|
HCMA 746/2010
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746號
（原屯門裁判法院傳票2010年第5512號）
| ____________ |
| 答辯人 |
香港特別行政區政府 |
|
| |
訴 |
|
| 上訴人 |
中國化學工程集團公司 |
|
| ____________ |
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8月2日
裁決日期 ： 2011年9月23日
判案書
1.上訴公司於裁判法院被控一項「身為建築地盤的承建商沒有採取所有合理步驟確保配戴適當安全頭盔的工人不得逗留在建築地盤內」罪，違反香港法例第59章《工廠及工業經營條例》規定的《建築地盤(安全)規例》第48(1)、68(1)(a)及68(2)(b)條。經審訊後，上訴公司被裁定罪名成立，現上訴人不服定罪，提出上訴。
控方案情
2.辯方不爭議上訴人是負責案發地點地盤的承建商，案情指一名市民路過地盤,看見5名工人沒有配戴適當安全頭盔，向勞工署作出舉報。控方證人亦有拍下照片(控方證物P.2)，控方證人亦指他看不到該地盤有告示提醒工人配戴頭盔。
辯方案情
3.辯方證人蔡先生受僱於上訴人為地盤總管，蔡先生說水務署把整個項目判給上訴人，上訴人再分判給新輝交通工程及建築有限公司，對於地盤的部分工程，新輝把項目分判給淇毅建築有限公司,淇毅再分判給安記土木建築有限公司。在案發當日，在地盤的人士為淇毅及安記的工人，其人一名沒有戴頭盔人士，是管工譚先生（見辯方證物D2(4)），他現任安全督導員。
4.蔡先生認為(控方證物P.2)是約在下午3時拍攝的，正值工人的下午茶時段，他估計工人當時商討事情後，準備放工。蔡先生亦指上訴公司有安排課程（包括個人安全的課程），提醒工作人員進入地盤必須配戴安全頭盔。而他指在相片裏的淇毅及安記的工人曾出席這講座。他亦指上訴公司每月亦有安排安全會議，蔡先生亦承認在工程合約(控方證物P.1)裏，要求上訴人每日開工前10至15分鐘須為工人安排開工前運動及召開安全會議，並須保留有關出席紀錄，但他表示未能出示紀錄，並承認一星期只安排兩次是類會議。蔡先生指他每星期跟水務署的代表到地盤巡查，但蔡先生確認從紀錄上看到上訴人從未巡查過該地盤。
5.蔡先生亦指淇毅為工人提供安全頭盔，安記的工人是由安記自行提供，因此上訴人未能交出有關紀錄。在案發後，因安全沒有問題，上訴人不再錄用安記。蔡先生亦指在入口處有掛了「進入地盤範圍必須戴安全帽」的標示，但因為標示面向工地，馬路方向未能看到，而告示上提醒工人必須配戴安全帽，違規者會被懲罰。而蔡先生指工人如犯規，在每季第一次罰款300元，第二次400元，第三次500元。但他承認從未執行過罰款。
裁判官的裁決
6.裁判法官經分析後，接納控方第一證人是一名誠實可靠的證人，而他的證供是有相片支持。裁判法官認為上訴公司所採取的措施是「全是口惠而實不至」,因:
(a) 上訴人身為總承判商,巡查時沒有要求安記提交有關的簽收頭盔紀錄;
(b) 控方證物P.2相片中5名沒有配戴頭盔工人,其中包括管工、現任安全督導員;
(c) 蔡先生未能提供有關紀錄，指曾每天巡查該地盤，因此反映出上訴人根本「無從監察」；
(d) 上訴人向水務署呈交的安全計劃書，曾指出上訴人須每周巡查地盤分判商的工作一次，但涉案工地9月施工至案發當天10月19日，蔡先生確認上訴人在這段時間從沒有巡查過該地盤的紀錄。
(e) 合約中列明上訴人須提供儲存安全頭盔的地方，但上訴人沒有做；
(f) 工程合約要求上訴人每日開工前10至15分鐘須召開安全會議，但蔡先生承認一星期只安排兩次是類會議，亦未能出示紀錄；
(g) 上訴人所定下沒有配戴頭盔罰款的安排,從未執行過。
7.最後，裁判法官認為上訴公司沒有採取所有合理步驟確保配戴適當安全頭盔的工人，不得逗留在建築地盤內。因此，判上訴人罪名成立。
上訴
8.代表上訴人的潘大律師作出以下的上訴理由：
(1) 裁判官沒有正確及／或全面地分析上訴人作為總承判商的合理責任，因而錯誤地逹致定罪的裁決；
(2) 裁判官錯誤地拒納上訴人的證供，也沒有正確及／或全面地分析上訴人的證供，因而錯誤地達致定罪的裁決；
(3) 裁判官錯誤引用法例，沒有合適地考慮法例內的「以」字，沒顯示出她根據Hin Lin Yee v HKSAR [2010] 2 HKLRD 826 at page 859一案之中的第4個選擇，而不是以嚴格責任（strict liability）去評定上訴人的犯罪意圖，亦沒有顯示出採納正確的法律測試來分析上訴人應否被定罪，因而錯誤地逹致定罪的裁決。
9.就第一項上訴理由，潘大律師指上訴人已有提供入職訓練及指引，而更大的監管責任應屬直接聘請工人的分判商。潘大律師引用了Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence (20th ed, 2010) 3-173:
“Generally speaking, an employer is not vicariously liable for the negligence of an independent contractor, his workmen or agents in the execution of the work contracted for.
