8.18未经批准集结案进入求情阶段，被告之一吴霭仪今早决定解雇原本代表她的资深大状何沛谦及其律师团队，亲自陈情。结语引用英国守护法律的天主教圣人Thomas More的遗言稍作修改，自言：“ I stand the law's good servant but the people's first. For the law must serve the people, not the people the law.”吴霭仪完成陈词后，旁听席上掌声雷动，良久不息。
吴霭仪在犯人栏内站立，亲自陈情，回顾自己的生平。她自言最初不是受司法训练，而是父母的宽容下，在香港和波士顿修读哲学，追求真理及减轻人类苦痛之法。其后她于1981年赴英国剑桥大学修读法律，当时正值中英谈判移交香港主权。吴扬言她的一代人一直尝试保存香港既有的自由和生活方式，又因认为香港亟需拥有自由稳健的媒体，她在获得律师资格后没有即时执业，而是先为明报担任编辑工作。
法治需要聆听批评尽量纠正不足
吴在1995年成功当选立法会议员，多年来投身于推动司法教育、改革司法制度和服务。吴强调，公众对法律专业的信心非常重要，虽然其工作强调耐性，“但当司法的核心价值受挑战，就需要强而有力的表态”。吴忆述1999年人大首次就“吴嘉玲案”释法，她与600多名法律界人士发起静默游行，坚定表达对终审法院裁决的支持，稳守法律界的士气。
吴自言在任议员期间，曾参与过百个条例草案委员会。吴指作为大律师，她最清楚条例能否在法庭中实行，需要确保市民的权利不会在立法过程被牺牲。吴亦引述前任美国最高法院大法官Anthony Kennedy在1999年来港的发言，强调司法独立的重要性，若司法管辖权不足，公众和法律界就应争取持续拓展，其目的是为保护人类的自由和尊严。
吴指法律关乎良好管治，藉保护公众的权利，令人信任政府，民选代表则须持续挺身而出。吴指大众为何要尊重法律，可以有很多答案；她认为如果法治是最接近公义的制度，便可争取人民尊重，这意味需要聆听批评，尽量纠正不足。她强调，法律不是完美。
称立法会内说出漂亮言词并不足够还要投身社会
本案争议点之一是《公安条例》的合法性，吴重提2000年她在立法会时已指出过条例中长期困扰法律界的内容，促请政府检讨，以免市民拒绝守法。当时会上有人谈及公民抗命，保安局局长质疑是“威胁”；吴当时已忠告政府不应排除异见，否则会创造出令公民抗命不可避免的条件。
吴指表达和集会自由是最宝贵的自由，尊重此权利是法治重要元素。吴自言不只在立法会和法庭捍卫自由，并认为单在立法会内说出漂亮言词并不足够，还要投身社会当中。当人民集体表达愤怒，她选择与人民同行，否则她的承诺便属只说不做。
她提到前年6月9日和12日，有一百万、二百万人上街，仍然维持完全和平，赢得世界赞叹。本案8.18集会游行，据指有170万人，但不论有多少人，市民在大雨中坚忍地参与，克制地展示强烈心声，完全和平进行。
吴表示不能离弃群众，必须站在一起。她引述美国法官Anthony Kennedy所言，律师要向诉讼人谈理据、向社会谈公义、向权力谈真理。她强调法律应该服务人民，她亦为身为大律师而自豪。
吴最后总结，英国哲学家、守护法律的天主教圣人Thomas More不肯按国王意旨扭曲法律，因而被判叛国罪成处死，其遗言被广为流传：“I die the king's faithful servant, but God's first.”吴借用来稍作修改：“ I stand the law's good servant but the people's first. For the law must serve the people, not the people the law.（我是法律的忠仆，但更首要是人民的忠仆；因为法律必须服务人民，而非人民服务法律。）”
吴霭仪陈情原文：
Your honour,
I am grateful to your honor for allowing me to make this statement about my background and the personal conviction I have held in what I did.
I was called to the Bar in1988, but my early training was not in law. I had indulgent parents who allowed me to spend10 years in the university in Hong Kong and then in Boston to study Philosophy. There I learned about rigorous intellectual honesty in the pursuit of truth and alleviation of the suffering of mankind.
