※ 資料出處：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVvqXIgL9sw。由原始字幕轉錄之文句尚未定稿（校對錯誤、英式英文、標點符號、中文翻譯等），僅供參考，之後將會繼續修正。
7-1 viva examiners
0:17→On October 2nd, 2019, Michael Richardson submitted his first FOIA request to LSE.
2019年10月2日，理查森向LSE提交了他第一個有關資訊公開的請求。
0:23→One of his four questions was: What are the names of the thesis examiners?
他提出的四個問題之一是：論文審查者的名字為何？
0:31→Rachel Maguire's position on October 3rd, 2019, was:
Rachel Maguire在2019年10月3日的立場是：
0:33→"We normally do not release examiner names under any circumstances. However, considering the situation, it's whether there would be any harm to the examiners from releasing this information."
「我們通常在任何情況下都不會公佈審查員姓名。然而考慮到這種情況，發布這些資訊是否會對考官造成任何傷害。」
0:45→If they are deceased, their names can be disclosed.
如果他們去世了，可以披露他們的名字。
0:47→"If they are retired, there is unlikely to be any harm to their careers, but intense media interest could come their way. If they are still working, there could be potential harm to their careers due to intense media interest."
「如果他們退休了，他們的職業生涯不太可能受到任何損害，但媒體可能會對他們產生濃厚興趣。如果他們仍在工作，媒體的強烈關注可能會對他們的職業生涯造成損害。」
1:04→The records in the public domain prove otherwise.
公共領域的記錄證明事實並非如此。
1:06→The Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, IALS, is one of 17 member institutions of the UoL.
高級法律研究學院IALS是倫敦大學17個成員機構之一。
1:17→IALS routinely discloses viva examiners on its official website.
IALS定期在其官方網站上揭露口試考官。
1:43→Simon Hix, an internationally renowned scholar, was LSE pro-director for research, vice president, and pro-vice chancellor between 2018 and 2021.
Simon Hix是一位國際知名學者，曾於2018年至2021年期間擔任LSE研究所長暨副校長。
1:55→In his CV, Hix included a long list of PhD students whose doctoral theses were examined by Hix as an internal or external viva examiner.
Hix在履歷中列出了一長串博士生的名單，這些學生的博士論文均由Hix作為內部或外部口頭考官進行審查。
2:08→On October 21st, 2019, Rachel Maguire responded to the request, stating that the information was held in full by the University of London and directed Richardson to UoL for the names of Tsai's viva examiners.
2019年10月21日，Rachel Maguire 回覆了該請求，表示倫敦大學已掌握完整信息，並指示理查森向倫敦大學索取蔡的口試考官姓名。
2:25→On October 29th, 2019, Richardson submitted his request to UoL.
2019年10月29日，理查森向倫敦大學提交了他的請求。
2:34→Ignoring IALS routine practice, on December 2nd, 2019, UoL refused to disclose the names of Tsai's viva examiners, invoking the Data Protection Act.
2019年12月2日，倫敦大學無視IALS的常規做法，拒絕透露蔡的口試考官姓名，並引用了資料保護法。
2:48→While Richardson was fighting for the names, on December 18th, 2020, Kevin Haynes, head of the LSE legal team, disclosed the names of Tsai's viva examiners to the Taipei Representative Office in the UK.
2020年12月18日，當理查森為這些名字而戰時，LSE法律團隊負責人Kevin Haynes向英國台北代表處披露了蔡的口試考官名字。
3:01→According to Haynes, Michael Elliott and Leonard Leigh examined Tsai's thesis in October 1983.
根據Haynes的說法，Michael Elliott和Leonard Leigh於1983年10月審查蔡的論文。
3:06→Haynes found the information on pages 74 and 75 of Tsai's LSE student file stored in the LSE archives.
Haynes在LSE檔案館儲存的一份蔡的LSE學生檔案裡，於第74頁和第75頁中找到了這些資訊。
3:20→On May 2nd, 2021, Richardson filed his second FOIA request to LSE for the names of Tsai's viva examiners.
2021年5月2日，理查森第二次向LSE提交了有關資訊公開的請求，要求提供蔡的口試考官姓名。
3:26→LSE refused the request claiming that it did not hold the information.
LSE拒絕了該請求，稱其並不掌握該資訊。
3:35→On November 26th, 2021, ICO issued a decision notice finding that LSE did not hold the information.
2021年11月26日，ICO發布了一份裁決通知，認定LSE沒有持有該資訊。
3:46→Richardson was unsatisfied with the decision notice and appealed to the first tier tribunal which delivered a decision on June 21st, 2022.
