|
HCMA000278/2001
HCMA278/2001
香港特別行政區
高等法院原訟法庭
刑事上訴司法管轄權
判罪上訴
案件編號：裁判法院上訴案件2001年第278號
（原觀塘裁判法院案件2000年第901747號）
----------------------
----------------------
主審法官：高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官王見秋
審訊日期：2002年2月26日
判案書日期：2002年3月1日
_______________________
判 案 書
_______________________
1．上訴人在官塘裁判法院被裁定兩項違反交通條例控罪罪名成立。控罪指他 ：
（1） 在2000年8月7日於官塘繞道麗港城外面，身為在道路上展示登記號碼DA883的私家車的司機，無合理辯解而違反《道路交通（交通管制）規例》第374章130號圖形所示類型的交通標誌所顯示的規定，該交通標誌是：除越過前車靠左駛，因而違反根據《道路交通條例》第374章制定的《道路交通（交通管制）規例》第59(1)(a)條及第61(1)條，及
（2） 在2000年8月7日上午11時08分於官塘繞道近麗港城西行線在上訴人所駕駛的汽車，即展示登記號碼DA883的私家車移動時，無合理辯解而上訴人以手持的方式使用流動電話，違反根據《道路交通條例》第374章制定的《道路交通（交通管制）規例》第42(1)(g)(i)條及第61(2)條。
上訴人不服判決，提出上訴。
2．根據控方証人警員34560的証供，他在2000年8月7日早上11時05分駕駛警察電單車在麗港城對開的官塘繞道以時速70公里在官塘繞道第二條行車線巡邏。官塘繞道有3條行車線，而在路的左手邊設有交通標誌「除越過前車外靠左駛」。警員看見由上訴人駕駛的私家車DA884在官塘繞道第3條行車線上以時速大約70公里行駛。警員一路跟踪和觀察這輛私家車和駕駛者，沿途上訴人並以右手持著一部手提流動電話放在右耳旁，而上訴人的嘴巴不斷在郁動，只有一隻左手放在駕駛盤上。
3．警員繼續跟踪至宏照道的支路接近星島報業大厦，意圖截停DA884，但上訴人却沒有注意到該警員。直至駛到接近荷李活商塲大厦才將DA884截停，警員向上訴人說他違反了道路的交通標誌並在行車時使用手提無線電話，要求上訴人提供身份証明文件和駕駛執照，但遭上訴人拒絕，因此警員用通訊機要求上司增援。後來警長19856抵達現塲，警員便向上訴人發出一張告票。
4．上訴人作供時說當日早上10時左右，他駕駛DA883由將軍澳到官塘繞道，由於他要去沙田方向，所以沿第二條行車線行駛，當時的時速是60至70公里。當他駛至左手邊的偉業街天橋，看見一名交通警員在偉業街天橋附近時速70公里的道路交通標誌的地方發出燈號，準備駛出。因為當時交通繁忙，上訴人恐怕會發生意外所以沒有讓路給該警員。後來他遭該警員截停指上訴人車上貼了太陽紙，二人因此發生爭論，其後警員向他發出一張告票，上訴人拒絕接受。上訴人說他一直是在第1線或第2線行駛，並沒有在第3線行駛，他又沒有使有用手提無線電話。
5．經過考慮整體的案情和控辯雙方的口供，裁判官裁定上訴人兩項控罪罪名成立。
6．代表上訴人的張君銘大律師提出三點上訴理由。第一：原審裁判官在法律上錯誤地評論上訴人行使緘默權的權利。作為支持他的論點是裁判官在他的裁斷陳述書（上訴文件冊第16頁尾段和第17頁首段）是這樣的 ：
「上訴人在庭上稱在兩名警長抵達現塲之後，警員向上訴人發出一張告票。當時他和上訴人曾經發生激烈爭拗，他是沒有理由不看清楚告票上是寫什麼的。上訴人為什麼不作出任何回應而收了告票便算。惟一可能就是他違反了道路交通標誌。本席發現上訴人是一個不誠實，不可靠的証人，本席不接納上訴人的証供。反之，本席毫無因難地發覺警員是一位誠實可靠的証人，本席接納他的証供。」
7．張大律師又提供了兩宗案件以作參考。在HKSAR v. Li Lap Sun, HCMA621/2001，高等法院暫委法官麥明康這樣說 ：
"I now turn to the third ground of appeal. Mr Coghlan candidly and accurately prefaced his submissions in respect of this ground with the observation that it had little merit in common sense, but that it was wholly supported by the law. The basis of this ground of the appeal is that the learned magistrate went further than permitted in his comments on the appellant's silence on being first questioned by the police. At that time, the appellant had said nothing in response to those questions although later at the police station, he had made the somewhat cryptic statements recorded in the record of his interview.