It was a sharp change for me to switch to Law in1981 when I went to Cambridge to read for a Law degree. Those were the crucial years of SinoBritish negotiations over the future of Hong Kong. My generation were embroiled in finding a way to preserve Hong Kong's freedoms and original way of life after the change of sovereignty. This was so important to all of us that, after I was called to the Bar, I did not immediately start to practice, but took up an editorial post in the Ming Pao Daily News, because I accepted that it was critical to Hong Kong's future to have a strong free press, and at that stage I had some standing as a political commentator.
I resumed my legal career in1990, but in1995 I was persuaded to stand for election in the legal functional constituency. Your honour, the legal profession, steeped in the common law tradition of civil liberty, did not believe in unequal elections, but they considered that so long as there was such a seat, they would not allow anyone to compromise the rule of law in their name. So I was elected as their representative to hold that office in trust for the people of Hong Kong, to use it to uphold the system under which their rights and freedoms are protected by law. I was charged with a dual mission: to do my utmost to prevent legislation that would harm the rule of law, and to safeguard the institutions that underpin the rule of law. At the top of the list was judicial independence, and the administration of justice.
Those were the tasks to which I had voluntarily pledged to carry out.
It meant, first of all, working conscientiously in LegCo's committees.
I served in LegCo for18 years(including the year from July1997 to August1998 when I was without a seat), and for17 of those years I sat as Chairman of the Panel of Administration of Justice and Legal Services which had oversight of policies concerning the Judiciary, judicial provisions and establishment, including the allocation of land and costs for court buildings, legal policies, legal aid, the organisation of the legal profession, legal services, and legal education. Numerous issues were brought up, discussed and resolved.
Some of the work required search for novel dispute resolution. At the height of the heated dispute within the profession over higher rights of audience for solicitors, I put the matter before the Chief Justice and respectfully asked him to intervene so that the matter may be resolved, and seen by all to be resolved, on the public interest and not by unseemly turf fight. It was vital for the rule of law that the public continued to have confidence in the legal profession.
The expansion of legal aid's supplementary scheme, assistance for unrepresented litigants, more user-friendly and helpful free community legal advice were among other examples for which extra effort had to be made to find solutions. Often there were setbacks. In2002, when Audrey Eu SC was also in LegCo, we worked in partnership with NGOs on a proposal for a community legal services centre, to give people timely and useful legal advice. Although it was rejected by the government at the time, in due course the idea bore fruit elsewhere.
I had found that, frequently, tact, diligence and patience were what was needed. But at other times, when a fundamental value was violated, strong statements and response were required. In June1999, in the wake of the Court of Final Appeal's landmark decision on the right of abode in Ng Ka Ling, the NPCSC issued its first interpretation of the Basic Law to overturn the court's decision. This shook the world's faith in the power of final adjudication of the court. In protest, on30 June, I and over600 members of the legal profession went on a silent march, and stood in quiet respect and in solidarity in front of the CFA building then on Battery Path, to mark our unswerving support for the court in that critical hour, so that the community may not be demoralized.
Your honour, the task in the defence of the rule of law also meant commitment to the process of law-making. I devoted a great deal of my time to vetting bills. It is recorded that I had worked in155 bills committees. It is vital to the rule of law that the laws passed by the legislature are sound, rights-based, and measure up to the highest standards. For, judges are bound to apply the law as it is not as what they would wish it to be. Lawyers are in a better position than most to know how a piece of legislation would work- or would not work- when it comes to be tested in the courts. In this I worked closely with the profession to whom I will always be grateful. We did our best to see to it that rights were not inadvertently or unnecessarily compromised. The law should give protection to rights, not take them away, especially in Hong Kong, where structural democracy is still absent. The people relied on the law to protect them, and the courts are the ultimate arbiter of the law. We are mindful that when the court applies a law which takes away fundamental rights, the confidence in the courts and judicial independence is shaken, even though the fault lies in the law, not with the judge who applies it, and that would strike at the foundation of our rule of law.
