刑事檢控科各律師/高級律 - Department of Justice
刑事檢控科各律師/高級律 - Department of Justice
刑事檢控科各律師/高級律 - Department of Justice
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
To : All Counsel/Senior Law Clerks/Prosecutions<br />
All Court Prosecutors/Magistracies<br />
致 : 刑 事 檢 控 科 各 律 師 / 高 級 律 政 書 記<br />
裁 判 法 院 各 法 庭 檢 控 主 任<br />
A Publication <strong>of</strong> the Prosecutions Division<br />
<strong>of</strong> the <strong>Department</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Justice</strong><br />
律 政 司 刑 事 檢 控 科 出 版 的 刊 物<br />
General Editor<br />
總 編 輯<br />
I Grenville Cross, SC<br />
江 樂 士 資 深 大 律 師<br />
CRIMINAL APPEALS BULLETIN<br />
刑 事 上 訴 案 判 例 簡 訊<br />
May Edition/2006<br />
2006 年 5 月 號<br />
Associate Editors<br />
副 編 輯<br />
D G Saw, SC<br />
邵 德 煒 資 深 大 律 師<br />
Patrick W S Cheung<br />
張 維 新<br />
Assistant Editors<br />
助 理 編 輯<br />
Denise F S Chan<br />
陳 鳳 珊<br />
Lily S L Wong<br />
王 詩 麗<br />
Vinci W S Lam<br />
林 穎 茜<br />
This Bulletin summarises recent judgments which the editors consider <strong>of</strong> significance.<br />
本 簡 訊 輯 錄 近 期 上 訴 案 件 中 各 編 輯 認 為 重 要 判 詞 的 摘 要 。<br />
( * Denotes Government Counsel<br />
( * 代 表 政 府 律 師<br />
# Denotes Appellant’s/Applicant’s/Respondent’s Counsel)<br />
# 代 表 上 訴 人 / 申 請 人 / 答 辯 人 的 律 師 )
2<br />
c.c.<br />
副 本 送 :<br />
e mail<br />
電 郵 送 :<br />
SJ<br />
律 政 司 司 長<br />
DDPPs<br />
各 副 刑 事 檢 控 專 員<br />
LOs<br />
各 律 政 專 員<br />
D <strong>of</strong> AD<br />
律 政 司 政 務 專 員<br />
DSG<br />
副 法 律 政 策 專 員<br />
Secretary, Law Reform Commission<br />
法 律 改 革 委 員 會 秘 書<br />
Editor/Hong Kong Law Reports & Digest<br />
《 香 港 法 律 匯 報 與 摘 錄 》 編 輯<br />
DLA<br />
法 律 援 助 署 署 長<br />
Bar Association (Attn : Administrative Secretary)<br />
香 港 大 律 師 公 會 行 政 秘 書<br />
Law Society (Attn : Secretary General)<br />
香 港 律 師 會 秘 書 長<br />
Editor/Hong Kong Cases<br />
Hong Kong Cases 編 輯<br />
Faculty <strong>of</strong> Law, HKU (Attn : Dean <strong>of</strong> Faculty)<br />
香 港 大 學 法 律 學 院 院 長<br />
Librarian (Law), City University<br />
香 港 城 市 大 學 高 級 助 理 圖 書 館 館 長 ( 法 律 組 )<br />
PHQ/HKPF (Attn : ACP/Crime)<br />
香 港 警 務 處 警 察 總 部 警 務 處 助 理 處 長 ( 刑 事 )<br />
ICAC (Attn : Head/Ops)<br />
廉 政 公 署 執 行 處 首 長<br />
PTS/HKPF (Attn : FTO(Exam))<br />
香 港 警 務 處 警 察 訓 練 學 校 警 察 訓 練 主 任 ( 考 試 )<br />
Administrator/Duty Lawyer Service<br />
當 值 律 師 服 務 總 幹 事<br />
C & E Training Development Group (Attn : Staff Officer)<br />
香 港 海 關 訓 練 發 展 課 參 事<br />
C & E Prosecution Group (Attn : Superintendent)<br />
香 港 海 關 檢 控 課 監 督<br />
LegCo Secretariat (Legal Service Division)<br />
立 法 會 秘 書 處 法 律 事 務 部<br />
D <strong>of</strong> Imm (Attn : AD(EL))<br />
入 境 事 務 處 助 理 處 長 ( 執 法 及 聯 絡 )<br />
Judiciary (PM/JISS Project)<br />
司 法 機 構 資 訊 系 統 策 略 計 劃 策 略 經 理<br />
Librarian/D <strong>of</strong> J<br />
律 政 司 圖 書 館 館 長<br />
Director <strong>of</strong> Advanced Legal Education<br />
法 律 專 業 進 修 總 監<br />
Hung On-to Memorial Library (HK Collection)/HKU<br />
香 港 大 學 孔 安 道 紀 念 圖 書 館 ( 特 藏 部 )<br />
<strong>Department</strong>al Prosecution Sections<br />
各 部 門 的 檢 控 組
3<br />
INDEX<br />
目 錄<br />
A. p. 4 - p. 5<br />
第 4 至 5 頁<br />
B. p. 6 - p. 17<br />
第 6 至 17 頁<br />
C. p. 18 - p. 25<br />
第 18 至 25 頁<br />
D. p. 26 - p. 28<br />
第 26 至 28 頁<br />
E. p. 29<br />
第 29 頁<br />
Hong Kong Court <strong>of</strong> Final Appeal/Appeal Committee<br />
香 港 終 審 法 院 / 上 訴 委 員 會<br />
Criminal Appeals/Against Sentence<br />
刑 事 上 訴 案 件 / 針 對 定 罪<br />
Magistracy Appeals/Against Conviction<br />
刑 事 上 訴 案 件 / 針 對 刑 罰<br />
Magistracy Appeals/Against Sentence<br />
裁 判 法 院 上 訴 案 件 / 針 對 刑 罰<br />
Costs in Criminal Cases<br />
刑 事 案 件 的 訟 費
4<br />
Appeal No.<br />
(Date <strong>of</strong> Case Significance<br />
Judgment) Title<br />
A. HONG KONG COURT OF FINAL APPEAL/<br />
APPEAL COMMITTEE<br />
香 港 終 審 法 院 / 上 訴 委 員 會<br />
FAMC 9/2006<br />
Bokhary<br />
Chan &<br />
Ribeiro PJJ<br />
(25.4.2006)<br />
*Eddie Sean &<br />
Richard Ma<br />
#S K Khattak<br />
TANG<br />
Chi-lun<br />
Persistently making telephone calls/Not necessary to establish<br />
direct call/Ingredients <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fence under s 20(c), Cap 228/<br />
Whether 134 telephone calls showed persistence<br />
不 斷 致 電 – 無 需 證 明 是 直 接 致 電 – 第 228 章 第<br />
20(c) 條 所 訂 罪 行 的 原 素 – 撥 電 134 次 是 否 屬 不 斷<br />
致 電<br />
The Applicant was convicted <strong>of</strong> an <strong>of</strong>fence <strong>of</strong> persistently<br />
making telephone calls without reasonable cause for the purpose<br />
<strong>of</strong> causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to any<br />
other person, contrary to s 20(c) <strong>of</strong> the Summary Offences<br />
Ordinance, Cap 228.<br />
The Applicant, a clerk in the Highways <strong>Department</strong>, had<br />
formed a dislike for Ms Cheung Tak-mei under whom he had once<br />
worked. He decided to cause her annoyance by repeatedly<br />
misusing a telephone system set up by the Immigration<br />
<strong>Department</strong> as part <strong>of</strong> its exercise <strong>of</strong> replacing ID Cards with new<br />
Smart ID Cards. To do this, he dialled a phone number, giving<br />
access to an interactive voice response system for making<br />
appointments for replacing ID Cards. He entered false ID Card<br />
numbers and then entered Ms Cheung’s telephone number as the<br />
number to which a fax confirmation should be sent. Ms Cheung<br />
would therefore receive such fax signals on her telephone. When<br />
the calls were diverted to a fax machine, it was revealed that they<br />
were purported notifications <strong>of</strong> appointments for replacing ID<br />
Cards. The Applicant did this partly to lessen the workload <strong>of</strong> his<br />
girlfriend, who was employed in the ID Card replacement<br />
exercise, so that she would have more free time to chat with him<br />
on the phone. In doing so, on some occasions, he would make<br />
phone calls without relaying a fax signal to Ms Cheung. But<br />
where the signal was sent to Ms Cheung, he plainly also intended<br />
to annoy or inconvenience her by his acts.<br />
The Applicant submitted, first, that the <strong>of</strong>fence was not<br />
made out since he had only called the Immigration <strong>Department</strong><br />
computer which had then itself caused a fax signal to be sent to<br />
Ms Cheung’s phone, and that only ‘directly ’ calling Ms Cheung
5<br />
could constitute ‘making ’ a phone call. Second, it was said that<br />
pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> an <strong>of</strong>fence under s 20(c) required pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the matters set<br />
out in s 20(a), namely, that the call must be grossly <strong>of</strong>fensive or <strong>of</strong><br />
an indecent, obscene or menacing character. Third, it was<br />
contended that the element <strong>of</strong> ‘persistently ’ was not made out, as<br />
the word connoted some degree <strong>of</strong> continuance or repetition: Dale<br />
v Smith [1967] 1 WLR 700; Re Arctic Engineering Ltd [1986] 1<br />
WLR 686; R v Tuck [1994] Crim LR 375.<br />
Held :<br />
(1) The first submission was misconceived as the Applicant<br />
plainly ‘made ’ the call which involved dialling the relevant<br />
number and using the interactive system. He did so for the<br />
purpose <strong>of</strong> causing Ms Cheung annoyance. Those elements were<br />
clearly established;<br />
(2) The second submission was not, as a matter <strong>of</strong> construction,<br />
reasonably arguable. The elements <strong>of</strong> s 20(c) involved persistently<br />
making telephone calls without reasonable cause for the purposes<br />
set out in s 20(b). Section 20(a) was plainly separate and not<br />
relevant;<br />
(3) As regards the third submission, the charge concerned the<br />
period between 5 May 2004 and 5 August 2004 when records<br />
showed 134 telephone calls from the Applicant’s telephones<br />
resulting in 2,300 false bookings. Since there was concern as to<br />
whether an <strong>of</strong>fence based on some <strong>of</strong> the earlier calls might be<br />
time-barred, the charge was amended to relate only to calls made<br />
on dates in July and August 2004, resulting in 18 false bookings<br />
which were plainly not time-barred. The facts related to such calls<br />
were admitted. The magistrate was fully entitled to find that the<br />
Applicant had ‘persistently ’ made the relevant calls and the<br />
contrary was not reasonably arguable;<br />
(4) It was hard to think <strong>of</strong> a clearer case for liability under<br />
s 20(c).<br />
Result - Application dismissed.
