2005法律扶助國際論壇》各國報告﹝二﹞

Country Report II:
各國報告﹝二﹞

主席(法律扶助基金會，台灣)：
這第二場會議可以說是一個“Asia forum”，也就是說講者都是亞洲國家代
「亞洲論壇」﹝Asia forum﹞
表，同質性很高。現場有兩位講者來自香港特別行政區，一位來自印尼，一位來自日本。我們可以看得出來香港跟日本是國家的力量在做法律扶助，有的比較早，有的比較晚，但是印尼還是靠NGO的熱心。這很像是台灣，也不過是不久前的事情。所以剛才我特別鼓勵印尼，希望他們將來會有更好的發展，這是累積的一些經驗。各位有什麼特別的問題要提出來？

林永頌(法律扶助基金會，台灣):
我想要請教日本講者，2004年通過「綜合法律資源法」之後，會成立一個「司法資源中心」，那麼想要問的問題是，怎麼樣確保這個由國家所提供資源的單位，能夠有獨立性，確保它不會官僚化?

想要請教香港的法律援助服務局的李主席，今年香港大概是三、四月開始有一個家事法的調解計畫，現在進行的情形如何，能不能分享一下？謝謝。

Jark Pui Lee (Legal Aid Services Council, Hong Kong):
李澤培 ﹝法律援助服務局主席，香港﹞
The mediation scheme[1] started in March. It is a trial invented as an experiment to test the responses. It is confined mainly to matrimonial cases (婚姻事件), as more than 30 percent of the legal aid cases are related to matrimonial issues. If these issues could be settled out of court without reference to the Legal Aid Department’s litigation machinery, then the cost saving would be obvious. It is also proposed by people who support mediation that maybe the conclusion or settlement by mediation can be more long-lasting than a court settlement. This is the review of the proponents.
「法援婚姻訴訟個案家事調解試驗計畫[2] 」三月已經正式上路。這是一項作為實驗的創設，用來測試成效迴響。本試驗計畫最主要是針對婚姻事件，因為超過百分之三十的法律援助[3] 案件均與婚姻訴訟有關。如果這些案件能於法庭外獲得終局和解，而不需動用法律援助署的訴訟機制，則成本之撙節將大為可觀。支持調解機制者亦倡議，也許經由調解機制所得之終局結果或和解方案，比訴諸法院解決更具持久性。以下是支持者論點的回顧：

Under the scheme, a native person can apply for legal aid as usual to the Legal Aid Department, and he/she will be advised that he can choose matrimonial mediation or proceed with the normal litigation channel. If he/she chooses mediation, and if the other side to the dispute also agrees to mediation, then the matter would be referred to the Mediation Coordinator’s office in the Judiciary to assess whether the case is suitable for mediation. If it is considered to be appropriate, an accredited mediator would be provided to deal with the matter. The pilot scheme will last for one year, and is estimated to cover 120 cases. An evaluation will probably take place by 2007. By that time, we will be able to know whether or not people would welcome mediation as a means of resolving matrimonial disputes.
在此制度下，本特別行政區居民﹝native person﹞可如常申請法律援助署的法律援助，且申請者將被告知其得選擇婚姻訴訟個案家事調解機制，或以通常訴訟程序進行。如其願意試行調解機制，且婚姻事件爭端對造亦同意進行調解，則全案會轉介至司法機構的調解統籌主任辦事處﹝the Mediation Coordinator’s office in the Judiciary, MCO﹞，以評估是否適合進行調解。倘若司法機構的調解統籌主任辦事處認定某個案適合進行調解，將有一名行政當局認可的調解員開始處理此案。法援婚姻訴訟個案家事調解試驗計畫為期一年，涉及約一百二十個案例。行政當局的評估工作可能於二○○七年開始。屆時，我們將能知道香港特區居民是否歡迎調解制度作為婚姻事件爭端解決的方式。

As far as I know, there have not been too many applicants for mediation since the inception of the pilot scheme. Maybe it is not too widely known. Or maybe, as it has been suggested by some that when it comes to matters relating to emotions, that is when it involves children, there is no point to mediate. Some even suggest that people would normally talk to each other but when they come to the Legal Aid Department, they don’t want to talk any further. So there are diverse views on this issue.
現在就我所知，自從試驗計畫開始以來至今尚未有很多受助人申請調解制度。或許是因為目前此試驗計畫尚未廣為週知。也或許如有些人觀察，當事件牽涉到情感，特別是當關涉到子女時，難謂有調解協商之地。有些人甚至指出婚姻事件爭端當事人們在一般情形下願意與彼此對話，但當他們向法律援助署申請法援後，他們就不再願意交談了。所以，關於此議題確實有相當廣泛且各異的見解。