Your honour, the importance of that duty was driven home to me by the words of a distinguished judge- Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy of the United States Supreme Court as he then was- when he came to Hong Kong at the invitation of the then Chief Justice Andrew Li to give a speech to the Judiciary and the legal profession on8 February,1999. He was deeply moved by the challenges lying ahead of us, and the important role of an independent Judiciary. He submitted:"One requisite for judicial independence is that judges have the jurisdiction, the right, and the official capacity to decide all matters, susceptible to judicial resolution, that are necessary to ensure liberty and human freedom. If a judiciary does not have jurisdiction to this extent, then the members of the bar and the members of the larger society must continue to press to expand the jurisdiction. This is vital, because if the bar and the society seem indifferent to a too-narrow judicial charter, there is a risk that the judiciary will in fact or perception aid and abet a larger scheme to deprive persons of their liberty."
Those were strong words, your honour, but I recognized their authority, and I had ever taken them as marking the ultimate loyalty a barrister owes to judicial independence. Your honour knows that there is no disrespect, to say that the defence of judicial independence is not for the benefit of judges themselves, but so that they can be in a position fearlessly to uphold the rule of law.
The defence of the rule of law is a two-way street. I believed that the representative of the legal profession in LegCo has a duty also to listen, to consult and explain the law to the community: to alert people to their rights and obligations, to clarify what is obscure, to reduce bewilderment, to invite them to voice their concerns and point out errors, to address those concerns with sincerity, and represent them forcefully to the government, and where their needs cannot be addressed through the law, to work with them towards other solutions.
One of the ways for me to keep in touch with the public was by writing articles to the local press, in plain language accessible to the general reader. For everyone ought to understand the law under which he lives. Throughout those years, and even up to now, I have never abandoned that exercise. Less frequently, I publish academic articles and contributions to academic forums, particularly on matters in need of law reform.
Your honour, working with the government in LegCo had impressed upon me, that the rule of law is not just about the law, but equally about governance. For laws are made for the"peace, order and good governance of Hong Kong". Laws that protect rights tend to win the people's trust in their government, and trust facilitates good governance. So elected representatives have the duty to speak up to the government of the day: to advise and counsel, to admonish and to warn, constantly: do our laws take rights seriously? The law is not perfect and lawyers know more than anyone else how imperfect the law is. So why should people respect and obey the law? There are, of course, many answers, but the answer I gave myself is this: we can ask people to obey the law if it is the best approximation to justice. Which implies that we are duty bound to listen to criticisms of the law, and make sincere efforts to make the law better, and correct mistakes as much as possible. Justice is the soul of the law without which the rule of law descends to the level of rule by force, even if it is force by majority.
In the course of this trial, your honour's attention was drawn to a debate on the POO in LegCo on21 December2000. In that debate, I pointed out the defects existing in its provisions. They were defects which had long troubled the legal profession. I warned the government that we must seriously consider reform if we were to avoid the law being disobeyed in desperation. Someone in a panel discussion had raised the issue of civil disobedience and the Secretary for Security had called it a threat. But it need not be taken as a threat, but should act as warning or reminder. I urged the government not to shut out rational discussion for reform, because by its recalcitrance, the government was in danger of creating the very conditions which made civil disobedience inevitable and justifiable: something which none of us wished to see.
Those years in LegCo had repercussions for me for life because, your honour, defending the rule of law means we ourselves must take rights seriously, and that is a lifelong endeavour.
There is no right so precious to the people of Hong Kong as the freedom of expression and the freedom of peaceful assembly. Not only is the freedom to speak the truth the core of human dignity, it is also the last safety valve in a democratic society, as remarked by our illustrious judges repeatedly. Respecting those rights is also part and parcel of defending the rule of law.
I had learned that the rule of law not only has to be defended in court, or in LegCo, but also in the streets and in the community. Your honour, I had spoken countless times in LegCo. But I also realize that it is not good enough for me to make speeches in beautiful words and measured dignity in the precincts of the Legislative Council, shielded by the privilege of absolute freedom of speech and debate, and immunity from legal action. When the people, in the last resort, had to give collective expression to their anguish and urge the government to respond, protected only by their expectation that the government will respect their rights, I must be prepared to stand with them, stand by them and stand up for them. Otherwise, all my pledges and promises would be just empty words.
