|
HCMA395/2006
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2006年第395號
(原沙田裁判法院案件2004年第11021號)
---------------------
| |
香港特別行政區 |
|
| |
訴 |
|
| 被告人 |
陳玉枝經營協健鐵業工程 |
|
----------------------
主審法官：高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官潘敏琦
聆訊日期：2006年7月18日
裁判日期：2006年7月18日
判 案 書
1.上訴人在聆訊後，被裁定一項「未有就僱用的僱員有一份由保險人所發出的有效保險單」的指控罪名成立，違反香港法例第 282 章《僱員補償條例》第 40(1)及40(2) 條。上訴人不服定罪，提出上訴。
控方的證供
2.控方傳召一位證人作供，他指事發前數天，上訴人致電他，詢問他是否有空擔任燒焊、油漆、鑽窿等工作，雙方商議後，協定他於1 月9 日開工。3 天後，他因工受傷，由上訴人送他入院，他指上訴人表示沒有為他買「勞保」，又指示他要對醫生說是自己工作弄傷的。後來，他由上訴人接出院，並支付了700 元，此外又通過上訴人的女兒支付了他相等於3 日人工合共1,200 元，並沒有進一步的賠償。
辯方證供
3.上訴人選擇作供。他指是控方第一證人致電他，要求到其工作地點看看和「偷師」。他強調他從沒有僱用控方第一證人。而案發當日，控方證人曾向他表示肚痛，要看醫生，他承認事後曾接控方第一證人出院，並給予他數百元 ，他堅稱那數百元並非醫療費用。然而控方第一證人，在一星期後卻不知就裡地問他有否幫他買勞工保險。他亦不知女兒為何替他支付1,200 元予控方證人。
上訴理由
4.上訴人大律師指裁判官在口述判決和裁斷陳述書中均沒有闡釋他為何認為第一控方證人誠實可靠、為何認定上訴人不盡不實，令上訴人無從得知他被定罪的基礎，故此，定罪不穩妥。
答辯人回應
5.答辯人大律師指，在此類控辯雙方對事實各執一詞的案件中，要求裁判官解釋他為何接受控方證人而拒納上訴人的證供，既無必要，亦不切實際。答辯人大律師援引了R v. Lai Yuk Kui [1981] HKLR 691和HKSAR v. So Pui Wah，HCMA1106/2005。另外，今天亦呈遞了R v. Sheik Abdul Rahman [1989] 1 HKLR 1。再者，答辯人大律師指，就算裁判官的裁斷陳述書有不足之處，本庭考慮的大前提是，撤銷定罪是否合乎公義。
判決
6.裁判官正確指出本案是「一對一」的案件，控辯雙方對案情各執一詞。
7.本案中雙方並不爭議在2004 年1 月12 日，上訴人並未有就控方第一證人有一份有效的僱員賠償保險，而本案的關鍵在於上訴人在案發時有否僱用第一證人。
8.裁判官指：
「本席經小心考慮後，認為控方第一證人是誠實及可靠的證人，他將事實的真相說出(即上述第3至5段)，而上訴人則是不誠實、不可靠，本席不接納上訴人的證供，他並非是誠實的證人。本席在毫無合理疑點下信納於涉案當日，控方第一證人是上訴人僱用的僱員，上訴人並未有就控方第一證人一份有效的僱員補償保險。本席裁定上訴人罪名成立。」
9.上訴人大律師依賴HKSAR v. Yip Wai Yee，HCMA1003/2001一案，當時仍為暫委法官的MaMahon J說：
「Any acceptance of one witness’ evidence over another cannot be arbitrary. It must be based on reasons and those reasons must be stated by the convicting magistrate. Simply saying that an appellant evidence was disbelieved when it was given in the court below is not enough….
In any event no reason was given for rejecting the appellant’s evidence. Some reasons should have been given. It may well be that on occasion it is difficult to express any reason for rejecting a defendant’s evidence. But if it is rejected there must, in fact, have been some reason for the court to have done so. For one thing a court cannot reject a defendant’s evidence unless it is sure it is right to do so.
Whether the rejection occurs because of some inherent implausibility or contradiction in a defendant’s case or the strength of the prosecution witnesses’ evidence or by way perhaps of a number of reasons in combination a defendant in a criminal trial is entitled to know, even if very briefly, why his case and evidence was rejected and how the issues arising therefrom were resolved.」
10.而在R v. Chang Siu Ming，HCMA833/1995，Duffy J亦説：
「The only point on the appeal and the reason for my having to allow the appeal was simply that the learned Magistrate stated in his findings that he accepted the evidence from the prosecution as credible and rejected the evidence of the defence witness. But he did so without given any reason whatsoever for making that decision. It is almost trite law that a magistrate in his findings must give defendants reason why they are being convicted, and that includes stating why it is that he prefers the evidence of the prosecution to the evidence of the Defence.」
11.答辯人的張大律師卻援引了Lai Yuk Kui一案，Robert CJ説：
「The main criticism which has been leveled against the magistrate is that he gave no reasons for the conclusions which he reached. I was referred to Lam Tin-chung v. R [1970] HKLR 105. There are in this judgment two passages, one of which is frequently quoted by the Crown and one of which is frequently quoted by the defence.
