Borrison/hk-legicost huggingface dataset:
如果是這樣推論的話，則香港的司法管轄區是否根據這項條文，某程度上是隸屬於內地的司法管轄區呢？
The two jurisdictions are not subordinated to each other and they have no fundamental connection at all . Based on this inference is the jurisdiction of Hong Kong subordinated to the jurisdiction of the Mainland according to this provision?
有些人認為當然是，因為《中華人民共和國憲法》在香港實施。
Some people will of course think so as they think the Constitution of the Peoples Republic of China is implemented in Hong Kong
對此，我們當然不會接受，亦不會在現階段討論，究竟《憲法》是否在香港全面實施？
Of course we do not accept this and we will not discuss this issue at the present stage as to whether the Constitution should be fully implemented in Hong Kong
當然，我們同意，《中華 人民共和國基本法》第三十一條所訂明的"一國兩制"或"港人治港"、"高度自治"，《基本法》都是由《憲法》衍生出來的。
Certainly we agree that the stipulations under Article 31 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of The Peoples Republic of China Basic Law One Country Two Systems or Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy as well as the Basic Law itself are derived from the Constitution
因此，我們希望局方在未來撰寫《逃犯令》或任何與其他國家簽署的移交逃犯命令時不要再加入此條款。
Therefore we hope that the Administration should not include this provision in the drafting of the Fugitive Offenders France Order or any other fugitive orders to be concluded with other countries in future
因為此條款內容空泛，而且在現階段寫入條文亦極為草率，也罔顧香港作為獨立司法管轄區應有的實際情況。
It is because the provision is too vague and it is too hasty to include the provision in the Bill . The Administration has taken no heed to the actual situation of Hong Kong as an independent jurisdiction
我想局長澄清何謂香港的實際情況。
I would like the Secretary to clarify what the actual circumstances in Hong Kong are
我希望局長澄清的用意，是因為委員會中有很多不同的正、反意見，包括我的憂慮，亦代表了很多民主派......
I asked the Secretary for clarification because there are many different positive or negative opinions in the committee including my own concern which is representative of many from the democratic camp
代理主席，我相信對法律稍有認識的人也知道，一旦程序不正確，無論最終的決定或結果如何，也必定會被公眾質疑。
Deputy President I believe people who have small knowledge of the law should know that improper procedures will definitely be subject to public suspicion no matter what the final decision or outcome of an incident is
我們要求她交代她處理UGL一案時，為何沒有謹守全個法律界也應知道的程序公義。
We question her why in the handling of the UGL case she did not adhere to procedural justice something that is well understood by the entire legal profession
一直以來，律政司不時會外聘大律師提供所需要的法律服務，例如給予法律意見或擔任香港政府的法律代表，參與刑事及民事訴訟。
The Department of Justice DoJ has the practice of engaging outside counsel to provide the required legal services such as to provide legal advice or act as the legal representative of the Government in criminal or civil litigation
第三，基於案件涉及律政司人員而須尋求法律意見或進行法律程序。第四，在處理有關案件時的連貫性 問題及減少開支的需要。第五，為求審慎起見，認為適宜尋求獨立外間大律師提供法律意見及服務，以免可能予人有偏頗的觀感和出現利益衝突的問題。
According to the Secretary for Justice at that time DoJ generally may brief out cases in six situations first there is a need for expert assistance where the requisite skill is not available in DoJ; second there is no suitable in - house counsel to appear in court for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; third there is a need for advice or proceedings involving members of DoJ; fourth there is a need for continuity and economy; fifth for the sake of prudence it is deemed appropriate to obtain independent outside counsels advice or services to address possible perception of bias or issues of conflict of interests; and sixth the size complexity quantum and length of a case so dictate
