Case Document

100%

DCPI 3815/2019

[2023] HKDC 685

香港特別行政區

區域法院

傷亡訴訟2019年第3815號

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

原告人	WONG MANG HIU (黃夢曉)
	及
第一被告人	CHEUNG WING KEI (張詠棋)
第二被告人	LIU SIU KIT (劉少傑)
第三被告人	LAU NGA YUNG (劉雅蓉)
第四被告人	COLLADO FLONYBEL JARA

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

主審法官：

區域法院暫委法官鄺嘉彤內庭聆訊 (公開)

聆訊日期：	2023年4月13日
判決書日期：	2023年5月30日

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

判決書

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

A. 引言

1.本席於2023年2月22日頒下判案書，撤銷原告人於本案的申索。

2.原告人不服判決，於2023年3月6日發出傳票申請上訴許可。

3.就本案的背景，雙方的案情及爭議內容等，本席在判決案書裏已闡明，在此不再重複。

B. 法律原則

4.有關上訴許可申請的法律原則十分清晰。申請上訴許可的一方需證明上訴有合理機會得直或有其他有利於秉行公正的理由。（徐學仲 & Anor v 文耀樓業主立案法團 [2023] HKDC 148 §3（區域法院法官陳錦泉））

5.於下文詳述，原告人所提出的上訴理據針對本席就事實上所作出的裁決。有眾多案例指出上訴庭的功能並不是重審案件。上訴人必須證明原審法官就事實所作出的裁決是明顯錯誤的，沒有證據支持，建基於對證供的誤解，或完全不合常理。於 Salleh Abu Baker v Anyway Limited [2023] HKCA 187, para 27-28, 上訴庭法官林雲浩指出： —

“27. It is common ground that the principal attack on the judge’s conclusion involves a challenge against his findings of primary fact, and that the plaintiff has to pass a high hurdle in order to justify appellate interference with such findings. Before this court can intervene, it has to be able to conclude that, despite the fact that it does not enjoy the advantages available to the judge who received the evidence at first-hand, it is nevertheless satisfied that his conclusion on the facts is plainly wrong: Ting Kwok Keung v Tam Dick Yuen & others (2002) 5 HKCFAR 336, §42. The starting point is for the appellant to identify palpable errors in the judgment below sufficiently material to warrant intervention by this court. An appeal is not a forum for repeating all the submissions on the evidence made below, as if it were a re-trial, in the hope that the appellate judges may come to a different view of the facts from that of the judge: China Gold Finance Ltd v CIL Holdings Ltd (CACV 11/2015, 27 November 2015), §§15-16.

28. While this Court may interfere with a finding for which there was no evidence in support, or which was based on a misunderstanding of the evidence, or which no reasonable judge could have reached, it must be borne in mind that the trial court is the primary tribunal for the assessment of the evidence and making relevant findings of fact. As Kwan VP observed in Shine Grace Investment Ltd v Citibank NA & another [2022] HKCA 1341 at §60(2):

“It is the trial judge who has the primary role in assessing evidence and making relevant findings of fact, not the appeal court. The trial before the primary judge should be the ‘main event’, not a ‘tryout on the road’. The appeal court should defer to the trial judge’s conclusion even if in some doubt as to its correctness, because it is unlikely to gain as much insight to the facts from seeing how the evidence unfolded, or be as familiar with the evidence as the primary judge, who has lived with the trial from beginning to end. Besides, the perception of the appeal court may be narrowed or distorted by selective readings of the transcript when the focus is on the challenge of a particular finding.””

C.上訴理據

6.原告人於2023年3月6日的誓章中指被告人為了侵佔她的植物，對她作出一連串襲擊後夾口供，作故仔反屈她，而本席有多個因素沒有考慮，沒有處理，又誤解供詞，對她不利和不公。

7.於本年4月13日的聆訊中，原告人解釋她的投訴如下。

C1. 理據一

8.原告人說從判決書第23(3)段及78段可見，本席誤解她的案情，以為屋外的後巷有另一個出口，可供原告人逃走。

9.原告人的投訴實屬無中生有。於判決書中，本席從來沒有提過後巷有另一個出口。而從原告人所提交的草圖（文件冊二，第317頁）清楚可見涉案物業只有一個出口在花槽旁邊。這點雙方沒有爭議，而本席亦從來沒有認為涉案物業有兩個出口。

10.本席認為理據一沒有合理上訴得直機會。

C2. 理據二

11.於判決書第62段至第85段，本席處理的議題是被告人有沒有以適當的武力制服原告人。本席指出，原告人案情多處跟客觀證據不相符，亦不合常理，叫人難以信服。

12.於判決書第66段，本席說：—