Your honour, the Hong Kong people is a peace-loving and well-disciplined people. Their resolute self-restraint even in highly emotional situations has been proved time and again. In the critical hours of the handover between30 June and1 July1997, the great event passed without a hitch. In the march of half a million on1 July2003, not a single pane of glass was broken. Even in2019, when over1 million marched on9 June, and over2 million marched on16 June. The peace and good order of the massive crowds astonished and won the admiration of the world.
And in the incident of the present trial, this was demonstrated again. By the estimation of the organizers, over1.7 million participated in the day's event. But whatever the exact figure, the huge and dense crowds in and around the venue, the resolute patience with which the crowds waited in the pouring rain, were captured in undisputed footages preserved for all posterity. The number and the perseverance spoke volumes for the intensity of the feelings in the community, and yet the self-restraint was for all to see. It is not disputed even by the prosecution that the event was entirely peaceful and orderly, without any untoward event. The crowd had kept faith with the organizers who enjoined them to be"peaceful, rational and non-violent". At such times we cannot be seen to abandon the people but must stand side by side with them, in the hope that peace may prevail.
The positive effect of the peacefulness of that demonstration was acknowledged by the CE, Mrs Carrie Lam2 days later, remarking that it would facilitate dialogue between government and the public. In the event, the dialogue on that occasion did not continue for long, but it was a step in the right direction. I believe we should nurture hope, and continue, as Justice Kennedy urged upon the legal profession gathered together in that distinguished company: You must speak reason to your litigants. You must speak justice to society. You must speak truth to power.