第六，基於案件的大小、複雜程度、申索金額和所需時間而認為有需要把案件外判。針對上述的第五種情況，律政司在去年2月的立法會司法及法律事務委員會，就其將刑事及民事案件的外判政策所提交的文件作出更詳細闡釋。
DoJ further elaborated on the fifth situation above in the Administrations paper on the briefing out of criminal and civil cases by DoJ for the meeting of our Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services in February last year
文件有兩點值得大家注意，第一，關於具爭議性的案件的處理方式，律政司表示，大部分的刑事檢控工作，包括具爭議性的案件均由律政司內的檢控人員處理，但律政司有需要把具爭議性的案件外判，以尋求專家的協助，或就其因避免予人有偏頗感覺或有利益衝突的問題，並會視乎案件的敏感度來決定是否尋求外間資深大律師的意見。
Two points are worth our attention . First regarding the handling of controversial cases DoJ advises that the majority of the prosecutions including controversial cases are conducted by in - house staff of DoJ . However there is a need for briefing out the prosecution of some controversial cases where expert assistance is needed or to avoid perception of bias or address issues of conflict of interests
第一，在2003年，前財政司司長梁錦松在加稅前偷步買車，律政司在聲明中表示，由於所涉的法律複雜性，以及公眾對這宗案件的關注，最終律政司諮詢香港和英國私人執業大律師的意見，然後決定放棄起訴。
The first case took place in 2003 involving the former Financial Secretary Mr Antony LEUNG who jumped the gun in purchasing a car shortly before a tax increase . DoJ said in a statement that in view of the complexity of the points of law involved and the level of public concern on the case DoJ had sought advice from counsel in private practice in Hong Kong and England before it came to the decision that no prosecution should be brought against Mr LEUNG
大家也清楚這宗案件，當時的解釋亦非常詳盡，並且提到在尋求香港和英國的獨立大律師意見後，律政司才決定放棄起訴。
We all know this case . DoJ made a full and detailed explanation; and before it made the decision of not instituting prosecution DoJ had sought independent advice from private members of the Bar of Hong Kong and England
第二，在2006年，前高等法院法官王見秋被指不當地向政府申請發放假期津貼一事，律政司的聲明表示，刑事檢控專員考慮到案件的敏感性，證據的性質及公眾本身對案件的關注程度，決定委聘一位倫敦的御用大律師考慮該案的指稱及證據，最後決定不予檢控。
Second in 2006 former High Court Judge Mr Michael WONG was accused of alleged impropriety in connection with his applications to the Government for reimbursement of Leave Passage Allowance . DoJ said in a statement that in view of the sensitivity of the case the nature of the evidence and the level of public concern the Director of Public Prosecutions DPP decided to instruct a Queens Counsel in London to consider the allegations and the evidence and made the decision of not instituting prosecution in the end
第三，在2012年，前政務司司長因沒有申報收受新鴻基集團的利益，時任律政司司長未決定起訴前，也曾發聲明表明，一般而言，如案件性質敏感，將檢控決定交由刑事檢控專員尋求獨立大律師意見，或兩者並行，都是可以考慮及曾經採用的處理方法。
Third in 2012 former Chief Secretary for Administration did not declare his acceptance of an advantage from Sun Hung Kai Properties Limited . Before the Secretary for Justice at that time decided to take prosecution action he had issued a statement saying that in general if there were sensitivities with regard to a particular case delegating the prosecution decision to DPP or seeking independent advice from outside counsel or both were options available for consideration; and these options had been adopted in past cases
及後，律政司向立法會財務委員會申請額外撥款，以增加人手處理許仕仁一案時表明，曾經就個案尋求外間御用大律師意見。
Later at a Finance Committee meeting of the Legislative Council in which DoJ submitted a funding proposal for additional staffing to handle the case on Mr Rafael HUI the DoJ representative said that advice had been sought from outside counsel on the case
這是第三個例子。
This is the third example
如果說前政務司司長被起訴貪腐時也要尋求外間法律意見，為甚麼今次的案件卻不需要？
If DoJ has sought outside legal advice on the case of the former Chief Secretary for Administration for the charge of corruption why it is unnecessary to do so for the present case?
