香港特別行政區 訴 曾健勇

HCMA 102/2019

[2021] HKCFI 388

香港特別行政區

高等法院原訟法庭

刑事上訴司法管轄權

定罪及命令上訴

裁判法院上訴案件2019年第102號

(原九龍城裁判法院刑事案件2018年第3155號)

________________________

________________________

訟 費 判 決 書

1.上訴人在一名裁判官席前經審訊後，被裁定一項襲擊致造成身體傷害罪罪名成立。上訴人不服定罪及「拒絕定罪後候判保釋的命令」(「該命令」)，提出上訴。經本席裁定後，不服定罪上訴得直。

2.但是就不服該命令的上訴，本席裁定本席沒有司法管轄權來處理它；但即使本席有司法管轄權，也會裁定上訴駁回。

3.上訴人申請取回不服定罪上訴及原審時的訟費。

4.上訴雙方同意，上訴人可獲不服定罪上訴訟費；若就金額未能獲得共識，則由聆案官評定。

5.唯一爭議是，上訴人是否可獲原審時的訟費。

6.雙方看來沒有爭議，適用的原則為，一般而言，當一名被告人在審訊時被裁定無罪，通常他應由公帑償付抗辯的訟費，除非有積極的原因拒絕部分或全部訟費。

7.答辯人反對上訴人就原審時訟費的申請，理由是有積極的原因拒絕原審訟費；該原因是上訴人自招嫌疑。

8.本席考慮烈顯倫常任法官在Tong Cun Lin (湯君年) v HKSAR (1999) 2 HKCFAR 531,535D-H的判詞，如下：

“When a defendant has been brought to trial upon particular charges and is then found not guilty it is clearly right that he should normally be compensated out of public revenue for the costs incurred in defending those charges. In considering whether, despite this general rule, he should be deprived of all or part of his costs, the judge exercising the discretion must obviously look to his conduct generally, so long as such conduct is relevant to the charges he faced. This cannot be confined to any particular period of time. Since, however, the discretion is being exercised in the context of an acquittal - the averments constituting the charges having been found by the jury as not amounting to the crimes alleged - it follows that, generally speaking, the conduct most relevant to the matters under consideration must be the defendant’s conduct during the investigation and at the trial: How he first responded to the investigators, the answers he gave when confronted with the accusations, the consistency of those answers with his subsequent defence, etc. Wrapped up with this is the strength of the case against the defendant and the circumstances under which he came to be acquitted: These too are relevant to the exercise of the discretion to deprive him of his costs, so long as the judge is not, indirectly, thereby punishing him by taking a view of the facts palpably different from that taken by the jury and reflected in the not-guilty verdict. The person in the best position to weigh those matters is clearly the judge himself.” (本席的強調)

9.上訴人試圖依賴上述本席強調的節錄部分及以「定罪上訴得直的原因」取代「被告人在哪種情況下獲得裁定無罪」。上訴人的謬誤是認為上訴得直導致定罪被撤銷等同上訴人獲得裁定無罪。

10.其實很多時，上訴得直是因技術性問題而導致的。就好像本案，上訴得直是因為答辯人的某方面的退讓而達致的。詳情見上訴的判案書第11至16段。

11.本席重申，上訴得直是因為原審時程序上的出錯；假若程序沒有出錯，亦即是假若控方在原審時能夠提供控方第一證人的紀律紀錄，那麼這只意味著辯方手上可供盤問控方第一證人的材料增加。本席不認為審訊可因而避免。另外上訴人的原審裁決也仍是未知之數。

12.所以，在決定上訴人能否在這刻獲取原審時的訟費，必須回歸基本原則。在本案的框架裏，本席必須考慮上訴人有否自招嫌疑。

13.上訴人被控襲擊致造成身體傷害罪。閉路電視片段顯示上訴人在受害人司機沒有任何防備之際從後推跌司機。另外，上訴人亦從沒有向到場的警員提及司機踩到他的右腳腳趾；在作供時上訴人才首次提到被踩到及有痛風而感到劇痛；案發後他也沒有即時就他聲稱的傷勢求醫或要求送院檢查，只在兩日後見鐵打醫師。

14.從以上證據，本席可得出結論：上訴人自招嫌疑。

15.因此，本席拒絕上訴人就取回原審時訟費的申請。

總結

16.上訴人可獲不服定罪上訴的訟費；若就金額未能獲得共識，則由聆案官評定。

17.上訴人不可獲取原審時的訟費。

答辯人： 由律政司高級助理刑事檢控專員鄭凱聰帶領署理高級檢控官林宜養代表香港特別行政區

上訴人： 由姚逸華律師事務所延聘陳柏年大律師代表