Your honour, I came late to the law. I have grown old in the service of the rule of law. I understand Sir Thomas More is the patron saint of the legal profession. He was tried for treason because he would not bend the law to the King's will. His famous last words were well authenticated. I beg to slightly adapt and adopt them: I stand the law's good servant but the people's first. For the law must serve the people, not the people the law.
Your honour, please permit me to thank my counsel. Their tireless dedication and excellence have made me proud to be a member of the Bar.
This is my statement. Thank you, your honour.
Dated the16th Day of April,2021
（以下为本报记者所翻译之陈词中文版本）
法官阁下，感谢您让我就我的个人背景与信念作出陈词。
我在1988年取得大律师资格，但我早期接受的培训无关法律。我宽容的父母，容让我在香港及波士顿的大学花了十年，修读哲学，了解追求真理和减轻人类苦难的知识。
1981年，我毅然转往法律范畴，前往剑桥读攻读法律学位。那是正值中英就香港前途谈判的关键时期。我们这一代人亟欲寻找一种方法，能在主权移交后维持香港的自由和原本生活方式。这对我们所有人都非常重要，以至于当我取得大律师资格后，我并没有立即开始执业，而是到《明报》担任编辑岗位。因为我认为新闻自由对香港的未来至关重要，而且那时我在政治评论方面已有一定地位。
我在1990年恢复了我的法律事业。但是，1995年，我被说服参加法律界别选举。法官阁下，法律专业人员深深浸淫于普通法的公民自由传统，不相信不平等的选举；但是他们认为，只要一日有这样的席位，他们一日都不会允许任何人以他们之名损害法治。因此，我被选为他们的代表，为港人担此重任，以维护港人权利与自由受到法律保护的体制。我承担着双重使命：竭尽所能阻止损害法治的法例，并且守护支撑法治的制度。排在首位的，是司法独立和司法公正。
这些是我自愿承诺履行的职务。
首先，这意味着要在立法会的委员会中勤恳工作。
我在立法会任职18年，包括1997年7月至1998年8月我没有席位的那一年。其中17年我担任司法及法律事务委员会主席，监督司法机构、司法规定和编制的相关政策，包括为法院大楼分配土地和费用、法律政策、法律援助，法律专业组织、法律服务和法律教育。会上提出、讨论和解决了许多问题。
有些工作需要寻求新颖的解决方法。例如在事务律师争取较高级法院出庭发言权的激烈争端中，我将此事呈交给首席法官，并恭请他介入，以便解决问题，并让所有人看见问题解决，是为了公众利益而非不恰当的势力斗争。如此可让公众继续对法律界充满信心，而这对法治至关重要。
其他例子还包括扩展法律援助计划、为无律师代表的诉讼人提供援助、更加人性化和有用的免费社区法律咨询等，这些方面都需要付出额外的努力以寻找解决方案。惟不时也会遇上挫折。2002年，当资深大律师余若薇也在立法会内，我们与非政府组织合作，提出建立社区法律服务中心，以便为人们提供及时且有用的法律咨询服务。尽管当时政府拒绝了，但这个想法在其他地方结出硕果。
我发现我们时常都需要机智、勤奋和耐心。但有些时候，当一个核心价值被侵犯，就需要强而有力的声明与回应。1999年6月，针对终审法院就吴嘉玲居留权案作出里程碑裁决后，全国人大常委会首次对《基本法》进行释法，推翻法院的裁决。这动摇了世界对法院终审判决权的信念。为了抗议，我和600多位法律专业人士于6月30日默默游行，并在当时位于炮台里的终审法院大楼前团结肃立，以表示我们在关键时刻对法院的坚定支持，令社会不致灰心丧气。
法官阁下，捍卫法治，也意味着对立法过程的委身。我花了很多时间审查草案。据记录，我曾在155个法案委员会工作过。立法机关通过的法律健全、权利为本，并且达到最高标准，对法治至关重要。因为，法官必须根据法律判案，而非随意而为。与大多数人相比，律师处于较有利位置，能了解一项法例在法庭上受到考验时，将会如何起作用、或者，不起作用。在这方面，我与专业人士紧密合作。我们竭尽所能，确保权利不会被无意或不必要地损害。法律应该保护权利，而不是剥夺权利，尤其是仍然缺乏民主体制的香港。人民依靠法律保护他们，而法院是法律的最终仲裁者。我们谨记，当法院执行剥夺基本权利的法律时，即使问题来自于法律本身而非实施该法律的法官，对法院和司法独立的信心也会动摇，从而打击法治的基础。
法官阁下，我对于上述职责重要性的觉悟，来自一位杰出的法官、时任美国最高法院大法官安东尼·肯尼迪（Anthony Kennedy）的话。他应时任首席法官李国能的邀请来港，于1999年2月8日向司法机构和法律界发表演讲。他对我们面临的挑战以及独立司法机构的重要作用深为感动。他提出：“司法独立的一个必要条件是，法官必须具有司法管辖权、权利和官方职能，决定所有容易受到司法影响、确保自由和人身自由所必需的事项。假如司法机关欠缺如此程度的管辖权，大律师与社会大众必须持续敦促当局扩大相关管辖范围。这是至关重要的。若果大律师和社会大众对过于狭窄的司法特权漠不关心，便会出现危机，司法机关会令人觉得或者事实上成为剥夺人身自由的帮凶。”
