HKSAR v. Au Kwok Wai

DCCC 20/2020

[2020] HKDC 1204

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 20 OF 2020

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

--------------------------------------

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

--------------------------------------

The Charges and Pleas

1.The 3 defendants before me, namely Au Kwok Wai (D1), Tang Man Him (D2) and Lam Yik Sing (D3) appeared before me facing the following charges:-

Charge 1 – Misconduct in public office, contrary to Common Law and punishable under section 101 I (1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221; and

Charge 2 (alternative to Charge 1) – Assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to Common Law and punishable under section 39 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212.

2.D1 and D2 pleaded guilty to Charge 1 and admitted the facts pertaining to the charge.  I convicted D1 and D2 on their own pleas and admissions.

3.The particulars of Charge 1 read:-

“AU Kwok-wai, TANG Man-him and LAM Yik-sing, on or about the 26^th day of June 2019, at North District Hospital, being and acting as a member of the Hong Kong Police Force, without reasonable excuse or justification, wilfully misconducted themselves in that they unlawfully assaulted CHUNG Chi-wah, who was then under police custody, occasioning actual bodily harm.”

4.D3 pleaded not guilty to Charge 1 and Charge 2.

5.Charge 1 had been amended before evidence was called.  The amended particulars read:-

“AU Kwok-wai, TANG Man-him and LAM Yik-sing, on the 26^th day of June 2019, at North District Hospital, being and acting as a member of the Hong Kong Police Force, without reasonable excuse or justification, wilfully misconducted themselves in that they (a) unlawfully assaulted CHUNG Chi-wah, who was then under police custody, occasioning actual bodily harm; and/or (b) neglected or failed to perform their duty to stop the unlawful assault of the aforementioned CHUNG Chi-wah.”

6.I convicted D3 of Amended Charge 1 after trial on the basis that he failed to perform his duty to stop the unlawful assault of Chung  Chi-wah.

7.The present proceedings do not concern Charge 2.

Background of the Case

8.This case, which took place on 26 June 2019 at North District Hospital, concerned three police officers on duty, i.e. D1, D2 and D3 and a Mr. Chung Chi-wah (“Mr. Chung”).  Mr. Chung had been arrested by the police for having assaulted a passer-by and a police sergeant earlier on at Tin Ping Estate, Sheung Shui.  He was found having a strong smell of alcohol and agitated at the time of the arrest and was taken to North District Hospital.  At the hospital, Mr. Chung kicked D1 once at the latter’s mouth.  Because of Mr. Chung’s behaviour, his 4 limbs were restrained and he was moved to Room 7A, which was designated as a “Disturbed Patient Room”. 

9.The offence took place inside Room 7A.  D1 and D2 intermittently but persistently assaulted Mr. Chung for over 20 minutes.  D3 was present during the initial stage and he witnessed some assaults by D1 and D2.  D3 stayed in the room for some 2 minutes but took no action to stop the assault on Mr. Chung.

10.The observation room and Room 7A were equipped with video-recording cameras connected to a closed-circuit television system (CCTV).  What happened to Mr. Chung inside Room 7A was recorded on video by one of the CCTV cameras.

11.D1 and D2 pleaded guilty to Charge 1 and admitted that they misconducted themselves in public office in that they unlawfully assaulted Mr. Chung, who was then under police custody, occasioning him actual bodily harm.

12.I convicted D3 of Amended Charge 1 on the basis that he misconducted himself in public office in that he failed to perform his police duty to stop the unlawful assault of Mr. Chung.

The Facts

13.The facts pertaining to D1 and D2 are set out in the Amended Summary of Facts dated 12^th November 2020 (“Appendix 1”).

14.The facts pertaining to D3 are set out in my judgment dated 4^th December 2020 (Appendix 2).

Background of the Defendants

15.D1 is now 26 years old.  He received tertiary education in Hong Kong. He joined the Hong Kong Police Force in 2016.  He is single.

16.D2 is now 25 years old.  He completed Form 6 education in Hong Kong.  He joined the Hong Kong Police Force in 2016 and was discharged from the force in September 2019.  D2 was married in 2018 but his wife divorced him after this case.

17.D3 is now 31 years old.  He was educated up to High Diploma level.  He joined the Hong Kong Police Force in 2014 and resigned from the force in August 2018.  He is single.

18.Each of D1, D2 and D3 had a hitherto clear record.

Mitigation

19.I am grateful to Mr. Fung, Mr. Boyton and Ms. Chow for their detailed written mitigation submissions.  I have considered all the materials placed before me and the authorities cited.

A Consideration of the Submissions

20.I have considered the pleas made by the defendants, their family members, former and present colleagues, friends and teachers and many others. They have said everything they can for the defendants concerned and some of them ask me to pass a non-custodial sentence.  I am told the families of the defendants would suffer greatly if the defendants are sent to prison.  It is trite that family difficulties of the kind mentioned in the mitigation letters and submissions by counsel are not matters that a sentencing judge can take into consideration.  The defendant concerned should have thought about what effect his crime would have on his family before he committed the offence.

21.I have considered the following cases drawn to my attention in mitigation:-

(i) HKSAR v Wong Cho Shing, CACC 38/2017; date of judgment: 15^th December, 2017;

(ii) HKSAR v Wong Cho Shing and 6 others, CACC 38/2017; date of judgment: 26^th July 2019;

(iii) HKSAR v Ho Hung Kwan Michael, FACC 9/2012; date of judgment: 26^th September 2013;

(iv) HKSAR v Chow Koon Shing, HCMA 51/2007; date of judgment: 19^th April, 2007; and

(v) HKSAR v Chu Frankly, HCMA 70/2018 [2018] HKCFI 2072.

22.Whilst the facts of Wong Cho Shing do bear some similarities to the present case, the charge in Wong Cho Shing was one of “Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm”, not “Misconduct in Public Office”.  The first case of Wong Cho Shing was an application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.  Hon Lunn VP, in the paragraphs relied upon by Mr. Boyton, i.e. paragraphs 104 to 108, was only explaining why he concluded that the grounds of appeal against sentence were reasonably arguable. 

23.At the appeal proper, i.e. Wong Cho Shing and 6 others, the appeals against sentence by D1, D2, D3, D5 and D6 were allowed for reasons given in the judgment.  Of the paragraphs relied upon by Mr. Boyton, i.e. paragraphs 178 to 184, some considerations apply to the present case, some not. Some observations made by the Court of Appeal in paragraphs 179 and 181 apply equally to the facts of this case, and with some adaptations on my part ( as I can put it in no better way than the Court of Appeal did ), I make the following observation.