“Unquestionably, no one can be made liable for an act or breach of duty, unless it be traceable to himself or his servant or servants in the course of his or their employment. Consequently, if an independent contractor is employed to do a lawful act, and in the course of the work he or his servants commit some casual act of wrong or negligence, the employer is not answerable.””
10.因此，潘大律師指他的當事人已提供了所有合理的步驟確保工人配戴安全頭盔，而案發當日在地盤的工人沒有配戴安全帽是分判商的責任。
11.本席同意盧大律師的陳詞指,最能正確反映上訴人作為總承判商的合理責任，是可從合約和上訴人自己向水務署呈交的安全計劃書內見到。合約裏清楚列明上訴人須提供儲存安全頭盔的地方,兼保存提取和交還安全頭盔的紀錄。裁判官亦有留意這一點，因裁判法官認為若工人自行保管頭盔是極難監管及確保工人㩦帶頭盔到該地盤工作（見裁斷陳述書第25(ii)段）。
12.合約亦規定上訴人每日開工前10至15分鐘須為工人安排開工前運動及召開安全會議，並須保留有關出席紀錄。而按辯方證人（即地盤總管）的證供指，上訴人一星期只安排兩次此類會議。
13.盧大律師亦指，上訴人向水務署呈交的安全計劃書裏提及到上訴人須每周巡查地盤分判商的工作一次，但辯方證人在庭上確認上訴人由9月開工至案發當天10月19日，上訴人在這段時間從沒有巡查過該地盤的紀錄。本席認為以上的理由已經可以正確地反映出上訴公司是沒有採取所有合理步驟，確保在該地盤工作的工人有配戴適當安全頭盔。
14.最後，值得提示盧大律師所提及的一案，Attorney General v Shun Shing Construction and Engineering Company Limited [1986] HKLR 311,上訴庭就 “Head contractor” 在建築地盤安全規例第37(1)條中的責任，有以下的裁定：
“8. The only other point to which we do need to refer is the suggestion that the Respondent was not “the contractor responsible for”this winch. It was argued on its behalf that there was no necessity in the public interest to make the head contractor liable to a penalty when the sub-contractor was clearly liable. The Commissioner for Labour thought that there was: by reg.2(2)(b)
“For the purpose of this regulations – a contractor is responsible for any plant referred to in this regulations if it is located at a construction site for which he is responsible.”
It was found as a fact that the Respondent was responsible for the site, and it was therefore responsible for all the plant on the site, whether belonging to itself or to a sub-contractor. The whole scheme of the legislation is that the head contractor shall have the same responsibility for some of the statutory safety precautions when work is done by a sub-contractor as if the head contractor had done the work itself. The reasoning behind this is that it will assist in the enforcement of the regulations by encouraging the head contractor to do more “by supervision or inspection ….. or by exhorting those whom [it] may be expected to influence or control, which will promote the observance of the regulations”: LIM Chin-aik v Reg.1963 A.C. 160, 174.”
