目錄

編者簡介
譚尚渭序
編者序•Preface
使用說明
詞典正文
法諺
附錄
1．香港特別行政區政府組織圖
    圖1總架構圖
    圖2政府總部組織圖——政務司司長
    圖3政府總部組織圖——財政司司長
2．香港條例目錄
    a．按章號順序排列
    b．英漢對照排列
3．特區政府部門及首長名稱（英漢對照）
4．香港各公共機構名稱（英漢對照）
中文筆畫索引

編者序

這是一部香港用的簡明法律詞典。所列者都是有法律含義的詞 語。條件所限，每一詞語只有撮要解釋。 讀者應留意，法律文書所用詞語，其中包括在本詞典內可見的詞語，每多採其普通含義。本 詞典則只提供專注法律層面的對照及解釋。故在解讀法律文書時， 好的日用語文詞典仍是不可或缺的工具。

本詞典內所列各詞語依英文宇母順序排列。為方便檢索，對應 的中文詞語另有按筆劃順序的索引。
　

所列詞語的詞類及其適用變化均已說明。應該強調，法律界遣 詞用宇，有時只取某些詞話的某種形態。典型例子如毀壞，其英文單字無眾數，眾數的變法是意義截然不同的另一詞諳。較少為人察 覺到的例子是罪行的英文字詞，其英文動詞式犯罪乃日用詞話，並非法律術語。在一些情況裡，將某些法律詞語拆開或變化使用，雖 然在文法上未必有錯，可能導致原意盡失或含義被誤解。例如逆權 管有一詞乃由兩個英文單字組成，若在造句時間開放置，兩字可能 被誤作獨立單字解。
　

鑒於英文詞語在不同法律範疇可有不同的法律含義，而一些普 通詞語則在特定的法律範疇才有法律含義，所列詞語均註明適用範 疇。詞語有多個法律含義，每個含義分別條例。
　

所列英文詞語，不乏超過一個中文對照。然而，多款對照對專 業讀者和一般讀者都會造成無所適從的感覺。還有，遇上一個中文 對照同時匹配多個不同英文詞語，混亂更加倍增。實有必要調協統 一。故本詞典以排行最前的譯法為首選，其次及以後的作為副選。 副選均取自中、港、台參考書、詞彙集或專業詞典。臚列副選，純 為顧及現有不同譯法的譯本法律文書和法律參考書。不過，其他出 處的法律譯詞，倘屬明顯不對者，已撇除於副選之外。
　

至於首選，本詞典盡可能按下述各原則甄別。不過，應該指 出，所採用的原則容或有商榷之處。
　

鑒於這是一部法律詞典，所列詞語若有明文立法或案例賦予特 殊意義，例如兇殺、盜竊和創傷等，首選對照應反映有法律根據的 特殊意義，而不隨俗。
　

就中國語文而言，本應以大陸及台灣用法為主導。近年大陸更 出版無數專著書籍，向國內領導和人民介紹香港法制與法律，成就 非香港一般所能及。或謂此等書刊正合本詞典借鑒。然而，中、 港、台三地法制各異。台海兩岸法律內似有相近者，未必恰如香港 法律所指。例如，雖然中、港、台法律均有合約的概念，三地法律 對訂立合約、解釋合約條件和執行合約的原則並不完全一樣。難怪 中國法律稱合同者，台灣法律名為契約，而香港則各取一半得合約 此字詞。基於上述理由，除非有例外論證支持，大陸和台灣詞彙都 不作為香港首選，但常列為副選供參考。

一般而言，每門法科和每種法律程序均有其一套詞彙。在民事 訴訟，法律界說是原告告被告，在離婚案則是訴願人對與訟人，而 在嚴重刑事案件，則是被告人被控方公訴。法律界更不會混淆刑事 的罪行和民事的冤屈。詞彙亦隨時間轉變。在僱傭法，老闆過去是 主人，其下食祿者是僕人。今日則以僱主與僱員分別稱之。雖然這 些歧異大多是緣於歷史，這些歧異不期反映功能上的分辨作用。所 以，原則上，應在譯詞方面保存這些歧異。
　