法官阁下，这是重话，但我承认其权威，我甚至把它们视之为大律师应该给予司法独立的最高忠诚。当我表明捍卫司法独立不是为了法官本身利益、而是使他们能够无所畏惧地维护法治，法官阁下应知我无意冒犯。
捍卫法治是一条双程路。我相信立法会的法律专业代表也有责任听取意见、向社会咨询和解释法律：提醒人们其权利和义务、澄清晦涩之处、减少困惑、邀请大众表达他们的关注并指出错误、以真诚的方式解决问题、强而有力地代表他们面对政府，并在法律无法解决他们的需求下，与他们一起寻求其他解决方案。
我与公众保持联系的其中一种方式，是以通俗易懂的寻常语言，在本地媒体为普罗大众撰写文章。每个人都应该了解他赖以生存的法律。过去数年直到现在，我从未放弃过这种做法。我有时也会发表学术文章和贡献学术论坛，特别是在需要法律改革的问题上。
法官阁下，在立法会与政府的合作，给我留下深刻的印象，明白法治不仅与法律有关，同样与管治有关。制定法律是为了“香港的和平、秩序和善治”。保护权利的法律，往往会赢得人民对其政府的信任，而信任有助于良好的管治。因此，代议士有责任向当今政府表达意见，不断提供咨询、建议、告诫和警告：我们的法律是否认真对待权利？法律并不完美，律师比其他任何人都知道法律有多不完善。那为何人们要尊重并遵守法律？当然，这问题可以有很多答案，但是我给自己的答案是：如果这是最接近公义的法律，我们可以要求人们服从。这意味着我们有责任听取对法律的批评，作出真诚的努力，使法律变得更好，并竭尽所能纠正错误。公义是法律的灵魂，没有公义，法治只会沦落到暴力管治的水平。
在这次审判过程中，2000年12月21日在立法会举行关于《公安条例》的辩论，引起法官阁下的注意。在那次辩论中，我指出条文中存在的缺陷。这些缺陷长期困扰法律界。我曾警告政府，如果我们要避免法律在绝望中遭到违反，就必须认真考虑改革。小组讨论中，有人提出了公民抗命的议题，保安局局长称之为威胁。不过，这不必视作威胁，而应作为警告或提醒。我敦促政府不要拒绝对改革进行理性讨论，因为若政府不肯进行改革，有可能创造出特殊条件，令公民抗命变得合理和不可避免，如此并非我们所乐见。
立法会的那些年对我的人生影响深远，因为，法官阁下，捍卫法治意味我们自己必须认真对待权利，而这将是毕生的课业。
言论自由与和平集会自由对香港人来说是最宝贵的权利。正如我们杰出的法官们一再指出，说出真相的自由不仅是人类尊严的核心，也是民主社会的最后一个安全阀。尊重这些权利也是捍卫法治的重要一环。
我了解到，法治不仅要在法院或立法会中得到捍卫，也必须在街头和社区中得到捍卫。法官阁下，尽管我在立法会上发言无数次，但是我也意识到，在绝对的言论和辩论自由、以及免于面对法律诉讼的特权庇护下，在立法会庄严环境内以优美的言语发表演讲，并不足够。当人民在不得已的情况下，不得不集体表达他们的痛苦，并且敦促政府作出回应，惟他们的保障却只得对政府会尊重他们权利的期望，我必须随时与他们站在一起、与他们站在一起，并为他们站起来。否则，我所有的承诺将只是空话。
法官阁下，香港人爱好和平、纪律严明。即使情绪高涨，他们坚毅的自我约束也一次又一次得到证明。在1997年6月30日至7月1日主权交接的关键时刻，这一重大事件顺利进行。在2003年7月1日的50万游行中，没有一块玻璃被打破。即使在2019年，6月9日有超过100万人游行，6月16日游行人数更超过200万。群众的和平与井然秩序，震惊了世界，亦赢得了世界的钦佩。
同样，透过今次审判所涉的事件，再次得到印证。根据组织者估计，当天有超过170万人参加了该次活动。但是，无论确实数字如何，场地内外巨大而密集的人群、在倾盆大雨中坚决耐心等待的人群，都被保留在后世也无可争议的镜头之中。无论情感多强烈，众人的自我约束仍是有目共睹。即使控方也没有争议，该事件是完全和平有序的，没有任何不幸事件发生。群众与组织者坚持信念，要求“和平，理性和非暴力”。在这样的时刻，我们不能抛弃人民，而是必须与人民并肩站在一起，希望和平能够占上风。
行政长官林郑月娥于活动后两天也承认和平示威的积极作用，表示这将促进政府与公众之间的对话。虽然对话最终没有持续很长时间，但这仍是朝着正确方向迈出的一步。我相信，我们应该培养希望并继续下去，正如大法官肯尼迪呼吁法律专业那样：“您必须对诉讼人谈理由、对社会说正义、对权力讲真话。”
法官阁下，我是法律界的后进，惟随着我为法治服务，我变老了。我知道托马斯·莫尔爵士（Sir Thomas More）是法律界的守护圣人。他不愿违反法律以遵守国王的意愿，因叛国罪而受审。他著名的遗言得到了充分的验证。我恳求稍加修改并采用：“我是法律的忠仆，但更首要是人民的忠仆；因为法律必须服务人民，而非人民服务法律。”
法官阁下，请容我向代表我的律师团队致谢。他们努力不懈和表现卓越，使我因身为大律师一员而感到自豪。
这是我的陈词。谢谢法官阁下。