第五個例子發生在2015年，前行政長官曾蔭權涉嫌干犯公職人員行為失當罪，律政司亦委託不只1位而是數位海外御用大律師，取得獨立法律意見，最後決定起訴。
The fifth example took place in 2015 . The former Chief Executive Mr Donald TSANG allegedly committed the offence of misconduct in public office and DoJ also engaged the services of not just one but several overseas Queens Counsel for independent legal advice . DoJ finally decided to bring prosecution against Mr TSANG
如果5宗先例都不夠，我再多舉1宗。
If these five precedents are still insufficient I can cite one more
第六個例子，前廉政專員湯顯明涉嫌用公帑購買茅台烈酒，亦承認在多次公務酬酢中用烈酒款待客人。
The sixth example is Mr Timothy TONG the former Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption ICAC who allegedly purchased Maotai a kind of hard liquor with public money and admitted using hard liquor to serve guests in several official entertainments
這是所有香港人都認為非常敏感、公眾關注的案件，司長對大家說這不是政治敏感、沒甚麼特別的一宗案件，會有人相信她下的這個決定嗎？
Actually is this her apparent lack of political sensitivity? . All Hong Kong people find the case very sensitive . It is of a high level of public concern
同樣重要的是，這宗案件包含不少複雜、重大和涉及憲法的法律問題。
Will anyone find her decision convincing? . Equally important is that this case involves quite many complex and major points of law that are constitution - related
例如《基本法》第四十七條第二款規定行政長官就任時，應該向終審法院申報財產，記錄在案。
For instance Article 472 of the Basic Law provides that the Chief Executive on assuming office shall declare his or her assets to the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal and the declaration shall be put on record
如果就任的行政長官在上任前已經簽訂一些商業協議並衍生利益，或在擔任行政長官期間收受利益，究竟這位行政長官是否需要申報呢？
Is the Chief Executive required to declare any commercial contracts he has entered into before he assumes office and any interests generated therefrom as well as advantages he has accepted during his office?
我相信資深大律師不單要熟悉刑事案件的法案及案例，同時亦要非常認識香港本身的憲法基礎，以及當時訂立《基本法》的歷史、法律原則及法理基礎。
I believe the Senior Counsel concerned has to be very familiar with criminal laws and criminal cases; also they have to know by heart the constitutional foundation of Hong Kong as well as the history about the enactment of the Basic Law and its legal principles and basis
如果司長認為自己這麼了不起，連憲法、刑事法以至她本身從事的仲裁、民事訴訟都如此優秀，可以一人獨力承擔的話，我會讚賞她。
If the Secretary for Justice thinks that she is invincible and is an expert in the Constitution and criminal laws apart from her specialty in arbitration and civil laws and that she can shoulder all responsibility alone I would have to commend her
然而，如果她對我或法律界人士或香港人說，她可以獨自作出如此重大、複雜的決定，不需要委託外間資深大律師處理這宗個案的話，我認為她本身是在做夢。
However if she says to me or members of the legal profession or Hong Kong people that she can make this important and complex decision alone without the need of instructing an outside Senior Counsel to handle the case I think she is dreaming
說回今次處理UGL案件的決定，不得不提的是最近發現的一個問題，現任刑事檢控專員遲遲未獲得行政長官確任，即確認出任刑事檢控專員。
Let us come back to the decision on the handling of the UGL case . I must mention a new problem that has recently sprung up . The Chief Executive has delayed confirming the substantive appointment of the incumbent DPP
為何如此重要的人事任命，政府可以無須解釋，在毫無原 因之下任意拖延，拖延了整整一年才有一個這樣的決定呢？
It is an important appointment . Why did the Government not provide any reasons for the long delay in the formal appointment and why did it stall the appointment at will for a year before making the final decision?
為何問題出現了之後，政府才有決定？
Why does the Government always come to a decision only after a problem has sprung up?