Tetsuji Morita (Japan Legal Aid Association, Japan):
森田哲治[4] ﹝法律扶助協會代表，日本﹞
The question about legal aid’s independence from the government is the most difficult question to answer for me now, because the legal aid system in Japan is in a period of reform. Originally legal aid depended on the Bar Association, as lawyers are very afraid that the government might interfere with the independence of the Bar or the activity of the lawyers. When the government gives money to an organization, it always wants to keep the organisation under control, for example through personnel or some kind of law or legal restrictions. This is very troublesome for lawyers, as we need liberty from the government, and it is one of the most important points for lawyers. The Japan Legal Aid Association has been very neutral from the government. But now that we have established the new law, as far as I understand, the organization is partly transferred to the government. So the question is very delicate, even for me, now in the middle of a period of changes. I’m sure that all lawyers in Japan are struggling with this issue and are trying to keep the independence from the government. But at this point I cannot explain further than this.
關於法律扶助制度自政府部門獨立的提問，目前對我而言是最難以回答的問題，因為現行日本的法律扶助系統正處於改革的階段。最初法律扶助制度仰賴日本弁護士連合會及各地區弁護士會﹝譯註：弁護士會相當於台灣之律師公會﹞，因為律師團體非常擔憂政府或許會干預弁護士會的獨立自主、或插手律師們的活動。當政府給予一個機構金錢補助時，政府總想將此機構納於自身實力控管之下，舉例來說，透過人員的派任、或者是某種法律或法令限制。這對於律師團體來說相當棘手麻煩，因為我們需要獨立於政府機構、可自主自決的自由，而這對律師們而言是非常重要的堅持之一。日本財團法人法律扶助協會曾是自外於政府機構的中立組織。但目前我們已經制定了新法律﹝總合法律支援法﹞，就我所知，法律扶助協會已部份移轉給政府﹝譯註：民事法律扶助業務於二○○六年十月起由日本司法支援中心接手，法律扶助協會預定於一定期間後解散﹞。所以問題非常的微妙敏感，即使是我目前的工作，現在亦在階段性改變當中。我非常確定，全日本所有的律師對這個議題現正天人交戰中，且努力嘗試保持自外於政府的獨立自主性。但是關於這點，我無法再進一步地闡明解釋。

Dunstan Mlambo (Legal Aid Board, South Africa):
鄧斯坦‧馬蘭波[5] ﹝最高法院黑人法官、法律扶助委員會董事長，南非﹞
I have two questions for our Hong Kong based colleagues. The first one relates to the Supplementary Legal Aid Scheme, which is said to be self-financing. I would like know how you raise the funds, and whether it is a sustainable system.
在下有兩個問題請教我們香港代表。第一個問題與法律援助輔助計畫有關，此特別計畫據說是自營自立。我希望知道貴方如何籌措營運基金，及其是否為一個可持續不墜的制度。

I’m intrigued by the fact that the legal aid scheme in Hong Kong is largely government funded but run by the profession. My second question is whether the fact that 70 percent of the work is assigned to private practitioners while 30 percent of the work is done by salaried lawyers, has ever created tension between members of the profession and people who run the scheme?
另外，對於香港的法律援助計畫是由政府大規模補助、卻由法律專業人才運作的事實，我感到非常有興趣。我的第二個問題是，對於法援計畫有百分之七十的工作指派給個人執業律師﹝譯註：即願意接辦法律援助工作的大律師和律師﹞，而只有百分之三十的工作由政府機關僱用律師﹝譯註：即法律援助署之署內律師﹞完成的事實，是否已造成法律專業人員與負責運行本特別計畫的負責人員間的緊張關係？