24.Nobody could take serious issue with the principle that police officers must be deterred from breaking the very laws that they are empowered and entrusted to uphold.  Not only did the assault on Mr. Chung by D1 and D2 and the non-action on the part of D3 dishonour the reputation of the Hong Kong Police Force in the eyes of the general public, it will have damaged Hong Kong’s reputation in the international community which was also witness to these events. Mr. Chung was badly assaulted and humiliated by D1 and D2 in a Disturbed Patient Room for a substantial period while he was lying defenceless on a bed with his 4 limbs restrained.  During the initial stage of the assault, D3 looked on and took no action to stop the unlawful attack on Mr. Chung.  The actions of D1 and D2 and the non-action of D3 will have shaken everyone’s faith not only in Hong Kong Police Force but in the rule of the law itself.  In my judgment, an offence of “Misconduct in Public Office” like the present case, in which the public had witnessed police officers, who were entrusted to uphold the law, break it in such a deliberate and shocking way, must be visited with an immediate term of imprisonment.

25.The facts in the present case were more serious than what happened in Wong Cho Shing and 6 others.

26.In paragraph 180, the Court of Appeal observed:

“180. The judge accepted that at the time of the offence, the officers concerned were under “great pressure” and acting under “immense stress”. It must be recognised that this was an extremely testing time for a generation of police officers who had never had to face such large-scale manifestations of civil disorder and disobedience, in which they would inevitably, and no doubt reluctantly, become embroiled. In HKSAR v Chu Frankly, the Appeal Committee of the Court of Final Appeal, in dismissing the application of a Police Superintendent for leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence, said:

“We echo the Magistrate’s and Judge’s acknowledgement of the extremely difficult and often provocative circumstances faced by the Police during the Occupy Central protests and pay homage to the disciplined professionalism exhibited by the vast majority of the officers deployed. While we have sympathy for the highly regrettable situation in which the applicant finds himself, such a violation of the law involving the unwarranted use of force against a member of the public cannot be condoned.”

We respectfully agree. Whatever the pressure and stress the applicants were under, and however great the insult and provocation they perceived from participants in the events that night, there was no excuse for what they did to Tsang.”

27.The present case did not have a social event background as the case of Wong Cho Shing and 6 others did.  Mr. Chung’s arrest had nothing to do with any social event/public protest.  It was a case of an attack by a drunken person on a passer-by and a police sergeant.  The sentiments expressed by the Court of Appeal in the passage quoted do not arise in the present case. I reject the suggestions made by some authors of the mitigation letters that the defendants concerned, as police officers, were under much pressure at the time of the offence because of the then social events, triggered by the kick, they wrongly unleashed their anger and pressure against Mr. Chung. 

28.The case of Ho Hung Kwan Michael concerned a doctor employed by the Hospital Authority.  He was convicted of 1 count of “Misconduct in Public Office” by a magistrate.  The case before the Court of Final Appeal was one of appeal against conviction on the substantial and grave injustice ground. Paragraph 27 of the judgment relied upon by Mr. Boyton concerned the ingredients of the offence of “Misconduct in Public Office”.  The acknowledgement made by Sir Anthony Mason NPJ in Shum Kwok Sher that “there would be borderline cases between this common law offence and disciplinary offences” has no application in the present case.  What D1 to D3 did in the present case was way beyond the borderline envisaged by the Court of Final Appeal.

29.I do not find the case of Chow Koon Shing helpful in my determination as the facts of Chow were totally different from the present case.

30.The case of Chow was an appeal against a 6 months’ sentence passed on the appellant for an offence of “Misconduct in Public Office”.  The appellant was a serving police officer posted as a Court Officer of Tsuen Wan Magistracy at the time of the offence,  The act under complaint concerned an incident of taking up-skirt photograph of a court user by the appellant in the court building.

31.I do not find the case of Chu Frankly helpful in my determination for the reason that the charge and the facts of Chu were totally different from the present case.

The Offence of “Misconduct in Public Office”- The Sentencing Approach

32.Counsel for D1 to D3 all agree that a term of immediate custodial sentence is the only appropriate sentence for D1 to D3. There is no tariff for the offence of “Misconduct in Public Office”. 

33.Mr. Boyton submits that the gravamen of Charge 1 is the assault occasioning actual bodily harm though the charge is one of “Misconduct in Public Office”, he submits that I should adopt the two-step approach in his written submissions: Firstly a proper starting point for assault occasioning actual bodily harm should be identified; Secondly the starting point should be increased because of the misconduct in public office element which aggravated the seriousness of the case.

34.I disagree.  In my judgment, the gravamen of Charge 1 is the misconduct in public office.  The court should examine: (i) the nature of the public office in question; (ii) the extent that the defendants concerned had misconducted themselves in public office; (iii) how the defendants misconducted; (iv) the effect of the misconduct on the public sector that the defendants belonged; (v) the harm done to the victim, i.e. Mr. Chung; and (vi) other relevant circumstances.

35.In the present case, I take into consideration:

(i) D1 to D3 were police officers on duty. It was their police duties to maintain law and order, to suppress crime and to protect citizens (including those in police custody) from unlawful violence;

(ii) Room 7A, being a “Disturbed Patient Room”, should be a safe place for Mr. Chung. However, D1 and D2 assaulted Mr. Chung in the room when the 4 limbs of Mr. Chung were restrained. D3 witnessed the assault on Mr. Chung during his stay in Room 7A. D3 did nothing to stop D1 and D2’s attack on Mr. Chung, he left Room 7A as if nothing had happened. The misconduct of D1 to D3 were in flagrant breach of their police duty;

(iii) D1 and D2 tortured Mr. Chung for a prolonged period. Leg hair was plucked, on many occasions D2 used his police baton to attack Mr. Chung, and these attacks included attacks on Mr. Chung’s bottom and genitals, threats were made to Mr. Chung that his wife would be messed up and he would soon be taught another lesson. In my judgment, the way D2 used his baton to attack Mr. Chung was vicious and appalling. For the criminal non-action of D3, he was callously indifferent to the sufferings of Mr. Chung at the hands of D1 and D2 during D3’s stay inside Room 7A;

(iv) It goes without saying that the misconduct of D1 to D3 impacted and damaged the reputation of the Police Force badly;

(v) I am sure the attacks on Mr. Chung by D1 and D2 caused Mr. Chung excruciating pain and much suffering at the time. As a result of the inhuman and humiliating treatment at the hands of D1 and D2 and the non-action of D3, Mr. Chung wanted to commit suicide after D1 and D2 had left Room 7A. As Mr. Chung was too scared, he banged his head on the bedstead at the time. Mr. Chung also suffered from adjustment disorder because of this case. He experienced depression, difficulty with sleeping, loss of motivation, constant irritation, helplessness and social withdrawal. Mr. Chung still recalled the incident occasionally. It is of course true that Mr. Chung had misbehaved himself at Tin Ping Estate, which led to his arrest and punishment. He also kicked D1 at the hospital. The conduct of Mr. Chung, however, was no excuse to any extra-judicial punishment by police officers.