6<br />
B. CRIMINAL APPEALS/<br />
AGAINST SENTENCE<br />
刑 事 上 訴 案 件 / 針 對 刑 罰<br />
CA 486/2005<br />
Ma CJHC<br />
Stock JA<br />
(28.4.2006)<br />
*Tam Sze-lok<br />
#C Coghlan<br />
LAM<br />
Chun-fai<br />
Manslaughter/Accused acquitted <strong>of</strong> murder on basis <strong>of</strong><br />
provocation/Homicide in a domestic context/Trial judge in<br />
best position to acquire true feel <strong>of</strong> the case/Difficulty in<br />
sentencing in domestic violence cases/Offence all too<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten/Nine years’ imprisonment not manifestly excessive<br />
誤 殺 – 被 告 基 於 受 激 怒 的 理 由 被 裁 定 謀 殺 罪 不 成<br />
立 – 涉 及 家 庭 的 殺 人 罪 行 – 原 審 法 官 處 於 能 真 正<br />
感 受 案 件 的 最 佳 位 置 – 對 家 庭 暴 力 案 件 判 刑 是 困<br />
難 的 – 這 類 罪 行 實 在 太 普 遍 – 9 年 監 禁 並 非 明 顯 過<br />
重<br />
After trial, the Applicant was convicted <strong>of</strong> manslaughter and<br />
sentenced to 9 years’ imprisonment.<br />
The Applicant was charged with murder, but his <strong>of</strong>fer to<br />
plead guilty to manslaughter was rejected by the prosecution.<br />
When the matter proceeded to trial, the Applicant was acquitted <strong>of</strong><br />
murder but convicted <strong>of</strong> manslaughter on the basis <strong>of</strong> provocation.<br />
At the date <strong>of</strong> the killing, the Applicant lived with the<br />
victim, Madam Choi, in Tsing Yi, and with their two children, a<br />
boy aged 6 years and a girl aged 5 years. He was then aged 36,<br />
had no prior convictions and was employed as a driver by an<br />
engineering company. He had met Madam Choi in 1996 when she<br />
worked in a nightclub and they married in 1998. The marriage<br />
was unsuccessful and, in 2004, they divorced, although they<br />
continued to live in the same premises. Although it was said that<br />
the divorce was an arrangement whereby the wife could claim<br />
Comprehensive Social Security Assistance, it seemed that Madam<br />
Choi viewed the divorce as real in fact as well as in law. Although<br />
the Applicant’s view <strong>of</strong> matters was unclear on the evidence, it<br />
was clear that, for some time prior to the killing, Madam Choi<br />
engaged upon an intimate relationship with a much younger man<br />
called Ah Ming. The Applicant was much irked by this.<br />
On the fatal night, the Applicant and Madam Choi had been<br />
out together but when he returned home she said she would be<br />
staying out. The Applicant telephoned Madam Choi to ask her to<br />
return to the flat as there was difficulty with one <strong>of</strong> the children.<br />
When she returned, a dispute arose between the two, and although<br />
Madam Choi wanted to leave he stopped her from doing so. The<br />
boy testified that Madam Choi sat down, and the Applicant struck<br />
her, grabbed her by the neck and said ‘I’ll strangle you to death ’.
7<br />
Madam Choi became motionless, and after the Applicant’s brother<br />
was sent for the Applicant said Madam Choi had fainted as a result<br />
<strong>of</strong> his ‘clutching her ’. When police arrived Madam Choi was<br />
dead, and her neck was swollen, her face green and there was<br />
blood at the corner <strong>of</strong> her mouth. The Applicant told police that<br />
after a quarrel over custody <strong>of</strong> the children Madam Choi became<br />
crazy and wanted to strike him and that he became very angry and<br />
grabbed her neck but that he did not know if she was dead.<br />
The Applicant killed Madam Choi by manual strangulation.<br />
According to the pathologist, there were few asphyxial signs<br />
which suggested that a vigorous or long struggle was unlikely.<br />
She probably died, he said, <strong>of</strong> pressure on the neck due to manual<br />
strangulation within a fairly short period <strong>of</strong> time. There was a<br />
fracture <strong>of</strong> a thyroid cartilage indicating that considerable pressure<br />
had been placed on that area. There was no alcohol in the body,<br />
the significance <strong>of</strong> which evidence was that in his testimony the<br />
Applicant suggested that Madam Choi had consumed some<br />
alcohol.<br />
In his testimony, the Applicant said there had been an<br />
argument over custody <strong>of</strong> the children, and that when Ah Ming<br />
rang up he abused him. Madam Choi became angry, and told the<br />
Applicant that Ah Ming was ‘much better than me in all aspects<br />
and used foul language ’. Then Madam Choi taunted him for<br />
having to go for public assistance and made a threat that Ah Ming<br />
would come to the flat with somebody and he (the Applicant)<br />
would be doomed. He said that then he used his left hand to cover<br />
Madam Choi’s mouth and how the hand then moved to clutch the<br />
neck. Madam Choi then admitted the affair, and when she said Ah<br />
Ming was coming to the flat with someone he was very angry and<br />
wished to stop her speaking. Apart from the provocation arising<br />
on the evening itself, the Applicant relied also upon suggested<br />
cumulative provocation. On one occasion he had found her in bed<br />
with Ah Ming, and on another his children told him that on a trip<br />
to the Mainland she slept with Ah Ming.<br />
In sentencing, the judge said it appeared that the jury had<br />
‘accepted the defendant’s claim that he was provoked by the<br />
behaviour <strong>of</strong> the deceased, by the events <strong>of</strong> that particular date<br />
and the cumulative events <strong>of</strong> the days before and that was the<br />
reason he launched the attack’. She took into account the <strong>of</strong>fer to<br />
plead guilty to manslaughter at an early stage. Then the judge<br />
said:<br />
I note, however, that the defendant appears to have<br />
engineered this argument by telephoning his wife to<br />
return home and thereafter refusing to let her leave.<br />
As I said, although he claims the argument was<br />
ostensibly about the custody <strong>of</strong> children, it appears
8<br />
that the argument was really about the young man<br />
who was accused <strong>of</strong> being the woman’s lover.<br />
This is a serious <strong>of</strong>fence and sadly one that is all too<br />
common, where a martial dispute is dealt with by way<br />
<strong>of</strong> violence. Whatever sympathy one has for the<br />
defendant and the children <strong>of</strong> the relationship, it is<br />
also important to note that the deceased died<br />
unnecessarily as a result <strong>of</strong> the defendant’s action. He<br />
compounded the <strong>of</strong>fence by failing to seek medical<br />
help at a time when he was able to do so. He also<br />
answered telephone calls in which he lied about where<br />
the deceased was after inquires were made. I take into<br />
account the defendant’s clear record and I notice his<br />
remorse. I accept that he wished to plead to<br />
manslaughter at an early stage. I sentence him to 9<br />
years’ imprisonment.<br />
On appeal, it was submitted that the sentence was manifestly<br />
excessive for four reasons. First, the judge had over-emphasised<br />
the Applicant’s conduct in turning away the ambulanceman, as<br />
there seemed to have been some assumption by the judge that had<br />
this not occurred Madam Choi might have been saved. In fact, the<br />
ambulance people attended to Madam Choi not long after and the<br />
suggestion <strong>of</strong> earlier resuscitation was unrealistic. Secondly, it<br />
was said inadequate credit was given for the <strong>of</strong>fer <strong>of</strong> a plea <strong>of</strong><br />
guilty to manslaughter. Thirdly, the judge was incorrect in her<br />
assessment that the argument was engineered by the Applicant.<br />
Fourthly, it was said that the sentence was out <strong>of</strong> line with the type<br />
<strong>of</strong> sentences revealed by the authorities for manslaughter in a<br />
domestic context.<br />
Held :<br />
(1) Any comparison with sentences passed in other cases within<br />
this category required very careful study <strong>of</strong> the factors at play in<br />
the cases used for comparison. Where a case had been contested,<br />
