Case Detail

HCMA 416/2022

[2023] HKCFI 2434

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

裁判法院上訴案件2022年第416號

(原沙田裁判法院案件編號2022年2248號)

________________________

答辯人	香港特別行政區
	訴
上訴人	錢學六

________________________

主審法官：

高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官郭啟安

聆訊日期：	2023年9月20日
判案書日期：	2023年9 月 25 日

判案理由書

控罪

1. 上訴人為案中的第三被告，他在沙田裁判法院被控於2022年9月14日在香港，身為一個非法入境後，未得入境事務處處長根據第13條授權而留在香港的人，接受有薪或無薪的僱傭工作，即在新田接受雜工的僱傭工作，違反香港法例第115章《入境條例》第38 AA(1)(a) 條以及38 AA (2)條。上訴人否認控罪，經審訊後，暫委裁判官莊保兒(下稱「暫委裁判官」)裁定他罪名成立。上訴人不服定罪，提出上訴。

案情

2. 2022年9月14 日上午大約5時40分，控方警員證人到達案發現場，即新田石湖圍新村的一個不知名熔鐵場。控方第一證人警員16316看見上訴人當時身穿綠色長袖上衣、灰色長褲、灰色鞋及口罩，全身灰塵泥土，場內亦有另外兩名人士在工作。

3. 暫委裁判官指出雖然當時未出太陽, 但熔鐵場內有設置照明燈包括控方證物P3(4) &(5) 相片所顯示和第一控方證人證供提及鐵皮頂上設置的照明燈以及熔爐運作時發出的熊熊烈火光。第一控方證人從山坡高位，在高處作出觀察, 看見第三被告雙手不斷用鐵鏟鏟鐵碎料並將鐵碎料放入熔鐵爐入邊，該動作重複數10下，動作大幅度，期間運作中的熔鐵爐有火噴出來。控方第一證人的觀察全程約20分鐘。暫委裁判官認為案發地點沒有障礙物阻礙控方第一證人的觀察。第一控方證人站在高處作出觀察, 光線充足。

上訴理據

4. 上訴人在本上訴中並沒有律師代表，亦沒有提交書面陳詞。在他呈交的上訴通知書及其附頁內，亦沒有寫上特定的上訴理由。在庭上，他只是重覆自己在原審時的說法並說沒有或沒有充足的證據證明他在熔鐵場中工作。

5. 答辯人反對是次上訴，代表答辯人的何檢控官陳詞認為在裁斷陳述書中可看到，暫委裁判官在本案是經過仔細的分析和考慮之後才信納控方證人的證供。答辯人認同暫委裁判官的分析，上訴人案發時在熔鐵廠內進行危險、厭惡性及高體力勞動，肯定是在從事僱傭工作。

本席的考慮

6. 本席完全同意有關陳詞。暫委裁判官在其裁斷陳述書第13至15段已詳細說明了她接納控方第一證人的觀察的理由。同樣地，暫委裁判官也是仔細地考慮了上訴人的證供，才裁定他的證供不合情理，拒絕接納。

7. 事實上，暫委裁判官在作出判斷時有耳聞目睹證人的優勢。本席認為在本案中沒有特別原因去干預她信納控方證人和不信納上訴人的證供的決定。

8. 在有關控方第一證人指認上訴人為在熔爐附近工作的該名人士方面，暫委裁判官指出第一控方證人觀察到當時上訴人的面部有燒傷疤痕、衣服污糟、全身灰塵有泥土等等的特徵，而她留意到上訴人的面部特別是眼部位置亦即是口罩外露的部份，明顯地是有一些燒傷或燙傷的傷痕，特別他的左眼角，眼四周範圍，而且幅度亦甚為明顯，同時上訴人這燒傷或燙傷的容貌特徵亦可以清晰在控方證物P2上訴人的擔保書上的一張彩色相片上明顯客觀地顯示出來。