理查森對裁決通知不滿意，並向一級法庭提出上訴，該法庭於2022年6月21日作出裁決。
3:58→To convince the tribunal that LSE did not hold Tsai's viva examiners names, LSE admitted that "...the information we hold on file is only there accidentally...".
為了使法庭相信LSE沒有持有蔡的口試考官姓名，LSE承認：我們保存的資訊只是偶然存在的。
4:11→It raises suspicions on the Integrity of Tsai's LSE student file and the LSE archives in which Tsai's LSE student file was stored.
這引起了人們對蔡的LSE學生文件完整性以及儲存LSE學生文件的LSE檔案室產生懷疑。
4:18→However, the first tier tribunal said nothing.
然而，一級法庭並沒有發表任何言論 。
4:26→LSE even submitted an internal email dated March 1st, 2021, to convince the tribunal that the information in the documents accidentally landed in Tsai's LSE student file might not be correct.
LSE甚至提交了一封日期為2021年3月1日的內部電子郵件，以說服法庭，意外進入蔡的LSE學生檔案之文件資訊可能不正確。
4:41→Haynes was and still is head of the LSE legal team which is under the school secretary's division.
Haynes曾是LSE法律團隊的負責人，該團隊隸屬於學校秘書部門。
4:50→The internal email dated March 31st, 2021, was most likely authored by Louise Nadal, LSE school secretary, who manages all legal compliance and governance activities on behalf of LSE.
這封日期為2021年3月31日的內部電子郵件很可能是由LSE學校秘書Louise Nadal撰寫的，她代表LSE管理所有法律合規和治理活動。
5:06→Nadal authored most if not all of the internal reviews of LSE's responses to FOIA requests relating to Tsai's missing doctoral thesis and 1984 PhD degree.
如果不是全部，Nadal也撰寫了大部分有關蔡缺少博士論文和1984年博士學位的資訊公開請求之回應的LSE內部評論。
5:19→The internal email was about Haynes' email dated December 18th, 2020, not December 16th, 2020, as found by the Tribunal.
該內部電子郵件涉及Haynes的郵件，日期為2020年12月18日，而非法院認定的 2020年12月16日。
5:32→In his email dated December 18th, 2020, Haynes only confirmed two viva examiners, Michael Elliott and Leonard Leigh.
在2020年12月18日的電子郵件中，Haynes僅確認了兩名口試考官：Michael Elliott和Leonard Leigh。
5:42→But the internal email questioned the accuracy of Haynes' confirmation of three viva examiners.
但內部郵件對Haynes確認的三名口試考官的準確性提出了質疑。
5:47→The first tier tribunal failed to catch the mistake.
初審法庭未能發現這項錯誤。
5:54→Based on Haynes ' confirmation on December 18th, 2020, XX was Michael Elliott and YY was Leonard Leigh.
根據Haynes於2020年12月18日的確認，XX是Michael Elliott，YY是Leonard Leigh。
6:04→According to the court file of the Taiwan Taipei District Court, ZZ was Richard Dale.
根據台灣台北地方法院的法庭檔案，ZZ 是Richard Dale。
6:13→Regarding Tsai's three viva examiners, the internal email reads as follows: Richard Dale named as external examiner in a letter from president Tsai to Secretary of Graduate School at LSE the 5th of December, 1983.
關於蔡的3位口試考官，內部電子郵件內容如下：1983年12月5日，蔡總統在給LSE研究生院秘書的一封信中將Richard Dale列為外部考官。
6:27→Michael Elliott who refers to "my co-examiner and myself" in a memo dated the 16th of January, 1983.
Michael Elliott在1983年1月16日的一份備忘錄中提到了「我和我的共事者」。
6:38→This also suggests there were only two examiners, Michael Elliott and one other.
這顯示只有兩名考官，分別是Michael Elliott和另一人。
6:43→"I see〔Leonard Leigh〕is mentioned in the file but couldn't find him specifically named as an examiner."
「我看到文件中提到了（Leonard Leigh），但沒發現他具體作為審查員。」
6:52→Based on the internal email and in view of the court file of the Taiwan Taipei District Court, three viva examiners were Michael Elliott, Leonard Leigh, and Richard Dale.
根據內部電子郵件和台灣台北地方法院的法庭檔案，三名口試考官分別是 Michael Elliott、Leonard Leigh和Richard Dale。
7:05→Though the internal email questioned the accuracy of the information about Tsai's three viva examiners, the questioned information is consistent with Tsai's description of her viva examiners.
