Case Detail

HCMA494/2005

香港特別行政區

高等法院原訟法庭

刑事上訴司法管轄權

申請終審法院上訴許可之證明書

案件編號：裁判法院上訴案件2005年第494號

(原荃灣裁判法院案件2005年第435號)

----------------------

	香港特別行政區
	訴
被告人	陳啟明

----------------------

主審法官：高等法院原訟法庭法官湯寶臣

聆訊日期：2009年2月26日

裁決日期：2009年3月6日

----------------------

判案書

----------------------

1. 申請人陳啟明在2005 年5 月3 日，被控一項在「公眾地方打鬥」罪，在審訊後被裁判官嘉理仕裁定罪名成立，罰款750 元。

2. 申請人不服定罪，向高等法院原訟庭提出上訴。主審法官高嘉樂判申請人上訴得直，定罪撤銷，刑罰擱置。

3. 代表申請人的大律師曾向高嘉樂法官申請訟費，但被拒絕。法官沒有在其判詞註明這項決定，但在庭上已清楚說明。高嘉樂法官裁定(見謄本上訴部份第 20 頁)：

“COURT: Costs normally follow the event unless two circumstances apply — firstly, that the party who succeeded in the action, by their own action, brought suspicion upon themselves, or secondly, the matter was resolved upon a technical ground. In this case the only case that I find of value in the appeal is that the magistrate did not, nor may not, rather, have fully considered the issue of self defence. It’s a technical ground and there’ll be no order as to costs.”

4. 申請人在勝訴後試圖要求到聆案官面前去評估訟費，但因原訟庭的命令而不得要領。

5. 最後申請人於2009 年2 月12 日向原訟庭存檔一份動議通知書，要求法庭頒令證明案件涉及具有重大而廣泛重要性的法律觀點。因當時審理上訴的高嘉樂法官已去世，本席現以排案官的身份接手處理這項申請。本席亦批准申請人的要求以中文處理本案。

6. 申請人在動議通知書附上了「訟費評定的上訴理據及文件清單」，其中包括了疑點分析、判詞分析、聆聽記錄及書面陳詞等文件。

7. 申請人在其評定訟費的上訴理據中，他提出了以下的觀點：

理據1

高等法院司法常務官先後三次就本人提出訟費評定的要求，非常簡單的一句回應“高嘉樂法官已在2005 年8 月3 日作出無訟費命令，因此無須進行訟費評定。”司法常務官並無提出其他令本人信服的理由，本人覺得受屈，感到這決定是有明顯實質及嚴重不公平的情況出現，因此本人繼續就訟費評定提出上訴。

理據2

本人在這數月來已提出眾多強而有力的新証據及新理據，在種種疑點下，證明控方的控告和原審法官John Glass的裁決是錯誤的。無論原審法官John Glass和高院法官Gall皆未能合理地考慮和審視本案中存在的眾多疑點。而司法常務官亦完全沒有考慮本人一直提出眾多的理據。

理據3

高院法官Gall並非因為本人代表的律師曾提出self-defence的理據而給予本人上訴得直，而高院法官Gall更曾在高院聆訊中多次表明self-defence的理據不適用於本案件上。高院法官高嘉樂亦沒有在判詞中說本人曾參與打架，故有這種說法(例如什麼technical point等)難以成立。

理據4

高院聆案官一直無對這案件的訟費的詳細項目作出評定及簽署訟費項目證明書之類的文件。

理據5

原審法官John Glass曾在審前接觸本人的前僱主利嘉閣地產，而法官的聲言：“I have a property in Tung Chung and I believe I may deal with this agency”，而這法官卻沒有對案件作出迴避，而當時的法庭不但沒有作出偏頗和利益衝突的測試，而且更批准這法官作出審理此案，後來這案件在嚴重証據不足下和存有疑點下，法官John Glass仍然去判本人有罪，明顯是不公平的判決，單單是這一點，已足夠令申請人可以申請原審時及上訴時的訟費。

理據6

高院從無考慮本人的代表律師提出的其他理據：

Eric Cheung上訴written submission for the appellant(在上訴時已給法院)中的Ground 2(P.10-11), Ground 3, Ground 4，這三個ground都是在分析控方根本無足夠証據證明有打架的存在，以及本案件中三個證人的口供存在著分歧，和只有本人一個有獲法庭接納的醫療證明。即使是高院法官高嘉樂也從無充份考慮這三個理據。

理據7

“分析裁判官John Glass Judgment”及“分析三人口供的疑點”，“時間表”，“手提電話通話報告”等文件，其中有新發表的証據和理據，證明本案件存在眾多明顯的疑點，三個證人的口供存有嚴重的分歧，證明本人被三人陷害，以及原審法官John Glass犯錯，作出錯誤的判決。終審法院應充份考慮本人早前已提出的眾多強而有力的理據，這些理據是有重大廣泛和關乎公眾的重要性，本人認為申請人應獲得原審和上訴時的訟費。」

