香港特別行政區 訴 趙淑儀

DCCC 320/2022

[2024] HKDC 126

香港特別行政區

區域法院

刑事案件2022年第320號

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

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

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

訟費判決理由書

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

引言

1.被告人被控3項「未經註冊而從事內科執業」罪，違反香港法例第161章《醫生註冊條例》（「該條例」）第28(2)(a)條。被告人否認全部控罪，於本席前接受審訊。經審訊後，本席裁定被告人3項控罪均罪名不成立，詳細理由可見於裁決理由書，在此不贅。辯方提出訟費申請，控方反對辯方的申請。

相關法律原則

2.根據香港法例第492章《刑事案件訟費條例》第5條，凡被告人於區域法院或原訟法庭接受審訊後獲判無罪，區域法院或原訟法庭可命令將訟費判給被告人。控辯雙方就相關法律原則並沒有爭議。

3.終審法院於Tong Cun Lin v HKSAR (1999) 2 HKCFAR 531一案指出，當法庭行使酬情權決定是否判給訟費時，法庭應考慮：

(i)  被告人的行為是否自招嫌疑；或

(ii)  被告人誤導控方，令控方相信證據比實際情況更強；或

(iii)  案件有充份證據支持定罪，惟被告人因技術理由而被判罪名不成立。

4.控方反對辯方訟費申請，主要原因為被告人的行為自招嫌疑。

5.Tong Cun Lin案終審法院進一步指出，法庭應考慮被告人的整體行為以判斷他是否「自招嫌疑」，而只要該些行為與該被告人面對的控罪有關，法庭便可考慮，考慮的範圍並不局限於某段時間。

6.終審法院首席法官李國能（當時官階）於 Ting James Henry v HKSAR (No. 2) (2007) 10 HKCFAR 730一案中判詞第16段指出:

“16. It may often be the case that a defendant’s conduct during the investigation and at the trial is such that it brings suspicion on himself, providing a ground for refusing him costs. Such conduct has been described as “most relevant” to the discretionary exercise. However, it is incorrect to suggest (and the authorities give no warrant for suggesting) that a defendant can only be regarded as having brought suspicion on himself by virtue of his conduct during the investigation or at trial and not otherwise. The discretion is not bounded by any such inflexible rule. By his conduct prior to the investigation and trial stages, including conduct which formed part of the setting for the charges laid against him, the defendant may plainly have brought suspicion upon himself. There is no reason to ignore such conduct in the exercise of the court’s discretion on costs following an acquittal on the charges laid, provided always that the discretion is not exercised so as to undermine the presumption of innocence, and in particular, provided that its exercise does not involve the court in adopting a position at variance with the defendant’s acquittal by the tribunal of fact.”

相關事實考慮

7.本席接納的證據顯示，被告人確實曾向涉案的3位相關人士收取不菲的費用提供與癌症相關的治療服務，包括例如問病歷、身體檢查、醫學診斷、處方治療及跟進進展等；而根據控方第四證人的專家意見，被告人向相關人士提供的治療服務與西醫執業相近。

8.被告人於廣旅集團大廈17樓的「娉婷健腦學」單位（該單位）的其中1個房間（該房間）會見3位相關人士，及於該房間提供部份療程服務。相片顯示該單位的接待處祇標示「娉婷健腦學」及“Painting International Ltd”，沒有其他公司名稱；其中部份房間放有本席認為狀似醫療用的不同的設備，例如氧氣機。沒有證據顯示調查期間被告人就其行為作出過任何解釋或澄清，審訊時她亦選擇不作供或傳召證人，當然這是她的權利，本席不會就此對她作出不利的推論。

裁決

9.考慮過所有相關事實，本席認為被告人於本案中的行為，確實自招嫌疑，本席拒絕接納被告人的訟費申請。