我相信其他同事都會問這個問題，司長是要回答的。
I believe other colleagues will also ask this question and the Secretary has to answer it
代理主席，首先，我感謝郭榮鏗議員提出這項議案，繼續跟進UGL案。
Deputy President first of all I am grateful to Mr Dennis KWOK for proposing this motion to press on with the UGL case
大家都知道，根據《基本法》，律政司司長的刑事檢控工作不受干預，但不受干預是否等於我們不能夠對司長的任何決定提出問題，或要求司長作進一步解釋呢？
As we all know under the Basic Law criminal prosecution work of the Secretary for Justice is free from interference but does it mean that we are not allowed to raise any question about the Secretarys decisions or to demand his or her further explanation?
相關的聲明最少都有五六頁。
The statement concerned consisted of five to six pages at least
第一，提到梁振英案時，律政司指"所有證據顯示，作為收購安排的一部分，戴德梁行知悉梁振英與UGL簽訂協議並接受UGL的款項以'不作競爭、不作挖角'。
First in respect of the case of LEUNG Chun - ying the Department of Justice DoJ stated that the totality of the evidence is that as part of the arrangement of the takeover DTZ had knowledge of Mr LEUNG entering into agreement with and accepting money from UGL for Mr LEUNGs non - compete non - poach arrangements and this is the finding of DoJ
《防止賄賂條例》其中一個重要概念，就是要得到主事人的批准，才可以接受涉及其公司業務的利益。
One important concept enshrined in the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance is that permission from ones principal is the necessary prerequisite for accepting any advantage relating to the business of the company
那麼，知悉究竟是否等於批准呢？
This being the case does knowledge amount to permission then?
第二個疑點是，律政司指戴德梁行知悉梁振英簽訂了該項協議和接受款項，但款項的金額是多少呢？
Then comes the second doubtful point . DoJ asserted that DTZ had knowledge of LEUNG Chung - ying entering into that agreement and accepting money but what was the amount?
當然不是了。因為，該協議白紙黑字寫明，他是需要擔任UGL和戴德梁行日後的顧問和推薦人，並推廣這個集團。
Of course not because it has been put in black and white on the agreement that he is required to act as an adviser and referee of UGL and DTZ in the future and to promote that group
那麼，這項服務條款是否等於"不作競爭、不作挖角"呢？
So is this term of service equivalent to the non - compete non - poach arrangements?
在提到第二項針對梁振英的指控，即"公職人員行為失當"時，律政司說："由於梁振英沒有利益衝突，因此沒有法律規定需要申報他在成為行政長官之前，與UGL簽訂協議而會獲得款項的金額"。
In mentioning the second allegation against LEUNG Chun - ying that is misconduct in public office DoJ said since there is no conflict of interest on the part of Mr LEUNG there was no legal requirement for him to make declaration of the amount that he was to receive under the agreement with UGL entered into before he became the Chief Executive
這段結論也很奇怪，"故此，沒有足夠證據證明這種不當行為嚴重至足以構成公職人員行為失當罪"。
The concluding sentence of this paragraph also sounds strange There is insufficient evidence to prove that such misconduct was serious enough to establish the offence of MIPO
面對眾多質疑，司長如何處理呢？
Confronted with numerous queries what did the Secretary do to deal with it?
接着再問的是："梁錦松案、曾蔭權案、湯顯明案，律政司均曾外聘大律師，索取獨立意見，認為這宗UGL案應否外聘大律師，再決定是否檢控呢？
Following that respondents were further asked whether they thought DoJ should have engaged outside counsel for this UGL case before deciding whether to institute prosecution as it had sought independent legal advice from outside counsel for the cases of Antony LEUNG Donald TSANG and Timothy TONG
再下來的問題是："律政司司長不檢控梁振英的決定，會否影響市民對法治的信心？
Subsequent to that question respondents were asked whether the Secretary for Justices decision of not prosecuting LEUNG Chun - ying would affect peoples confidence in the rule of law
是否針對梁振英案而改呢？
Was the change made for LEUNG Chun - yings sake?