36.I do not agree with Mr. Boyton’s submissions that:-

“The crux of this submission is this. Most ‘Misconduct in Public Office” offences involve an element of corruption are financial misbehaviour and in terms of policy would be far more serious than a Public Officer assaulting a member of the Public….” (Paragraph 10 of D2’s Submissions).

The seriousness of each case of “Misconduct in Public Office” depends on its own facts and it cannot be said that a case which involves an element of corruption is necessarily more serious than one that involves unlawful violence by a public officer.

D1

37.Mr. Fung submits in mitigation that D1 was very upset by the fact that he was told by his superior that no action would be taken for the kick by Mr. Chung, hence he took the law into his own hands and revenged against Mr. Chung.  In my judgment, the decision made by D1’s superior was no excuse to the evil and prolonged torture of Mr. Chung in Room 7A.  Any extra-judicial punishment by a police officer on duty must be strongly deterred.

38.D1 might feel aggrieved by the decision of his superior not to pursue against Mr. Chung for his kick, but D1’s office and police duties required that he must control his anger and act professionally.

D2

39.Mr. Boyton submits that D2 had a strong bonding with D1, hence he was provoked by the fact that D1 had been kicked by Mr. Chung at the hospital.

40.Given the vicious way that Mr. Chung was attacked and the time that D1 and D2 had taken to assault and torture Mr. Chung, I reject the submissions that D1 and for that matter, D2 were provoked.

41.A colleague who would go all the way with D1 to assault Mr. Chung, as D2 did, is not a good colleague.  Both officers would go to jail as a result.  A good colleague in similar circumstances would take all necessary actions to stop his fellow police officer from assaulting/further assaulting Mr. Chung. What D2 did only added fuel to the fire, it worsened the situation.  D2 did no good to D1and himself.

D3

42.D3 was the only lifeline to Mr. Chung.  He should have stopped D1 and D2’s attack on Mr. Chung immediately upon seeing the attack.  He did nothing to save Mr. Chung.  He walked away from the evil scene with a callous indifference.  The dereliction of duty on the part of D3 exposed Mr. Chung to further abuse, it also sealed the fate of the 3 defendants. 

43.Ms. Chow submits that D3 was new to his position and was inexperienced as a C.I.D. officer. Ms. Chow also categorizes the case of D3 as “a misplaced loyalty at most and lack of consciousness to react at least”. It is true that D3 was new to his position, but it cannot be said that he had little experience as he had been a police officer since 2014.  I am sure at the time he was aware of what had happened to the police officers found guilty in Wong Cho Shing & others as the case had been widely reported; I am equally sure that he knew at the time the attack on Mr. Chung required his immediate action.     Had D3 stopped D1 and D2 immediately upon seeing the attack, Mr. Fung and Mr. Boyton would have a much easier task in asking for a lighter sentence.  Ms. Chow submits that the offence committed by D3 was not pre-meditated as the subject assault by D1 and D2 happened out of a sudden.  My short answer to Ms. Chow’s submission is that most crimes witnessed by policer officers were not pre-meditated.  The fact that the attack on Mr. Chung by D1 and D2 was not pre-meditated did not diminish D3’s duty to act and stop the crime to protect the victim.

44.There is no conflict between comradeship/esprit de corps and police duty.  Had D3 carried out his duty faithfully, Mr. Chung, D1 and D2 would all have been saved.  It is regrettable that the defendants thought that their police duty was something that could be shelved when no one was watching when their public office required that they must carry out their police duties faithfully when no one was watching. Fortunately in the present case the net of justice was wide enough to catch the defendants through a CCTV camera, which did its job faithfully.   Though Mr. Chung could not be spared from the ordeal at the time, the culprits were brought to justice in the fullness of time.

Reductions

45.D1 and D2 are entitled to the full one-third reduction for their early plea.  D1 and D2 each had a clear record.  The one-third reduction for guilty plea has built into it an allowance for clear record of a defendant.  I have considered all the materials placed before me.  In my judgement, on the materials before me, D1 and D2 do not qualify as persons with positive character, hence they should not be given any additional reduction over and on top of the one-third reduction.

46.D3 is entitled to some reduction for his clear record.

The Starting Points and Sentences for D1, D2 and D3

47.I find D1 and D2 equally culpable.  There is no tariff for the offence of “Misconduct in Public Office”. All matters taken into consideration, I adopt a starting point of 4 years’ imprisonment for D1 and D2.  Each of them is entitled to one-third reduction for their guilty pleas. 

48.I am told that D2 was made a target of internet doxing after this case was reported.  The personal information of D2 including his I.D. number, telephone number, address and account numbers of social media, was disclosed on the internet by some internet trolls and as a result of which, D2 and his family members were affected.  In the case of D2, I am prepared to allow an extra 1 month’s reduction for the sufferings of D2 and his family members caused by internet doxing.  Extra-judicial punishment should have no place in Hong Kong.

49.For the reasons given, on Charge 1, D1 is sentenced to 32 months’ imprisonment.  D2 is sentenced to 31 month’s imprisonment.

50.I find D3 less culpable than D1 and D2.  He did not participate in the assault.  All matters taken into consideration, on Amended Charge 1, I adopt a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment.  I allow D3 1 month’s reduction for his clear record.  For the reasons given, on Amended Charge 1, I sentence D3 to 17 month’s imprisonment.

51.All 3 defendants express their remorse in their mitigation letters. They are all young men and each had an unblemished record.  What they did in the present case is like a badly written chapter in their respective life journals.  What had happened cannot be undone and they cannot go back in life to make the correct decision.  This case has brought about dire consequences to the defendants and their loved ones. Each defendant has to pay a heavy price for his wrongs. In sentencing D1 to D3, I have borne in mind the plea made by D1’s two former teachers, Mr. Hui and Ms. Chu “We are not suggesting Kwok Wai deserves lenience, but we hope Your Honour will consider a sentence that will be conducive to his rehabilitation.”  The defendants are now in their mid-twenties or early thirties and each of them has a long road of life ahead after serving his term.  What life story a defendant wants to tell in the remaining chapters of his life journal is a matter for him.