the sentencing judge would necessarily be in a much better<br />
position than an appellate tribunal to acquire the true feel <strong>of</strong> the<br />
case;<br />
(2) The judge sentenced on the footing that not only was the<br />
Applicant provoked on the night in question but also by<br />
cumulative events preceding that night. She seemed to have<br />
accepted in his favour that he was taunted by her as to his<br />
shortcomings and failings as a husband. She noted his stable work<br />
record and his previous good character. Immediately after the<br />
attack he telephoned his brother and the authorities were called.<br />
Although this might have made for a significantly lower sentence,<br />
some <strong>of</strong> his evidence was obviously disingenuous and treated as
9<br />
such by the judge; in particular his suggestion that the<br />
strangulation was a by-product <strong>of</strong> trying to keep her quiet and<br />
placing his hand on her mouth. The evidence showed quite clearly<br />
that he applied considerable force to the thyroid cartilage. It was<br />
not disputed that the Applicant deliberately prevented her from<br />
leaving the flat by bolting the door, and this suggested he was<br />
intent on seeing the argument through. This fact distinguished the<br />
case from those in which an argument flared suddenly, and where<br />
both parties were - or at least the victim <strong>of</strong> the fatal attack was –<br />
intent upon the argument. In so far as it was said that too much<br />
emphasis had been placed upon his failure to seek medical help,<br />
the point was not so much whether she could then have been saved<br />
but more a question <strong>of</strong> his attitude. True, he called his brother, but<br />
he did not call the police himself nor did he seek assistance and it<br />
was his brother who suggested calling the police. Quite what his<br />
motive was in turning away the ambulanceman was not entirely<br />
possible to say, although he explained his fear that he would be<br />
caught. It was also to be noted that telephone calls were made in<br />
which he lied about where the deceased was. These were<br />
unattractive features <strong>of</strong> the Applicant’s conduct and took the<br />
sentence imposed above the range <strong>of</strong> many other domestic<br />
manslaughter cases: R v Wong Kwai-chuen Cr App 605/1994, R v<br />
Szeto Ken Cr App 87/1996;<br />
(3) Cases <strong>of</strong> this kind were very difficult. More <strong>of</strong>ten than not,<br />
the culpable person was a person entirely devoid <strong>of</strong> criminal<br />
background, and more <strong>of</strong>ten than not the circumstances in which<br />
the killings took place were complex and required an<br />
understanding <strong>of</strong> deeply personal emotional stresses that<br />
developed over time. There was, on the other hand, an inevitable<br />
degree <strong>of</strong> sympathy for someone like the Applicant who found<br />
himself out <strong>of</strong> depth in an irretrievable marital situation. The<br />
sentencing judge expressed that sympathy, but was entirely correct<br />
to state that this type <strong>of</strong> domestic violence was all too common<br />
and to record the fact that a life had been taken and that children<br />
had been deprived <strong>of</strong> their mother. The judge had the benefit <strong>of</strong><br />
acquiring in the course <strong>of</strong> the trial a true feel for the circumstances<br />
leading up to the attack and for the nature <strong>of</strong> the attack itself.<br />
Whilst there was room for saying the sentence was on the high<br />
side <strong>of</strong> the scale, it was not manifestly excessive.<br />
Result - Leave to appeal granted, but appeal dismissed.<br />
CA 332/2005<br />
HEMANT<br />
Gurung<br />
Wounding with intent/Victim attacked by gang with knives/<br />
Little permanent injury/Need for deterrence/Ill-health <strong>of</strong> close
10<br />
Ma CJHC<br />
Stock JA<br />
(21.4.2006)<br />
*Tam Sze-lok<br />
#Phillip Ross<br />
relative not generally a mitigating factor<br />
有 意 圖 而 傷 人 – 受 害 人 被 一 夥 人 用 刀 襲 擊 – 輕 微<br />
的 永 久 傷 害 – 需 具 阻 嚇 作 用 – 近 親 身 體 欠 佳 一 般<br />
不 是 減 刑 因 素<br />
The Applicant pleaded guilty to an <strong>of</strong>fence <strong>of</strong> wounding<br />
with intent, contrary to s 17(a) <strong>of</strong> the Offences against the Person<br />
Ordinance, Cap 212, and was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment,<br />
after the judge had adopted a starting point <strong>of</strong> 6 years.<br />
The facts showed that when the victim, a Nepalese man,<br />
went to a discotheque on Lockhart Road with some friends, he was<br />
surrounded, as he danced, by a number <strong>of</strong> persons, including the<br />
Applicant. The Applicant used a knife with a 16-inch blade to<br />
chop him twice on the head. As the victim retreated, another<br />
person chopped him on the elbow. When the victim looked up at<br />
the Applicant, he raised his hand to chop him again. After that,<br />
the victim was chopped by another person at the left armpit.<br />
The victim sustained serious injures and was admitted to<br />
hospital in a coma. He sustained multiple chop wounds over the<br />
head, left chest wall, left scapular region and left elbow. The<br />
blows were struck with such force that the skull and elbow were<br />
fractured. The cut to the elbow required nerve repair. There<br />
appeared to be some degree <strong>of</strong> permanent disability, but not much.<br />
On appeal, it was submitted that the starting point <strong>of</strong> 6 years<br />
was too high, so making the sentence <strong>of</strong> 4 years manifestly<br />
excessive. Reliance was also placed on the death <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Applicant’s father as a mitigating factor. As a consequence <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Applicant’s imprisonment, his father became so upset that he took<br />
to heavy drinking. He was hospitalised for two weeks, then<br />
discharged so he could return to Nepal to be cared for by the<br />
Applicant’s brothers, soon after his return, the father died. Prior to<br />
his imprisonment, the Applicant had lived with his parents<br />
together with his wife and children.<br />
Held :<br />
(1) There were no guidelines for sentence owing to the wide<br />
range <strong>of</strong> circumstances in which it could be committed. The court<br />
was therefore required to look at the relevant facts <strong>of</strong> each case. In<br />
HKSAR v Tse Hok-lam [2005] 3 HKLRD I8, it was said that the<br />
range <strong>of</strong> sentence for this <strong>of</strong>fence was 3 to 12 years, (albeit that the<br />
maximum sentence was life imprisonment). The fact <strong>of</strong> permanent<br />
injury or disability to the victim was a relevant factor, but its<br />
absence hardly constituted any factor <strong>of</strong> mitigation nor could it be<br />
a factor in reducing an otherwise appropriate sentence;
11<br />
(2) In this case, the attack was brutal and premeditated. Knives<br />
with 16-inch blades were used to chop the victim. The victim was<br />
attacked by a gang. The judge was right to mention that there was<br />
a deterrent element in sentencing for this <strong>of</strong>fence: Archbold Hong<br />
Kong 2005 at para 20-221;<br />
(3) In certain special circumstances, the court could take into<br />
account the ill-health <strong>of</strong> a relative and the impact <strong>of</strong> this on the<br />
accused: AG v Ling Kar-fai (No 2) [1997] 2 HKC 651. However,<br />
generally, in cases where the ill-health <strong>of</strong> a close relative was<br />
sought to be relied upon as mitigation the courts had, rightly, not<br />
allowed this factor to be taken into account. Those who were<br />
concerned about the welfare <strong>of</strong> their parents or family should<br />
avoid getting involved in this sort <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fence in the first place: R v<br />
Wong Wai-lun Cr App 12/1996.<br />
Result - Application dismissed.
