香港特別行政區政府 訴 陳鈺麟
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 928/2010 on BabelCite. This Court of First Instance judgment was delivered on 3 March 2011 before 杜麗冰 (暫委法官).
Criminal law – Fixed Penalty (Traffic Contraventions) Ordinance (Cap 237) – three offences of illegal parking – appeal against conviction – constitutional challenge to the Basic Law – whether failure to legislate Article 23 of the Basic Law deprived the HKSAR government of prosecutorial power – whether there is a legal vacuum in Hong Kong's legal system pending Article 23 legislation – whether the CFA's referral for interpretation in FAMC 28/2009 violated Article 158 of the Basic Law – whether prior decision in HCMA 1100/2008 was binding – whether the magistrate erred in law. The appellant was convicted after trial in the Eastern Magistrates' Court of three offences under the Fixed Penalty (Traffic Contraventions) Ordinance (Cap 237). Unrepresented at trial, he did not testify or call witnesses. His principal defence was a constitutional challenge asserting that the HKSAR government had not fulfilled its constitutional duty by legislating under Article 23 of the Basic Law to prohibit treason and related acts, and had thereby lost prosecutorial power, rendering the prosecution invalid. He further argued that the CFA's referral of the prior case HCMA 1100/2008 to the NPC Standing Committee in FAMC 28/2009 violated Article 158 of the Basic Law. The magistrate rejected all three constitutional arguments and convicted the appellant. On appeal, the Court of First Instance upheld the magistrate's decision, holding that under Article 63 of the Basic Law the Secretary for Justice prosecutes on behalf of the entire HKSAR and is not subject to interference; that following HKSAR v Ma Wai Kuen, the Basic Law clearly intends no change in Hong Kong's laws and legal system and contemplates no legal vacuum, however brief; that the appellant's complaint about the CFA's interpretation referral was based on a misunderstanding of Article 158, and the magistrate correctly considered Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration (1999) 2 HKCFAR 4 and Ng Siu Tung v Director of Immigration (2002) 5 HKCFAR; and that HCMA 1100/2008 was not binding, as its observations were merely the personal opinion of that judge without substantive legal reasoning. The appeal against conviction was dismissed and the original conviction upheld.
Legal issues: Whether HKSAR lost prosecutorial power due to failure to legislate Article 23 of the Basic Law · Whether there is a legal vacuum in the HKSAR's legal system · Whether the CFA's referral for interpretation in FAMC 28/2009 violated Article 158 of the Basic Law · Whether prior case HCMA 1100/2008 was binding on the magistrate
Outcome: Appeal against conviction dismissed; original conviction upheld.
Cites 4 cases
|
HCMA 928/2010 香港特別行政區 高等法院原訟法庭 刑事上訴司法管轄權 定罪上訴 案件編號：裁判法院上訴案件2010年第928號 （原東區裁判法院定額罰款（違例泊車）傳票2010年第8, 17, 18號） _____________
_____________ 主審法官 ： 高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官杜麗冰 聆訊日期 ： 2011年3月3日 裁決日期 ： 2011年3月3日 判案書 1.上訴人經審訊後，被裁定三項違反香港法例第237章《定額罰款（交通違例事項）條例》罪罪名成立。上訴人不服定罪，提出上訴。 2.控方的案情沒有受到爭議。 3.審訊時，裁判法官在控方舉證完畢後，已清楚向上訴人解釋了他的權利，因為上訴人當時沒有律師代表。 4.上訴人選擇不作供，亦沒有傳召任何證人。上訴人最主要的辯護理由是挑戰憲法。裁判法官在他的裁斷陳述書第5段指出上訴人在審訊時用以下三項的論點挑戰憲法：
5.裁判法官經考慮後，決定駁回上訴人這個憲法挑戰。裁判法官的理由歸納為以下三大要點：
6.上訴時，上訴人同樣是作出自辯。首先本席需要確認上訴人的身份，因為上訴人到庭時沒有攜帶身份證。上訴人後來被本席確認為這宗案件的上訴人。 7.本席在聆訊前已收到上訴人一份詳盡的陳詞大綱，上訴人正如黃律師指出，同樣是投訴：
8.上訴人在庭上强調指出，《基本法》是覆蓋整個香港特別行政區，而不是香港特別行政區的政府。本席不認為這是一個值得詳盡討論的概念，因為特別行政區不是一個人，特別行政區政府是代表特別行政區處理種種發生在特別行政區內的事項，其中一個事項是控告一些違例的人士。特別行政區政府根據《基本法》的制定，賦予律政司司長權力去檢控違法人士。因此，本席認為裁判法官的論點是沒有錯的。 9.至於上訴人所提及HMCA 1100/2008一案，正如裁判法官所講，那是沒有任何約束性的。因為當時那位法官所提及的事項，其實只是他的個人意見。 10.本席再次重覆裁判法官所講，《基本法》的制定，令到香港在法律上不會出現一個空罅情況，所有的法例可以延續下去，社會秩序亦不會出現大亂。 11.本席閱讀過上訴人的陳詞大綱，亦聽過答辯人的書面陳詞後，本席不認為裁判法官有任何出錯。因此，上訴被駁回，維持原判。
答辯人：由律政司黃志偉高級檢控官代表香港特別行政區 上訴人：無律師代表，親自應訊 |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under HCMA 928/2010