Appendix I

Amended Summary of Facts

[for plea only]

Background of Individuals

1.     On 25 and 26 June 2019 [hereinafter referred to as “the days of the incident”], all the defendants were serving police officers and they were on duty on both days.  The first defendant (D1) was uniformed Police Constable (PC) 23023 attached to a patrol sub-unit of Sheung Shui District, the second defendant (D2) was uniformed PC 24450 attached to a patrol sub-unit of Sheung Shui District, and the third defendant (D3) was Detective PC 18214 attached to District Investigation Team 8 of Tai Po District.  D1 was on duty between around 7:15 pm on 25 June 2019 and 8:35 am the next day, D2 was on duty between 6:25 pm on 25 June 2019 and 7:15 am the next day, and D3 was on duty between 11 pm on 25 June 2019 and 8:36 am the next day.

2.     Male CHUNG Chi-wah [hereinafter referred to as “Mr CHUNG”] was born on 28 May 1957.  On the days of the incident, Mr CHUNG was 62 years old, retired.

Background [Case No. 5499 of 2019 in the Fanling Magistrate’s Courts]

3.     Around 10:45 pm on 25 June 2019, Mr CHUNG got drunk outside the park outside Tin Ming House, Tin Ping Estate, Sheung Shui and quarrelled with a passer-by [hereinafter referred to as “the passer-by”].  Around 10:46 pm, Sergeant (SGT) 49750 and PC 26965 attended the scene with their teammates. After that, SGT 49750 made enquiries of Mr CHUNG, who was on a stretcher of an ambulance at that time.  Around 11 pm, SGT 49750 requested reinforcements through the beat radio.  Afterwards PC 22144, D2 and other PCs attended the scene to render assistance.

4.     Mr CHUNG was found having a strong smell of alcohol and agitated while being questioned by SGT 49750.  Suddenly, Mr CHUNG punched SGT 49750 in the area between the left upper lip and nose.  SGT 49750 and PC 26965 then together got Mr CHUNG’s hands handcuffed at his back using PC 26965’s handcuffs.  Around 11:25 pm, PC 22144 arrested Mr CHUNG.  Around 11:30 pm, D2 and PC 26965 escorted the agitated Mr CHUNG into ambulance A303, which was then heading towards North District Hospital (NDH), 9 Po Kin Road, Fanling.  Around 10 minutes later, Mr CHUNG arrived at NDH and was guarded by D2 and PC 26965.

5.     Later on, regarding the incident happened on 25 June 2019 [i.e. assaulting the passer-by and SGT 49750], Mr CHUNG pleaded guilty for one count of common assault [contrary to Common Law and Section 40 of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212, Laws of Hong Kong] and one count of assaulting a police officer [contrary to Section 63 of the Police Force Ordinance, Cap. 232, Laws of Hong Kong].  Since his appeal against the sentence as on Appeal No. 106 of 2020 in the Magistrate’s Courts [HCMA 106/2020] was upheld, he was eventually given a sentence of three weeks’ imprisonment.

26 June 2019

6.     Upon examining Mr CHUNG around 12:05 am on 26 June 2019, Dr WENG Jiacheng of the Accident and Emergency Department (A&E) of NDH found that Mr CHUNG smelled of alcohol and he would shout loudly from time to time.  Mr CHUNG sustained no injury, except that there was mild skin redness over his four limbs.

7.     The PCs responsible for guarding and making further enquiries of Mr CHUNG at NDH at that time included D1, who manned the police post at A&E NDH, D2, who escorted Mr CHUNG to NDH, and D3, an officer of Tai Po District Investigation Team 8 that took over the investigation into the case involving Mr CHUNG just then.

8.     Around 2 am, while Mr CHUNG was being guarded by D2 and PC 26965 at the observation ward of NDH [hereinafter referred to as “the observation ward”], D1 came to look into the case.  While D1 was passing right by Mr CHUNG’s right leg, Mr CHUNG kicked D1 at a corner of the mouth, causing the corner of D1’s mouth to bleed.  Hence, PC 26965 removed the handcuffs on Mr CHUNG to let the hospital staff tie Mr CHUNG’s wrists and ankles to the bedstead with limb holders.

9.     Around 2:15 am, the hospital staff transferred Mr CHUNG to the disturbed patient room [hereinafter referred to as “Room 7A”], where could accommodate one bed only.  PC 26965 stood guard outside Room 7A at a distance of around 1 metre away, and he saw D1 and D2 enter Room 7A.

10.     The observation room and Room 7A were equipped with video-recording cameras connected to a closed-circuit television system (CCTV), namely Camera 02 and Camera 09 [hereinafter referred to as “those CCTV cameras”].  Those CCTV cameras operated normally on the days of the incident.  The difference between the system time and the actual time was less than 10 minutes.  The following events happened in Room 7A after the hospital staff had sent Mr CHUNG there were recorded on video by Camera 09 of those CCTV cameras:-

11.     The CCTV footage shows that the whole incident happened in Room 7A lasted around 23 minutes.  Mr CHUNG was obviously conscious and responsive, at least in the last 18 minutes.  While being assaulted in Room 7A, Mr CHUNG shouted loudly for help.  When Mr CHUNG stayed in Room 7A alone with D1 and D2, one of them stated the names of Mr CHUNG’s wife and two sons by Mr CHUNG’s ear and said, “I will mess your wife up too.”  One of the PCs also said to Mr CHUNG before leaving Room 7A, “I will come back to teach you another lesson soon.” Mr CHUNG wanted to commit suicide as he was too scared, so he banged his head on the bedstead to inflict harm on himself.

12.     Mr CHUNG attended NDH for further physical examinations at 0930 hours on 26 June 2019 and 1539 hours on 27 June 2019.  It was found that the difference in the extensibility of the distal interphalangeal joints of his right hand was 30 degrees.  Besides, there were tenderness over bilateral lower chest wall, bruises over the left lower chest wall, abrasions and bruises over the right knee and a rash over the skin of the proximal interphalangeal joint(s) of the right hand.

13.     Mr CHUNG also went to the Psychiatric Out-Patient Clinic of NDH on 10 December 2019 for examinations.  It was found that Mr CHUNG suffered from adjustment disorder because of this case [i.e. the incident happened on 26 June 2019].  A prescription for two kinds of medicine was given in the treatment. Mr CHUNG experienced depression, difficulty with sleeping, loss of motivation, constant irritation, helplessness and social withdrawal.  Besides, he occasionally recalled the incident that he was assaulted by the three defendants at all material times.

14.     All the defendants were arrested.  D1 and D2 remained silent under caution.  However, under caution, D3 identified himself as the plain-clothes police officer in the CCTV footage, and he admitted that he slapped Mr CHUNG in Room 7A.

15.     Being and acting as officers of the Hong Kong Police Force, the three defendants, without any reasonable excuse or justification, wilfully misconducted themselves by unlawfully assaulting Mr CHUNG in police custody, thereby occasioning bodily harm to him at NDH on or around 26 June 2019.