Jark Pui Lee (Legal Aid Services Council, Hong Kong):
李澤培 ﹝法律援助服務局主席，香港﹞
On the Supplementary Legal Aid Scheme[6]: the Scheme was introduced in 1984, and we started with a loan of about 128,000 US dollars from the lottery fund. The Scheme is for applicants from the middle or average class. The way it operates is that if the legal aid case is won, the plaintiff has to share damages awarded with the Scheme. As time goes by, the fund accumulated, and by now we have about 17 million Hong Kong dollars, which is equivalent to nearly 2 million US dollars. I think the first reason why the Scheme has been successful is the prudent way that the Legal Aid Department has been managing the Scheme. It tries to make sure that the cases it handles have a high probability of success. Thus the assessment of the merits of the case has become very stringent, I would think. Secondly, the Department also looks at whether it could get the damages back even if it wins the cases. As a result, the cases it handled very often tended to be situations in which the other party has been insured, and the insurance company pays back the damages. Thirdly, many of the cases relate to personal injuries, and according to experience, it looks as though the courts look at these cases quite seriously so the plaintiff would normally have a good chance of getting compensation. I would think that the reason why it is viable is because, firstly, we have a very rigid assessment of the probability of success; and secondly, you believe that there is a high probability of recovering damages. In a sense, by having these two parameters, the scope of service to the subject, so to speak, has to be narrowed.
關於法律援助輔助計畫﹝SLAS﹞：本輔助計畫於一九八四年成立施行，最初資金來源係自樂透彩券基金而來的大約美金十二萬八千元之貸款。這項特別計畫是向中產階級或一般階級等所謂「夾心階層」﹝譯註：亦即財務資力超出普通法律援助計畫經濟上限十五萬五千八百元港幣，但低於四十三萬二千九百元港幣﹞人士提供法律協助。其運作方式是若法律援助案件勝訴，則原告須將損害賠償金與本輔助特別計畫分享﹝譯註：受助人須由所得的損害賠償／補償金中撥付百分之十進入法律援助輔助計畫基金；若在委聘大律師出庭前達成和解，扣除的百分比會減少一半至百分之六﹞。隨著本法律援助輔助特別計畫實施時間日長歲久，基金日益月滋，至今已達大約一千七百萬港幣，相當於近二百萬美元。

我認為為什麼法援輔助特別計畫會成功的第一個原因是，法律援助署籌畫進行此計畫之方式相當仔細謹慎。該署試圖確認其所經手處理案件之勝訴機會具有高可能性。因此，我認為，評估每一案件是否有合理的申索或抗辯理由等法律依據，以判斷勝訴可能性，變得極為重要。其次，法律援助署也會衡量在勝訴後能否實質上獲得損害賠償／補償金的可能性﹝以判斷給予法律援助的合理性﹞。其結果常造成案件處理上，獲得輔助計畫法律援助者非常傾向在對造他方有保險、且保險公司會支付損害賠償／補償金的情形。第三，許多案件與人身傷害有關，而根據經驗顯示，似乎法院看待這類案件相當重視，因此原告一般會有好機會可獲得損害賠償／補償金。綜上所述，我會認為法律援助輔助計畫能夠自給自足生存至今，是因為第一，我們非常嚴格地評估案件的勝訴可能性；且第二，我們相信案件有極高的可能性能達至填補損失的結果。就某種意義上而言，藉由這兩個變數控制，法律援助輔助計畫提供服務予受助人的範圍，可以這麼說，已經被限縮了。

On the question of the share of work between staff lawyers in the Legal Aid Department and by the profession: in Hong Kong, any practicing solicitor or barrister may join the legal aid lawyer’s panel, and he will be entitled to perform legal aid work provided by the Legal Aid Department. Administratively, the Department does set certain standards for lawyers, for example, it expects lawyers to have 3 years of experience in the relevant field before he may be considered to be assigned a job. I think that the profession is anxious to take on legal aid cases as a means of broadening the scope of their activities. If I remember right, the general situation is that about 70 percent of the legal aid cases are assigned to lawyers in private practice with in-house staff handling about 30 percent. The respective proportion for civil cases is 66 percent and 34 percent, for criminal cases it is 78 percent and 22 percent. Unlike certain territories where the government seems to be trying to do more, we tend to prefer the private sector to do more. In Hong Kong, we try to be to have a small government, and the government’s interest is to keep the department from growing unnecessarily.
關於法律援助案件如何在法律援助署之署內律師、及私人執業之大律師和律師間分配的問題：在香港，任何執業的律師或大律師﹝譯註：律師又稱事務律師、大律師又稱訟務律師。只有訟務律師能在法庭上替當事人進行辯護或訴訟，事務律師在高等法院和終審法院沒有發言權。﹞願意接辦法律援助工作者，得加入法律援助律師名冊，即被委任得從事法律援助署提供的法律援助工作。行政上而言，法律援助署確實備有清晰的工作指引標準給法律援助律師名冊內的律師，舉例來說，該署期待律師於可能被考慮指派工作之前，在相關領域內應有三年的執業經驗。我認為律師及大律師們亟欲承擔法律援助案件，以作為擴展其業務的範圍。如果我記憶無誤，一般情形是大約百分之七十的法律援助案件指派給私人執業的律師或大律師們，而由法律援助署的署內律師處理其他百分之三十。其他案件分配之個別百分比計有：民事案件，有百分之六十六委任律師、大律師、百分之三十四由署內律師處理；刑事案件，委任律師、大律師者佔百分之七十八，署內律師處理佔百分之二十二。不像有些地區當地政府似乎試著做得更多，我們香港特區政府則傾向選擇由私部門承擔重任。在香港，我們試著作為一個小而美政府，而政府的利益即是制止部門不必要的擴增。

