律政司司長 訴 陳虹秀
Read the full judgment text of CACC 278/2021 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 3 October 2023 before Poon Siu-chor CJHC, Pang Wai-cheong JA, Pang Po-kam JA.
Criminal law – riot – discharge at no case to answer – appeal by way of case stated under section 84 of the District Court Ordinance (Cap 336) – Court of Appeal allowed appeal, set aside ruling and remitted to District Court for retrial – application for certificate to appeal to Court of Final Appeal under section 32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) – whether points of law of great general or public importance arise – facts: trial judge ruled no case to answer in respect of count of riot contrary to section 19(1) and (2) of the Public Order Ordinance (Cap 245); case stated showed trial judge aware of joint enterprise basis of prosecution – legal issues: (1) whether Court of Appeal may determine issues not raised in case stated; (2) whether appellant may raise arguments on case-stated appeal that were not raised at trial; (3) whether Court of Appeal may consider extrinsic evidence not contained in case stated – held: none of the three questions engages a point of law of great general or public importance; in any event, the Court of Final Appeal in HKSAR v Chu Ang had already considered and rejected the proposition that appellate court is confined to law as it stood at trial; the agreed video evidence was included with the case stated as Annex 1, and the Respondent raised no objection before the Court of Appeal viewed the footage – section 83V of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap 221) permits Court of Appeal to order production of documents or exhibits necessary for determination – outcome: certificate refused.
Legal issues: Whether to grant certificate for leave to appeal to CFA on questions of great general or public importance
Outcome: Application for certificate to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused.
Cited by 4 cases · Cites 5 cases
|
CACC 278/2021, [2023] HKCA 1106 原案件：[2020] HKDC 992 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 刑事司法管轄權 申請終審法院上訴許可證明書 刑事上訴案件2021年第278號 （原區域法院刑事案件2020年第12號） ________________
________________
判 案 書 背景 1.答辯人連同另七人被控一項暴動罪[1]，控方舉證完畢後，區域法院法官沈小民（「原審法官」）裁定答辯人表面證據不成立，無需答辯（「該裁定」）。律政司司長（「司長」）不滿該裁定，以案件呈述方式提出上訴[2]。本庭於2023 年7月14日頒下判案書[3]（「判案書」），撤銷該裁定，並將案件發還區域法院由另一位法官審理。有關案件的背景及爭議已在判案書詳細交代，在此不贅。 2.答辯人於2023年7月21日存檔動議通知書，要求本庭證明案件具有重大而廣泛重要性的法律觀點，以便向終審法院提出上訴許可申請[4]。答辯人所指具有重大而廣泛重要性的法律觀點是：
3.雙方同意法庭可以書面方式處理動議通知書。本庭經考慮雙方的書面陳詞後，現頒下判案書。 討論 4.首先，本庭需要指出，不論案件呈述或本庭的判案書，都不引發起答辯人所提出的三個問題，因為本庭於判案書的判決只涉及原審法官席前的證據、原審法官有否及應否考慮某些證據，以及原審法官的考量是否有錯；這些全屬事實裁斷，根本不牽涉答辯人提出的問題。無論如何，答辯人就這些問題的論點並不成立。 5.針對問題(1)及(2)，答辯人的實質投訴是，雖然司長於案件呈述提出：
但司長其實是要求本庭考慮當時終審法院尚未頒佈的HKSAR v Lo Kin Man[5]（盧建民案）的原則，因而超出案件呈述提出的法律問題。 6.本庭已在判案書第98至101段處理這個說法，並指出答辯人錯誤聚焦於盧建民案的適用性。本庭重申：
7.故此，本庭不認為問題(1)及(2)涉及任何具有重大而廣泛重要性的法律觀點。無論如何，正如上訴人所指，雖然答辯人聲稱法庭只可根據原審時適用的法律（而非審訊後頒佈的案例），考慮司長提出的案件呈述上訴，但這個觀點已被終審法院妥為考慮及否定：見HKSAR v Chu Ang[8]。 8.問題(3)是針對本庭於聆訊時觀看的錄像片段。答辯人投訴載有該些片段的光碟或記憶棒，又或相關謄本，並沒有附於案件呈述內，因而有違ING Baring Securities (Hong Kong) Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue[9]一案的要求。 9.本庭並不接納這個問題涉及任何重要的法律觀點，況且，這投訴根本站不住腳，因為：
結論 10.本案並不涉及答辯人所指需要由終審法院處理的法律觀點，更遑論是具有重大而廣泛重要性的法律觀點。 11.是故，本庭拒絕發出有關證明書。
上訴人： 由律政司署理助理刑事檢控專員張卓勤及檢控官尹培軒代表 答辯人： 由張柱才律師事務所轉聘吳宗鑾大律師、陳曉妍大律師及葉承昊大律師代表 |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACC 278/2021