That which finds favour with the Crown is the passage which says that there may be cases where the tribunal is left with a direct choice between the evidence of A and that of B with no accompanying factor，or features to aid it in coming to a decision and where there the tribunal can do little more, if anything, than say which of the witnesses it believes….」
12.另外，答辯人大律師亦依賴So Pui Wah一案，該案其中之一的上訴理由是裁判官拒納上訴人的證供卻沒有道出當中的理據。
13.Deputy Judge Line指：
「At the centre of this case, as in so many other summary trials, was an issue in very short compass, which in effect amounted to assertion and counter assertion. Did the complainant say the words complained of, or did he merely say words to the effect, “You are queue jumping, move on”, as he claimed? It is not possible in circumstances like that to dissect and take apart the evidence given by the defendant. …
…The Magistrate who saw and heard the witness came to the clear conclusion that he had not(make up against the appellant), that he was telling the truth. No sufficient material point taken before me makes me have any doubt about that finding.」
14.So Pui Wah一案中第 9段中清楚可見，裁判官的確有考慮控方證人中證供的分歧，他滿意這分歧並沒影響控方證人的可信性，可見裁判官在裁定他相信控方證人的層面下，由於控辯雙方對事實版本截然不同，不能並存，故此Deputy Judge Line認為縱使裁判官沒道出拒納上訴人證供的原因，問題不大。
15.該案圍繞的重點極窄，重點是上訴人是否說過警員所指的一番說話，本案與之不盡相同：本案的重點在於上訴人有否僱用證人，這點從前因後果可見蛛絲馬跡，例如之前是上訴人聯絡證人抑或證人聯絡上訴人？上訴人有否陪證人入院或接他出院？事後上訴人女兒為何支付1,200 元予證人？本案證供不屬不能解剖分析之類。
16.在R v.Lam Kam Ming and Another，CACC607/1989一案中,O’Connor J是這樣説的：
「The reasons for verdict should, in manner appropriate to the circumstances of the case, illustrate the salient points in the case and demonstrate that the evidence has been evaluated. Significant inconsistencies and conflicts should be dealt with in such manner as to indicate how those matters were resolved. There is no simple formula for what ought to be in a judgment as it must be related to the circumstances of the particular case. The Magistrate should state his reasons to such an extent as will inform the parties as to how and why the particular verdict was arrived at and furthermore will enable an appellate court to perform its duty.」
17.本席在香港特別行政區訴王建華一案，HCMA410/2005是這樣說的：
「雖然本席在處理裁判法院上訴案件中曾經多次說過，裁判官是無需把其心路歷程鉅細無遺地展示人前的，然而，在控方證人證供出現分歧矛盾時，被告人以至上訴法院實在有必要知道裁判官如何處理和調較該些分歧，去作出什麼事實的裁決，從而對上訴人定罪的，這些原則，在一些控辯雙方只各得一名證人對事件經過各執一詞的案件，尤為重要。」
18.在該案中的第一證人庭上證供與證人口供存在分歧，但裁判官只輕輕帶過而作出「不認為這些出入有任何重要性」之裁斷。
19.事實上在張大律師援引的Lai Yui Kui一案中，Roberts CJ亦指：
「I have to comment that it is, in general, desirable that magistrates should indicate, at least in a brief manner, the reasons why they have preferred one version of events as opposed to the other…」
20.沿用以上案例，裁判官在本案的裁斷陳述書流於簡單，未達致上述的標準和要求。
21.根據HKSAR v. Ching Kwok Yin [2001] 1 HKLRD 267,終審法院是這樣說的：
「There is in the Magistrates Ordinance no equivalent to s. 83 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 221, which specifies the grounds upon which an appeal to the Court of Appeal may be allowed, and therefore there is no proviso which requires that the appeal shall be dismissed if no miscarriage of justice has actually occurred: the judge may make such order as he thinks just. It follows that he has to decide whether there has been in the Magistrates’ Court an error which makes it just that the appeal should be allowed and the conviction set aside.」
22.故此，縱使本席可能認為本案的證供足以支持定罪，然而，裁斷陳述書的不足，令本席認為撤銷定罪是合乎公義。下令上訴得直，但鑑於本案的證供，本席現頒佈重審令。
控方：由副首席政府律師張維新代表香港特別行政區。
辯方：由梁鄧蔡律師事務所委託黃士翔大律師代表。
|