The other thing is of course, since the Legal Aid Services Council was set up in 1996, we think that it is one means of enhancing the independence of legal aid. There are ten members on the Board of the Legal Aid Services Council, including: the Director of Legal Aid who is an ex officio member; five laypersons like me;
two members nominated by the Law Society, Mr. Ho being one; and two members nominated by the Bar Association. These names are put forward to the government, and it would be very unusual if the government should turn down the nominations put forth by these two professional bodies. In a sense, that maintains a degree of independence in the deliberations of the Council.
當然再者，當法律援助服務局於一九九六年設立，我們認為這是增進法律援助獨立自主性的方式之一。目前法律援助服務局成員計有十名，包括：
l 法律援助服務局主席，其須不屬公職人員、大律師或律師；
l 五名如我一般行政長官認為與大律師行業或律師行業無任何關係之社會公正人士；
l 兩名成員由香港律師會﹝the Law Society﹞提名，何君堯先生即是其一；
l 兩名則由香港大律師公會﹝the Bar Association﹞提名。
﹝譯註：李主席於此或有語誤，根據香港《法律援助服務局條例》﹝第四八九章﹞第五﹝一﹞條及法律援助服務局官方網頁http://www.info.gov.hk/lasc/cmember.htm ，社會公正人士應為四名，尚有一名當然成員為法律援助署署長。﹞
提名名單交予政府單位，而政府若必須拒絕由香港律師會和大律師公會提交的人選將是極為罕見之事。就此意義來說，法律援助服務局的審議思辯流程維持了一定程度的獨立自主性。

Assigning cases to the private sector can also help to keep the Department from being looked as if it is trying to collude with another government department which might be in dispute with a citizen. Since a private lawyer is bound by his/her professional conduct and is fared up by his/her profession body, the Council has suggested, and the Department has agreed, that in certain situations cases have to be assigned to outside lawyers and staff lawyers should not handle it. Examples include cases relating to human rights or the Basic Law (the mini constitution for Hong Kong) where the government, a semi-government or a public agency is the Defendant; or in matters for judicial review. These cases have to be handled by outside lawyers. I think that is one way of keeping the system and the operation of legal aid being independent.
委派案件予私部門，也有助於防止法律援助署被認為，有可能試圖與其他和市民有爭端尚待解決的政府部門官官相護。既然個人執業律師、大律師受其律師專業倫理規範約束，且由所屬律師團體支付報酬，法律援助服務局曾建議，且已被法律援助署接受同意，亦即某些特殊案件必須特定委派給署外律師、大律師，而署內律師不應該自行處理之。所謂特殊案件舉例來說，包含與基本人權或與香港基本法﹝香港的迷你憲法﹞相關的案件，在這些案件中，﹝中華人民共和國﹞政府、﹝香港﹞特區政府或公共部門是為被告；或有關違憲審查的事件。這些案件均必須由委外律師處理。我認為這就是確保法律援助制度及運作獨立自主的方法之一。

[1]香港法援之聲nl_issue7_apr05.pdf
法援署說明http://www.lad.gov.hk/chinese/pilot/home.htm
[2]香港用語中，Scheme此名詞全部翻成「計劃」，惟台灣一般「計劃」用於動詞，名詞則以「計畫」表之，譯者幾經思量，決定捨棄香港的正式官方行文，採行台灣社會一般通行之用法。
[3]香港對於法律扶助的官方統一用語均為「法律援助」，因此關於香港部份均從之。
[4]譯名為﹝財﹞法扶基金會官方新聞稿用語http://www.laf.org.tw/tw/public/index_detial.php?H_ID=49
[5]譯名為﹝財﹞法扶基金會官方新聞稿用語http://www.laf.org.tw/tw/media/news_detail.php?LN_ID=8
[6]http://www.lad.gov.hk/pdf/ladnews27.pdf