林 對 胡

FCMC 1936/2020

[2023] HKFC 257

香 港 特 別 行 政 區

區 域 法 院

婚姻訴訟案件編號2020年第1936宗

__________

__________

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

判 案 書
(交附羈押: 判刑)

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

1.本席在今天頒下判案書，裁定呈請人(“男方”) 藐視法庭罪名成立。

2.本席給予男方提出求情陳詞的機會，答辯人(“女方”)的律師代表亦獲得機會提出相應陳詞。

藐視法庭的判刑原則

3. 高等法院歐陽桂如法官在 Bruno Arboit v. Koo Siu Ying & Anor 一案 (無彙報案例 HCMP 2749/2012, 判案書日期為 18/5/2016)，列出藐視法庭判罰之原則 :

“Legal principles for sentencing for contempt of court

1. ………

2. The starting-point is to acknowledge that contempt of civil court orders is a serious matter and that court orders are made to be obeyed. A prime consideration of the court in sentencing contempt is to “signal importance of demonstrating to litigants that the orders of these courts are to be obeyed”. By “litigants”, it is clearly referring to litigants in general and not just the contemnor himself. See Questnet Limited v Wilfred Royce Lane, HCA 1475/2006, Chu J (as she then was), 23 June 2008 (on sentence).

3. The object of the sentence is both to punish conduct in defiance of the court’s order and to serve a coercive function by holding out the threat of future punishment as a means of securing the protection which the order was primarily there to do: Crystal Mews Ltd v Metterick & ors [2006] EWHC 3087, §8, Collins J; re Barrell Enterprises [1973] 1 WLR 19, at 27C-D, English CA. The court has to balance the 2 objects.

4. The sentence for contempt may range from a fine to a term of imprisonment. The UK Contempt of Court Act 1981 imposes a maximum term of 2 years’ imprisonment but Hong Kong does not have that statutory limit.

5. Imprisonment should be regarded as a sanction of the last resort. Any custodial sentence should be as short as possible consistent with the circumstances of the case. Willwin Development (Asia) Co Ltd v Wei Xing, HCMP 2946/2014 (unreported, 16 November 2015), B Chu J, §4(f); CMA CGM v Ng Chip Choi Maurice, HCMP 2988/2014, 12 March 2015, Au-Yeung J, §24(1).

6. The court may suspend a term of imprisonment for such period or on such terms as the court deems fit: CMA CGM v Ng Chip Choi Maurice, §24(2); Order 52, rule 7. This is an “absolute discretion” but it would be difficult to think of circumstances where a suspended order should be made when nothing further remains to be done to comply with the order: Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2016, Vol 1, §52/7/2.

7. The court will consider if there are :

(a) Aggravating factors: Hao Xiaoying v Wong Yiu Lam William & Ors, HCMP 1968/2014, 2 March 2015, Anthony Chan J;

(b) Mitigating factors: Ge Transportation (Shenyang) Co Ltd v Lu Jinxiang, HCMP 1792/2013 (unreported, 22 January 2014) (DHCJ Marlene Ng); and

(c) Acts to purge the contempt, ie acts to atone for a contempt, eradicate it or cleanse it of its previous ill-effect which, in the case of a mandatory order, may be fulfilled if the contemnor thereupon does the act or causes it to be done: CJ v Flintshire BC [2010] EWCA Civ 393, at §6.

8. Relevant factors (which are not exhaustive) include:

(a) The nature of the order and breach in question, and the extent of the breach: Questnet Limited v Wilfred Royce Lane.

(b) Whether the contempt was contumacious or unintentional, the reasons, motives and state of mind: Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2016, Vol 1, §52/9/2.

(c) Whether the claimant has been prejudiced by virtue of the contempt and whether the prejudice is capable of remedy: Crystal Mews Ltd v Metterick, §13.

(d) Whether the contemnor appreciates the seriousness of the deliberate breach: Crystal Mews Ltd v Metterick, §13.

(e) Whether the contemnor has cooperated: Crystal Mews Ltd v Metterick, §13.

9. Counsel for Koo and Ling have helpfully compiled a schedule showing the sentences for contempt in Hong Kong in the last 15 years. Cases which Mr Hew, counsel for the Liquidator, has referred me to on matters of principle also contained sentences in the UK.

10. As circumstances of contempt vary greatly, there is little mileage to be gained from the citation of other cases: AXA China Region Insurance Co Ltd & anor v Li Yu Ping Ellen [2002] 3 HKC 339, 362 H-I, Stock JA.”

判罰量刑

4.在決定量刑方面，基於每個個案的情況均不相同，法庭有責任及絕對酌情權，從多方面的事實情況作出全面考慮，務求達至公平公正的結果，亦須同時向公眾發出正確訊息，法庭命令及個人向法庭作出的承諾，不論在刑事案件或是民事案件或是家事案件，必須務實及貫徹地執行，法庭不會姑息任何掩飾及逃避 (catch me if you can) 之舉措，意圖阻礙公義的彰顯。

5.本席將從以下4方面作基本的探討 :

- 違反命令者的行為是否屬頑固及具惡意 (contumacious and malicious);

- 違反命令者是否存有其他隱秘的動機 (ulterior motive);

- 違反命令者的學歴、教育程度及背景;

- 違反命令者是否願意移除藐視法庭的行為，及向受影響的一方作出補償。

6.在求情陳詞方面，男方說現時他與家人的關係轉差，不會再得到家人在經濟上援手協助，亦沒有任何提議或方案，處理因他違反承諾而衍生的欠款。

7.列席今日聆訊代表女方的洪律師向法庭陳述，女方現時經濟拮据，她只希望男方能清還所欠的大女兒學費及相關費用，留待法庭懲處男方藐視法庭的行為 。

8.整件事件上，男方不遵守承諾，罔顧大女兒的福祉，屬不負責任的行為，亦犯下藐視法庭罪，法庭必須嚴肅跟進處理以示公正，應判處交付羈押。

9.整體性考慮，男方沒有任何可被接納的求情或是寬減判罰因素 (mitigating factors)，或男方有任何移除藐視法庭的行為或意向 (acts or intention to purge contempt)，供法庭考慮非羈押形式之判罰。但在顧及今天是小女兒的生日，早前雙方亦達成共識在今天及後的界定探視兩名女兒的安排，即時交付羈押男方可能對兩名女兒帶來負面情緒。

10.經小心及全面考慮，縱使交付羈押之判罰形式屬最後的選擇，而非首選之判罰，本席認為交付羈押之判罰是正確及合適的選擇，量刑方面以8星期屬恰當。

11.但本席給予男方機會與兩名女兒共渡佳節， 8星期交付羈押之判罰，倘若男方在7天內 (即29/12/2023) 向女方的律師代表清付截至 29/12/2023的全數欠款，判罰的8星期交付羈押之判罰將會擱置，否則予以即時執行。

訟費

12.在訟費方面，法庭頒令男方須支付女方的交付羈押程序之全部訟費，包括保留待決的訟費。倘若雙方未能就訟費金額達成協議，須交予司法常務官評定。

13.本席亦頒發審訊當天的大律師證書 (Certificate for Counsel) 。

14.這是一個訟費暫准命令，倘若在本判案書日起計14天內沒有申請，則轉為訟費絕對命令。

呈請人：無律師代表 ，自行應訊

答辯人：由洪珀姿律師事務所洪珀姿律師代表