15.因此，上訴人推卸他的責任給分判商。
16.就第二項上訴理由，潘大律師正確地陳詞指，上訴人只須滿足一個證據上的責任，證明他已採取所有合理步驟，滿足法律上的責任。因此，上訴人是倚賴辯方證人蔡先生的證供去支持上訴人已作出合理的步驟。潘大律師指，雖然他們沒有保留安全會議的紀錄，這並非上訴人的責任，而是分判商的責任。而因上訴人手上當時有30多個地盤，每周只抽查約2至6個地盤，而這有關的地盤是巧合地沒有被抽中。在這情況下,上訴人是已經採取了法律上合理的步驟。
17.但正如答辯人指，合理的步驟是從涉案的合約和上訴人自己向水務署呈交的安全計劃書內的條款可清楚見到。而上訴人是沒有完全遵循這兩個文件內的安全規定。因此，裁判法官認為上訴人是沒有採取所有合理的步驟，是無可口非的。本席認為這上訴理由是不成立的。
18.就第三上訴理由，潘大律師引用了Hin Lin Yee v HKSAR [2010] 2 HKLRD 826 at page 859 之中Ribeiro PJ將有關的法定的犯罪意圖（mens rea）上的需求分類如下：
“96. It appears from the foregoing survey that when one examines what, if any, mental requirement attaches to one or more the external elements of a statutory offence, five possibilities arise, namely:
(a) that the prosecution must prove mens rea beyond reasonable doubt, that is, prove knowledge, intention or recklessness, the presumption not having been displaced (“the first alternative”);
(b) that the prosecution need not set out to prove mens rea, ... (“the second alternative”... );
(c) that the presumption had been displaced so that the prosecution need not prove mens rea but that the accused has a good defence, if he can prove on the balance probabilities that the prohibited act was done in the honest and reasonable belief that the circumstances were such that, if true, he would not be guilty of the offence (“the third alternative”) which I have called the “defence approach”);
(d) that the defences open to the accused in relation to honest and reasonable belief are confined to the statutory defences expressly provided for in respect of the offence charged, the existence of such defences being, as a matter of construction, inconsistent with the second and third alternatives (“the fourth alternative”); and
(e) that the presumption is displaced and the offence is one of absolute liability so that the prosecution succeeds if the accused is proved to have performed the actus reus, regardless of his state of mind (“fifth alternative”).
19.潘大律師指，本案是適用Ribeiro PJ 所指的第4類（the fourth alternative）。因此，潘大律師指，上訴人是要在法律上採取所有合理的步驟，以確保配戴安全頭盔的工人，不得逗留在這地盤內。潘大律師陳詞指，若然上訴人已證實及合理地相信法定的辯護理由是已進行了，上訴人是應被判無罪。
20.但本席認為這條例是確保工人安全的條例，因此，正如在Hin Lin Yee一案中，第156段所指：
“156. A second class of cases where absolute liability may have a justifiable utility involves the statutory imposition of a duty on a person (which may be a corporate body) where the conduct or task which is the subject of the duty is in practice likely to be carried out by someone else, such as an employee or a contractor. Such situations are commonplace in factories and other workplaces where the legislation places the duty on the owner of the enterprise or the employer concerned. For convenience I shall simply speak of “the employer”.
157. To construe the offence-creating provision in such a situation as requiring proof of mens rea may make little sense. The job having been assigned to an employee or contracted out, the employer may truthfully know nothing about the conduct and circumstances constituting the breach. The intermediate defence may not be enough to secure the statutory purpose. The employer may plausibly say that he took all reasonable care to entrust the task to a competent employee or specialist contractor and honestly and reasonably believed that the duty was being properly discharged.
158. The justifiable effect of imposing absolute liability in such cases is that it makes it insufficient for the employer passively to assert an honest and reasonable belief. It promotes proactive management and diligent supervision on his part to see that the duty is in fact being properly discharged. If the employer knows that he will be held to account, even without actual fault on his part, if his contractor or employee is slack or careless or incompetent on the job, he has every incentive to make sure that the job is properly done and to replace contractors or employees who are not up to the task.”
21.因此，本席認為Ribeiro PJ的第5個選擇是適用於本案，因從證供及相片上可見到當時在地盤沒有包括地盤的“occupational and safety officer”即安全主任，這正正反映出Ribeiro PJ以上的字句。
22.因此，本席認為沒有足夠理由推翻裁判法官的定罪，這上訴被駁回，維持原判。
答辯人：由律政司盧慶祥高級助理刑事檢控專員代表香港特別行政區
上訴人：由林沛然律師事務所轉聘潘定邦大律師代表
|