律政司司長 訴 湯嘉欣
Read the full judgment text of CACC 150/2022 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 25 October 2024 before Pang Wai Cheong JA, Pun Man Ki JA, Pang Bo Kam JA.
Criminal law – riot – possession of offensive weapon – case stated under s.84 of the District Court Ordinance – appeal against acquittal – Court of Appeal quashing acquittal on riot charge and remitting for continuation of hearing – application for certificate for leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – whether questions of great general or public importance – District Court Ordinance (Cap 336) s.84 – Hong Kong Bill of Rights arts 11(4) and 11(6) – Leave to appeal – the three proposed questions concerned: (1) the circumstances in which the Court of Appeal may re-examine evidence considered by the trial judge and make fresh or different factual findings so as to overturn a not-guilty verdict; (2) the circumstances in which the Court of Appeal may treat a trial judge's finding of reasonable doubt or gap in the prosecution case as speculation against an accused who did not testify; and (3) the circumstances in which the Court of Appeal, in a case where the accused was acquitted after trial, may remit the case to the trial judge to continue rather than order a retrial, without giving clear directions or guidance – The Court of Appeal, constituted by Pang Wai Cheong JA, Pun Man Ki JA and Pang Bo Kam JA, refused the certificate, holding that the first question was governed by established principles in Li Man Wai v Secretary for Justice and HKSAR v Lai Kwok Hung, including the proper consideration of the cumulative effect of circumstantial evidence – the second question was a false proposition that mischaracterised the trial judge's analysis, which properly applied Li Defan to the effect that where an accused does not testify, the court need not invent possibilities on his behalf – the third question was settled by Secretary for Justice v Wong Sau Fong and HKSAR v Chan Chi Wan, which established the Court of Appeal's power to remit cases to the District Court for continuation of hearing consistent with art 11(4) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights – Yeung Sun-shun was decided before the Bill of Rights and is no longer good law – the proposed questions did not raise points of law of great general or public importance – certificate for leave to appeal refused – the applicant was represented by Messrs Wu Kin Wah, with Mr Ng Lok Hang and Mr Ngan Chun Fung leading counsel, instructed by Mr Wu Kin Wah solicitor; the respondent was represented by Mr Siu Kai Yip, Senior Assistant DPP, and Ms Wong Yan Ning, Acting Senior Counsel.
