人大釋法

去年人大釋法，沒有提及追溯力。其實，有關追溯力的問題是法院在判決「梁游」案時確定的。

人大釋法一定有追溯力，道理很簡單：

(a) 例如，今年1月發生了一單案件 ...
(b) 法院3月有了判決，之後上訴 ...
(c) 終審法院7月尋求釋法 ...
(d) 人大常委會於9月釋法。
(e) 終審法院之後根據(9月)釋法作出判決(1月發生的案件)。

難道釋法只影響將來發生的案件。若是，終審法院尋求釋法，與本身正在審判中的案件有何關係？因此，釋法必然有追溯力。

上訴庭："《釋法》解釋《基本法》第104條從起初的真正意思，其生效日期為1997年7月1日，故適用於所有案件，《基本法》第158(3)條所訂明不適用的情況除外。《釋法》對香港法院具有約束力。《基本法》並無賦予本港法院司法管轄權去處理《釋法》乃是實質上企圖修改《基本法》故並無約束力的論點，無論如何，上訴人並無提供任何證據基礎以支持該論點。"
...

for example, in common law jurisdiction, A has committed an offence in January. The court passes judgment in August, giving its views and interpretation of the law. In this case, no one will say that A didn't know of this interpretation and therefore A should not be responsible for the crime committed in January. so, it's a matter of trust.

when we say, the court does interpret the law in common law jurisdiction, it means that the court does add its own views to the law; otherwise, it will simply recite the law word for word, and that won't be interpretation. under such circumstances, we won't say the court has amended the law by adding things to it. again, it's a matter of trust.