The presiding judicial officer at a trial to hear and determine legal disputes. The trial judge, whether sitting with or without a jury, is and remains in supreme command and control over the conduct of its proceedings and exercises judicial power and authority over its progress and over any points at issue that may arise or be raised during the hearing. The trial judge is the guardian of the public interest to secure the due administration of justice in his court. His overriding duty is to ensure the fair and orderly unfolding of the respective cases of the parties according to the practice and procedure of the court. His first task is to determine what are the issues or questions in dispute between the parties which he has to try, and he must proceed to hear and determine these issues and no others: Southport Corp v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [1954] 2 QB 182, 2 All ER 561 (CA). In the adversarial system which prevails in Hong Kong, it is no part of the role of the trial judge to carry out an investigation or examination on behalf of society at large (Fallon v Calvert [1960] 2 QB 201, 1 All ER 281 (CA)), but nevertheless the guiding objective of the trial judge is to find out the truth and to do justice according to law. For this purpose he will listen to the evidence and to the arguments of counsel, only himself asking questions of witnesses or counsel when it is necessary to clear up or develop any points that may have been overlooked or left obscure or in doubt or to ensure that the details of a complicated case or submission of law are clear in his mind: Jones v National Coal Board [1957] 2 QB 55, 2 All ER 155 (CA). The trial judge also has a role in case management. He will decide on the admissibility of evidence according to the applicable law, such as the admissibility of cautioned statements in a voir dire. After the addresses of counsel, the trial judge sums up the case to the jury, giving them directions and he should also give warnings to the jury in order to ensure a fair trial, such as a Turnbull warning in relation to identification evidence: R v Dinh Van Duong [1996] 2 HKC 604 (CA). See also Discretion; Judicial discretion; Misdirection by trial judge.
在審訴中耹聽及裁定法律爭議點的主審司法人員。主審法官(不論是否在有陪審團的情況下開庭)就法院訴訟程序的行為而言，具有及仍有最高指揮及控制權，並可在有關的過程及在耹訴期間可能出現或提出的爭論點上，行使司法權力及權限。主審法官是公眾利益的監護人，即要確保在其法院妥善地執行司法工作。主審法官的首要責任在於確保公平及有秩序地按照法院的常規及程序呈現當事人有關案件的真相。主審法官的首項工作在於決定他／她須審理的當事人之間的爭議點或所爭議的問題，他／她必須僅就這些問題繼續進行耹訴，並作出裁定：Southport Corp v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [1954] 2 QB 182, 2 All ER 561(英國上訴法院)。在香港具凌駕地位的對抗制度下，主審法官無須代表社會整體進行調查或訊問 (Fallon v Calvert [1960] 2 QB 201, 1 All ER 281(英國上訴法院)))，但主審法官的指揮原則在於找出真相、並按照法律秉行公正。主審法官為此會耹聽有關的證供及大律師的論點，他／她在有需要的時候才須詢問證人或大律師問題，以便弄清或發展任何已被忽視或變得不清楚或有疑問的爭議點，或確保他／她清楚複雜案件的細節或法律陳詞：Jones v National Coal Board [1957] 2 QB 55, 2 All ER 155(英國上訴法院)。主審法官亦負責案件管理。主審法官會根據適用的法律決定證據的可接納性，例如在預備訴問中經警戒供詞的可接納性。在大律師陳詞後，有關的主審法官會向陪審團總結有關的案件，給予他們指示，而他／她亦應向陪審團作出警告以確保審訴公平，例如有關辨認證據的Turnbull 一案的指引： R v Dinh Van Duong [1996] 2 HKC 604(上訴法庭)。另見 Discretion; Judicial discretion; Misdirection by trial judge。

• Estoppel by conduct
• Estoppel by convention
• Estoppel by deed
• Estoppel by judgment
• Estoppel by negligence
• Estoppel by recitals
• Estoppel by record
• Estoppel by representation
• Estoppel, common law
• Estoppel in pais
• Etching
• European Community
• European Economic Community
• European patent
• European Union
• European Union law
• Euthanasia
• Evaluation
• Evaluator
• Eviction
• Evidence
• Evidence in chief
• Evidence in rebuttal
• Evidence in reply
• Evidence of character