由於同一意義可透過各式詞語表達，各自工作的譯者就同一原 文絕少做出同樣成果。而且，將譯作倒譯，往往難以返璞歸真。香 港實施雙語法制所需，詞語可能幾回反覆翻譯，而詞語的意義經常 至關重要，至佳莫如屢試不爽和照本還原的翻譯效果。例如普通侵 犯、侵犯、毆打和傷人等字詞，有必要精確分別對照。為此，本詞 典所列每一詞語，盡可能各有獨特的首選譯詞。對照選配得通行接 受，則任何譯者憑譯文譯詞，可檢出原文原本詞語無誤，反之亦 然。為方便讀者對恍異同，所列每條之相近及類同詞語，在條內一 併列出。
　

許多時，某一詞類的英文詞語，不請是否經過變化，可作另一 詞類同義運用。例如衡平法不得自駁這字詞，常作不得的動詞式 用。更多時，詞語配合其他字詞組成新的詞語。倘在替基本詞語選 配譯詞時不顧慮周詳，將該譯詞隨原文演變運用便有困難。另一複 雜之處，是法律詞語與普通詞語重疊混淆，例如殺人與兇殺。這些 難題不能全部靠語文輔助配件如加搭通用動詞或修飾詞解決。即使 可以，譯作應兼具的典雅及劃一品質可能受損。本詞典力求首選譯 詞均可拓展或套裝應付語文靈活運用所需。
　

即使已盡力而為，本詞典當必有遺漏或謬誤。謹此懇請讀者不 吝指正。如有需要，請用本詞典壓底的通訊便箋。
　

(註 : 將編者序文照錄於此的目的是使大家了解作者在寫作上的理念及抱負,亦可見他對推動法律中文普及化的使命感)

Preface

This is a concise English Chinese law dictionary for use In Hong Kong.  The selected terms and expressions are listed for their usage in legal context.  Due to a number of constraints, the explanation given for the meaning of each listed term or expression is necessarily brief.  Readers are reminded that there are terms and expressions, including ones listed in this work, used in legal texts for their ordinary meaning.  This work gives the meaning and rendering in the legal sense only.  A good ordinary dictionary is still an indispensable tool for proper understanding of legal texts.
　

The listed terms and expressions are arranged in English alphabetical order.  For cross reference, an index of equivalent terms and expressions in Chinese is provided.
　

The part of speech and in appropriate cases the inflections pertaining to each listed term or expression is given.  It is important to note that some terms and expressions are customarily used in a legal context by lawyers in a particular manner or form only.  A classic example is the word damage, the plural damages means something like compensation, not multiple damage.  Another less obvious example Is the word offence which lawyers use as a noun to mean crime; whilst the derivative verb form offend is often used In ordinary parlance like offend the law, lawyers hardly ever employ that verb In legalese.  In some cases, it may not be wrong, but there is a serious risk that the legal meaning assigned to a term or expression in a legal context may be lost or misunderstood when it is employed in an inflective form or with modification like ordinary words and expressions. For instance, lawyers would say that“Mr A has had adverse possession of Whlteacre for 2O years”.  If a layman puts in a home made defence‘I have possessed Whiteacre adversely for 20 years”,  or“I am adverse possessing Whiteacre”,  the defence may not be readily appreciated by a judge or opposing counsel.
　

The field or fields of law in which each listed term or expression is used is also indicated because in some instances, the same term or expression carries different legal meanings when used in another field of law.  Typical examples are words like condition prosecution and service.   In some other cases,  a term or expression is generally used even in legal contexts in its ordinary meaning but it acquires a legalistic connotation used in a peculiar field of law.   Words like consideration, petition and waste are cases in point.  Where a term or expression carries more than one meaning in the same field, e.g. assignment, it is accorded separate listings.
　