12<br />
香 港 特 別 行 政 區 訴 陳 祝 珊<br />
HKSAR v CHEN Zhu-shan<br />
高 等 法 院 上 訴 法 庭 – 高 院 刑 事 上 訴 2005 年 第 392 號<br />
* 單 偉 琛<br />
Eddie Sean<br />
# 彭 耀 鴻<br />
Robert Pang<br />
高 等 法 院 上 訴 法 庭 法 官 張 澤<br />
高 等 法 院 上 訴 法 庭 法 官 楊 振 權<br />
高 等 法 院 上 訴 法 庭 法 官 鄧 國 楨<br />
耹 訊 日 期 : 二 零 零 六 年 四 月 廿 一 日<br />
判 案 書 日 期 : 二 零 零 六 年 五 月 四 日<br />
COURT OF APPEAL OF THE HIGH COURT<br />
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 392 OF 2005<br />
Cheung<br />
Yeung &<br />
Tang JJA<br />
Date <strong>of</strong> Hearing: 21 April 2006<br />
Date <strong>of</strong> Judgment: 4 May 2006<br />
行 使 和 管 有 偽 鈔 罪 - 以 罪 行 普 遍 為 理 由 , 根 據 《 有<br />
組 織 及 嚴 重 罪 行 條 例 》 加 重 刑 罰 - 單 以 發 現 偽 鈔 的<br />
數 目 和 被 檢 控 人 數 大 增 為 由 而 裁 定 涉 案 的 罪 行 普 遍<br />
並 不 正 確<br />
申 請 人 被 控 兩 項 行 使 偽 鈔 及 一 項 管 有 偽 鈔 罪 ,<br />
違 反 香 港 法 例 第 200 章 《 刑 事 罪 行 條 例 》 第<br />
99(1)(a) 條 和 第 100(1) 條 。<br />
經 審 訊 後 , 申 請 人 被 裁 定 全 部 罪 名 成 立 , 刑 期<br />
分 別 為 入 獄 3 年 、4 年 4 個 月 和 4 年 9 個 月 。 除 第 一 項<br />
控 罪 的 刑 期 中 的 3 個 月 外 , 其 餘 刑 期 全 部 同 期 執<br />
行 , 即 總 刑 期 為 5 年 。<br />
2004 年 11 月 25 日 , 申 請 人 將 一 張 500 元 真 紙 幣<br />
和 一 張 500 元 偽 鈔 透 過 自 動 櫃 員 機 存 入 其 豐 銀 行<br />
戶 口 。<br />
2004 年 12 月 15 日 , 申 請 人 用 一 張 500 元 偽 鈔 購
13<br />
買 雜 誌 。 申 請 人 的 不 法 行 為 被 識 破 後 , 試 圖 逃 跑 ,<br />
但 結 果 被 警 員 在 途 人 協 助 下 截 獲 。 其 後 警 員 在 申 請<br />
人 租 住 的 旅 館 房 內 的 一 個 行 李 喼 中 , 發 現 126 張<br />
500 元 偽 鈔 。<br />
法 官 指 出 案 件 涉 及 面 值 共 63,000 元 的 偽 鈔 。 她<br />
認 為 每 項 控 罪 的 適 當 量 刑 基 準 為 3 年 , 而 總 量 刑 基<br />
準 為 3 年 6 個 月 。 法 官 應 控 方 的 申 請 , 以 罪 行 普 遍 為<br />
理 由 , 根 據 《 有 組 織 及 嚴 重 罪 行 條 例 》 將 第 2 及 第 3<br />
項 控 罪 的 3 年 量 刑 基 準 , 分 別 加 刑 45% 和 60% 至 4 年<br />
4 個 月 和 4 年 9 個 月 。<br />
支 持 有 關 罪 行 普 遍 的 證 據 源 自 控 方 向 法 庭 提 供<br />
的 資 料 , 該 些 資 料 顯 示 自 1999 年 至 2005 年 首 7 個 月<br />
發 現 500 元 偽 鈔 的 數 目 和 被 檢 控 涉 及 500 元 偽 鈔 罪<br />
行 的 人 數 大 增 。<br />
該 些 資 料 詳 列 如 下 :<br />
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004<br />
2005<br />
1-7 月<br />
發 現 500 元 偽 鈔 數 目 243 張 379 張 210 張 105 張 248 張 4,473 張 2,755 張<br />
被 檢 控 人 數 0 3 1 2 2 19 23<br />
500 元 偽 鈔 數 目 0 221 1 1 4 4,049 290<br />
法 官 指 出 在 2004 年 本 港 出 現 的 500 元 偽 鈔 數 量<br />
最 為 顯 著 , 因 此 申 請 人 所 犯 的 罪 行 普 遍 , 需 要 加<br />
刑 。<br />
申 請 人 就 刑 期 提 出 上 訴 , 指 出 搜 獲 500 元 偽 鈔<br />
數 目 大 增 不 一 定 表 示 申 請 人 被 控 的 控 罪 普 遍 , 因 此<br />
以 申 請 人 的 控 罪 普 遍 而 加 刑 並 非 適 當 。<br />
裁 決 :<br />
(1) 根 據 香 港 法 例 第 455 章 《 有 組 織 及 嚴 重 罪 行 條<br />
例 》 附 表 1 及 附 表 2, 本 案 的 罪 行 都 是 ` 指 明 的 罪<br />
行 '。 而 根 據 第 27(11) 條 , 假 若 法 庭 信 納 被 告 人 所<br />
犯 的 ` 指 明 罪 行 ' 普 遍 , 則 可 以 加 重 被 告 人 的 判
14<br />
刑 ;<br />
(2) 控 方 指 申 請 人 所 犯 的 ` 指 明 罪 行 ' 普 遍 , 全 建<br />
基 在 500 元 偽 鈔 的 數 目 和 涉 及 500 元 偽 鈔 被 檢 控 人<br />
數 的 資 料 。 但 發 現 偽 鈔 數 目 和 因 該 些 偽 鈔 而 被 檢 控<br />
的 人 數 增 加 , 不 一 定 和 《 有 組 織 及 嚴 重 罪 行 條 例 》<br />
附 表 1 及 附 表 2 所 列 的 罪 行 有 關 : 香 港 特 區 訴 陳 家<br />
建 和 酈 英 Cr App 474/2004;<br />
(3) 發 現 偽 鈔 數 目 和 因 該 些 偽 鈔 而 被 檢 控 的 人 所 面<br />
對 的 罪 行 可 能 是 《 刑 事 罪 行 條 例 》 第 99(2) 條 ( 將<br />
偽 鈔 交 付 他 人 ) 或 第 100(2) 條 ( 保 管 或 控 制 偽<br />
鈔 ), 而 這 些 罪 行 並 非 是 《 有 組 織 及 嚴 重 罪 行 條<br />
例 》 附 表 1 或 附 表 2 所 列 出 的 ` 指 明 罪 行 '。 因 此<br />
單 是 以 發 現 500 元 偽 鈔 的 數 目 和 涉 及 該 些 偽 鈔 被 檢<br />
控 的 人 數 大 增 而 裁 定 申 請 人 被 控 的 罪 名 普 遍 並 不 正<br />
確 ;<br />
(4) 法 庭 在 香 港 特 區 訴 董 海 一 等 三 人 Cr App<br />
268/2005 案 指 出 :<br />
製 造 偽 鈔 屬 極 為 嚴 重 罪 行 。 該 等 罪 行 嚴 重 影<br />
響 金 融 巿 場 運 作 , 可 能 令 巿 民 大 眾 對 流 動 貨<br />
幣 失 去 信 心 。<br />
再 者 , 在 目 前 科 技 先 進 的 環 境 , 製 造 偽 鈔 亦<br />
變 成 較 簡 單 容 易 。 法 庭 必 須 發 出 明 確 訊 息 ,<br />
表 明 製 造 偽 鈔 者 會 遭 重 罰 , 避 免 這 些 不 法 行<br />
為 氾 濫 。<br />
(5) 如 涉 案 偽 鈔 總 值 只 是 數 萬 港 元 , 法 庭 採 納 的 量<br />
刑 基 準 為 3-4 年 : 香 港 特 區 訴 林 偉 明 Cr App<br />
44/2004 、 香 港 特 區 訴 陳 家 建 和 酈 英 Cr App<br />
474/2004;<br />
(6) 申 請 人 個 人 行 事 , 亦 沒 有 嚴 重 的 犯 罪 記 錄 , 雖<br />
然 案 件 涉 及 偽 鈔 的 總 值 達 60,000 萬 元 , 但 像 真 度 不<br />
高 。 本 案 亦 沒 有 其 他 加 重 罪 責 因 素 , 法 官 就 每 項 控<br />
罪 所 採 納 的 三 年 基 本 量 刑 基 準 和 三 年 半 總 量 刑 基 準<br />
都 屬 適 當 。
15<br />
結 果 .. 第 2 項 和 第 3 項 控 罪 的 45% 和 60% 加 刑 撤 銷 ,<br />
三 項 控 罪 每 項 的 判 刑 都 是 3 年 監 禁 , 除 了 第<br />
一 項 控 罪 判 刑 中 的 6 個 月 分 期 執 行 外 , 其 餘<br />
刑 期 全 部 同 期 執 行 。 總 刑 期 由 5 年 減 至 3 年 6<br />
個 月 。<br />
[English digest<br />
<strong>of</strong> CA 392 <strong>of</strong><br />
2005, above]<br />
Cheung<br />
Yeung &<br />
Tang JJA<br />
(4.5.2006)<br />
*Eddie Sean<br />
#Robert Pang<br />
CHEN<br />
Zhu-shan<br />
Passing and possession <strong>of</strong> counterfeit notes/Enhancement <strong>of</strong><br />
sentence based on prevalence <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fence under OSCO/Ruling<br />
that <strong>of</strong>fences were prevalent based solely on the increase <strong>of</strong><br />
counterfeit notes discovered and <strong>of</strong> number <strong>of</strong> people<br />
prosecuted inappropriate<br />
The Applicant was charged with two charges <strong>of</strong> passing<br />
counterfeit notes and one charge <strong>of</strong> having in his custody<br />
counterfeit notes, contrary to, respectively, s 99(1)(a) and s100(1)<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200.<br />
The Applicant was found guilty <strong>of</strong> all <strong>of</strong>fences after trial.<br />
The sentences were terms <strong>of</strong> imprisonment <strong>of</strong>, respectively, 3<br />
years, 4 years and 4 months, and 4 years and 9 months. Apart<br />
from 3 months <strong>of</strong> the first charge, all sentences were to run<br />
concurrently, producing a total sentence <strong>of</strong> 5 years’ imprisonment.<br />
The evidence showed that on 25 November 2004, the<br />
Applicant deposited one genuine and one counterfeit note each in<br />
the value <strong>of</strong> $500 into his HSBC bank account via the ATM.<br />
On 15 December 2004, the Applicant used a $500<br />
counterfeit note to buy a magazine. His illegal act was detected.<br />
He tried to flee but was intercepted by the police through the<br />
assistance <strong>of</strong> a passer-by. The police later discovered 126 pieces<br />
<strong>of</strong> $500 counterfeit note in a suitcase inside the guest house room<br />
that the Applicant rented.<br />
The total value involved was $63,000. The judge adopted a<br />
starting point <strong>of</strong> 3 years’ imprisonment in respect <strong>of</strong> each charge<br />
and an overall starting point <strong>of</strong> 3 years and 6 months. In view <strong>of</strong><br />
the prevalence <strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>fences, the judge acceded to the<br />
prosecution’s application made pursuant to the Organized and<br />
Serious Crimes Ordinance to enhance the starting points for<br />
Charge 2 and Charge 3 by, respectively, 45% and 60% to 4 years<br />
and 4 months and 4 years and 9 months.<br />
The supporting evidence <strong>of</strong> the prevalence <strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>fences
16<br />
came from the information provided by the prosecution to the<br />
court. The information showed that from 1999 to the first seven<br />
months in 2005, the number <strong>of</strong> $500 counterfeit notes and the<br />
number <strong>of</strong> persons prosecuted as a result had increased<br />
substantially.<br />
The information was as follows :<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> $500<br />
counterfeit notes<br />
discovered<br />
Persons<br />
prosecuted<br />
Number <strong>of</strong><br />
$500 counterfeit<br />
notes involved<br />
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004<br />
2005<br />
Jan-July<br />
243 379 210 105 248 4,473 2,755<br />
0 3 1 2 2 19 23<br />
0 221 1 1 4 4,049 290<br />
The judge considered that the number <strong>of</strong> $500 counterfeit<br />
notes that appeared in Hong Kong in 2004 was significant, the<br />
<strong>of</strong>fences were therefore prevalent and sentences should be<br />
enhanced.<br />
The Applicant appealed against the sentence. He contended<br />
that the increase in the number <strong>of</strong> $500 counterfeit notes did not<br />
necessarily mean that the charges he faced were prevalent. The<br />
enhancement <strong>of</strong> sentence based on prevalence was inappropriate.<br />
Held :<br />
(1) According to Schedules 1 and 2 <strong>of</strong> the Organized and<br />
Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 455, the <strong>of</strong>fences involved in the<br />
present case were ‘specified <strong>of</strong>fences’. Pursuant to s 27(11), if the<br />
court accepted that the ‘specified <strong>of</strong>fence’, that an accused<br />
committed was prevalent, it could enhance the sentence to be<br />