Appendix II

DCCC 20/2020

[2020] HKDC 1143

香港特別行政區

區域法院

刑事案件2020年第20號

---------------------------------

---------------------------------

---------------------

裁決理由書

---------------------

控罪及答辯

1.         本案件第三被告人林易昇（第三被告人）與第一被告人歐國偉（第一被告人）和第二被告人鄧文謙（第二被告人）共同被控一項“藉公職作出不當行為”罪，違反普通法並可根據香港法例第221章《刑事訴訟程序條例》第101I(1) 條予以懲處（“控罪1”）及一項交替控罪“襲擊他人致造成身體傷害”罪，違反普通法並可根據香港法例第212章《侵害人身罪條例》第39 條予以懲處（“交替控罪2”）。

2.     控罪1曾經修訂，經修訂的罪行陳述指三名被告人:—

“…於2019年6月26日，在香港新界粉嶺保健路9號北區醫院，身為香港警務處人員並以該身份行事，沒有合理辯解或理由而故意作出不當行為，即 (a) 非法襲擊當時在警方羈押下的鍾志華，致造成他的身體受傷害；及/或 (b) 忽略履行或不履行其停止對上述鍾志華的非法襲擊的職責。”

交替控罪2亦曾經修訂，經修訂的罪行陳述指三名被告人：—

“…於2019年6月26日，在香港新界粉嶺保健路9號北區醫院，襲擊鍾志華，致造成他的身體受傷害。”

3.     第三被告人否認控罪1及交替控罪2。

4.     本審訊只關乎第三被告人。

控方案情 

5.     控方於審訊以承認事實及當中承認的案情及呈遞的證據展示控方案情，並無傳召任何證人出庭作證。

6.     承認事實（證物P7）指出：—

“各人背景

2.  2019年6月25及26日（下稱「案發日子」），所有被告人均為現職警務人員，他們在該兩天均有當值。第一被告人為派駐上水分區巡邏小隊的軍裝警員23023、第二被告人為派駐上水分區巡邏小隊的軍裝警員24450及第三被告人則為派駐大埔分區調查隊第八隊的偵緝警員18214。第一被告人的當值時間為2019年6月25日晚上約7時15分至翌日早上8時35分、第二被告人的當值時間為2019年6月25日晚上6時25分至翌日早上7時15分而第三被告人的當值時間為2019年6月25日晚上11時至翌日早上8時36分。

3.  第三被告人於2014年7月21日加入警隊，並於2019年6月23日被派駐大埔分區調查隊第八隊。其後，他於2019年8月8日離職。

4.  男子鍾志華（下稱「鍾先生」）的出生日期為1957年5月28日。於案發日子，鍾先生62歲，為一名退休人士。

背景（粉嶺裁判法院案件2019年第5499號）

5.  2019年6月25日晚上約10時45分，鍾先生在上水天平邨近天明樓外公園外醉酒並與一名途人（下稱「該途人」）爭執。晚上約10時46分，警長49750、警員26965及其他隊員到場後，警長49750向當時正在救護車擔架床上的鍾先生作出調查。晚上約11時，警長49750向通訊機要求支援。其後，警員22144、第二被告人及其他警員到場支援。

6.  警長49750向鍾先生調查期間，滿身酒氣及情緒激動的鍾先生突然揮拳打中警長49750左邊嘴唇上與鼻之間的位置。警長49750與警員26965於是合力將鍾先生的雙手以警員26965的手扣反鎖在身後。晚上約11時25分，警員22144拘捕鍾先生。晚上約11時30分，第二被告人及警員26965押解情緒激動的鍾先生上救護車A303前往粉嶺保健路9號北區醫院。約10分鐘後，鍾先生到達北區醫院，當時由第二被告人及警員26965看守。

7.  其後，鍾先生因2019年6月25日發生的事件（即襲擊該途人及警長49750）承認一項普通襲擊罪（違反普通法及香港法例第212章《侵害人身罪條例》第40條）及一項襲擊警務人員罪（違反香港法例第232章《警隊條例》第63條），經其在裁判法院上訴案件2020年第106號（HCMA 106/2020）就刑期上訴成功後最終被判處入獄三星期。

2019年6月26日

8.  2019年6月26日凌晨約0時05分，北區醫院急症室醫生翁佳誠檢驗鍾先生，發現鍾先生帶有酒氣及間中大聲叫喊，除了雙手及雙腳的皮膚有輕度紅印（mild skin redness）外，鍾先生沒有其他傷勢。

9.  當時在北區醫院負責繼續調查及看守鍾先生的警員，包括北區醫院急症室警崗當值警員第一被告人、押送鍾先生前往北區醫院的第二被告人。及後，由大埔刑事調查隊第8隊接手調查鍾先生案件，經第三被告人處理。

10.     凌晨約2時，第二被告人與警員26965於北區醫院觀察病房（下稱「觀察病房」）看管鍾先生時，第一被告人前來了解案件。當第一被告人行至鍾先生腳邊位置時，鍾先生踢中第一被告人嘴角位置，使其嘴角流血。有見及此，警員26965為鍾先生解開手扣，以讓醫護人員以約束帶將鍾先生的手腕及腳踝綁在病床床架。

11.     凌晨約2時15分，醫護人員將鍾先生推往只能容納一張病床的「紊亂病人休息室」（下稱「7A房」）。警員26965在7A房外約1米位置站崗，他看見第一被告人及第二被告人進入7A房內。

12.     早上時份，鍾先生向醫護人員指自己胸口有輕微不適以及右手無名指疼痛，醫療檢驗結果發現鍾先生急性乙醇中毒及右手無名指受傷。鍾先生於2019年6月26日下午時份獲准出院，並獲轉介到職業治療部作垂指症治療。

13.     一份由北區醫院急症室發出日期為2019年8月28日有關鍾先生的醫療報告（下稱「第一份醫療報告」）現呈堂並標示為證物P1﹐其完整及準確中文譯本現呈堂並標示為證物P1A。第一份醫療報告為鍾先生於2019年6月26日到診北區醫院急症室的準確醫療紀錄。

2019年6月27日

14.     鍾先生於2019年6月27日再次到診北區醫院急症室並由張雋熹醫生問診。檢查及檢驗後發現鍾先生兩側下胸壁觸痛、左下胸壁有瘀痕、右膝擦損及瘀傷和右手無名指近端指間關節出現紅斑。一份由北區醫院急症室發出日期為2019年8月29日有關鍾先生的醫療報告（下稱「第二份醫療報告」）現呈堂並標示為證物P2，其完整及準確中文譯本現呈堂並標示為證物P2A。第二份醫療報告為鍾先生於2019年6月27日到診北區醫院急症室的準確醫療紀錄。