For each listed term and expression one or more equivalent Chinese terms or expressions are given.  However, multiplicity of renderings confuses specialist as well as general readers‘The confusion is compounded by the same rendering in Chinese being used for different terms and expressions in English.  Uniformity or consistency is clearly desirable.  The translation put in the first place of each entry is the recommended rendering.  Secondary and other renderings that follow regarded as alternatives are taken from translated reference books,  glossaries and dictionaries published in Hong Kong, mainland China and Taiwan.  They are given to assist understanding of translated texts containing them.  In fact, some renderings found in these sources are not shown as alternatives because they appear to be far from being accurate.

In arriving at the recommended translation, the following principles, probably still not entirely satisfactory, have been followed as far as practicable.
　

Since this is a law dictionary, where a term or expression has a special meaning assigned by statute or case law, such as murder, theft, and wound,  the recommended translation should reflect that special meaning even though it may seem inconsistent with common usage.
　

As far as Chinese language is concerned, it may be tempting to look to mainland China or Taiwan for guidance.  In recent years, numerous scholarly books have been published in mainland China introducing and explaining the Hong Kong legal system and Hong Kong laws to the readers and people of modern China in a way that few in Hong Kong have been able to.  These Chinese publications may be thought of as a rich source of inspiration for this work. However, mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong have different legal systems‘What seems to be similiar under Chinese law on either side of the Taiwan Straits may not be the exact equivalent for Hong Kong law.  For example, although mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong laws all recognize contracts, the principles for the making, interpretation and enforcement of contracts in each of the three jurisdictions are not the same.  It is no accident that the term for contract under PRC law is different from that under Taiwan law and a version in use for Hong Kong is similar to and distinguishable from both.  For this reason, terminology for mainland China or Taiwan legal application although often given as alternatives, are not recommended for Hong Kong except in exceptionally justified cases.
　

In general, each field of law and procedure has its distinct set of terminology.  In a civil action, lawyers would say a plaintiff sues a defendant, whereas in a divorce suit it is a petitioner against a respondent, and in a serious criminal case the accused is indicted by the prosecution.  Lawyers also distinguish between an offence which is criminal and a wrong which is civil. Terminology may evolve with time.  In labour law, the boss used to be called master and those under his employ servants; nowadays they are called employer and employees respectively.  Although the origin of most of these differences is historical, the differences may reflect functional distinctions.  Accordingly, as a matter of principle, the differences are preserved by distinctive renderings into Chinese.
　

Because a meaning may be represented by an assortment of terms and expressions, translators working independently on the same original text almost never produce identical results.  Moreover, rendering a text in the target language back to the source language often produces something far from the original.  For the purposes of bilingual legal use in Hong Kong, where terms and expressions may be translated back and forth, and the meaning of terms or expressions is often critical, mirror image consistency in translation and reversibility to original tenor at all times is most desirable.  For example, terms like common assault, assault, battery and wounding must be represented with clarity and distinction.  In the premises, a unique translation is recommended for each listed term and expression so that,  if the translation is universally accepted, any translator working on a rendering in the target language should be able to relate back to the same matching original term or expression and vice versa.   By way of contrast and for ease of reference,  similar or cognate terms and expressions are shown in each entry.

In many cases, a legal term or expression in English in one part of speech is, with or without inflection used in another part of speech.  For example, the word estoppel is often used in the verb form estop.  In yet even more cases, a term or expression may be combined with other words to form a new term or expression.  If the translation for the basic form is not chosen with sufficient care, it becomes very difficult to adapt it for extended use.  A further  complication is confusion of terms having special legal meaning with words having ordinary meaning;  e.g.  homicide, murder,  This problem may not always be overcome by drafting into service linguistic aids such as a universal verb do, make or modifiers.  Even if that is possible, elegance or consistency may be sacrificed.  This work prefers a recommended translation that may be developed into a family of modified forms.
　

Despite conscientious efforts, there must be errors and omissions in this work.  Readers are invited to pass comments and criticisms to the editors.  A proforma for the purpose may be found at the end of this work.
　

(Note : The reason for reproducing the preface to the book here is to show you the author's aspiration to and his sense of mission in promoting the use of Chinese language in law)