鄭若驊，現在市民大眾認為，梁振英是前任特首，是國家領導人，而司長是中華人民共和國香港特別行政區這個地方政府負責檢控的首長。
Is it right? . Teresa CHENG this is the view members of the public now hold LEUNG Chun - ying is the former Chief Executive and a state leader whereas the Secretary for Justice is the head responsible for prosecutions in the local government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China
代理主席，今次這宗案件正在損害香港市民對法治的信心，也正在損害香港市民對香港廉潔情況的信心。
Deputy President this very case is undermining Hong Kong peoples confidence in the rule of law and dampening their confidence in Hong Kongs probity situation
鄭若驊作為律政司司長，用 一個異於常人的理解、異於律政司一貫做法的方式來處理梁振英這宗案件，嚴重損害香港的法治。
Teresa CHENG the Secretary for Justice has interpreted and handled the case of LEUNG Chun - ying in a way different from our common understanding and DoJs established practice . The rule of law in Hong Kong is thus seriously undermined
她是香港法治的罪人，我認為她欠缺公信力繼續擔任律政司司長一職。
She is the culprit of the rule of law in Hong Kong . To me she no longer has the credibility to stay in her position as the Secretary for Justice . I so submit
主席，相信張國鈞議員應該明白為何我很多時也希望在較後階段發言。
President I am sure Mr CHEUNG Kwok - kwan will come to understand why I always try to speak at the later stage during a debate
無論是1997年之前或之後，在香港還是其他國家，古往今來，這方面的獨立性均非常完整地保留下來。
Both before and after 1997 and in Hong Kong and other countries independence in this regard has always been preserved intact through the ages
屆時，有些人便會說那些證據足以證明疑犯有罪，而該名疑犯會覺得為人不齒。
Then some might say that that was proof enough of guilt and the suspect would find himself condemned by public censure
在我們 的法律制度下，法庭是唯一可以決定某人是有罪或無辜的正確地方。在法庭上，被告有權根據刑事審判規則接受公平的審判，並有機為自己辯據。
Sir in our legal system the only proper place for questions of guilt or innocence of crime to be determined is in a court where the accused has the right to a fair trial in accordance with the rules of criminal justice and the opportunity to defend himself
因此，各位議員當會明瞭，律政司在決定事件無須在法庭上提審後，便不應在公眾場合發表任何可能會表示有人曾相信疑犯有罪、或者會導致公眾人士對這一點有所爭論的說話。
So Members will readily appreciate that it would be quite wrong for any Attorney General having decided that the issue should not proceed to trial in the courts to say anything in public that might be taken to indicate a belief in the suspects guilt or which might lead to a public discussion of that very question
" 這個智慧恐怕在其後很多其他案件中均受到挑戰，特別是很多人記得的胡仙案。
This wisdom has been challenged in many other subsequent cases especially the Sally AW case which many of us still remember
時任律政司司長梁愛詩除了指出證據不足之外，還指稱這關乎公眾利益，因大老闆胡仙一旦罪成，將影響很多人的工作，結果引來輿論譁然。
Apart from pointing out that there was insufficient evidence the then Secretary for Justice Elsie LEUNG also argued that the case involved an issue of public interest because the conviction of Sally AW a big boss would affect the jobs of many people . Such remarks have caused a huge public uproar in the media
但是，在此之前，另一個比較鮮為人知和較少被提及的先例，正是我剛才所說的案例，因當時的律政司破了先例，首次在立法機關就不作檢控的決定作出詳細解釋。
However the case I cited just now was in fact another precedent case before the Sally AW case although that case is less known and mentioned . It should be noted that the then Attorney General has set a precedent in that case by giving a detailed explanation in the legislature for the first time of a decision not to institute prosecution
這個先例究竟是好是壞呢？
Is this a good or a bad precedent?