雖然內部郵件對蔡三位口試考官資訊的準確性提出了質疑，但被質疑的資訊與蔡對其口試考官的描述一致。
7:15→（另見https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxDEisWkTUk）
「最荒謬的事情是什麼？我有三個examiner，是三個口試委員，因為我的論文是法律跟經濟的混合體，所以一個是我的指導老師，一個是經濟學家，一個是學法律的。那個律師就說妳的經濟部分寫得不錯，那個經濟學家說我法律的部分寫得不錯。這個大概是有史以來倫敦政經學院最令人驚奇的博士論文考試。」
7:58→Um in September 2021, Tsai's attorneys submitted Haynes' email, dated December 18th, 2020, to the Taiwan Taipei District Court as evidence to prove that Elliott and Leigh were Tsai's viva examiners.
2021年9月，蔡的律師向台灣台北地方法院提交了Haynes於2020年12月18日發送的電子郵件作為證據，證明Elliott和Leigh是口試考官。
8:13→Tsai's thesis was about International Trade law or International economic law, but Leigh was a criminal law professor at LSE in the early 1980s.
蔡的論文是關於國際貿易法或國際經濟法，但Leigh在1980年代初期是LSE的刑法教授。
8:22→He was not qualified as an internal examiner.
他不具備內部審查員的資格。
8:28→Dennis Peng challenged the qualification of Leonard Leigh as an internal examiner and a lack of external examiner.
彭文正對Leonard Leigh作為內部審查員的資格、以及缺乏外部審查員提出質疑。
8:38→In response to Peng's challenge in 2022, Tsai's attorneys reported to the court that the external viva examiner was Richard Dale, a scholar and attorney specializing in anti-dumping laws.
為了回應彭在2022年提出的挑戰，蔡的律師向法院報告稱，外部口試審查員是Richard Dale，他是一位專門研究反傾銷法的學者和律師。
8:48→The evidence was Tsai's impression, not Tsai's letter to the Secretary of the Graduate School at LSE on December 5th, 1983, mentioned in the internal email dated March 31st, 2021.
證據是：蔡的印象，而不是2021年3月31日內部電子郵件中提到的1983年12月5日致LSE研究生院秘書的信。
9:08→In February 2022, UoL released a statement confirming that Tsai was awarded a PhD in March 1984, following the submission and examination of her thesis by two examiners.
2022年2月，倫敦大學發布聲明，確認蔡於1984年3月在提交論文並由兩名考官審查後獲得博士學位。
9:23→The confirmation of two viva examiners in the UoL statement is inconsistent with Tsai's account.
倫敦大學聲明中對兩名口試考官的確認與蔡的說法不一致。
9:32→It is also inconsistent with the court file of the Taiwan Taipei District Court.
也與台灣台北地方法院的庭審卷宗不一致。
9:37→According to which, Tsai had three viva examiners.
據此，蔡有三名口試考官。
9:42→According to the internal email, at least three documents containing the information about Tsai's viva examiners accidentally landed in Tsai's LSE student file stored in the LSE archives.
根據內部電子郵件，至少有三份包含有關蔡口試考官資訊的文件意外落入了LSE檔案室中儲存的蔡LSE學生檔案中。
9:56→The first one was a letter written by Tsai to Ian Stephenson, Secretary of the LSE Graduate School, on December 5th, 1983.
第一封是1983年12月5日蔡寫給LSE研究生院秘書Ian Stephenson的信。
10:07→LSE did not provide, and the tribunal failed to ask the reason why Tsai wrote the letter to Stephenson informing him the identity of Tsai's external examiner.
LSE沒有提供、仲裁庭也沒有詢問蔡寫信給Stephenson並告知其外部審查員身份之原因。
10:20→The second one was a memo dated January 16th, 1983, in which Elliott referred to "my co-examiner and myself".
第二份是1983年1月16日的備忘錄，其中Elliott提到了「我和我的共事者」。
10:31→There are good reasons to question the authenticity of the memo.
有充分的理由質疑這份備忘錄的真實性。
10:37→According to the 1983/1984 UoL regulations, the thesis title had to be approved by LSE before PhD candidates were permitted to submit an examination entry form to enter the examination stage at UoL.
根據1983/1984年倫敦大學規定，博士生論文標題必須經過LSE批准，然後才可以提交考試報名表，進入倫敦大學的考試階段。
10:54→Tsai's thesis title was approved by LSE on January 19th, 1983, 3 days after the memo was written on January 16th, 1983.
蔡的論文題目於1983年1月16日備忘錄撰寫三天后，即1983年1月19日獲得LSE批准。
11:07→In the letter notifying Tsai's thesis approval, Tsai was reminded that the next thing she should do was to complete an examination entry form, and the UoL had to appoint examiners when it received an entry form.
在通知蔡論文批准的信中，蔡被提醒接下來要做的是填寫考試報名表，而倫敦大學在收到報名表後必須任命考官。
11:22→When the memo was written on January 16th, 1983, LSE did not approve Tsai's thesis title.
