再談雙學三子案向終院申請的上訴許可

乘上一篇討論。

上一篇講不知三子申請上訴至終審法院的理據, 今天上訴庭又頒佈了判辭, 可清晰看到理據了。這就先要作些解釋才能講下去。

刑事上訴至終審法院, 申請要符合法例484章《終審法院條例》第32條的要求, 先獲上訴許可, 才會正式聽審理據。第32條,
=========================================================
32. 上訴許可

(1) 除非終審法院已給予上訴許可，否則不得受理有關上訴。
(2) 除非上訴法庭或原訟法庭(視屬何情況而定)證明有關案件的決定是涉及具有重大而廣泛的重要性的法律論點，或顯示曾有實質及嚴重的不公平情況，否則終審法院不得給予上訴許可。
(由1997年第120號第4及12條修訂)
(3) 凡上訴法庭或原訟法庭拒絕按第(2)款所述予以證明，則終審法院可給予證明，並給予上訴許可。
(由1997年第120號第4及12條修訂)
(4) 終審法院在根據第(1)款給予許可時，可就上訴的進行對任何一方附加時

限規定，並且可應某方的申請或自行更改該時限規定。

=========================================================

即是上訴許可主要考慮

1. 有關案件的決定是涉及具有重大而廣泛的重要性的法律論點,

其次才考慮

2. 有關案件顯示曾有實質及嚴重的不公平情況。

以第1理由來申請上訴許可, 如果案件來自上訴庭, 就先要向上訴庭申請證明書, 若上訴庭拒絕頒發證明書, 才可以向終院申請。若以第2理由申請, 就可以跳過上訴庭, 直接向終院申請。今天上訴庭頒佈了SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAW KWUN CHUNG AND ANOTHER CAAR4/2016 (26/10/2017), 只涉及羅冠聰及周永康兩人, 即表示黃之鋒只依賴第2理由作申請, 所以無需申請證明書, 故此不涉本判辭。上訴庭駁回申請, 拒絕發出證明書。 故此, 11月7日終院上訴委員會會聽到申請理據, 羅冠聰的是:

“ (1)  Whether on an application by the Secretary for Justice for review of sentence pursuant to section 81A of the CPO, the Court of Appeal has the power to make any factual findings not made at the trial or contrary to findings made by the trial judge, where by reason of or in consideration of the same the sentence is increased? (“R2’s Sub-Question 1”)

(2) If the Court of Appeal has such power, under what circumstances and to what extent should the Court of Appeal exercise such power?”

周永康的是:

“ In a Secretary for Justice’s sentence review application under section 81A of the CPO, is it correct that the Court of Appeal does not have the power to make any factual findings adverse to the defendants different from or in addition to those made by the tribunal of fact at trial?”

兩者有一條問題性質一樣。黃之鋒提出甚麼理據就到時才知道。

律政司反對申請的講法就跟本博以前與網友的討論相若, 即是在覆核上訴時, 控方並無引進新證據, 上訴庭只重新審視在原審裁判官席前的證據。

上訴庭拒絕申請時歸納了以下幾點看法:

49.  To summarize, in our view, the authorities discussed above firmly establish the following propositions :

(1) On an application for review of sentence, the Secretary for Justice is not entitled to change the factual basis for sentence that it had relied on at trial and ask the Court of Appeal to inquire into facts which had not been pursued below.  Even if the sentencing court had proceeded on a wrong factual basis for sentence, it is not open to the Secretary for Justice to make such an assertion before the Court of Appeal if the prosecution had the opportunity to have it corrected at trial but they had not sought to do so.  The Court of Appeal will adopt the same factual basis as it was before the sentencing court.

(2) Subject to (1), where the ground for review is that the sentencing court acted on an erroneous factual basis, the Court of Appeal is entitled to examine the evidence adduced below to consider if, based on the facts proved, admitted or not in dispute, the sentencing court did make the error as asserted by the Secretary for Justice.  If so, the Court of Appeal is entitled to correct the factual error and to consider if, based on the factual basis as corrected, the sentence imposed is wrong in principle or manifestly inadequate.  If so, the Court of Appeal is entitled to interfere.

(3) As a corollary of the proposition in (2) and according to first principle, where it is shown that, based on the facts proved, admitted or not in dispute, the sentencing court has failed to take into account certain matters which are relevant to sentence, the sentencing court has proceeded on an incomplete factual basis, rendering the sentence imposed wrong as a matter of law and principle.  In such circumstances, the Court of Appeal is not bound by the findings made by the sentencing court for the purpose of sentence because those findings are incomplete for such purpose.  The Court of Appeal is entitled to consider all the relevant matters including those wrongly ignored by the sentencing court to determine if in the overall circumstances of the case, the sentence imposed is wrong in principle or manifestly inadequate.  If so, the Court of Appeal is entitled to interfere.

我就越來越糊塗了, 我完全同意上訴庭在處理本案的判刑覆核時並無超越權力。可是終審法院又為何批准其中兩人的保釋申請呢? 我真參不透。不過, 從本判辭看, 上訴人一句double jeopardy的話都沒講過, 那12枚國際大炮可謂風頭出了, 名譽損了, 坊間潮語所云: 柒咗, 或者我等老一脫的講法: 瘀咗。但這還未完, 終院屆時的裁決那耳光才響亮, 希望不是我一廂情願的看法。