imposed on the accused;<br />
(2) The prosecution alleged that the ‘specified <strong>of</strong>fences’<br />
committed by the Applicant were prevalent, this was entirely<br />
based on the number <strong>of</strong> $500 counterfeit notes discovered and the<br />
number <strong>of</strong> persons prosecuted therefor. However, the increase in<br />
these numbers did not necessarily mean that <strong>of</strong>fences listed in<br />
Schedules 1 and 2 <strong>of</strong> the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance<br />
were involved : HKSAR v Chan Ka-kin and Lai Ying Cr App<br />
474/2004;<br />
(3) The number <strong>of</strong> counterfeit notes discovered and the number<br />
<strong>of</strong> persons prosecuted therefor could be related to <strong>of</strong>fences<br />
contrary to s 99(2) (delivery <strong>of</strong> counterfeit notes) or s 100(2) (has<br />
in custody or under control counterfeit notes) <strong>of</strong> the Crimes<br />
Ordinance. These <strong>of</strong>fences were not ‘specified <strong>of</strong>fences’ as listed
17<br />
in Schedules 1 and 2 <strong>of</strong> the Organized and Serious Crimes<br />
Ordinance. Accordingly, it was wrong to rule that the <strong>of</strong>fences<br />
that the Applicant committed were prevalent by simply relying on<br />
the increase <strong>of</strong> counterfeit notes discovered and <strong>of</strong> the number <strong>of</strong><br />
people prosecuted therefor;<br />
(4) In HKSAR v Tung Hoi-yat and 2 others Cr App 268/2005,<br />
the court pointed out that :<br />
Manufacturing <strong>of</strong> counterfeit notes is a very serious<br />
<strong>of</strong>fence. Such <strong>of</strong>fence seriously affects the operation <strong>of</strong><br />
the financial market and may erode public confidence in<br />
the currency.<br />
Moreover, it is easier to manufacture counterfeit notes<br />
in light <strong>of</strong> today’s advance technology. In order to<br />
prevent the prevalence <strong>of</strong> such illegal activities, the<br />
court must send out a clear message that those who<br />
manufacture counterfeit notes will be severely punished.<br />
(5) If the total value involved was several ten thousand dollars,<br />
the appropriate starting point would be 3 to 4 years : HKSAR v<br />
Lam Wai-ming Cr App 44/2004, HKSAR v Chan Ka-kin and Lai<br />
Ying Cr App 474/2004;<br />
(6) The Applicant committed the <strong>of</strong>fences alone and had no<br />
serious criminal record. Although the total value involved was<br />
over $60,000, the degree <strong>of</strong> resemblance <strong>of</strong> the notes was not high.<br />
There were no aggravating factors. The individual starting point<br />
<strong>of</strong> 3 years and the overall starting point <strong>of</strong> 3½ years were<br />
appropriate.<br />
Result - Appeal allowed. The enhancements <strong>of</strong>, respectively,<br />
45% and 60% in respect <strong>of</strong> Charges 2 and 3 were set<br />
aside. The sentence <strong>of</strong> each <strong>of</strong> the three <strong>of</strong>fences would<br />
be 3 years’ imprisonment, 6 months <strong>of</strong> Charge 1 to be<br />
served consecutively. Total sentence reduced from 5<br />
years to 3 years and 6 months.
18<br />
C. MAGISTRACY APPEALS/<br />
AGAINST CONVICTION<br />
裁 判 法 院 上 訴 案 件 / 針 對 定 罪<br />
MA 1029/2005<br />
MA 313/2006<br />
Beeson J<br />
(28.4.2006)<br />
*Cheung Wai-sun<br />
& Lam Tak-wing<br />
#Philip Dykes SC<br />
PEARCE<br />
Matt<br />
James<br />
Behaving in disorderly manner with intent to provoke a<br />
breach <strong>of</strong> the peace/Political activist running onto Shatin<br />
race-track dressed as a horse/Whether breach <strong>of</strong> the peace<br />
likely to be caused/Race delayed by one minute while<br />
defendant removed/Actions amounted to a tiresome nuisance<br />
but not a public nuisance/Public nuisance committed when<br />
defendant caused crowds to gather and congestion to occur by<br />
climbing onto a big TV screen in Central to stage a political<br />
protest/Choice <strong>of</strong> charges a matter within the discretion <strong>of</strong> the<br />
prosecution/Right to demonstrate borne in mind<br />
作 出 擾 亂 秩 序 的 行 為 意 圖 破 壞 社 會 安 寧 – 政 治 活<br />
動 份 子 打 扮 成 馬 匹 跑 到 沙 田 馬 場 賽 道 上 – 是 否 相<br />
當 可 能 會 導 致 社 會 安 寧 破 壞 – 因 要 帶 走 被 告 人 而<br />
令 賽 事 延 遲 了 1 分 鐘 – 有 關 的 行 為 構 成 煩 人 的 滋 擾<br />
而 非 對 公 衆 的 妨 擾 – 被 告 人 在 中 環 爬 上 大 電 視 屏<br />
幕 提 出 政 治 抗 議 造 成 人 群 聚 集 和 交 通 擠 塞 則 屬 對 公<br />
衆 的 妨 擾 – 控 罪 的 選 定 在 控 方 的 酌 情 決 定 權 範 圍<br />
內 – 顧 及 示 威 的 權 利<br />
The Appellant, aged 30, was the leader <strong>of</strong> a small group <strong>of</strong><br />
self-appointed political activists called ‘International Action’. He<br />
told the Probation Officer it aimed at ‘propagandising social<br />
justice, democracy, human rights and betterment <strong>of</strong> society<br />
through non-violent action arousing the attention and concern <strong>of</strong><br />
the public.’<br />
The non-violent action consisted <strong>of</strong> the Appellant drawing<br />
attention to the cause <strong>of</strong> the moment by dressing in costume and<br />
making a nuisance or a spectacle <strong>of</strong> himself, in some manner<br />
which satisfied his undoubted exhibitionistic streak. He was<br />
assisted in these activities by other members <strong>of</strong> the group, none <strong>of</strong><br />
whom featured in starring roles.<br />
The Appellant was convicted <strong>of</strong> three <strong>of</strong>fences which were<br />
dealt with in two separate cases heard by different magistrates.<br />
HCMA 1029/2005<br />
The Appellant was convicted, first, <strong>of</strong> behaving in a<br />
disorderly manner in a public place, Shatin Race Course, with<br />
intent to provoke a breach <strong>of</strong> the peace or whereby a breach <strong>of</strong> the<br />
peace was likely to be caused, contrary to s 17B(2) <strong>of</strong> the Public
19<br />
Order Ordinance, Cap 245. Second, he was convicted, on the<br />
same occasion, <strong>of</strong> causing a nuisance to the public by unlawfully<br />
running on the race-track dressed in a mock horse costume just<br />
before the start <strong>of</strong> the televised horse race No. 8 for the Cathay<br />
Pacific Hong Kong Cup, contrary to common law.<br />
The evidence showed that on 12 December 2004, the<br />
Appellant attended a big race meeting at the Shatin Race Course<br />
dressed in a horse costume which incorporated a yellow shirt<br />
bearing the words ‘demand democracy now’. He amused the<br />
crowds in the Public Enclosure by prancing about, apparently to<br />
promote public awareness <strong>of</strong> democracy.<br />
Just before the scheduled start <strong>of</strong> Race 8 at 5:10 pm, the<br />
Appellant was assisted to scale the barrier fence onto the track.<br />
He ran along the track heading away from the starting gate<br />
towards the winning post. He was pursued by security guards,<br />
who had tolerated his earlier antics in the Public Enclosure. As he<br />
ran, the Appellant waved to the crowd, who were applauding and<br />
calling out, although the magistrate surmised some were angry or<br />
annoyed. When caught, the Appellant was pushed to the ground<br />
without <strong>of</strong>fering any resistance. This incident took about two<br />
minutes and though the race was delayed by one minute, it was run<br />
without incident. The Appellant’s behaviour was peaceful at all<br />
times; and the force used to apprehend him was reasonable.<br />
The race-track was a public place. The race meeting was the<br />
biggest in the Racing Calendar. The maximum crowd at the racecourse<br />
was 48,000 and the race was to be televised to more than<br />
13 countries.<br />
HCMA 313/2006<br />
The Appellant was convicted <strong>of</strong> an <strong>of</strong>fence <strong>of</strong> public<br />
nuisance, contrary to common law. It was alleged that on 3 June<br />
2005, he caused a nuisance to the public by unlawfully climbing<br />
up a big TV screen dressed as Spiderman at Luk Hoi Tung<br />
Building at No. 31 Queen’s Road Central. The Appellant used a<br />
ladder to climb to the first floor podium <strong>of</strong> Luk Hoi Tung<br />
Building, a commercial building. A large TV screen erected on<br />
the podium was used to show commercial messages to passers-by.<br />
At 1245, having climbed up the screen, the Appellant hung a<br />