有關閉路電視

15.     觀察病房及7A房內安裝有錄影功能的閉路電視鏡頭，分別為鏡頭Camera 02及鏡頭Camera 09（下稱「該些閉路電視鏡頭」）。於案發日子，該些閉路電視鏡頭運作正常，其時間與真實時間差異不多於10分鐘。一隻載有由該些閉路電視鏡頭錄影有關2019年6月25日晚上11時至翌日凌晨4時的片段現呈堂並標示為證物P3。

16.     偵緝警員5280觀看了證物P1所載的錄影片段，並製作了共15幅屏幕截圖。該15幅屏幕截圖真實準確地反映該些閉路電視鏡頭拍攝的有關影像，並附有指標說明，準確描述屏幕截圖中的人物。載有該15幅屏幕截圖及準確描述該些屏幕截圖的內容列表的相簿現呈堂並標示為控方證物P3A(1)-(15)。

拘捕第三被告人

17.     2019年8月20日晚上約8時30分，偵緝警員34949在第三被告人位於大埔的住所以「串謀毆打引致他人身體受傷」罪名拘捕第三被告人。

18.     被拘捕前，第三被告人從未向其上級或警方匯報有關2019年6月26日在7A房內發生的事情。

第三被告人的警誡錄影會面

19.     2019年8月21日約晚上8時48分至10時27分，偵緝警員34949與第三被告人進行警誡錄影會面（下稱「警誡錄影會面」）。整個警誡錄影會面在被告人自願及公平的情況下進行，及被準確和完整地紀錄於數碼影像光碟編號AB09141。

20.     數碼影像光碟編號AB09141現呈堂並標示為控方證物P4。一份警誡錄影會面的準確及完整謄本（下稱「警誡錄影會面謄本」）現呈堂並標示為控方證物P4A。於警誡錄影會面期間，偵緝警員34949曾向第三被告人播放證物P3所載的該些閉路電視鏡頭錄影片段，有關記項為控方證物第P4A記項189、記項192及記項203。

相片

21.     於2019年8月21日，高級警員33765到達7A房，並從不同角度拍攝了14張相片，該14張相片真實及準確地顯示被拍攝地方的影像。載有該14張相片的相簿連同準確描述該14張相片的目錄表的相簿現堂並標示為控方證物P5(1)-(14)。

鍾先生的精神科報告

22.     於2019年12月10日，鍾先生到診北區醫院精神科門診診所接受檢驗。一份由北區醫院精神科麥展豪醫生發出日期為2019年12月12日有關鍾先生的精神科報告（下稱「精神科報告」）現呈堂並標示為證物P6，其完整及準確中文譯本現呈堂並標示為證物P6A。精神科報告為鍾先生就本案（即2019年6月26日所發生事件）的準確醫療紀錄。

其他事項

23.     本案中所有證物自警方檢獲後，一直由警方適當地妥為保管，未受干擾過。

24.     第三被告人在香港沒有刑事定罪紀錄。”

7.     於本案，控方主要依賴7A病房內閉路電視鏡頭拍攝的影像內容頂證第三被告人。

第三被告人的選擇

8.     控方案情完結後，辯方並無任何毋須答辯陳詞。本席裁定第三被告人控罪1及交替控罪2表面證供成立。

9.     第三被告人選擇作證但不傳召證人。

舉證責任及標準 

10.     本席始終謹記控方負有舉證責任，必須按照無合理疑點的標準證案。

警誡錄影會面紀錄 (證物P4，謄本P4A) 

11.     第三被告人的警誡錄影會面紀錄屬混合性陳述，當中包括一些承認陳述，如第三被告人承認他是閉路電視影像中的便衣警員，和一些開脫解釋，如第三被告人否認他曾經參與在7A病房襲擊鍾志華（“鍾先生”）及第三被告人在7A病房期間，他沒看見軍裝警員襲擊鍾先生。第三被告人在P4的承認陳述和開脫解釋同為本案的證據，本席需要考慮它們的比重。

第三被告人的良好品格 

12.     承認事實指出第三被告人並無刑事定罪紀錄，案發時任職警隊。第三被告人的良好品格於本席考慮他干犯被控罪行的傾向性及他庭上證供和在警誡錄影會面紀錄的陳述的可信性時，是對他有利的考慮因素。

針對第三被告人的控罪1和交替控罪2的相關時段

13.     控方針對第三被告人的指控只關乎他在7A病房期間於他在場下發生於鍾先生身上的事情。控方明白指出第三被告人離開病房後第一和第二被告人對鍾先生的作為並不構成控方就著控罪1及交替控罪2對第三被告人的指控。

控方案情

14.     就著控罪1，控方指: (a) 第三被告人與第一和第二被告人共同襲擊鍾先生；及/或 (b) 第三被告人與第一和第二被告人或第三被告人本人沒有制止其他人對鍾先生的襲擊，因此干犯“藉公職作出不當行為”罪。

15.     就著交替控罪2，控方指第三被告人與第一和第二被告人共同襲擊鍾先生，致造成鍾先生的身體傷害。控方指第三被告人目擊他在7A病房內期間第一和第二被告人對鍾先生的襲擊。第一和第二被告人必然是在第三被告人知情和同意下才會在第三被告人面前襲擊鍾先生。控方指種種跡象顯示第三被告人明白兩名軍裝警員（即第一和第二被告人）是要襲擊鍾先生，他們三人是有共識地共同行事：—

“42.  控方陳詞，第三被告人當時絕非僅僅一名沒有履行其職責的偵緝警員。若他們三人並非心知肚明進入7A房後會發生何事，第一被告人絕不會光明正大一進入7A房內便開始戴上手套以及之後在第三被告人眼前襲擊鍾先生，而第二被告人亦絕不會光明正大用力擊打第三被告人眼前的鍾先生。第一及第二被告人無法無天的行為，只有在第三被告人同是知情參與的情況下才說得通。

43.  第三被告人的行為，亦清楚顯示他説第一及第二被告人必然是有共識地共同行事。第三被告人進入房間後隨即以手背拍打鍾先生的臉兩次，其後他一直在鍾先生附近的位置，他的表現相當冷靜。他沒有詢問過第一及第二被告人做什麼或為什麼要這樣做，亦沒有阻止過第一及第二被告人的不當行為，甚至一直逗留至他抬頭觀看7a房內閉路電視位置後才離開。這些種種，除了顯示第三被告人沒有履行其職責阻止第一和第二被告人襲擊鍾先生外，更支持第三被告人必然是知情參與襲擊鍾先生。”

(控方結案陳詞第42-43段)

