標少對高等法院暫委法官杜麗冰的能力頗有微言，在blog中批評過她好幾次。今天看到她聽審上訴的判辭，又忍不住講一下。有些法律界以外的朋友可能未見過判辭，讓我把這份中學生也看得明白的判辭張貼在下面，以便討論。
HCMA 896/2011
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2011年第896號
(原屯門裁判法院刑事案件2011年第2326號)
---------------------
---------------------
主審法官：高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官杜麗冰
聆訊日期：2012年2月2日
裁判日期：2012年2月2日
判 案 書
1. 上訴人於裁判法院經審訊後被判一項「阻礙公職人員」控罪，違反香港法例第 228 章《簡易程序治罪條例》第 23 條，被判罪名成立，被罰款2,000 元。上訴人不服定罪，提出上訴。
2. 今日上訴人缺席，他沒有通知法庭他今日不會出席應訊，亦沒有提供任何申請會將今日聆訊押後。因此，本席亦得知法庭已經用掛號信方式通知上訴人今日上訴聆訊日期，當上訴人已知悉今日聆訊。加上警方亦派人往上訴人地址派發霍律師的陳詞大綱，但在上訴人住址找到一位女士，這位女士自稱是上訴人的媽媽。她跟警方說上訴人已經到大陸公幹。在這情況下，本席當上訴人今日放棄上訴關於定罪方面。上訴人在他上訴申請書上只寫了一個上訴理由，指裁判法官對他有偏見，在分析及裁斷均有偏見，但上訴人沒有指出他的上訴理由。
3. 本席翻閱裁判法官裁斷陳述書及證人口供上的分析，本席看不到裁判法官在此裁斷有任何出錯，因此沒有足夠理由推翻裁判法官這個程序，加上上訴人決席而沒有通知法庭決席理由，本席認為他已放棄定罪上訴。本席判上訴被駁回，維持原判。
4. 關於刑罰方面，上訴人選擇沒有上訴關於刑罰方面2,000 元的罰款，但霍律師很公正地指出按法例第 23 條，刑罰其實在法律上只是批准法庭罰上訴人1,000 元罰款。因此，裁判法官判上訴人罰款2,000 元是犯錯的。
5. 在這情況下本席在裁決書裡，告知上訴人他可以來法庭申請關於刑罰方面的上訴，本席會批准他上訴“out of time”。關於在刑罰方面，可以給時間他作上訴。如果上訴人認為不需要，他可以不處理。但如果他想上訴關於刑罰方面，亦可來法庭作出申請。
答辯人：由律政司檢控官霍莎莎代表香港特別行政區。
上訴人：無律師代表，缺席聆訊。
|
這是一宗申請推翻定罪的上訴，上訴人缺席，法官公正地考慮上訴理據，駁回上訴，到那階段都沒犯錯。錯在哪裏呢？先看上訴人被定罪的法例：
章：<>
|
標題：<>
|
簡易程序治罪條例<>
|
憲報編號：<>
|
<>
|
|
<>
條：<>
|
23<>
|
條文標題：<>
|
抗拒或阻礙公職人員或其他依法執行公務的人<>
|
版本日期：<>
|
30/06/1997
|
任何人抗拒或阻礙依法執行公務，或獲合法授權或合法受僱執行公務的公職人員或其他人執行任何公務，或抗拒或阻礙他人合法地協助上述公職人員或其他人執行任何公務，均可處罰款$1000及監禁6個月。
法例寫著可處罰款$1000及監禁6個月，所以代表政府的檢控官為公平起見，向法官指出原審裁判官判罰越權，超過了法例容許的最高罰款。檢控官的看法，誤導了杜麗冰也認為原審裁判官判罰犯錯，還表明會批准逾時上訴。檢控官和法官兩位在法律上都犯錯，標少在最高罰款一文講過，最高罰款要結合法例第221章刑事訴訟程序條例第113B條 一起看，從1999年起，罰款在$100,000內，分成6級，原本$1000的最高罰款，變成$2000。原審裁判官並無越權。唯一可以在判罰方面考慮的上訴理據是，應否對被告處以最高罰款，看不到案情，難以評論。
Hi, it seems to me that before considering s113B CPO, the ordinance must provide for a fine by reference to a level . From the statute quoted above, I am unable to see such reference.
回覆刪除Cap 221 s 113B Levels of fines for offences
(1) Where an Ordinance provides for a fine for an offence by reference to a level, the fine applicable for the offence is the amount shown for that level in Schedule 8.
(2) Where a provision in an Ordinance specifies a level of fine that may be prescribed under subsidiary legislation, the level specified is a reference to the level as set out in Schedule 8.
(3) The Chief Executive in Council may by regulation amend the amounts set out in Schedule 8 to reflect his opinion of the effect of inflation on the value of the amounts set out in the Schedule since the date when the Schedule came into operation or since the date that the amounts in the Schedule were last amended. (Amended 39 of 1999 s. 3)
An example I found is in s14 of UNITED NATIONS (ANTI-TERRORISM MEASURES) ORDINANCE (Cap 575) which reads:
回覆刪除(1) Any person who contravenes section 7, 8 or 9 commits an offence and is liable-
(a) on conviction on indictment to a fine and to imprisonment for 14 years;
(b) on summary conviction to a fine at level 6 and to imprisonment for 2 years.
匿名,
回覆刪除I think s.113C(2) can answer your question:-
(2) Where an Ordinance provides for a fine, other than an excluded fine, for an offence expressed as an amount of money, the fine shall be deemed to be a fine at the level relevant to the amount of the fine in the following table-
TABLE
Fine
Level applied
$1 to $2000 Level 1
$2001 to $5000 Level 2
$5001 to $10000 Level 3
$10001 to $25000 Level 4
$25001 to $50000 Level 5
$50001 to $100000 Level 6
Hi, Wil, oh yes, I overlooked that, thank you very much. :)
刪除Dear All,
刪除Good discussions, aren't they? Esther Toh's appeal judgment is best used for junior lawyers' training. It is a matter often overlooked. The introduction of level of fines is an umbrella amendment to pitch in the change of time. It would be too difficult to amend the fines of each statue in the past when the electronic version of the statues were not yet implemented. What we did in the past was really cut and paste. The clerks had to cut the new amendments in the gazette and then paste them over the old version of the hard copy of the Laws of Hong Kong. Only newer laws or the most popular ones would mention the level of fine. The Summary Offences Ordinance is rather archaic. Many of the penalties in there are older than 50 years.
I do not want to be too harsh with Esther Toh but erroneous point of law should be rectified. No one knows all the laws and no one can remember all. Still, someone has to point out the fundamental error. She is not the only one to err. Some 20 years ago, Joe Duffy, a high court judge, passed a suspended sentence on a manslaughter charge, which is an excepted offence. Duffy was the DPP before he joined the bench. Even the DPP would make such mistake. We learn something every day. If there is discussion, then we discover mistakes we have made.
Dear 標少 and Wil
刪除Yes, indeed, I do benefit a lot from the discussions (not just the one above but from other discussions as well). To me, this is the best way to learn. I just wanna express my gratitude to 標少 as well as other authors here, who are willing to share their knowledge and experience. Thank you very much.
Dear Anonymous,
刪除Thank your for reading and the very generous compliments you made.
Bill
hi 標少, are you still living in australia?
回覆刪除If you do not mind, please contact me through this email
heis_sam-yuen@yahoo.com.hk, i wonder if you have interest to co-operate with us on a new project, which is about the judiciary of hk.