理據不清的逾時上訴

法學生看了今天上載的香港特别行政區 訴 林志成HCMA217/2014一案，在上一篇問我逾時上訴的問題。上訴由湯寶臣法官聽審，下面的兩段判辭概括了背景：

延期上訴的申請

4. 上訴人沒有在法定時限之內提出上訴。直到2014 年初，上訴人提出延長上訴通知期限的申請，但被原審裁判官否決。上訴人便向原訟庭提出相同要求。在過了10 年後才提出延期上訴的個案實屬罕見，如獲批准亦會對法庭、檢控部門及警方帶來很多實際困難。裁判法院及律政署已不會保存案件的檔案，而在這許多年後要求原審裁判官去撰寫裁斷陳述書，也不公平。本席當然有考慮過這些問題。但在處理這項申請時，本席主要是關注到辯認證據、會面紀錄程序與及招認內容的可靠性等議題，最後決定批准申請，給予上訴人一次申訴的機會。本席要感謝馬保華裁判官盡力配合撰寫了本案的裁斷陳述書。

5. 可幸的是，在2003年，各級法庭已經安裝了錄音系統，本席可取得完整的審訊記錄；另一方面，法援署批准了上訴人的申請，並指派了原審時代表上訴人的吳建五大律師進行上訴。張恩純、葉健民律師行也是在原審時代表上訴人，更多得他們找出了相關的文件，如控罪書，警員記事冊與及兩名被告的會面紀錄等。這些文件對本案的評估非常重要。  

法學生的留言是：

匿名2014年7月24日 下午2:28

標少，起剛剛頒發的判詞HCMA217/2014 ，法庭容納愈時上訴11年的申請並撤消被告的罪，以我的認知，法庭容許超過3個月的上訴時限案件微乎幾微，由於該案並沒有引述任何案例，我想知有何種質，有何案例可參考，法庭會容納這些上訴的申請？謝謝
經常匿名的學生

事實上從判辭可見，Louis  Tong完全沒有解釋批准逾期上訴(appeal out of time)的理由。不論民事或刑事案，考慮逾時上訴，都採用同一標凖。逾時越長，逾時的理據就要越有説服力，法庭才會批准這種申請，繼而考慮有關上訴理據。上面這兩段，不幸地，沒有展示出來。

有關法律考慮，在很多宗上訴案都清楚講了，譬如：

12. In considering whether leave should be given to appeal out of time, we look at the length of the delay, the reasons advanced for the delay and generally the bona fides of the application for extension of time. We would also look at the ground of the proposed appeal to see whether, by refusing leave to appeal, we were not shutting out a substantial and plainly arguable ground of appeal. Substantial grounds must be shown for the delay before we would grant indulgence, and the longer the delay, the more onerous is the duty of the applicant. The above are well established principles, see R v Wong Kai Kong & Anr [1990] 1 HKC 279 at 280H to 281D,HKSAR v Leung Yiu Ming & Anr [2000] 1 HKLRD 247 at 249G to 250A.

(HKSAR v. WILSON ALBERTO CORREDOR MEDINA AND ANOTHER CACC296/2007)

Application out of time: extension of time

14. As Ms Anna Lai pointed out in her helpful written submission, this court’s approach to an application for an extension of time in which to make an application for leave to appeal against conviction out of time is well-established. In the judgment of this court in R v Wong Kai Kong[5], Silke VP said:

“In considering whether the applicants should be granted the indulgence they seek it is first necessary for us to consider not only the reasons advanced in the grounding affidavits for the failure timeously to make application but also the period of time which has elapsed between the conviction and the application – here, as we have indicated, ten months – and generally the bona fides of the applicant.”

15. Silke VP went on to state that, in addition, the court was alive to the need to have regard to the grounds of appeal, to ensure:

“that by refusing leave to appeal we were not shutting out a substantial and plainly arguable ground of appeal.”

16. Of the approach of the court to its task, Silke VP said:

“In this exercise this Court should bear in mind that substantial grounds must be shown for the delay before the granting of the indulgence. The longer the delay the more onerous is the duty on the person making application.”
( HKSAR v. ABDUL KARIM MOHAMED NAINAR CACC 215/2013)

還有finality principle：

Finality

29. This is because of the importance of the public policy of finality, which applies to decisions made in police disciplinary proceedings just as it applies to judgments and orders of conventional courts of law. Indeed, one could say that given the particular importance of discipline in the proper management and operation of the police force, finality of disciplinary proceedings assumes additional significance.

30. Put another way, not only is a mere change in the perception of the law not a “good reason” for granting an extension of time (save in exceptional circumstances), prima facie, the public policy of finality makes it difficult for any “good reason” to exist for the grant of an extension of time. The longer the delay, the stronger finality works to negate the possible existence of good reason for an extension of time.

31. In this regard, I see no relevant distinction between an application for an extension of time to apply for leave to apply for judicial review, and an application for an extension of time to lodge an appeal from the judgment of a civil or criminal court. In both cases, the court is asked to exercise its discretion to extend time in spite of the time restrictions laid down in the relevant provisions.

(YIU SUNG CHI v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE  HCAL 101/2009)

Louis Tong批准逾時上訴，毫無理據，對於上訴案例所訂下的原則，半點都沒討論，怪不得法學生要提出來討論。連最基本的問題：為何逾時10年才上訴，完全沒有交代。錄音系統保存了審訊的原整紀錄，只是果不是因。1994年開始為審案錄音至今已20年，由當初用磁帶、光碟儲存發展到數碼錄音，保存這些紀錄毫無難度，那麽二十年來，所有案件都可以提出逾時上訴嗎？這宗上訴案基本上是事實裁斷，連新法律觀點推翻舊判決也不是，批准上訴是考慮不周的惡例，如果認為我看漏看錯，請指點我的迷津，定必當頭受棒。