但是，總的來說，不應該隨便要求解釋是我們理論上應遵守的一條界線。
However generally speaking we should not ask for an explanation lightly and this is a line in theory that we should not overstep
其實，這是因為當時在出現岑國社案後，需要就最新情況及相關案例的處理作出詳盡的介紹。
Actually following the case of SHUM Kwok - sher it had become necessary to give a detailed account about the latest situation and the handling of related cases
所以，該17頁的聲明是用以解釋此問題，而並非單單回應是否作出檢控的事宜，大家須留意此一背景。
Therefore apart from the 17 - page statement served to explain the issues involved instead of merely giving a response to the question of whether prosecution should be instituted we should take into account the background concerned
主席，我剛才已解釋了一般而言不應多說的理由，亦已提出了一些特別情況。
President I have already explained just now the general reasons for avoiding saying too much and have also elaborated on some exceptional cases
至於較多人討論的第6d項，則涉及一些適宜外判的情況，指出在某些情況下適宜尋求外間律師的意見，以免一方面造成偏袒的觀感，另一方面出現利益衝突。
With regard to the much - discussed 6d it involves some circumstances which are deemed appropriate to brief out and point out that under certain circumstances it is appropriate to obtain external legal advice so as to address possible perception of bias on the one hand while avoid issues of conflict of interests on the other
不過，這實在有些困難，因為出現偏袒觀感的個案可能未必是律政司司長經常提及的一些案例，而且偏袒觀感可能屬政治問題多於法律問題。
Nevertheless this is difficult indeed because cases with possible perception of bias may not necessarily be those frequently cited by the Secretary for Justice and the perception of bias may be more of a political question than a legal one
所以，就此方面，即使我不會參與表決，也是完全反對的。
Hence in this connection although I will not participate in the voting on this motion I still have to express my total opposition
她是否打算違背她對市民的諾言呢？
Does she intend to renege on the pledge she made to the public?
便乾脆開宗明義、開門見山提出，即簡單交代2012年5月的檢討委員會報告的考慮以貪污為重，目前的條例已能夠處理這些問題，至於這個範圍以外的政治問題根本已超越該檢討委員會的權力，所以，對不起，愛莫能助。
The political issues beyond this scope are basically outside IRCs terms of reference . So sorry to disappoint you but nothing can be done
主席，我們民建聯認同需要修訂法例，讓第3及8條可適用於行政長官，亦希望政府盡快落實檢討委員會提出的建議，但前提是，必須解決該些建議當中所要面對的憲制和法律問題。
President the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong DAB concurs that it is necessary to amend the legislation to make sections 3 and 8 applicable to the Chief Executive and we also hope that the Government will implement the recommendations proposed by IRC provided that the constitutional and legal issues involved in those recommendations are resolved
例如，第3條屬於上司規管下屬的條文，在《基本法》下，特首確實是一區 之首，經上司批准收取利益的情況並不存在。
For example section 3 is a provision subjecting subordinates to the regulation of their superiors . Under the Basic Law the Chief Executive is without doubt the head of the region and the circumstances where there is a superior to give permission to him or her for accepting advantages just does not exist
但是，檢討委員會的建議是希望能夠設立一個獨立委員會，可以提供許可予行政長官索取或接受任何利益。
That said the relevant recommendation made by IRC seeks to set up an independent committee to give permission to the Chief Executive for soliciting and accepting advantages
就此，由於檢討委員會並沒有交代有關的法律基礎，我想問究竟這個獨立委員會有何憲制地位？
In this connection as IRC has not explained the relevant legal basis may I ask what constitutional status this independent committee has?
它是依據《基本法》哪一項條文，變成行政長官的上司或老闆，可以給予許可？
Pursuant to which article of the Basic Law does it become the superior or the boss of the Chief Executive such that it can give permission to the Chief Executive?
