前特首曾蔭權被控行政長官接受利益案，法官陳慶偉昨日頒布判詞時斥責，曾蔭權於審訊後期，邀請多名前同事到庭聽審。前律政司長黃仁龍今日發表聲明，指他到庭非由公關安排，是他完全出於希望給予曾蔭權和他太太鼓勵，及精神上的支持。
其他報道：官斥曾蔭權邀名人聽審 陶傑稱日後仍會去：八卦、學英文吖嘛
黃仁龍就曾蔭權案判決的第39段指：「整個第二次審訊期間，特別是尾段，被告的前同事，如……前律政司司長……在不同日子被公關公司或顧問帶進法庭坐在專用地區，和陶傑先生的情况類似，不容置疑其目的在於通告和影響陪審團去視被告為好人和有社會不同光譜人士的支持。」黃仁龍指，就他本人而言，以上段落所言，不符事實。
黃仁龍指，自己曾於2017年10月26日到庭一次，這是他本人自發的決定，又指他和曾蔭權於2005年到2012年7年間在政府共事，作為被告的前同事和朋友，他到庭完全出於希望給予曾蔭權和他太太鼓勵和精神上的支持。
黃仁龍指，基於同樣理由，他於2017年1月曾蔭權第一次審訊期間，到庭去給他支持。第一次審訊時，黃亦寫信給法庭就被告良好品格提供資料，有關信件的內容，已廣泛被傳媒報導。
黃仁龍指出，於2017年10月26日，他並非如判決所指，被公關公司或顧問帶進法庭坐在專用地區。在該天早上開庭前，他在法庭外先和曾蔭權和他家人稍聚，然後他和曾蔭權家人一同進入法院，坐於專用地區。黃表示，他知道跟第一次審訊的安排一樣，在專用地區已預留了座位給曾蔭權的家人及朋友。黃仁龍強調，他兩次到庭皆非由任何公關公司或顧問安排。
以下為黃仁龍的英文版本﹕
- In response to press inquiries regarding the Decision of the Hon Andrew Chan J in HCCC 484/2015 on Tsang Yam-kuen, Donald (“the Decision”), Mr. Wong Yan Lung SC wishes to state the following﹕
- Paragraph 39 of the Decision reads: “Throughout the second trial, especially towards the end, former colleagues of the Defendant, for example, … former Secretary for Justice, … were taken into court on different days by the public relations firm or consultant sitting at the exclusive area, similar to Mr. To Kit’s situation. The objective was undoubtedly to inform and impress upon the jury that the Defendant was a good person and had support from people across the whole spectrum of the society.”
- This paragraph is factually inaccurate as it relates to me.
- During the second trial of the Defendant, I attended court once on 26 October 2017. I went on my own initiative as a former colleague and personal friend of the Defendant, having worked with him in Government for 7 years between 2005 and 2012. I went simply to give encouragement and moral support to the Defendant and his wife.
- For the same reason I also attended court during the Defendant’s first trial in January 2017. During the first trial, I had written to the court providing character reference for the Defendant. The details of my character reference letter have been widely reported in the press.
- Contrary to what is suggested in the Decision, on 26 October 2017, I was not taken into court by any public relations firm or consultant to sit at the exclusive area. On that morning before the hearing began, I met briefly with the Defendant and his family outside court, and I subsequently went into the courtroom together with the family members to sit in the exclusive area. I knew seats had been reserved for family and friends, as was the arrangement in the first trial. Neither of my two court attendances was arranged by any public relations firm or consultant.
其他報道：【立會補選】入境消防工會發信籲投票 揀真誠為港、理性務實候選人