8. 答辯方則指本案未有涉及具有重大而廣泛重要性的法律觀點。

9. 本席謹記，要處理的不是高嘉樂法官否決訟費的決定是否正確，而是申請人所提出的是否涉及具重大而廣泛重要性的法律觀點。

10. 這項申請必須依據《香港終審法院條例》第 484 章第 32 條為基礎。在考慮過申請人所提出的理據及閱讀過相關的文件後，本席認為本案未能符合法例所列舉的條件。本席認為訟費的原則已被清楚確立，本案祇涉及相關原則在個別案件的引用是否恰當，而不牽涉任何「具有重大而廣泛重要性的法律論點」(見案例Cheung Chun Wai v. HKSAR, FAMC2/2006)。

11. 至於本案是否出現實質及嚴重的不公平情況，正如本席已向申請人解釋，則並非本席可以裁決的問題。在這情況下，就算不考慮延誤的問題，本席也會駁回申請。

	(湯寶臣)
	高等法院原訟法庭法官

控方：由律政司高級檢控官林穎茜代表香港特別行政區。

辯方：被告人無律師代表，親自出庭。

HCMA494/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.494 OF 2005

(ON APPEAL FROM TWCC 435 OF 2005)

---------------------------------

BETWEEN

	HKSAR	Respondent
	and
	CHAN KAI MING (陳啟明)	Appellant

---------------------------------

Before : Hon Gall J in Court

Date of Hearing : 3 August 2005

Date of Judgment : 3 August 2005

---------------------------------

J U D G M E N T

---------------------------------

1. The appellant was convicted on 3 May 2005 of one charge of fighting in a public place and on the same day he was fined $750. He now appeals against that conviction.

2. The facts were at issue. The prosecution called three witnesses and of those three witnesses the magistrate believed PW1 and PW2 but disbelieved PW3 unless he was supported by PW1 or PW2.

3. PW1 was a branch manager of Ricacorp, a property agency shop, and PW2 and PW3 together with the appellant were employees who worked under. There was no argument concerning the date, time or place of the incident nor where it took place.

4. The evidence of PW1 was that she arrived at the office in the morning and found the appellant and PW3 quarrelling. She made enquiries of them as to the quarrel and at one stage placed herself between them with PW3 at her front and the appellant at the back. She said in this position she saw PW3 punch at the appellant past her right ear and that the appellant punch PW3 from behind her. She did not see where the punches landed. She said that it was chaotic and did not know whether the appellant’s punches had hit PW3 because she only saw his fists move. They grabbed each other. She shouted at them “stop”, could not separate them and told them to go outside. She did not see what happened outside but did hear noise coming from them for several minutes. After several minutes, she said she went outside and saw them still in dispute and told them that they must stop or otherwise she would call the police.

5. PW2 was checking a computer in the shop facing away from the incident. He heard rather than saw PW3 enter the shop and scold the appellant, heard foul language and a quarrel. He saw PW1 between PW3 and the appellant trying to mediate. He did not see any violence. He saw them go outside without seeing any grappling between them and said outside he saw they pushed and shoved each other.

6. There were discrepancies between the evidence of PW1 and PW2 with which the magistrate dealt properly.

7. The appellant gave evidence. He said he arrived at work and saw PW2 in the shop. When PW3 arrived, bad language was used between the two of them and he said he left the shop. He went to the shop area next door and after some three minutes, PW3 dashed out of the shop towards him, scolded him and punched him twice, the first punch landing on his left cheek. He said he put his hand up to the area and was delivered the second blow which hit his fingers. He said he did not retaliate to push PW3.

8. The magistrate considered the issue of self-defence. He did so in these terms :

“I reminded that if the defendant raised self-defence, the prosecution had to disprove beyond reasonable doubt. I found the defendant had never raised any issue of self-defence as he said he had never responded in any way except verbally.”

9. It is clear from this passage that the issue of self-defence was in the mind of the magistrate. A proper direction would have been to his reminded himself that if the issue of self-defence was raised on the whole of the evidence, whether from the prosecution or the defence, then it was for the prosecution to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt and then to go on to consider whether or not it had been disproved to that standard.

10. There is evidence upon which the magistrate could have considered on the prosecution case that self-defence had been raised. It was specifically denied by the appellant who did not raise it and he quite clearly on the cases presented did not wish the issue considered. I must, however, consider that even bearing in mind that this is an experienced, confident and knowledgeable magistrate, he has in his statement of the law, restricted himself to considering whether or not the appellant raised self-defence without the appropriate wider consideration of the raising of that defence.

11. In all the circumstances, I must have some doubt as to whether or not full consideration was given to the issue of self-defence. The appeal is allowed. Conviction quashed and sentence is set aside.

(T.M. Gall)
Judge of the Court of First Instance,
High Court

Mr Jackson Poon, SGC of Department of Justice, for the Respondent

Mr Eric Cheung, instructed by Messers Y.L. Yeung & Co., for the Appellant

香港特別行政區訴陳啟明

Related cases with same parties

Files (2)

香港特別行政區 訴 陳啟明

Related cases with same parties

Files (2)

香港特別行政區訴陳啟明