9. 在僱傭關係的議題上，暫委裁判官表明根據TheQueen v Ip Po Fai HCMA 1201/1995的原則，“working at a place， per se， is not employment ”。她亦已經提醒自己，本案沒有直接的僱傭證據，因此案中的關鍵議題就是「是否可以從已證明的事實和環境證據中得出唯一合理的推論，證明被告在關鍵時間是在參與僱傭工作。」

10. 雖然暫委裁判官列出不相信上訴人證供的理由，但她正確地提醒自己即使不接納辯方的說法及證供亦不自動等如控方已在亳無合理疑點的情況下證案，舉證責任在於控方，而舉證標準是要達致毫無合理疑點。

11. 最後暫委裁判官在仔細考慮了案中證據的所有細節後，確定被告人在新田的一個不知名熔鐵廠從事雜工的僱傭工作，並提出了以下七個理由：-

(1) 一個人通常不會免費為他人工作，特別是在這種情況下進行的工作類型，即用鐵鏟鏟鐵碎料並將鐵碎料放入熔鐵爐；
(2) 與熔鐵廠無關的任何合理的人都不會做這樣的工作；
(3) 兩名控方證人都不約而同地表示當他們看見上訴人時，他的身上是十分多灰塵，暫委裁判官認為即使上訴人從9月8日外出後至9月14日被拘捕，連續7天沒有沖涼或沒有更換衣服或露宿街頭也不至於會導致身上十分多灰塵，泥土和十分污糟。上訴人身上的灰塵和污糟必定是他在進行將鐵鏟鏟鐵碎料鏟入熔鐵爐的工作時所產生的污染物從而令到他身上的衣服沾上高溫熔鐵時所產生的炭灰、污染物從而變得污糟不堪；
(4) 暫委裁判官裁定熔鐵場內除了有四方形、約半部的士豎起高的熔爐、還有焚化爐以及碎鐵機等, 是一個工業場地；
(5) 熔鐵爐是一種用來加熱金屬的火爐。熔鐵工人用熔鐵爐把金屬加熱到一定的溫度來更容易地通過鍛造使金屬成形，或者把金屬加熱到不再發生硬化為止。一般熔鐵的溫度可高達1000 ℃甚或更高才能使鐵溶化。案發現場是有高溫設施而且是危險的；
(6) 暫委裁判官裁定這工作即：用鐵鏟鏟鐵碎料並將鐵碎料放入熔鐵爐入邊是危險及厭惡性行業，運作中的熔鐵爐的溫度極高，有一定的風險，一不小心，熔鐵爐噴出的火花，接觸到面部或身體任何部份可以直接導致燒傷、燙傷甚至毁容或死亡。熔鐵的工作所產生的污染物例如炭灰、金屬碎片亦會令到工人的衣服上沾污大量灰塵。
(7) 暫委裁判官裁定這工作是重複性的工種。亦是一個需要大幅度動作，以及熔鐵時熔鐵爐所產生的熱力，絕對需要體力勞動而且辛苦吃力的工作。

12. 在沒有其他證據的情況下，根據控方第一證人對上訴人的行為的 20 分鐘觀察，暫委裁判官唯一可以得出的合理而且不可抗拒的推斷就是上訴人與不明人士存在僱傭關係，上訴人受僱於熔鐵場內工作。

結論

13. 本席認為暫委裁判官在拒絕了接納上訴人的證供後，絕對有權根據上述提出的各項情況達致上訴人有罪的推論。

14. 因此，本案定罪並無不安全或不穩妥之處，定罪上訴駁回。

	（郭啟安）
	高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官

答辯人：由律政司檢控官何卓熙代表香港特別行政區

上訴人：無律師代表，親自行事

HCMA 416/2022

[2023] HKCFI 1547

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 416 OF 2022

(On appeal from STCC 2248/2022)

________________________

BETWEEN
	HKSAR	Respondent
	and
	ISLAM, MD RAFIQUL	Appellant

________________________

Before:

DHCJ Woodcock in Court

Date of Hearing:	22 March 2023
Date of Judgment:	22 March 2023

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

1. The appellant was convicted of an offence of taking employment while being a person in respect of whom a removal order is in force, contrary to section 38AA(1)(b) and 38AA(2) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115, Laws of Hong Kong. This appellant was the 2^nd defendant of three and pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. He was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment.

