|
HCMA1024/2005
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2005年第1024號
(原九龍城裁判法院案件2005年第5784號)
---------------------
---------------------
審理法官：高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官潘敏琦
聆訊日期：2005年12月9日
裁決日期：2005年12月9日
判 案 書
1.本案上訴人在聆訊後被裁定兩項管理賣淫場所罪罪名成立，違反香港法例第200章《刑事罪行條例》第139(1)(b)條，每項控罪被判入獄12個月，同期執行。她現不服定罪，提出上訴。
2.控方傳召了兩名警員作供，裁判官在裁斷陳述書第5至18段(即上訴綜卷第13至19頁)撮要地敍述他們的證供。簡而言之，兩人在兩項控罪所指的日期喬裝顧客到控罪詳情所指的地址，上訴人介紹自己為上址酒吧的經理，每次均介紹及安排妓女陪伴兩名證人消遣，鼓其如簧之舌向二人推銷妓女提供的性服務，並提及費用支付的辦法，又指示妓女妥善招呼客人。
3.上訴人選擇作供。她承認事發日期在有關夜總會任職營業經理，但否認如兩名控方證人所指在上址安排妓女與客人外出提供性服務。她指她在第一次只招呼控方第一和第二證人，以及按他們所需替他們落單安排飲食以及轉到房間消遣，向他們推銷啤酒。她指後來坐到證人旁邊的女子只是鄰桌的客人。她續指在第二次亦曾招呼過控方第一、第二證人，而當時和他們一起的兩名女子並非酒吧的員工，她並不認識她們。
完備上訴理由
4.本席將上訴理由歸納如下：
「裁判官錯誤地裁斷有關的場所為賣淫場所，而根據法例，有關場所必須完全或主要用以組織或安排賣淫。裁判官裁定該處所在有關日子是完全或者主要用作賣淫場所時，不但沒有基於任何事實基礎，更加混淆及顛倒了舉證的責任。」
答辯人回應
5.答辯人指原審裁判官是基於：
(1) 現場為夜總會；
(2) 上訴人和控方證人所有話題乃圍繞着性服務的提供；及
(3) 控方證人在現場的經歷而作出推斷現場是完全或主要用以安排賣淫的。答辯人指裁判官有權作出這推斷，所以定罪是穩妥的。
6.就本案事實上的裁斷方面，一般而言，裁判官耳聞目睹證人的證供以及他們作供時的舉止，在作出證人可信性的事實裁斷上，較本席單依賴謄本來說，是處於較有優勢的位置的。本席認為裁判官有權作出上述的事實裁斷，而有關之裁斷並非於理不合、剛愎武斷、或有違內在或然性。裁判官滿意兩名控方證人是誠實可靠，並信納他們的證供為事發經過，拒納上訴人的證供，他在裁斷陳述書第39至41段闡明理由，在此不贅。
7.在上述事實的裁斷層面上，裁判官考慮了法例和案例，他基於他接納兩名控方證人的證供，裁定有關處所在有關的日子是完全或主要用作賣淫場所。
8.根據罪行詳情，上訴人乃被控「管理」「經營」作「賣淫場所」的有關處所。這裏涉及好幾個元素：
(1) 有關處所是否「經營」作「賣淫場所」；
(2) 上訴人是否「管理」有關處所。
9.在考慮上述(1)點時，又分兩個步驟：
(a) 該處所是否「賣淫場所」？
(b) 如是，則有關處所是否「經營」作「賣淫場所」？
(見R v. Lam Wing Nin, HCMA651/1993 per Bewley J)
10.在考慮上述(a)項，即該處所是否「賣淫場所」時，須顧及香港法例第200章《刑事罪行條例》第117(3)條，「賣淫場所」的釋義：
「(a) 該處所……或地方由兩人或由超過兩人完全或主要用以賣淫；或
(b) 該處所……或地方完全或主要用以組織或安排賣淫，或與組織或安排賣淫有關而使用。」
11.至於有關處所是否「經營」作「賣淫場所」，McMullin VP在Wong Chi Hung v. R. [1982] HKLR 361一案中指涉及：
“…evidence sufficient to show a pattern of main user which will usually involve some degree of persistence in time beyond what would be supplied by evidence of a single transaction.”
12.而在HKSAR v. Yu Wai Shun， HCMA751/1997，Leong J說：
“It had been clearly established that proof of habitual user was not necessary and that evidence of one visit could be sufficient to show that the premises were kept as a vice establishment if there were other circumstances justifying that inference.”
