十三歲的皇家海軍學院學生Ronnie Winslow （Guy Edwards 扮演） 被告偷了五先令的匯票。在沒有內部的詢問調查，沒有聯係和通知他的家庭，並且也沒有給予代言人的權利，就控告當時隻有十三歲的Ronnie有罪。學院要求他的父親 Arthur Winslow （Nigel Hawthorne 扮演）為Ronnie辦理退學手續，這在當時是對開除學籍的委婉說法。在女兒Catherine（Rebecca Pidgeon扮演）和他的朋友兼家庭律師Desmond Curry （Colin Stinton扮演） 的幫助下， Arthur Winslow 決定為了Ronnie的名譽而戰。他們提出了標題為“Let right be done”的權利請願書（Petition of right）。然而，這並非小事。根據不列顛法律，海軍部的決定即是政府的官方正式決定。若沒有首席檢察官（Attorney General)的同意，是不可以向政府的決定提出控告, 即 One cannot sue the Crown。
Winslow 一家成功地找到當時在英國有資格出席高等法庭並辯護的律師（Barrister) Robert Morton 爵士（Jeremy Northam扮演）。Sir Robert Morton同時也是反對黨的英下議院議員。出乎Catherine的意外，Sir Robert不但沒有拒絕這個案子或當它是個政治遊戲，事實上他是非常慎重地接過案子的委托。經過一連串扣人心弦的詢問（cross-examination），他相信Ronnie是無辜的。
起初，政府是堅決地不讓法庭受理這個案子。在Winslow一家和Sir Robert的努力下， 以及公眾充滿了對Winslow一家的同情，在此種情況下，政府讓步了，允許這個案子進入法庭審理。在法庭上，那些所謂的證據禁不起詢問，海軍部撤回起訴，Ronnie被宣判無罪，他是無辜的。
雖然在法律上Winslow一家贏了，可是所付的代價相當大。由於過度的疲勞，使父親Arthur的身體狀況惡化。因為經濟原因，哥哥Dickie 不得不中斷了在牛津大學的學業，早早進入社會工作。姐姐Catherine的婚事也因為這個案子告吹。Winslow一家原本快樂幸福也不同程度地受到影響。
Sir Robert 因為不願放棄這個案子而拒絕了對他Lord Chief Justice的任命。
影片中有些非常精彩的片段。
當Arthur看了學校給他的信並知道兒子Ronnie的事後， 在書房中二人的對話,充滿了父與子信任與坦陳的感情。
Arthur: Come over here. Why aren’t you in uniform?
Ronnie: It’s got wet.
Arthur: How did it get wet?
Ronnie: I was out in the garden in the rain.
Arthur: Why?
Ronnie: I was hiding.
Arthur: From me? Do you remember once you promised me if you got into trouble of any sort…you’d come to me first?
Ronnie: Yes, Father.
Arthur: Why didn’t you now? Why did you hide in the garden?
Ronnie: I don’t know.
Arthur: Are you so frightened of me?
Ronnie: …
Arthur: It says in this letter that you stole a postal order.
Ronnie: But I…
Arthur: No. I don’t want you to say a word until you’ve heard what I have to say first. If you did it, you must tell me. I shan’t be angry with you provided you tell me the truth. But if you tell me a lie, I shall know it…because a lie between you and me cannot be hidden. I shall know it. So remember that before you speak. Did you steal this postal order?
Ronnie: No, Father, I didn’t.
Arthur: Did you steal this postal order?
Ronnie: No, Father, I didn’t.
Arthur: Go on back to bed.
Sir Robert在英國國會下院的充滿激情的演說， 期間他引用了聖經的話，最終使得Winslow 的案子能在法庭上公開審理。
反對派: ..laughable, pure histrionic hyperbole. Was the right honorable and learned gentleman opposite…to calumny the admiralty? For a child, gentlemen. For a child. A guilty child. Can we not, I do beseech you make an end? One cannot sue the Crown. Justice has been done to the tenth decimal point. And it is time to lay aside nursery gossip and to proceed with the business of government… And I believe I can state with certainty that the mood of this House is sure, correct and supportive of the admiralty on behalf of which and on behalf of those it is sworn to guard. I thank you for your patience. I thank you for your time.
…
Sir Robert: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Point of order.
反對派: I am on my feet. Does this escape you?
Sir Robert: Point of order, I said.
反對派: I am on my feet.
法官: Gentlemen! There is a motion on the floor…
Sir Robert: Point of order, I must insist.
反對派: Upon what grounds?
Sir Robert: Sit down and I’ll tell you. Sit down!
反對派: Very well, make your old speech.
Sir Robert: Thank you. I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to read into the record two items. First item, popular song of the day: “How Still We See Thee Lie” or “The Naughty Cadet.” “How dare you sully Nelson’s name who for this land did die. Oh, naughty cadet, for shame, for shame. How still we see thee lie.” They suggest…They suggest our concern for the boy might perhaps tarnish the reputation of Lord Nelson.
反對派: You said two items.
Sir Robert: The other one is this. The other one is this. It’s from a slightly older source. It is this: ”You shall not side with the great against the powerless.”
反對派: Mr. Speaker, point of order!
Sir Robert: I’m on my feet.
法官: Will you yield?
Sir Robert: I will not yield, Mr. Speaker! ”You shall not side with the great against the powerless.” Have you heard those words, gentlemen? Do you recognize their source? From that same source I add this injunction. It is this: “What you do to the least of them, you do to me.”
當整個社會對上帝都充滿敬畏時，這樣的句子”You shall not side with the great against the powerless.” 才會讓不可訴訟的皇冠讓步。真象Sir Robert所說的那樣 “Easy to do justice, very hard to do right”.
“What you do to the least of them, you do to me.” 出自於《馬太福音》25章35-40節。
Matthew 25:35-40
For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
影片是根據一個真實的故事（George Archer-Shee事件）改編的，並且，這個案例開創了不列顛法律上的先例。
Petition of right （From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia）
In English law, a petition of right was a remedy available to subjects to recover property from the Crown.
Before the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, the British Crown could not be sued in contract. However, as it was seen to be desirable that Crown contractors could obtain redress, lest they be inhibited from taking on such work, the petition of right came to be used in such situations, especially after the Petitions of Right Act 1860 simplified the process. Before the petition could be heard by the courts, it had to be endorsed with the words fiat justitia on the advice of the Home Secretary and Attorney-General. This Latin phrase was normally translated as "Let right be done".
One of the most famous causes célèbres in English law, the Archer-Shee case, arose out of proceedings on a petition of right.Section 1 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 allows claims for which a petition would previously have been demanded to be brought in the courts directly as against any other defendant. However, a petition and fiat still appear to be necessary for personal claims against the monarch.
/>
請閱讀更多我的博客文章>>>