2. The appellant now appeals against his sentence. He was represented by the duty lawyer scheme in the court below but unrepresented in this appeal.

The Facts

3. This appellant admitted working in an unnamed molten iron yard in the New Territories at around 6 am on 14 September 2022. He was observed by police officers using an iron stick to stir the contents of a smelting furnace. When he was approached, he tried to run away but was subdued very quickly. He admitted taking employment as an odd-job worker whilst being a person in respect of whom a removal order is in force.

4. The appellant entered Hong Kong illegally nearly 10 years ago. A removal order was issued against him on 3 December 2019, and served on him on 1 April 2020. That removal order remained in force on the material day.

The Appellant’s Background

5. Mitigation put forward by the duty lawyer emphasised his plea at the earliest opportunity and the fact he committed this offence due to financial difficulty. He is 56 years old and has one previous similar criminal record.

6. In 2018, he was arrested for taking employment whilst being a person who remains in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration having landed in Hong Kong unlawfully. He was sentenced to 22 months and 2 weeks’ imprisonment in January 2019. The appellant confirms in this appeal hearing that he pleaded not guilty to that charge and was convicted after trial.

The Magistrate’s Reasons for Sentence

7. In sentencing the appellant, the magistrate relied upon HKSAR v Usman Butt and Another [2010] 5 HKLRD 452, in which the Court of Appeal stated an appropriate sentence for such an offence upon a plea of guilty would be 15 months’ imprisonment for a first‑time offender.

8. For this appellant, the magistrate took into account he had one previous similar conviction in 2019 and was no longer a first-time offender. He adopted a slightly higher starting point of 24 months having taken into account the cases of HKSAR v Eftakhar Beg, HCMA 262/2015 and HKSAR v Sohail, Adil and Zadha, Hunain Latif, HCMA 505/2019.

9. There were no other mitigating factors which would warrant any reduction from that starting point. That starting point was reduced to 16 months’ imprisonment to reflect his guilty plea and the appropriate discount to be applied. The issue of taking administrative detention into account was not raised during mitigation.

Grounds of Appeal

10. The appellant has put forward the general ground that his sentence was too severe and that he had been in immigration administrative detention for 3 months, therefore this sentence was too long. During the appeal hearing, he also complained about the starting point of 24 months. He put forward the ground “everyone else” was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment, which was not fair. His first ground remains that the court should reduce his ultimate sentence to take into account administrative detention in the past.

11. The appellant accepts that he was detained on two separate occasions in 2014 for 37 days and 2020 for 51 days by the Immigration Department in CIC for wholly different reasons, reasons unrelated to this offence to which he pleaded guilty.

Conclusion

12. The magistrate correctly adopted the appropriate tariff for this offence and was right to take into account the appellant had a previous similar conviction. I see no fault in his sentencing and the sentence was entirely proper.

13. The period of administrative detention was within the purview of the Immigration Department and on both occasions that period in detention had no connection and was unrelated to the present criminal offence. I see no reason to exercise my discretion to reduce the sentence for time spent in administrative detention years ago.

14. There are no merits in either grounds of appeal advanced today, therefore the appeal against sentence is accordingly dismissed.

(Amanda Jane Woodcock)
Deputy High Court Judge

Mr Ho Cheuk-hei, Public Prosecutor of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent

The appellant appeared in person

香港特別行政區訴錢學六

Related cases with same parties

Files (2)

香港特別行政區 訴 錢學六

Related cases with same parties

Files (2)

香港特別行政區訴錢學六