Legal issues: Whether the proposed grounds meet the threshold for leave to appeal to the CFA
Outcome: Application for certificate for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused.
Cited by 3 cases · Cites 7 cases
|
CACC 150/2022, [2024] HKCA 995 原案件: [2021] HKDC 1060 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2022年第150號 (原區域法院刑事案件2020年第512號) ________________
________________
判 案 書 高等法院上訴法庭法官潘敏琦頒發上訴法庭判案書: 引言 1.本庭在2024年6月7 日經聆訊後推翻原審法官就控罪一「暴動」罪的無罪裁決和撤銷相關訟費命令，並將案件該部分發還原審法官繼續處理；就控罪三「管有攻擊性武器」 罪的案件呈述上訴則駁回，維持無罪裁決及維持原審法官就控罪三所頒布的訟費命令[1]。本庭在2024 年7 月12 日頒下判案理由書，內容不在此贅。 2.2024年7月19日，申請人存檔動議通知書，以案件具重大而廣泛的法律論點為由，向本庭申請上訴許可證明書。 3.雙方同意本庭可以書面方式處理本申請並已存檔書面陳詞。 申請人擬提出的法律問題及陳詞
5.答辯人反對本申請，指三條問題牽涉的所謂法律觀點，在過往的權威性案例中已得到確立。 討論 6.就問題一，終審法院在Li Man Wai v Secretary for Justice[3]清楚指出，如原審法官的無罪裁斷是「有悖常理」，即屬法律上犯錯。例如：忽視了應被考慮的因素，考慮了不相干的因素。吳大律師認為本庭只因不同意下級法院的事實裁定，而以其看法取代原審法官的決定，有違Li Man Wai所確立的原則。然而，本庭並沒質疑原審法官就個別環境證供的裁決，或干預他就個別證人證詞或其他證供的評估。本庭是認為原審法官錯誤地把該些環境證供逐一分拆作考慮，而沒有充分考慮它們的「疊加效應」[4] 。事實上，HKSAR v Lai Kwok Hung [5] 案就清楚指出：
7.就問題二，吳大律師倚賴Yang Chih Chen v Securities and Futures Commission[6] 案，指出原審法官基於案件有合理疑點而拒絕定罪的裁決，不能與原審法官在沒有證據支持下作出事實裁斷，混為一談；上訴法院在什麼情況下把原審法官裁定的合理疑點視作原審法官是在缺乏證據下作出臆測，有待終審法院認可。本庭認為，這只是一個包裝成為法律觀點的偽命題，無需終審法院處理。 8.首先，申請人嘗試引用Yang Chih Chen案中提及律政司在什麽情況下可以就原審裁判官或法官的事實裁斷作出上訴（或案件呈述）一點，終審法院在Li Man Wai 案已有詳盡分析，終審法院在Li Man Wai 案頒下的法律原則，一直沿用至今。第二，本庭在判案理由書第30 段所指，原審法官就着逐點環境證供「為答辯人想像各式各樣的答辯理由」是「在缺乏證供下作出臆測」，是體現了Li Defan [7]案已確立的法律觀點，即在被告人不作供的情況下，法庭不能就此假定他們有罪或對他們作出不利的推論，但此舉亦表示他們沒有提供證據來削弱、反駁或解釋控方提供的證據，法庭無需為他們憑空想像各式各樣的可能性。 9.就問題三，申請人依賴AG v Yeung Sun-shun [8] 案，質疑本庭是否有權作出發還原審法官繼續處理的指示。吳大律師認為，根據該案，申請人在審訊後被判無罪，故此並無聆訊可續。本庭在案件呈述後要求原審法官繼續處理，可能不符合《香港人權法案》第11(6) 條，即任何人依香港法律及刑事程序經終局判決判定有罪或無罪開釋者，不得就同一罪再予審判或科刑。 10.Secretary for Justice v Wong Sau Fong[9] 案就《區域法院條例》第84(c)(ii) 條及上訴法院命令案件在區域法院恢復聆訊的權力進行了詳細的分析，認為Yeung Sun-shun 案的判決是在《香港人權法案條例》生效前所作出，不符合法案第11(4) 條。香港特別行政區 訴 陳志雲 [10] 案確定此法律觀點：
11.上訴法庭命令案件在區域法院恢復或繼續聆訊的權力已在上述案件釐清。 結論 12.本庭認為申請人所指的所謂法律觀點，並非具有重大而廣泛的重要性的法律論點，因此本庭拒絕就申請人提出的三條問題頒發上訴許可證明書。
答辯人：由律政司高級助理刑事檢控專員蕭啟業及署理高級檢控官黃恩寧代表 申請人：由吳建華律師行轉聘吳珞珩大律師、顏震鋒大律師及吳建華訟辯律師代表 [2] 連同顏震鋒大律師及吳建華訟辯律師 [3] Li Man Wai v Secretary for Justice (2003) 6 HKCFAR 466 [4] 見 [2024] HKCA 663, 第30至35 段 [5] [2016] 1 HKLRD 1230 [6] Yang Chih Chen v Securities and Futures Commission (未經編彙，HCMA 204/2005 and HCMA 371/2005，2005 年8 月9 日) [7] (2002) 5 HKCFAR 320 [8] (1987) HKLR 987 [9] Secretary for Justice v Wong Sau Fong, [1998] 2 HKLRD 254 [10] CACC 183/2014，2015年12月15日，未經編彙 |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case