“Since June 2019, Hong Kong has experienced serious social unrests and public disorders marked by protests, escalating violence, vandalisms and arsons across the territory. It is a dire situation that has not been seen in the last 50 years.”
那自是五十年未有之變局，識者皆知！然而，上訴庭往後說的竟是「有鑑於此，特首會同行政會議即根據《緊急情況規例法例》...」彷彿將歷史背景簡易化成政權反撲的天經地義，我殊不以為然，然後上訴庭更強調，特區新朝理應繼承殖民前朝的憲政秩序，名之曰 continuity! 那是毫無歷史意識的時光停滯論，不只ahistorical，更是unhistorical，沒有考慮過去二十三年來政治人心的變化，須知憲政秩序是永恆的一株活樹（A Living Tree)，安得朽木不雕？
然而，達明一派意難平，不在此而在彼，我最看不過眼的卻是上訴庭對法治（Rule of Law) 的公然誤解曲解！判辭第226 段竟謂：
“It is necessary to stress that the maintenance of rule of law in Hong Kong should be the duty of all citizens...”
錯錯錯！市民有否duty to obey the law 跟「法治」是兩回事！「法治」翻自Rule of Law，可卻從來不是一個語意辨析的遊戲，Rule of Law 其實是英倫普通法的至高無上理想，法律的、政治的、道德的！我們老早服膺A.V. Dicey在The Law of the Constitution 中的永恆說法：
“That they rule of law’ then, which firms a fundamental principle of the constitution, has three meanings, or may be regarded from three different points of view.
It means...the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power...
It means, again, equality before the law...
The ‘rule of law’, lastly...are not the source but the consequence of the rights of individuals...”