我之前寫了信耶穌偷肥牛一文，上星期見報導被告上訴得直，撤銷定罪。今天判辭在司法機構網頁上載了。批准上訴的理由，標少不敢苟同，屬於我最不喜歡見到那一種————隨喜。原審裁判官蘇文隆整篇裁斷陳述書我當然無機會看到，但從上訴判辭所引述的段落來看，我不覺得批准上訴是合理的決定。聽審上訴的暫委法官胡國興（已退休上訴庭副庭長）以被告可能「失魂」來撤銷定罪，下面一段是他的理據。
22. 本席分析，裁判官的理據基礎只是在於他所說，被告人無故霎時誤以為已付款，以及時間上實太過巧合，令人難以置信。然而，無故霎時的這種誤會，雖然一般可能是令常人難以接受，但我們可否斷言是沒有可能發生呢？所謂太過巧合只是說被告人在離開超市一分鐘之前，先放凍肉於公事包內，隨即在一分鐘之內不付款而離開。在這情況下，為什麼中肯合理的人士，必然無疑地覺得被告人的行為旨在盜竊，希望最終能安全離開超市而逃之夭夭? 本席認為，裁判官的這種理論，顯示他認為被告人的辯護本身是固有不可能的。裁判官所具陳的理由，是他覺得一個人在超級市場內逗留了20多分鐘，然後在最後一分鐘，才將貨物隱藏，忘記付款離開超級市場，是不可能的事。本席認為，這理由並不充份，令人質疑是武斷。被告人的證供不單是說他忘記了付款，而是說以為自己已經付款。這是粵語所謂「失魂」的問題，並不是記不記得的問題，不是不記得當時沒有付款，而是失魂地以為當時已經付款。而且失魂或不記得在常理上是否有一定的行為或時間上節奏，是不是一分鐘前的行為必定記得或必是不會失魂誤會，超過數分鐘之前的事就可能不記得、可能會失魂? 在沒有醫學或專家證供的情況下，本席認為這是不能斷言的。 (香港特別行政區 訴 林鏡初 HCMA 291/2013)
這種案是事實裁斷，上訴法院可作干預的空間有限，胡官以「沒有醫學或專家證供的情況下」，不能斷言否定被告失魂以為已經付款的講法。唉！這種上訴判辭，批准上訴的理據，不看也罷。
有一點值得原審主控官參考的是，本案控方只呈遞閉路電視的錄像光碟，內容包含了被告取貨、藏貨和離開的過程，因此控方沒有傳召任何證人作供，究竟公事包內有沒有其他物品及這公事包的狀況，都是我極有興趣在控方案情奠基用作盤問被告時用的東西。有其他物品和沒有其他物品，都是盤問的好題材。
這件案應該上訴得直的，只有判刑上訴，判監3星期緩刑3年，明顯過重及徧離一貫涉及初犯的店鋪盜竊案的刑罰。
//在沒有醫學或專家證供的情況下//
回覆刪除粵語所謂「失魂」和「斷片」的問題，真難定？
要評論這句話的智慧，可能要講大不敬的説話。這類案要全盤考慮整件事，而不是單一看是否失魂。當然，大官的智慧比標少高，單看地位，已prima facie established。
回覆刪除For criminal cases, is there any legal test for overturning a finding of facts by the first instance court?
回覆刪除David,
刪除This paragraph from the judgement states the attitude of the appellate court:
" 在討論裁判官裁斷的理據基礎之前，本席須指出，處理裁判法院的上訴，是以重審方式，依照原審裁判官席前的證供證據進行，至於接納某證人的證供或拒接納某證人的證供，是裁判官就有關事實方面所作之裁決。裁判官對每名證人的證供有耳聞目睹、觀察其神態舉止之利，對每名證人的真誠、可信、可靠性及程度各方面都比審理上訴的法庭存有絕大的優勢。就某證人是否可信可靠，純在原審裁判官決定的範圍內。除非裁判官的裁斷明顯不合情理、或不合邏輯、不符事態的內在或然性、或沒有證據支持，甚或與證據衝突，又或在處理證供時就重要事項作出錯誤引述、或有遺漏、或不曾作考慮分析，否則審理上訴的法庭是不會亦不得干預的。參閱香港特行政區訴張裕驥 HCMA 186/2013 (2013年5月9日判詞，未經彙編)，第14段。"
I should say this statement derived from Chou Shih Bin v HKSAR, FACC 11/2004 and is most cited by the appellate courts dealing with factual findings.
As you have rightly pointed out earlier, there is limited scope for intervention by the appellate court: 除非裁判官的裁斷明顯不合情理、或不合邏輯、不符事態的內在或然性、或沒有證據支持，甚或與證據衝突，又或在處理證供時就重要事項作出錯誤引述、或有遺漏、或不曾作考慮分析，否則審理上訴的法庭是不會亦不得干預的。
回覆刪除Honestly, I have some difficulties in understanding the reasoning of Woo DHJC. Setting aside the issue of 沒有醫學或專家證供的情況下, how can he equate 理由並不充份 as 武斷? Also, does 理由並不充份 equate to 除非裁判官的裁斷明顯不合情理、或不合邏輯、不符事態的內在或然性、或沒有證據支持，甚或與證據衝突...etc.? It seems to me the threshold for the later is much higher. Also, by stating 可否斷言是沒有可能發生 seems to increase the threshold of conviction from beyond reasonable to beyond certainty.
I must confess I have not read the judgment so these questions may already been addressed by the learned judge.
Don't bother too much about the appeal judgements. One way or another, you can write rhetorically to justify your findings when you wish to confirm or overturn the original decisions of the lower court. What if Rev Lam's case was before another appeal judge and Don So's decision was confirmed? Don't take these matters too seriously. The result is within how the judicial system operates.
刪除I read the statement of finding of Don So and I saw the CCTV footage. Whether or not you like the reasoning of J. Woo, I find Don So's reasoning illogical. Besides, the benefit of the doubt must be to the defendent. 寧縱無枉is a very important legal principal. If someone really is a criminal, he/she will offend again.
回覆刪除Good on you. Statement of findings of a magistrate is not supposed to be open to public reading unless you get it from the prosecution or defence. Factual finding matters are difficult to say who is right and who is wrong. I never wait for a defendant to re-offend.
刪除Everything in the appeal bundles should not be held back from the public, although there is no way for the general public to look at documents like statement of findings. The fact that I mentioned the statement of findings was, I know J. Woo has referred to all the relevant material in it.
回覆刪除Mr. Siu:
回覆刪除I thought the High Court Library retains copy of statement of findings of the Magistrate Court. No? Well I could swear I saw materials to that effect. No, they are definitely not Magistracy Appeal Reports that much I am sure.