當備忘錄於1983年1月16日撰寫時，LSE尚未批准蔡的論文標題。
11:29→Tsai was not permitted to submit an examination entry form and no viva examiners were appointed by UoL.
蔡未被允許提交考試報名表，而且倫敦大學也沒有任命任何口試考官。
11:38→Elliott could not possibly refer himself as one of Tsai's viva examiners on January 16th, 1983.
Elliott不可能在1983年1月16日稱自己是蔡的口試考官之一。
11:46→Furthermore, the memo was written only one month before Elliott wrote the letter on February 17th, 1983, certifying Tsai's PhD exam to be held in the spring 1983, not October 1983.
此外，這份備忘錄是在Elliott於1983年2月17日寫這封信之前一個月寫的，認證蔡的博士考試將於1983年春季，而不是1983年10月舉行。
12:03→The third one is one document in Tsai's LSE student file that mentioned Leonard Leigh.
第三個是一份蔡LSE學生檔案中的文件，其中提到了Leonard Leigh。
12:11→All these three documents accidentally landed in Tsai's LSE student file.
這三份文件意外地落入了蔡的LSE學生檔案中。
12:19→But none of them was submitted to the Taiwan Taipei District Court to prove Tsai's viva examiners.
但是都未提交給台灣台北地方法院來證明蔡的口試考官。
12:28→Since Haynes only confirmed the internal examiners, he only found Elliott's memo dated January 16th, 1983, and the document mentioning Leonard Leigh on pages 74 and 75 of Tsai's LSE student file.
由於Haynes只確認內部審查員，因此他只找到Elliott在1983年1月16日的備忘錄，以及蔡的LSE學生檔案第74頁和第75頁提到Leonard Leigh的文件。
12:45→The page number of Tsai's letter to Ian Stephenson on December 5th, 1983, is unknown.
1983年12月5日蔡寫給Ian Stephenson的信件頁碼不詳。
12:54→These three documents are obviously not the only three documents that accidentally landed in Tsai's LSE student file stored in the LSE archives.
顯然，這三份文件並不是意外落入LSE檔案室中儲存的蔡LSE學生檔案中僅有的三份文件。
13:07→Haynes also found Tsai's LSE student record on page four of Tsai's LSE student file.
Haynes也在蔡的LSE學生檔案第4頁發現了蔡的LSE學籍卡。
13:13→It contains information after Tsai withdrew from course on November 10th, 1982, and a date of Entry that no viva examiners could be appointed for Tsai's PhD exam held in October 1983.
它包含了蔡於1982年11月10日退出課程後的信息、以及一個登錄日期；這對於1983年10月舉行蔡的博士考試而言，是無法任命口試考官的。（編按：Date of entry：June 83。）
13:30→Ian Stephenson's letter, dated February 11th, 1982, on page 120 of Tsai's LSE student file indicates that Tsai's registration transfer was not approved by the LSE Graduate School Committee.
蔡的LSE學生檔案第120頁中，Ian Stephenson於1982年2月11日寫的信件表明，蔡的變更註冊未得到LSE研究生院委員會的批准。（編按：「not/未」字似應刪除！）
13:45→Stephenson's letter dated January 19th, 1983, on page 95 of Tsai's LSE student file indicates that LSE informed Tsai about her approved final thesis title on the same date the LSE Graduate School Committee met to approve her final thesis title.
蔡的LSE學生檔案第95頁上，Stephenson於1983年1月19日的信函表明，LSE在LSE研究生院委員會開會批准其最終論文標題的同一天通知蔡，她的最終論文標題已獲批准。
14:05→Stephenson's letters on page 89 and Page 101 of Tsai's LSE student file were issued for Tsai to extend her student visas.
蔡的LSE學生檔案第89頁和第101頁上，Stephenson的信件是為蔡簽發的，用於延長她的學生簽證。
14:14→But these two letters were inconsistent with the UK Immigration Act 1971.
但這兩封信不符合英國1971年的移民法。
14:22→At least one document contains Tsai's PhD exam date, based on which Rachel Maguire was able to confirm Tsai's PhD exam date October 16th, 1983.
至少要有一份文件包含博士考試日期，Rachel Maguire才可以據此確認蔡的博士考試日期為1983年10月16日。
14:33→It was Sunday.
那是個星期天。
14:36→Who wrote them?
誰寫的？
14:41→How and when did they accidentally land in Tsai's LSE student file?
它們是如何以及何時意外進入蔡的LSE學生檔案？
14:49→These documents raise suspicions on the Integrity of Tsai's LSE student file and the Integrity of the LSE archives in which Tsai's LSE student file is stored.
這些文件引起了人們對蔡的LSE學生檔案完整性以及儲存這些的LSE檔案室完整性產生懷疑。