Considering the appellant's silence when first questioned, the learned magistrate said this :
'The defendant had not been cautioned at that stage but he still had the right to remain silent. However, in the circumstances of this case his innocent possession of PW1's property screamed out for an explanation. After all, he says he was going out because he had seen the police and was walking out to see if they were involved with the missing bag. A spontaneous explanation, even if it was, "Sorry, this is just a joke," would be expected and the phone and the coin bag would have been in his hands, not out of sight in a pocket, or tucked into his trousers.'
It is that passage of the magistrate's Statement of Findings which is particularly complained of. It may well be thought that the learned magistrate's comments in this regard are, quite simply, a reflection of solid common sense.
In the present law of Hong Kong, however, adverse comment on a defendant's exercise of his right to silence is constrained. As Stuart-Moore VP said in HKSAR v. Del Carmen [2000] 3 HKC 431 :
'Whilst common sense might dictate that the failure on the part of a defendant to reveal a defence at an opportune moment prior to trial is something to be weighed in the scales when determining how much weight to attach to a defence first raised at trial, it seems that common law precedent is generally opposed to permitting the judge making any comment which invites the jury to use this feature of the evidence in this way.' "
基於這一點上訴理由，麥明康法官批准上訴，將定罪和刑期撤銷。
8．第二宗案件是The Queen v. Chan Hang Lee, HCMA146/1989，以下是判案書的其中一部份 ：
"The appellant was convicted of stealing a magazine from a Seven-Eleven store. He was caught by two employees. He then offered to pay for the magazine. The appellant testified that he went to the store intending to buy cigarettes. He picked up a magazine and tucked it under his arm. He went to the cashier counter and took out his wallet intending to pay. A man bumped into him. He then found the pen which had been clipped to his shirt was missing. The man ran out of the store - the appellant gave chase.
The learned magistrate commenced his Statement of Findings by stating that the appellant did not tell the store's two employees or the police that he suspected a man had stolen his pen. He said :
'I do not accept that the appellant did not have the opportunity of telling those at the scene about the man whom he suspected of having stolen his pen. I would have thought and expected that the immediate reaction of a person wrongly accused of stealing would have protested his innocence. This he did not do.' "
巴士度大法官就以這個理由批准上訴。
9．雖然對一些指控不作出回應可以在某些情況下被視作默認 ，但是這並不是一個絕對的原則，每一宗案件應該以案情環境而定。本案所涉及的是一對一的情況，即是說是警員的証供對上訴人的証供，而他們的口供又是完全對立的。因此裁判官以這個推測作為相信警員証供的理由是不正確和非常危險的。基於這些理由，本席認為定罪是不安全和難以令人滿意。這一點已足夠使本席批准上訴而無需考慮其他兩點上訴理由，本席可以說其他兩點理由是毫無可取之處。
10．本席批准上訴，並將罰款撤銷，如上訴人已繳罰款，則需將罰款退回上訴人。
控方：由律政司郭永隆政府律師代表香港特別行政區政府。
辯方：謝啟聰律師行轉聘張君銘大律師代表被告人。
|