Rating Authority [1949] 1 KB 462) but the question whether there is sufficient evidence to support the inferences is one of law. Legal norms are applied to conclusions of fact to reach a conclusion of law; this process may be characterised as a question of fact or law, depending on the circumstances and the approach taken by the court. In an action for negligence, the existence of a duty of care, the appropriate standard of care, and whether the damage suffered is too remote are questions of law: Qualcast v Haynes [1959] AC 743. See also Judicial review; Prima facie; Question of fact; Standard of proof.
有待透過運用法律原則，而非透過裁定實際狀況解決的問題；涉及法律施行或釋義並留待法官裁斷的問題。由於司法管轄區不同，該概念應用的方式在一定程度上有所不同。
行政法 - 指下列的問題：法庭或審裁處是否有就法律而言對本身作出錯誤的指示(Edwards v Baristow [1956] AC 14)，錯誤地詮釋任何法規(Re A Compensation Board, ex p A-G [1971] HKLR 338 (全體法院))或任何其法律文件或普通法的規則；或對法庭或審裁處本身提出及回答錯誤的問題，顧及無關的考慮因素、或在意欲就有關事實引用有關法律時未能考慮有關的因素 (CIR v Aspiration Land Investment Ltd（民事上訴1989年第32號，未經彙報）)；接納不得被接納的證據或拒絕可獲接納而有關的證據 (R v Industrial Injuries Comr, ex p Ward [1965] 2 QB 112, [1964] 3 All ER 907（英國地方法院）)；基於錯誤的法律原則行使酌情決定權 (Instrumatic Ltd v Supabrase Ltd [1969] 2 All ER 131, 1 WLR 519 (芵國上訴法院)；給予顯示錯誤法律推論的理由(Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997, 1 All ER 694 (上議院) 或未能充分履行給予理由的明示責任(Crake v Supplementary Benefits Commission [1982] 1 All ER 498)，及就舉證責任對本身作出錯誤的指示(CIR v HK-TVB International Ltd [1992] 2 HKLR 191 (樞密院))。如有關的問題是僅可預期由經訓練的律師才可作出正確決定，則會推定此等問題屬法律的問題：Hoveringham Gravels Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1975] QB 754, 2 All ER 931 (芵國上訴法院)。另見 Judicial review; Prima facie; Question of fact; Standard of proof。
刑法 - 涉及可作出若干概括應用的原則的問題，與裁定是取決於評估是基於個別事實情況作出的方式不同（在其他情況下不可有廣泛的引用）。主審法庭的法官可主動或應律政司司長或辯方的申請，將在公訴書的審訊中出現的任何法律問題保留，待上訴法庭考慮：《刑事訴訟程序條例》(第221章) 第81條；HKSAR v Ma Wai Kwan [1997] 2 HKC 315, HKLRD 761。凡循公訴程序受審的人已獲裁定無罪(不論是關於公訴書的全部或部分) ，律政司司長可將法律問題轉交上訴法庭，而上訴法庭須考慮該論點並就此給予意見：第81D條。問題的選擇及是否提述某問題 全是由律政司司長決定的事項：A-G’s Reference No 1 of 1987 [1988] 1 HKLR 374。另稱「法律論點」。
實務及程序 - 難以作出事實與法律的區別，有關的問題可以是事實和法律混合的問題。從基本的事實作出推論以達致事實的裁斷或結論是事實的問題 (British Launderers’ Research Assn v Borough of Hendon Rating Authority [1949] 1 KB 462)，但是否有充分證據支持有關推論的問題是法律的問題。法律的標準適用於事實的結論，以達致法律的結論；此等程序可被視為事實問題或法律問題的特徵，（視乎有關的情況及法庭採取的方法）。就疏忽訴訟而言，謹慎責任的存在、適當的謹慎標準、以及蒙受的損害太間接是法律的問題：Qualcast v Haynes [1959] AC 743。 另見 Judicial review; Prima facie; Question of fact; Standard of proof. |