例如背後被人打,法庭只會問你弟一時間見不見到人打你？

不太明白你的問題..

好讚成在法庭上只有對或錯. 正如 1 = 有, 0=冇. 不可以有中間.

你咁問, 係咪身同感受呢?

雖然法律話人人都平等, 但好多時都係文字/說話技巧的遊戲, 好多時係跟律師既"引導", 錯都變無事!! 最衰係作為證人/原告人或比告人都好, 都係無得主動出聲反問, 咁做只會比個官話你唔尊重法庭!

香港並沒有亦不可能有法例規定在庭上祇可說是或否，
而證人必須要回答律師�法官的問題，
假如律師問證人是或否，那證人只須要答是或否，有甚麼問題？

不知道你用那個國家的法律出發去討論，但無論是以那個國家法律出發，我仍然對你的看法感到莫名其妙。

作為一個證人，只須要將事件真相向法官�陪審團說明便已經足夠，有須要向任何人作出反問嗎？
作為被告或原告，你有絕對權利去選擇一個你信任的律師代表你去爭取最佳利益，而律師在有須要時已經代表了你去提出這些”反問”，難道你認為還不足夠？還不公平？
連自己的律師也不相信？不打緊！香港的刑事案，被告是絕對有權自己取代律師位置選擇自辨，那麼你便可以親口主動地提出你的”反問”了。

Hi, I would like to point out one thing.
If you are defandant, the plaintiff's lawyer is asking you a question, and he only asks you to answer yes or no. However, if there is a reason behind it, I believe that judge should be notified.
For example, plaintiff's lawyer asks you, and you are the defandant, " Did you cut pull him off the road? Please only answer yes or not." And of course, you would answer yes if you did, but what if there is a reason behind it? You pull him off the road because you saw a car coming. So, you pulled him off to save him, whcih caused his injury, broken bones or whatever. But of course, the plaintiff's lawyer would not give you such a chance to say it since he is only asking you to answer yes or no. Also, he is trying to make everyone to believe that you caused his injury. The lawyer is only showing part of the truth to the jury and/or the judge.

I think this is the case that suning is talking about. I believe that you can let the judge know that you would like to make a statement. That I think you can let him know why.

As a witness, your responsibility is to tell the truth. Whatever you saw. I agree. However, lawyers are not stupid, they will ask you things that they want to hear or what they want the judge or jury to hear. Like the example that I gave in the other reply. If you witnessed A pulled B off the road because a car was coming. The lawyer can ask you, " Did you see A pull B off the road." You certainly would say yes. That would be what lawyers want. Of course, I am only giving a very simple examples, it could be a lot more complicated that this.


I agree! You absolutely have the right to choose your attorney, only if you have money. Otherwise, a lawyer would be assigned to you by the court. I am sure that you know these lawyers are fresh grad. How much can you really rely on them?
Defending for oneself is a foolish action. Without knowing any laws, what are the chances that you can win the trial?

你說得很對，控方只會針對被告有沒有做而問一些有利己方的問題，目的都是要被告入罪，這是必然的，因為檢控就是檢控官的工作。

大家似乎針對檢控官只要被告答是或否，完全不理會事件背後的故事，對被告不公平；但大家似乎說少了庭上除了檢控官和法官外還有辨方律師的存在，當事件背後的故事是會影響到判決的話，辨方律師亦會引導被告說出事件以獲得公平的判決。

說到底我也是說庭上除檢控官外還有辨方律師的，雙方都只會說有利己方的說話，看最後法官�陪審團信那一方。


閣下似乎看得電視劇太多了，法援署是會按案件的嚴重性去委派不同層次的律師去處理案件，並非你說的那麼兒戲，被告甚至可以更換律師至滿意為止，那當然是法援署名單之內。

當然，多些金錢可以有較多的選擇，請更好的律師，但法援署亦有不少出色的律師呢！