banner 16 ft x 10 ft in front <strong>of</strong> it, effectively obstructing any<br />
messages that might be shown. The message on the banner, in<br />
Chinese and English, stated:<br />
Tiananmen Square 4-6-1989<br />
<strong>Justice</strong> Must Prevail
20<br />
Injustice anywhere is a threat to <strong>Justice</strong> everywhere<br />
www.thebiggerpicture.hk<br />
The Appellant stayed on top <strong>of</strong> the screen, generally drawing<br />
attention to himself. Large pedestrian crowds gathered to watch<br />
him and police were needed for crowd and traffic control.<br />
At 1348, Fire Services came and placed a rescue cushion<br />
below the screen, in case the Appellant jumped or fell. It was<br />
necessary at that stage to cordon <strong>of</strong>f that part <strong>of</strong> Queen’s Road and<br />
Theatre Lane which ran <strong>of</strong>f it and in consequence vehicular traffic<br />
had to be diverted into Pedder Street and away from D’Aguilar<br />
Street which met Queen’s Road Central as a T-junction at that<br />
spot. Traffic lights were suspended and police <strong>of</strong>ficers directed<br />
traffic. Traffic congestion lasted for about two hours. Movement<br />
was slow, drivers unhappy.<br />
Pedestrians had to be directed by a circuitous route from the<br />
building through to Theatre Lane, which <strong>of</strong>fered MTR access.<br />
Access to and from shops in the building was impeded, some<br />
shops closed and staff <strong>of</strong> the management company shepherded<br />
pedestrians along the detour route. Shops in the vicinity<br />
experienced reduced lunchtime business or had no business at all.<br />
After a Senior Fire Service Officer was raised to the<br />
Appellant’s level via the hydraulic platform <strong>of</strong> a fire engine<br />
brought to the scene, he asked the Appellant to come down. The<br />
Appellant refused unless he was fed with dim sum, which was<br />
duly provided some 30 minutes later. During that time the<br />
Appellant continued his posturing and at intervals affected to read<br />
a newspaper. When the serious congestion was pointed out to<br />
him, the Appellant apologised but continued eating. He finished<br />
the food and left the screen with the <strong>of</strong>ficer. The screen eventually<br />
had stopped working because the Appellant’s banner caused it to<br />
overheat. No permission for access was sought by the Appellant,<br />
or granted by the management company <strong>of</strong> the building or the<br />
owner <strong>of</strong> the screen. The Appellant knew the building and screen<br />
were private property and expected that the police and fire services<br />
would arrive to bring him down. He knew and expected a crowd to<br />
gather. He considered his action justified.<br />
Held :<br />
On appeal<br />
(1) In both appeals, the comments <strong>of</strong> Sedley LJ in Redmond-<br />
Bate v Director <strong>of</strong> Public Prosecutions [1999] Crim LR 998, were<br />
to be borne in mind:
21<br />
Free speech includes not only the in<strong>of</strong>fensive but the<br />
irritating, the contentious, the heretical, the<br />
unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not<br />
tend to provoke violence.<br />
HCMA 1029/2005<br />
First summons:<br />
(2) The magistrate found the elements <strong>of</strong> ‘public place ’ and<br />
‘disorderly conduct ’ established by the evidence. He was correct<br />
in finding that the Appellant’s conduct became disorderly when<br />
transferred to the race-track. The track was closed to anyone not<br />
specifically permitted to have access. That was particularly the<br />
case when races were being prepared for, or run. Such a measure<br />
was necessary for the good administration <strong>of</strong> the race meeting,<br />
particularly for ensuring the safety <strong>of</strong> jockeys, horses and<br />
spectators. Although the Appellant’s behaviour on the track<br />
followed much the same pattern as his behaviour in the Public<br />
Enclosure, his repetition <strong>of</strong> such behaviour in proximity to horses<br />
and riders made it possible, or likely, that one or more horses<br />
would bolt and/or throw their riders. It was also possible that one<br />
or more horses would baulk at entering the starting gate. The<br />
Public Order Ordinance did not define ‘disorderly conduct ’, and<br />
the magistrate noted that this was a matter <strong>of</strong> fact for him to<br />
determine;<br />
(3) The Appellant at no time resisted capture and cooperated<br />
with the security guards, who themselves used only reasonable<br />
force to subdue him. The security guards had specific duties to<br />
perform and were trained to deal with situations such as this<br />
incident. It seemed improbable that faced with a co-operative,<br />
non-resisting, unarmed, pantomime horse after a chase lasting less<br />
than 30 seconds, the security guards would resort to violence. It<br />
was even less likely they would resort to violence under the gaze<br />
<strong>of</strong> the head <strong>of</strong> security, 48,000 spectators and police <strong>of</strong>ficers<br />
dealing with crowd control;<br />
(4) As for angry spectators taking violent action against the<br />
Appellant, that appeared even more unlikely. Given that the<br />
Appellant’s conduct was not directed at provoking, nor intended to<br />
provoke the public it would have been wholly unreasonable if any<br />
spectator had behaved as the magistrate feared they might. The<br />
magistrate had to be satisfied there was a real risk <strong>of</strong> a future<br />
breach <strong>of</strong> the peace, so any violence or the threat <strong>of</strong> violence must<br />
be a natural consequence <strong>of</strong> the conduct <strong>of</strong> the Appellant. The<br />
magistrate made no specific finding about this matter;<br />
(5) There was no basis for the magistrate’s finding that a breach<br />
<strong>of</strong> the peace was likely to be caused, and the conviction on the first
22<br />
summons must be quashed;<br />
HCMA 1029/2005 & HCMA 313/2006<br />
Public nuisances<br />
(6) In R v Rimmington [2005] 2 WLR 982, the House <strong>of</strong> Lords<br />
held that a public nuisance was committed when a person did an<br />
act not warranted by law, or omitted to discharge a legal duty, and<br />
the effect <strong>of</strong> the act or omission was to endanger the life, health,<br />
property or comfort <strong>of</strong> the public, or to obstruct the public in the<br />
exercise <strong>of</strong> rights common to everyone;<br />
(7) An essential ingredient <strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>fence <strong>of</strong> causing a public<br />
nuisance was that it must cause common injury to the public - the<br />
community as a whole or a significant section <strong>of</strong> it. Individual<br />
acts which caused injury to several different people could not<br />
constitute criminal public nuisance. The mens rea which had to be<br />
proved against a defendant to convict him <strong>of</strong> causing a public<br />
nuisance was that he knew or ought to have known, because the<br />
means <strong>of</strong> knowledge were available to him, the consequence <strong>of</strong><br />
what he did or omitted to do;<br />
HCMA 1029/2005<br />
Second summons:<br />
(8) The magistrate fixed on the 1-minute delay in the start <strong>of</strong><br />
Race 8 as the basis for finding ‘common injury ’. In Rimmington<br />
such injury was described as follows ‘central to the content <strong>of</strong> the<br />
crime was the suffering <strong>of</strong> common injury by members <strong>of</strong> the<br />
public by interference with rights enjoyed by them as such ’;<br />
(9) Assuming, as the magistrate found, that the delay was<br />
caused by the Appellant, there was no evidence to show that the<br />
public were aware <strong>of</strong> the delay; that they experienced any<br />
problems with placing bets in consequence; that their enjoyment in<br />
watching the race had been interfered with; or that they had any<br />
disappointed expectation that the race would begin precisely at the<br />
time fixed;<br />
(10) The evidence showed that delays <strong>of</strong> one or two minutes at<br />
the start <strong>of</strong> a race were usual for a variety <strong>of</strong> reasons, although on<br />
this occasion it was the Appellant’s action which caused the delay.<br />
