❓什麼是聆訊謄本
「法庭聆訊謄本」（Transcript of Court Hearing），簡單來說就是「一份經過官方認證的文字副本」。由法庭速記員或授權的服務商，根據當日的錄音，逐字逐句轉錄成文字。包括法官的發言、律師的陳詞、證人的供詞以及被告的對答。這是案件最精準、具備法律效力的紀錄，用於上訴、法律研究或結案陳詞。在香港，謄本可透過綜合法院案件管理系統申請索取。
❓為什麼披露謄本等同藐視法庭
法律規定，當訴訟各方申請法庭聆訊的謄本時，通常必須簽署承諾書，聲明該謄本僅限用於相關法律程序（如上訴或法律諮詢），不能未經法官批准就放上社交平台或分發給公眾，否則會被視為藐視法庭，因為違反向法庭作出的承諾。
❓為什麼法律規定不能私下公開
法律規定不能隨意公開「法庭聆訊謄本」，核心原因並非要隱瞞審訊內容（因為大部分審訊是公開旁聽的），而是為了保護司法程序的公正性與嚴肅性。以下是幾個主要原因：
🌟防止對司法機構施加壓力
🌟保護私隱與敏感資料
🌟防止干擾司法程序
事緣「中科監察」主席潘焯鴻遭前助手入稟勞審追討欠薪，潘敗訴後在社交平台披露部分聆訊謄本，並形容審裁官屬「最底層」。他承認刑事及民事藐視法庭，被判囚一個月，並須支付律政司一方逾 26 萬元訟費。
參考資料: 法庭線 Link
❓ What is a Court Hearing Transcript?
A “Transcript of Court Hearing” is, simply put, an “officially certified written record.” It is transcribed word-for-word from the day’s audio recording by a court reporter or an authorized service provider. It includes the judge’s remarks, lawyers’ submissions, witness testimonies, and the defendant’s responses. This is the most accurate, legally binding record of a case, used for appeals, legal research, or closing arguments. In Hong Kong, transcripts can be applied for through the Integrated Court Case Management System.
❓ Why is Disclosing a Transcript Considered Contempt of Court?
Under the law, when parties in a lawsuit apply for a transcript, they are usually required to sign an undertaking (a formal promise). This statement declares that the transcript will be used strictly for related legal proceedings (such as an appeal or legal advice). It cannot be posted on social media or distributed to the public without a judge’s approval. Doing so is considered Contempt of Court because it breaches the promise made to the court.
❓ Why Does the Law Restrict Private Disclosure?
The core reason for restricting the disclosure of transcripts is not to hide the trial’s content (as most trials are open to the public), but to protect the integrity and solemnity of the judicial process. Key reasons include:
🌟 Preventing pressure on the judiciary
🌟 Protecting privacy and sensitive information
🌟 Preventing interference with the administration of justice
The Case:
The incident involves Jason Poon, Chairman of “China Technology Monitoring.” After losing a case at the Labour Tribunal regarding unpaid wages filed by a former assistant, Poon disclosed parts of the hearing transcript on social media and described the presiding officer as “bottom-tier.” He pleaded guilty to both criminal and civil contempt of court and was sentenced to one month in prison. He was also ordered to pay over HK$260,000 in legal costs to the Department of Justice.
Reference: The Witness HK Link