剛才聽了政務司司長的答覆，我其實想提出一個基本問題，就是公務員根據現行的《防止賄賂條例》規定，未經許可而索取或接受任何利益，即屬犯罪；提供利益的相關人士也要負上相關的刑事責任。
Having listened to the reply by the Chief Secretary for Administration I actually wish to ask a fundamental question . Under the existing POBO a civil servant who without permission solicits or accepts any advantage is guilty of an offence; the relevant person who offers the advantage is also subject to the relevant criminal liability
主席，我們當然明白，很多時候，作為一個地方的首長，包括我們從前習慣了的皇室或代表皇室的港督，都有超然地位，但始終仍有法律依據處理有關問題。
President we do understand that very often the heads of states including the royal family or its representative the Governor of Hong Kong once familiar to us all have a transcendent status but there is always a legal basis to deal with the issue in question
根據《基本法》第七十三條第五項及第十項動議的議案。
Motion under Article 735 and 10 of the Basic Law
主席，反對派炒作UGL事件已經接近4年。
President the opposition has been hyping up the UGL incident for almost four years
經過長時間的調查，律政司司長早前就UGL事件發表公開聲明，有理有據地指出，並無足夠證據對前行政長官梁振英提出檢控。
After a lengthy investigation the Secretary for Justice recently made a public statement on the UGL incident justifiably pointing out that there was not enough evidence to prosecute the former Chief Executive LEUNG Chun - ying
鄭若驊司長的回應亦明確指出，有否涉及利益衝突，是律政司會不會尋求獨立法律意見的唯一標準。
Secretary Teresa CHENGs response also made it clear that whether there was a conflict of interest is the only criterion based on which the Department of Justice DoJ seeks independent legal advice
法治是香港的核心價值，也是社會的寶貴財富。
The rule of law is a core value of Hong Kong and a valuable asset to society
既然鄭若驊司長已經清楚解釋不就UGL事件向梁振英檢控的法律理據，我認為外界實在不應該再炒作有關議題，繼續將事情政治化。
Since Secretary Teresa CHENG has clearly explained the legal justification for not prosecuting Mr LEUNG Chun - ying over the UGL incident I hold that outsiders should no longer hype up the issue and politicize the matter
我們身為立法會議員，更不應該因為梁振英的身份和背景，而戴着有色眼鏡來看這件事。
It is even more improper for us as Legislative Council Members to view this matter through black - tinted glasses on the basis of Mr LEUNG Chun - yings status and background
事實上，律政司刑事檢控科每年處理超過1,000宗案件，是否提出檢控，基本上由律政司自行決定。
In fact the Prosecutions Division of DoJ handles more than 1 000 cases per year and it is basically up to the Secretary for Justice to decide whether or not to prosecute
對於這個一貫的做法，反對派一直沒有意見。
All along the opposition has had nothing against this established practice
為何偏偏就着這件事，卻有一些社會人士，甚至有法律背景的專業人士高調對律政司窮追猛打，要求律政司外判給獨立法律顧問處理？
Why are some members of the community and even professionals with a legal background in hot pursuit behind DoJ over this very case urging DoJ to brief it out to an independent legal adviser?
答案其實十分簡單，便是因為案件涉及他們多年來針對的人士。
The answer is very simple indeed . It is because the case involves a person they have been picking on for years
更值得關注的是，一些所謂學者和法律界人士高舉專業的旗幟，以社會公義為名，公然向律政司司長施加政治壓力，企圖影響其專業判斷和獨立裁決。
What is more noteworthy is that while holding high the banner of professionalism and in the name of social justice some so - called scholars and members of the legal profession blatantly exert political pressure on the Secretary for Justice in an attempt to influence her professional judgment and independent decision
他們不斷在國際社會中傷香港，聲稱香港"法治已死"、"一國兩制"名存實亡，我覺得這才是對香港法治的嚴重破壞。
They constantly vilify Hong Kong in the international community claiming that Hong Kongs rule of law is dead and one country two systems exists in name only . I think this is what really brings serious damage to the rule of law in Hong Kong
是否應就UGL事件向前特首提出檢控，是律政司的專業判斷，是否應就個別案件尋求外聘律師提供獨立法律意見，也是律政司的專業判斷。
It is a matter of professional judgment by the Secretary for Justice as to whether prosecution should be initiated against the former Chief Executive over the UGL incident and it is also a matter of professional judgment by the Secretary for Justice as to whether independent legal advice should be sought from outside counsel for individual cases
當然，每一位律政司司長也有不同的專業判斷和決定。
Of course every Secretary for Justice has different professional judgments and decisions