As delays were usual, it was highly improbable that the anxiety,<br />
concern, discomfort and disappointment which the magistrate<br />
considered the likely result <strong>of</strong> one minute’s delay, would have had<br />
time to manifest itself. The position might have been different if<br />
the Appellant’s actions had caused false start to the race, or if it<br />
had to be cancelled or postponed for a significant period <strong>of</strong> time.<br />
The fact that much administrative inconvenience had been caused
23<br />
to the Jockey Club did not establish the significant number <strong>of</strong><br />
persons required to be affected to substantiate common injury;<br />
(11) While the magistrate was correct in finding the Appellant’s<br />
conduct was disorderly and not warranted by law, he nevertheless<br />
erred in finding that his delaying the start <strong>of</strong> the race amounted to<br />
a public nuisance. On the evidence it was not possible to find the<br />
necessary common injury caused to the community as a whole, or<br />
to a significant portion <strong>of</strong> it. Although the Appellant was<br />
undoubtedly a tiresome nuisance, his behaviour did not constitute<br />
a public nuisance, and the conviction on the second summons must<br />
be quashed;<br />
HCMA 313/2006<br />
(12) Although the Appellant contended that the Appellant should<br />
not have been charged with the <strong>of</strong>fence <strong>of</strong> public nuisance, when s<br />
4(28) <strong>of</strong> the Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap 428, was ‘tailormade<br />
’ for the behaviour complained <strong>of</strong>, and that, on the basis <strong>of</strong><br />
Rimmington, if a statutory <strong>of</strong>fence existed it should be used, rather<br />
than the common law equivalent, unless there was good reason not<br />
to do so, the choice <strong>of</strong> charge and venue for trial was the<br />
responsibility <strong>of</strong> the Secretary for <strong>Justice</strong> and his designated<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficers. The prosecution had a wide discretion as to the charge or<br />
charges it might lay and in the absence <strong>of</strong> bad faith, abuse <strong>of</strong><br />
process or perverse action a court was unable to question the<br />
decision. Charges were laid and venues chosen according to<br />
prosecution policy and guidelines taking into account the gravity<br />
<strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>fence, the elements that could be proved and other factors<br />
such as prevalence, deterrence, community mores, etc. The<br />
prosecutorial burden was a heavy one and it was for the Secretary<br />
for <strong>Justice</strong> to decide in what manner it was to be borne. The<br />
Appellant did not suggest that the common law <strong>of</strong>fence was<br />
chosen, in the manner deprecated in Rimmington, to circumvent<br />
mandatory time limits, or limits on penalties;<br />
(13) The Appellant was disingenuous in submitting that the<br />
magistrate erred by concentrating on whether the Appellant’s<br />
demonstration had caused congestion, rather than considering the<br />
reasonableness <strong>of</strong> the public stopping in the street to watch. The<br />
crowds gathered as a direct consequence <strong>of</strong> and in response to the<br />
Appellant’s activities. Many pedestrians undoubtedly stopped<br />
because the crowds watching the Appellant impeded their<br />
progress, or blocked their access to shops, <strong>of</strong>fices or MTR, or<br />
because the positioning <strong>of</strong> the Fire Services cushion obliged them<br />
to take a lengthy detour. The longer the Appellant remained al<strong>of</strong>t,<br />
the greater the crowds and congestion and the less reasonable their<br />
user <strong>of</strong> the highway;
24<br />
(14) The magistrate concluded that the Appellant’s<br />
demonstration, lawful and peaceful as it was, was unduly lengthy,<br />
given the well-aired topic he wished to bring to the public<br />
attention; the time and place chosen for the demonstration and the<br />
further lengthening <strong>of</strong> the time <strong>of</strong> disruption by his bizarre<br />
insistence on being fed as a condition <strong>of</strong> his leaving the podium.<br />
He found that the Appellant’s message, although important and<br />
legitimate, could have been conveyed within a much shorter timeframe<br />
than the two hours he was on top <strong>of</strong> the screen. The<br />
Appellant was aware his activities were likely to cause congestion,<br />
and it was an integral part <strong>of</strong> his demonstration that such<br />
congestion or disturbance would be caused. By refusing to come<br />
down when, after a lengthy period, congestion below was pointed<br />
out to him, he had extended the time by demanding dim sum. At a<br />
certain point the crowd’s user became unreasonable, as a direct<br />
result <strong>of</strong> the Appellant’s acts. That point was for the magistrate to<br />
find;<br />
(15) In Rimmington it was held that the mens rea which had to be<br />
established against a defendant on a public nuisance charge was<br />
that he knew or ought to have known, because the means <strong>of</strong><br />
knowledge was available to him, the consequences <strong>of</strong> what he did<br />
or omitted to do. The magistrate considered the question <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Appellant’s knowledge and drew the irresistible inference that the<br />
Appellant had the requisite mens rea;<br />
(16) To establish ‘public nuisance ’ the effect <strong>of</strong> the act or<br />
omission must be shown ‘to endanger the life, health, property or<br />
comfort <strong>of</strong> the public, or to obstruct the public in the exercise <strong>of</strong><br />
rights common to everyone ’. The magistrate found that many<br />
road users and shop owners and customers in the vicinity plus the<br />
TV owner were seriously affected by the Appellant’s act ‘to<br />
varying significant degrees enough to constitute a substantial<br />
number <strong>of</strong> the public ’. The magistrate could also have found on<br />
the evidence that potentially all citizens, residents and visitors in<br />
Hong Kong could be regarded as suffering the public nuisance<br />
caused by the obstruction <strong>of</strong> the highway, which in normal<br />
circumstances was available for ordinary use by anyone as a<br />
pedestrian or driver. Such user was not limited to simple passing<br />
and re-passing;<br />
(17) In Yeung May-kwan and Others v HKSAR (2005) 8<br />
HKCFAR 137 at 157, Bokhary PJ gave instances <strong>of</strong> how various<br />
uses <strong>of</strong> the road or footpath might impede other persons using the<br />
highway to some extent, and how the law sought to strike a<br />
balance between ‘possibly conflicting interests <strong>of</strong> different users <strong>of</strong><br />
the highway based on a requirement <strong>of</strong> reasonableness. Whether<br />
any particular instance <strong>of</strong> obstruction goes beyond what is<br />
reasonable is a question <strong>of</strong> fact and degree depending on all the
25<br />
circumstances, including its extent and duration, the time and<br />
place where it occurs and the purpose for which it is done ’. The<br />
court reiterated that where an obstruction resulted from a peaceful<br />
demonstration, it was essential that the constitutionally protected<br />
right to demonstrate, which was enshrined in Art 27 <strong>of</strong> the Basic<br />
Law, was recognised and given substantial weight;<br />
(18) The magistrate had borne in mind the important matter <strong>of</strong><br />
the Appellant’s right to demonstrate. He found the elements <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>of</strong>fence established. He was apprised <strong>of</strong> the relevant case law and<br />
directed himself accordingly. In particular, he carried out the<br />
required balancing act, in which the Appellant’s right to<br />
demonstrate had to be balanced against the public right to use the<br />
highway, not just to pass and repass, but to use it for what might<br />
be described as social and community purposes. The conviction<br />
was not wrong.<br />
Result - Appeal allowed in HCMA 1029/2005, and convictions<br />
quashed, but appeal dismissed in HCMA 313/2006.