辯方案情 

16.     辯方案情，簡而言之，是第三被告人從來沒有參與襲擊鍾先生。雖然第三被告人在7A病房期間，從閉路電視影像可見鍾先生確實受到軍裝警員襲擊，但因為第三被告人當時 (i) 身處的位置和視線角度角度；及 (ii) 他當時專注思考工作上的問題和留意他的手機屏幕，他看不見鍾先生受到軍裝警員襲擊。第三被告人當時只認為軍裝警員只是喚醒鍾先生和替鍾先生抹掉嘔吐物，因此第三被告人當時沒有制止兩名軍裝警員的行為。

17.     本席不擬贅述第三被告人證供的內容。控方結案陳詞大綱第1至14段已撮述了第三被告人的證供。

結案陳詞 

18.     控辯雙方均作出了詳盡的書面結案陳詞，本席不擬贅述陳詞的內容。

19.     本席同意辯方陳詞就著第三被告人在7A病房內逗留的時間，閉路電視影像顯示他是在02:25:40時進入7A病房；於02:27:24時離開，中間逗留了小於2分鐘的時間。控方結案陳詞大綱第37段所說的“控方針對第三被告人的案情是指在證物P3閉路電視鏡頭 Camera 09畫面時間約02:23:35至02:27:24 之間4分鐘9秒期間第三被告人在7A房內所發生的事情”的時間並不正確。

證據的分析 

20.     本席考慮了關乎第三被告人審訊的證據及控辯雙方的結案陳詞，亦多次觀看了自第三被告人進入7A病房後至他離開病房的相關閉路電視影像。

21.     本席考慮了第三被告人的證詞及他於警誡錄影會面紀錄的陳述。本席最後裁定第三被告人並非誠實可靠的證人，他的證詞及於P4的開脫解釋並非事實所在，亦不可能為事實所在，原因如下：—

一、重要環節與客觀證據相悖

22.     本席沒有忽略7A病房的閉路電視鏡頭安裝位置與第三被告人在相關時刻的位置不同，拍攝角度與第三被告人在他所在的位置所見的亦不會完全一樣，但第三被告人所說他聽到第一被告人在他身後說：『喂！醒呀！』並且看見相信是第一被告人的手很快地拍鍾先生的右邊臉使他相信第一被告人是在喚醒鍾先生明顯與閉路電視相關片段所見相悖。本案的閉路電視相關片段並無聲音的記錄，但是從影像所見，第三被告人在他的位置和角度，絕不可能如他聲稱看到的只令他認為第一被告人是在喚醒鍾先生的動作。

23.     無疑閉路電視鏡頭安裝位置較高，鏡頭所涵蓋的拍攝範圍應較第三被告人所在位置和視線高度為大，另一方面，第三被告人跟第一被告人和鍾先生的距離卻較閉路電視鏡頭跟二人的距離接近，再者，第三被告人可以輕易輕微轉動頭部/頸項甚至眼球稍稍轉動以觀察發生在他身邊的事情。

24.     本席認為考慮到第三被告人、第一被告人和鍾先生相互的距離、位置與及房內的燈光，再考慮到第三被告人作供時承認：(i) 他當時是望著鍾先生的口部；(ii) 他聽到『啪』的一聲和看見鍾先生震了一下；(iii) 他同意第一被告人的力道要有相當才會出現『啪』的一聲，本席肯定第三被告人不可能如他所說他相信第一被告人對鍾先生的動作是在喚醒鍾先生。

二、法庭上的證供與警誡錄影會面的陳述互相矛盾

25.     就著第三被告人進入7A病房的原因，他在警誡錄影會面中的解釋是他想看鍾先生是否清醒、了解事件和看他有沒有地方可協助鍾先生（見記項126B、148B及211B），第三被告人在庭上卻指他進入7A病房是想知道鍾先生是否清醒，如清醒的話便拘捕和警誡對方，他也想了解當時鍾先生為何會將一軍裝警員踢傷。本席認為如果第三被告人進入7A病房的重要原因是想拘捕和警誡鍾先生，第三被告人根本不能合理解釋就著他為何沒有在警誡錄影會面時提及這重要目的。再者，如果第三被告人進入7A病房的原因之一是“想知道鍾先生是否清醒，如清醒的話便拘捕和警誡對方”，那第三被告人進入7A病房前便應先掌握被鍾先生踢傷的軍裝警員的資料，如警員編號及/或姓名，這樣他才可於拘捕及警誡鍾先生時說出有關資料。從警察錄影會面記項167A-176B和216A-233B可見，第三被告人根本不知道第一被告人的警員編號及/或姓名，那他如何可以於拘捕和警誡鍾先生時告訴鍾先生遇襲受傷的警員的身份？

三、顯然並非事實的證供

26.     第三被告人作供指憑他過往的警務工作經驗，他一直清楚知道如7A病房的『紊亂病人休息室』裝置有閉路電視鏡頭的監察設施，因此他在案發時“根本冇諗過入面會發生一啲犯法行為出現”。

27.     本席認為如第三被告人在案發時根本沒看見任何軍裝警員襲擊/懷疑襲擊鍾先生的行為，他不應該出現“案發時根本冇諗過入面會發生一啲犯法行為出現”這想法。

28.     須知道“第三被告人因明知7A病房裝置有閉路電視鏡頭的監察設施，因此他不可能在清楚目擊軍裝警員襲擊鍾先生的情況下不執法制止”與“第三被告人因明知7A病房裝置有閉路電視鏡頭的監察設施，因此案發時根本從沒想到房內會發生不法行為”是兩種截然不同的情況，但第三被告人所說的明顯是後者，而後者這想法不可能於案發時出現於第三被告人腦海。

四、不合情理的解釋

29.     辯方案情指第三被告人在案發時一時失神，沒有留意到第一被告人和第二被告人對鍾先生的不法行為。本席認為一時失神只應是在第三被告人在7A病房逗留相當時間後才可能出現，絕對不應是在第三被告人進入房間後瞬間便發生。

30.     若如第三被告人所說，他在7A病房逗留期間從沒有目擊任何軍裝警員襲擊鍾先生的行為，本案發生於2019年6月26日；第三被告人是在2019年8月20日就本案被警方拘捕，期間並沒有原因使第三被告人回憶他在7A病房時所經歷的事件細節，本席實難相信第三被告人可以於庭上詳細說出他在病房內腦海中想著的事情，如：—

“…我當時諗鍾先生係咪醒咗，需唔需要作出拘捕同警誡? 隔咗兩秒左右，鍾先生雙眼仍然係咪埋同嘴角有口水，於是我低頭諗緊我剛去C.I.D.幾個鐘頭開工就已經接咗兩單案件 (即兩宗關於鍾先生毆打途人及警長之後發生的襲警案件)，當時我手頭上處理緊第一單的證人口供，跟住鍾先生未醒，我又未拉得佢住。當時好煩惱緊，身邊又無其他C.I.D.同事喺我身邊，亦都諗緊鍾先生如果醒，我需要拉佢警誡佢時，我又攞緊證人口供。當時我又覺得太大壓力，同時處理唔到咁多嘢。”