13.明顯地，第117(3)(b)條可覆蓋第117(3)(a)條不適用之情況，而最普遍例子是有關處所只用作安排介紹賣淫活動而實際的賣淫活動是在另外地點進行的情況。而本案的情況，是上訴人安排妓女與兩名證人到外面的地方進行性交易，故此，裁判官應該根據第117(3)(b)條而並非第117(3)(a)條裁定有關處所在有關日子為賣淫場所。
14.至於有關的處所是否完全或主要用以組織或安排賣淫用途，上訴人的大律師指出根據證據，控罪針對有關的單位為一樓全層，並非是R5一房，該處所基本上是酒吧以及卡拉OK，即使根據控方證人所指，在R5房內有安排賣淫活動，一些被檢取的收據亦顯示該處所仍有其他正常合法活動在進行。裁判官雖然曾經考慮酒吧亦有其他客人一點，但他單憑沒有證供顯示那些客人的消費實際情況如何，即妄下判斷該處乃完全或主要用以組織或安排賣淫，等同顛倒舉證責任。
15.事實上在R. v. Cheng Sung Hin，HCMA498/1995，Bewley J表示：
“Where there was innocent letting of rooms contemporaneous with the arranging of prostitution, the premises were not wholly or mainly used for the arranging of prostitution within s.117(3)(b) of the Crimes Ordinance.”
16.而在另一個案件R. v. Li Kin Wai & Another，HCMA102/1985，de Basto J表示：
“The Magistrate was entitled to infer from the layout of the agreed plan, the darkness of the booth area, the position, size and design of the booths, the use of torches to guide customers to them. The behaviour of the two women towards the two police officers who were posing as customers, that the premises were used for the purpose of prostitution; the words ‘wholly or mainly’ were intended to describe the use of the premises rather than the frequency of use.”
17.在HKSAR v. Wong Ming Chu，HCMA1127/2004一案，有關的單位自稱“a hostess karaoke nightclub”。裁判官在陳述書中指：
“… even if PW1 had been singing there with the hostesses for a while, it cannot be indicative that the premises were not used wholly or mainly nor was it so kept for the purpose of prostitution …”
該案上訴時，Pang J在判案書中是這樣說的：
“The magistrate was dismissive about the fact that there were other customers singing in the premises and on the general layout and fitting of the premises. With respect to the magistrate, it is readily apparent from the photographs and layout drawings exhibited at the trial that the premises in question is very different from a seedy operation conducted in a flat partitioned into small cubicles and holding itself out as an apartment house and where the cubicles consist only of a bed and washing facilities and where condoms, tissue papers and pornographic materials were seized.
The premises in question has a bar which is stocked with drinks, fully equipped karaoke rooms of various sizes, an office area containing no less than six safes, numerous employees’ time cards, filing cabinets with documents and a computer. I note there was no evidence before the magistrate as to the number of hostesses working in the club at the material time nor the number of mamasans working in the club. The undisputed facts which I have just noted remains part of the prosecution’s case and evidence before the magistrate. Even though the magistrate is entitled to express herself in rather convoluted way as she did, one must ask this question : ‘in the light of the evidence, has the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the premises was used wholly or mainly for or in connection with the organizing or arranging of prostitution?’ With respect the conclusion reached by the magistrate on this issue was not the only inference that can be drawn under the circumstances.
It would be impractical and indeed impossible for the court to device a precise mathematical formula to determine what constitutes wholly or mainly in the definition. One must look at the evidence in each case in order to resolve this issue. In adopting a dismissive attitude, the magistrate had fallen into error in not giving sufficient regard and proper weight to the evidence before her on the issue of whether the premises was wholly or mainly for the proscribed user. …”
18.本案與黃明珠案相似，而裁判官認為酒吧大堂有其他客人一點無關重要。他是這樣說的：
「根據控方證人所述，在他們消遣期間，見在酒吧大堂處有其他客人。本席已經小心考慮過這一點，但認為並不影響本席在以上一段所達至的結論。首先，沒有證供顯示這些客人的消遣情況是怎樣的(是否與控方證人的情況一樣還是不一樣)；簡單而言，這些證供是無關緊要的，作用不大。純粹根據控方證人所遇到的經驗來看，他們每次到來酒吧來，第一被告主要的話題都是圍繞著性服務，從這些證供本席推斷出以上結論而已。」
19.本席認同袁大律師所說如果一些事實可以推斷得出有利於被告人的推論，亦同時可以作出不利於被告人的推論，該不利於被告人的推論不屬於唯一合理的推論。
20.本席認為裁判官未有充份考慮該處所是否完全或主要用以組織或安排賣淫。再者，他亦似乎沒有處理有關處所是否「經營」作「賣淫場所」，就轉而處理「管理」的元素。
21.定罪不穩妥，下令推翻，刑期擱置。
控方：由律政司政府律師陳淑玲代表香港特別行政區
辯方：由法律援助署委託袁國華大律師代表被告人
|