26<br />
D. MAGISTRACY APPEALS/<br />
AGAINST SENTENCE<br />
裁 判 法 院 上 訴 案 件 / 針 對 刑 罰<br />
MA 15/2006<br />
Longley DJ<br />
(7.2.2006)<br />
*Polly Wan<br />
#I/P<br />
GUO<br />
Jingxing<br />
Immigration Ordinance/Overstayer in possession <strong>of</strong> HK<br />
identity card taking up employment/Twelve months’<br />
imprisonment lenient as deterrent sentence required/<br />
Humanitarian considerations not relevant as defendant knew<br />
<strong>of</strong> these before arrival in Hong Kong<br />
《 入 境 條 例 》– 逾 期 逗 留 並 管 有 香 港 身 分 證 以 從 事<br />
僱 傭 工 作 – 此 類 罪 行 須 處 以 阻 嚇 性 刑 罰 —12 個 月<br />
監 禁 屬 寬 大 的 判 刑 – 被 告 人 到 港 前 已 知 的 情 況 不<br />
得 作 為 人 道 理 由 成 為 相 關 考 慮 因 素<br />
The Appellant pleaded guilty to three <strong>of</strong>fences. First, breach<br />
<strong>of</strong> condition <strong>of</strong> stay, contrary to s 41 <strong>of</strong> the Immigration<br />
Ordinance, Cap 115, and by virtue <strong>of</strong> regulation 2(1)(a) <strong>of</strong> that<br />
Ordinance, he was sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment. Second,<br />
using a forged identity card, contrary to s 7A(1) <strong>of</strong> the Registration<br />
<strong>of</strong> Persons Ordinance, Cap 177, for which he was sentenced to 12<br />
months’ imprisonment. Third, using a false instrument, namely a<br />
false Construction Industry Safety Training Certificate, contrary to<br />
s 73 <strong>of</strong> the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200, for which he received 4<br />
months’ imprisonment. The magistrate adopted starting points <strong>of</strong>,<br />
respectively, 3 months, 18 months and 6 months, and gave the<br />
Appellant a discount <strong>of</strong> one-third. All sentences were made<br />
concurrent, producing a total sentence <strong>of</strong> 12 months.<br />
The magistrate had been informed that the Applicant was<br />
divorced and was the sole support <strong>of</strong> his aged mother, who had<br />
suffered a stroke in 1999, and two children aged 13 and 8. He had<br />
come to Hong Kong to provide funds for his family and in<br />
particular the medical expenses for his mother.<br />
The facts showed that the Appellant entered Hong Kong on<br />
a China two-way permit. In breach <strong>of</strong> his conditions <strong>of</strong> stay he<br />
had taken up employment with a construction company. He had<br />
produced a forged Hong Kong identity card and Construction<br />
Safety Training Certificate to his employer. He was arrested while<br />
working in road works in Caine Road. He admitted he had bought<br />
the false identity card and certificate in Shenzhen. He said he<br />
committed the <strong>of</strong>fence as his mother was sick.<br />
The Appellant sought leave to appeal out <strong>of</strong> time as he had<br />
received a letter from his daughter informing him that his mother<br />
had suffered a stroke and that she was suffering from paralysis <strong>of</strong><br />
the right limbs and from incontinence and there was nobody to
27<br />
look after her save his 13-year-old daughter who had to miss<br />
school to do so.<br />
On appeal, the Appellant said his mother was still in<br />
hospital, but that his daughter had to look after her. He did not<br />
suggest the sentences were excessive at the time they were passed.<br />
Held :<br />
(1) The magistrate adopted a lenient view <strong>of</strong> the Appellant’s<br />
conduct, particularly in relation to the second <strong>of</strong>fence. He only<br />
referred to the Appellant having one previous conviction for a<br />
similar <strong>of</strong>fence in 1999. In fact the Appellant had been in Hong<br />
Kong a year earlier and breached his condition <strong>of</strong> stay. This was,<br />
therefore, the third occasion he had been in Hong Kong and<br />
committed <strong>of</strong>fences;<br />
(2) In HKSAR v Li Chang-li [2005] 1 HKLRD 865, the Court <strong>of</strong><br />
Appeal said that the problem <strong>of</strong> overstayers who were in<br />
possession <strong>of</strong> Hong Kong identity cards and took up employment<br />
was so serious that deterrent sentences were called for. It went on<br />
to say that where such an identity card was used to obtain<br />
employment, the sentence upon plea should, save in exceptional<br />
circumstances, be 15 months’ imprisonment;<br />
(3) Although the court had power to take into account strong<br />
humanitarian grounds for reducing a sentence, the Appellant was<br />
aware that his mother had already had one stroke before he entered<br />
Hong Kong on this occasion, with a view yet again to breach the<br />
laws <strong>of</strong> Hong Kong. He chose to take the risk that her health<br />
might decline. Even if, as he now maintained, his mother had<br />
been released home, and had only recently been hospitalised<br />
again, that deterioration in her condition could not have been<br />
wholly unexpected.<br />
Result - Appeal dismissed.<br />
MA 313/2006<br />
Beeson J<br />
(28.4.2006)<br />
*Cheung Wai-sun<br />
& Lam Tak-wing<br />
PEARCE<br />
Matt James<br />
Public Nuisance/Substantial inconvenience caused to a large<br />
number <strong>of</strong> people/Suspended sentence <strong>of</strong> imprisonment<br />
對 公 衆 的 妨 擾 – 對 很 多 人 造 成 很 大 不 便 – 緩 刑<br />
The Appellant was convicted after trial <strong>of</strong> an <strong>of</strong>fence <strong>of</strong><br />
public nuisance, contrary to common law. It was alleged that on 3<br />
June 2005, he caused a nuisance to the public by unlawfully<br />
climbing up a big TV screen dressed as Spiderman at Luk Hoi<br />
Tung Building, No. 31 Queen’s Road, Central.
28<br />
#Philip Dykes SC<br />
The magistrate took a starting point for sentence <strong>of</strong> 28 days’<br />
imprisonment, but credit was given for the Appellant’s clear<br />
record. The Appellant was sentenced to 21 days’ imprisonment.<br />
The maximum penalty for the <strong>of</strong>fence on summary conviction was<br />
2 years’ imprisonment. The magistrate found no reason to<br />
suspend the sentence, but granted bail pending appeal.<br />
For facts <strong>of</strong> case, see Magistracy Appeals/Against<br />
Conviction.<br />
The Magistrate treated the Appellant as a man <strong>of</strong> clear<br />
record and noted his monthly earnings were around $7,000. He<br />
considered that the Appellant had caused substantial<br />
inconvenience to a large number <strong>of</strong> people and took the view that<br />
a financial penalty was inappropriate, in that it would lead others<br />
to ‘think they can pay for executing their belief, even to an<br />
unreasonable and excessive extent’.<br />
A community service order was considered as an alternative<br />
to the short prison term, but the Appellant said he had no time to<br />
carry out the programme.<br />
Held :<br />
On appeal<br />
A short term <strong>of</strong> imprisonment was, in principle, in all the<br />
circumstances, a proper sentence. However, justice would be<br />
served by suspending that sentence for a period <strong>of</strong> 18 months.<br />
This would recognise what was, in effect, a first <strong>of</strong>fence, but<br />
would have a lasting deterrent influence.<br />
Result - Appeal allowed. Sentence <strong>of</strong> imprisonment <strong>of</strong> 21 days<br />
suspended for 18 months.<br />
[As to the circumstances in which it is proper for a court<br />
to suspend a sentence <strong>of</strong> imprisonment, see Sentencing in<br />
Hong Kong, 4th ed., at pp 466-467: Ed]
29<br />
E. COSTS IN CRIMINAL CASES<br />
刑 事 案 件 的 訟 費<br />
CA 411/2003<br />
CA 61/2004<br />
Ma CJHC<br />
Stuart-Moore VP<br />
Stock JA<br />
(28.4.2006)<br />
*G McCoy SC<br />
& G Shiu<br />
#C Grossman SC<br />
& H M Mughal<br />
B Yu SC<br />
(amicus curiae)<br />
HUNG<br />
Chan-wa<br />
ATSUSHI<br />
Asano<br />
Court appointing amicus curiae to assist it/Not right to order<br />
Respondent to pay costs/Order nisi varied<br />
法 庭 委 任 法 庭 之 友 提 供 協 助 – 無 權 下 令 答 辯 人 支<br />
付 訟 費 – 更 改 暫 准 命 令<br />
On 26 January 2006, the Court handed down judgment on<br />
the issue <strong>of</strong> prospective overruling, which was an issue consequent<br />
on its decision on the constitutionality <strong>of</strong> ss 47(1) and (2) <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.<br />
The court had engaged the assistance <strong>of</strong> an amicus curiae<br />
because <strong>of</strong> the importance <strong>of</strong> the issue, and, the issue having been<br />
determined against the Respondent. The court held:<br />
There will be a costs order nisi that the costs <strong>of</strong> the<br />
amicus curiae and <strong>of</strong> the appellants be paid by the<br />
respondent, to be taxed if not agreed, the appellants’<br />
costs to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid<br />
Regulations.<br />
The Respondent applied to vary the costs order nisi,<br />
submitting that the costs <strong>of</strong> the amicus curiae should not be borne<br />
by it. The Appellants made it clear that they would not make any<br />
submissions regarding costs unless an order was sought against<br />
them. The Respondent sought no such order but submitted that<br />
there be no order as to costs for the prospective overruling hearing.<br />
Held :<br />
The costs order nisi should be varied. It was not necessary<br />
to determine the point <strong>of</strong> whether the court had jurisdiction to<br />
order the costs <strong>of</strong> an amicus curiae to be paid by the Respondent.<br />
Even if such jurisdiction existed, given that it was the court on its<br />
own initiative which considered it necessary to appoint an amicus<br />
curiae, it would not be right to penalise the Respondent with an<br />
order to pay these costs.<br />
Result - Application allowed. Order nisi varied to an order that<br />
there be no order as to costs for the prospective<br />
overruling hearing.