31.     本席認為要一個人回想多日之前自己所說的說話亦不容易，若要回想多日之前某時段自己在想什麼事情更是難乎其難。本席認為第三被告人就著有關情節的證供毫不真實。

32.     本席認為第三被告人就著何以他認為兩名軍裝警員在病房內是協助他弄醒鍾先生及拭抹鍾先生的嘔吐物與閉路電視影像根本相悖，不能以第三被告人所在的位置和視線角度與閉路電視鏡頭不同解釋。本席細看閉路電視影像，亦不見有第三被告人手上有他所說的手提電話。本席不相信第三被告人在案發時是如他所說低頭思考及察看手上的手提電話是否有接收信息提示。

事實裁定

鍾先生是否受到襲擊

33.     本席裁定案發時，在7A病房內發生的事情一如閉路電視影像所見。

34.     閉路電視影像第一和第二被告人於第三被告人在7A病房內期間，二人對鍾先生所做的，絕對不是 (i) 喚醒鍾先生；及/或 (ii) 拭抹鍾先生的嘔吐物（因鍾先生根本沒有嘔吐）。

35.     閉路電視影像所見第一和第二被告人於第三被告人在7A房內期間對鍾先生所做的行為，是不折不扣的非法和惡意襲擊。

第三被告人對鍾先生受到襲擊的認知

36.     於02:25:52至02:25:54時，第一被告人上前用力打鐘先生右邊面頰一下。第三被告人在7A房內期間清楚看見上述第一被告人對鍾先生的襲擊。

37.     於02:26:08至02:26:12時，第二被告人上前將鍾先生的上衣拉起並用力將該上衣捂鍾先生的口鼻。第二被告人用力將該上衣塞向鍾先生的口鼻位置、打鍾先生的臉和額頭及用手指使力捉緊鍾先生的面部位置。期間第三被告人一直在近距離位置面對鍾先生。於02:26:54至02:27:03時，第二被告人再次把鍾先生的上衣拉起並把它塞進鍾先生的口中，用力捂著鍾先生的口、鼻及額頭。期間第三被告人一直在近距離位置面對鍾先生。於02:27:04至02:27:10時，第二被告人再次把鍾先生的上衣拉起，他把它連同病床上的被子一起捂著鍾先生的口鼻位置，並用力打中先生的左邊臉一下。期間第三被告人一直在近距離位置面對鍾先生。於02:27:16至02:27:23時，第二被告人用力拉扯鍾先生的頭髮，他並打鍾先生的額頭及臉。期間第三被告人一直在近距離位置面對鍾先生。本席裁定第三被告人在7A房內期間清楚看見上述第二被告人對鍾先生的襲擊。

38.     第三被告人在7A房內期間清楚知道上迹第一被告人和第二被告人所做的是非法和惡意的襲擊。

第三被告人是否夥同第一及/或第二被告人襲擊鍾先生

39.     從閉路電視影像所見，本席認為在第三被告人進入7A病房後以手拍鍾先生的臉兩下這動作應是想喚醒/看看對方是否清醒，不是襲擊行為。

40.     本席認為控方指 (i) 第一和第二被告人若無第三被告人肯首，決不會在第三被告人面前明目張膽地襲擊鍾先生； (ii) 第一被告人在第三被告人面前戴上白色手套即向鍾先生表示第一被告人將要襲擊鍾先生的分析不無道理，但考慮到第三被告人在他本人沒有襲擊鍾先生的情況下在7A病房內逗留很短時間便離開，本席最後未能肯定第三被告人在7A房內期間必定是夥同第一和第二被告人襲擊鍾先生。

第三被告人是否有忽略履行或不履行其停止對鍾先生的非法襲擊的職責？ 

41.     控方於結案陳詞大綱第33至段正確指出"藉公職作出不當行為罪"的罪行元素。本席遵從並應用上級法院於Shum Kwok Sher v HKSAR (2002) 5 HKCFAR 381、Sin Kam Wah and Another v HKSAR (2005) 8 HKCFAR 192和 陳德明對香港特別行政區  FACC 5/2010就著罪行的相關原則於本席所裁定的事實。

42.     從不爭議的證據和第三被告人的證供，案發時，第三被告人是一名在職警務人員 (偵緝警員18214)，即第三被告人是一名公職人員。

43.     第三被告人在7A病房逗留期間，他隸屬接手調查鍾先生案件的大埔刑事調查隊第8隊，他負責處理鍾先生的案件。因此，本案是在第三被告人執行公職期間或在關乎其公職的情況下發生。

44.     第三被告人在7A病房逗留期間，他清楚看見第一和第二被告人對鍾先生的襲擊，軍裝警務人員當值期間襲擊一名在警方羈押下的人士是嚴重的罪行，身處現場目擊襲擊事件的第三被告人作為警務人員。他絕對有責任制止第一和第二被告人襲擊對鍾先生。第三被告人是故意和蓄意地沒有履行他的警務職責制止第一和第二被告人對當時在警方羈押下的鍾先生的襲擊和拘捕二人。當然之後，第三被告人也沒有向其上級或警方報告有關案發時在7A房內發生的事情（承認事實第18段）。

45.     從證據中，本席裁定第三被告人是故意不履行他的警務職責。本席並裁定第三被告人對於上述他沒有履行他的警務職責沒有亦不可能有合理辯解或正當理由。第三被告人清楚知道軍裝警員襲擊正在被警方羈押中的被捕人是嚴重的罪行，第三被告人負責處理鍾先生的案件，他目擊第一和第二被告人襲擊鍾先生而不制止，完全背棄和不履行他的警務職責。他不制止第一和第二被告人的犯法行為，更不顧鍾先生而離開7A病房，這絕對是可招致罪責的失當行為。第三被告人清楚知道和明白他故意和蓄意地沒有履行他的警務職責阻止第一和第二被告人對當時在警方羈押下的鍾先生的襲擊是不合法的失當行為。

46.     本席顧及第三被告人的有關公職和他的公職人員的責任，有關公職的目的的重要性，以及有關罪行偏離他的公職人員的責任的性質和程度後，本席裁定第三被告人的行為違背他作為警員的基本責任，是嚴重且可招致罪責的失當行為而非無關緊要的。

47.     本席裁定控方已經按照無合理疑點的標準證實修訂控罪1的所有構成元素。

48.     本席裁定第三被告人修訂控罪1罪名成立。