數表Back
如果10分代表目前既司法制度絕對公平,0分代表司法制度絕對不公平,5分代表一半半,你會比幾多分目前既司法制度? (半年結)
If you were to use 0-10 to evaluate the fairness of the judicial system in Hong Kong, with 10 indicating absolutely fair, 0 indicating absolutely unfair, and 5 indicating half-half, how would you rate the present judicial system? (half-yearly average)
調查日期 Date of survey |
司法制度的公平程度評價 Appraisal of Degree of Fairness of the Judicial System |
標準誤差 Standard Error |
半年結樣本人數 Total Sample(half year) |
半年結次樣本人數 Sub Sample(half year) |
評分人數 Number of Raters |
認知率 Recognition Rate |
1-6/2019 | 5.63 | 0.10 | 1018 | 605 | 597 | 98.8% |
1-6/2018 | 6.20 | 0.09 | 2052 | 1145 | 1100 | 96.0% |
7-12/2017* | 6.81 | 0.08 | 1030 | 602 | 571 | 94.8% |
1-6/2017 | 6.35 | 0.09 | 1029 | 644 | 606 | 94.2% |
7-12/2016 | 6.16 | 0.09 | 1013 | 580 | 543 | 93.7% |
1-6/2016 | 6.40 | 0.09 | 1026 | 602 | 553 | 91.9% |
7-12/2015 | 6.63 | 0.09 | 1010 | 603 | 562 | 93.2% |
1-6/2015 | 6.89 | 0.08 | 1019 | 615 | 580 | 94.3% |
7-12/2014 | 6.59 | 0.08 | 1017 | 660 | 591 | 89.4% |
1-6/2014 | 6.73 | 0.08 | 1031 | 589 | 550 | 93.4% |
7-12/2013 | 6.84 | 0.08 | 1027 | 609 | 579 | 95.2% |
1-6/2013 | 6.94 | 0.08 | 1023 | 617 | 581 | 94.2% |
7-12/2012 | 7.04 | 0.08 | 1040 | 571 | 541 | 94.7% |
1-6/2012 | 6.90 | 0.08 | 1007 | 590 | 545 | 92.5% |
7-12/2011 | 6.83 | 0.07 | 1005 | 600 | 556 | 92.7% |
1-6/2011 | 6.64 | 0.08 | 1035 | 567 | 542 | 95.6% |
7-12/2010 | 6.06 | 0.09 | 1007 | 535 | 515 | 96.3% |
1-6/2010 | 7.05 | 0.07 | 1060 | 536 | 510 | 95.2% |
7-12/2009 | 6.73 | 0.06 | 1006 | 1006 | 964 | 95.9% |
1-6/2009 | 6.56 | 0.06 | 1011 | 1011 | 941 | 93.0% |
7-12/2008 | 6.78 | 0.06 | 1016 | 1016 | 940 | 92.5% |
1-6/2008 | 6.64 | 0.05 | 1028 | 1028 | 947 | 92.1% |
7-12/2007 | 6.90 | 0.06 | 1010 | 1010 | 935 | 92.5% |
1-6/2007 | 6.85 | 0.06 | 1014 | 1014 | 922 | 90.9% |
7-12/2006 | 6.72 | 0.06 | 1019 | 1019 | 938 | 92.0% |
1-6/2006 | 6.66 | 0.05 | 1017 | 1017 | 939 | 92.3% |
7-12/2005 | 6.74 | 0.06 | 2025 | 2025 | 1854 | 91.5% |
1-6/2005 | 6.74 | 0.06 | 2034 | 2034 | 1848 | 90.9% |
7-12/2004 | 6.57 | 0.06 | 2042 | 2042 | 1821 | 89.2% |
1-6/2004 | 6.38 | 0.06 | 2055 | 2055 | 1819 | 88.5% |
7-12/2003 | 6.26 | 0.06 | 2090 | 2090 | 1802 | 86.2% |
1-6/2003 | 6.42 | 0.06 | 2070 | 2070 | 1768 | 85.4% |
7-12/2002 | 6.45 | 0.06 | 2096 | 2096 | 1717 | 81.9% |
1-6/2002 | 6.46 | 0.06 | 2063 | 2063 | 1688 | 81.8% |
7-12/2001 | 6.35 | 0.06 | 2102 | 2102 | 1696 | 80.7% |
1-6/2001 | 6.02 | 0.06 | 2128 | 2128 | 1784 | 83.8% |
7-12/2000 | 6.13 | 0.06 | 2125 | 2125 | 1702 | 80.1% |
1-6/2000 | 6.42 | 0.08 | 2631 | 2631 | 2288 | 87.0% |
7-12/1999 | 6.09 | 0.08 | 1646 | 1646 | 1508 | 91.6% |
1-6/1999 | 6.59 | 0.07 | 1590 | 1590 | 1430 | 89.9% |
7-12/1998 | 6.64 | 0.07 | 1550 | 1550 | 1393 | 89.9% |
1-6/1998 | 6.66 | 0.07 | 1047 | 1047 | 904 | 86.3% |
7-12/1997 | 6.60 | 0.07 | 1087 | 1087 | 919 | 84.5% |
* The mobile sample was not included when survey results were released. The figures in the table above have been updated to reflect the results based on the combined landline and mobile sample.