12

香港刑事檢控

2018

PRO

SEC

UTI

ON

S H

ON

G K

ON

G

分科一　法律指引

Sub-division I Advisory

分科一負責向執法機關提供法律指引，並聯同負

責商業罪案、證券及貪污案件的分科四，就所有

刑事案件作出檢控決定。檢控官根據《檢控守

則》訂明的兩階段驗證標準決定就某案件提出檢

控與否，即首先判斷現有的證據能否支持有合理

機會達致定罪，如果有的話，再考慮檢控是否符

合公眾利益。檢控官也會就適當的控罪和合適的

審訊法院，提供法律指引。

Sub-division I is responsible for advising law

enforcement agencies and making prosecutorial

decisions on all criminal cases, alongside with

Sub-division IV which deals with cases relating

to commercial crime, securities and corruption.

Prosecutors decide whether or not to prosecute

in accordance with the two-stage test stated in

the Prosecution Code, that is firstly, whether the

available evidence supports a reasonable prospect

of conviction and if so, whether it is in the public

interest to do so. Prosecutors also advise on the

appropriate charges to be laid as well as the proper

venue of trial.

13

香港刑事檢控

2018

PRO

SEC

UTI

ON

S H

ON

G K

ON

G

分科一　法律指引Sub-division I Advisory

分科一設有四組，各組有特定的工作範疇。下文

闡述分科一的工作範疇及 2018 年內經該分科處

理的一些值得注意的案件。

分科一第 1 組 ― 原訟法庭法律指引2018 年，原訟法庭法律指引組由高級助理刑事

檢控專員高寶翠女士掌管，負責就所有由原訟法

庭審理的刑事案件 ( 商業罪案除外 )，向警方及

其他執法機關提供法律指引。該組給予指引的案

件涉及法律上只容許在原訟法庭審理的殺人、亂

倫和強姦罪，以及經考慮《檢控守則》所載的

準則後決定交付原訟法庭審理的多種嚴重刑事案

件。

該組檢控官向執法機關提供準確、全面和適時的

法律指引。執法機關提交的調查報告會分配給檢

控官處理，就證據是否充分及適當的控罪提供法

律指引，在決定把案件交付原訟法庭審理後，便

會處理法律程序事宜，以確保案件可適時交付原

訟法庭審理或判刑。

決定起訴疑犯和其案件在原訟法庭審理，只是漫

長的司法程序之始。檢控官在提供指引後，還要

負責處理案件交付原訟法庭審判的整個程序。

2018 年，交付審判程序幾乎全部以書面進行，

初級偵訊絕無僅有，該組在年內只處理了一宗初

Sub-division I comprises four sections, each handling its specific area. A description of those areas and a highlight of some notable cases handled by the Sub-division in 2018 are set out below.

Section I(1) – Court of First Instance AdvisoryIn 2018, the Court of First Instance Advisory Section, headed by Ms Catherine Ko, Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, gave legal advice to the Police and other law enforcement agencies on all criminal matters that are dealt with in the Court of First Instance, except commercial crime. Offences advised by the Section include homicide, incest and rape, which can only be lawfully tried in the Court of First Instance and also a wide range of serious criminal cases that are recommended to be tried in the Court of First Instance after consideration of the criteria set out in the Prosecution Code.

Prosecutors in this Section provide accurate, comprehensive and timely legal advice to law enforcement agencies. Investigation files submitted by the law enforcement agencies are allocated to prosecutors who then advise on the sufficiency of evidence and the appropriate charges. Upon making a decision that the case is to be dealt with in the Court of First Instance, prosecutors then attend to procedural matters to ensure that cases are committed to the Court of First Instance for trial or sentence in a timely manner.

The decision to charge a suspect and have him/her tried in the Court of First Instance is only the beginning of a lengthy

14

香港刑事檢控

2018

PRO

SEC

UTI

ON

S H

ON

G K

ON

G

分科一第 1 組　原訟法庭法律指引Section I(1) Court of First Instance Advisory

級偵訊。此外，檢控官與執法機關緊密合作，

決定是否須就案件作進一步調查和 ( 若有需要 )

作哪方面的調查，或搜集什麼證據，以期在審

訊階段前加強控方的案情。

2018 年，該組檢控官已完全熟習並竭盡所能嚴

格遵從 2017 年 6 月 12 日生效的《實務指示 9.3—

原訟法庭的刑事訴訟程序》(《實務指示 9.3》)。

新《實務指示 9.3》的首要目標之一是規範交付

至審訊或判刑的程序及時間表，重申法庭在案

件管理的司法管轄權，以確保刑事法律程序得

以公平和迅速地進行。

舉例而言，如被告在交付審判時承認控罪，負

責就案件提供指引的檢控官須依照新《實務指

示 9.3》的規定，擬備標明頁碼的“聽取對控罪

的回答及判刑文件冊”，以及出席原訟法庭的

判刑聆訊。

另一方面，如被告在交付審判時否認控罪，負

責就案件提供指引的檢控官須隨之擬備“公訴

書”並送交存檔，以及向原訟法庭遞交標明頁

碼的“交付文件冊”。檢控官須小心謹慎地擬

備“公訴書”，因為他們必須慎重考慮控罪是

否適當以及如何向陪審團陳述案情。

judicial process. After giving advice, prosecutors are responsible for seeing the cases through the committal proceedings. In 2018, committal proceedings were almost exclusively “paper committals” and preliminary inquiry has been rare with only one conducted during the year. In addition, prosecutors also work closely with law enforcement agencies to decide whether, and if so, what additional enquiries or evidence is required to strengthen the prosecution case until the trial stage.

In 2018, prosecutors in the Section had fully familiarized themselves with, as well as diligently and strictly complied with, the procedures and timetables stipulated in the “Practice Direction 9.3 – Criminal Proceedings in the Court of First Instance” (“PD 9.3”) for the proceedings from committal to trial or sentence which came into effect on 12 June 2017. One major objective of the new PD 9.3 is to re-iterate the jurisdiction of the Court in case management for the purpose of ensuring a fair and expeditious criminal process.

By way of examples, where a case has been committed for sentence after a guilty plea at committal, the prosecutor who gave advice on the case would be required to prepare the paginated “Plea and Sentence Bundle” in accordance with the new PD 9.3 and to attend the sentencing hearing in the Court of First Instance.

On the other hand, in a case where a defendant pleads not guilty at committal, the prosecutor who gave advice on the case would then be required to deal with the subsequent preparation and filing of the “Indictment”; and to lodge the paginated “Committal Bundle” with the Court of First Instance. The prosecutor shall exercise an

15

香港刑事檢控

2018

PRO

SEC

UTI

ON

S H

ON

G K

ON

G

就案件管理而言，為了貫徹一致處理由交付審

判起一直不認罪的案件，負責就案件提供指引

的檢控官須與負責在審訊時檢控的律師一同出

席“案件管理聆訊”，在有需要時提供意見，

並與他們緊密合作，為他們提供協助，直至案

件審結。負責就案件提供指引的檢控官也處理

向辯方披露案件資料的事宜，並向法庭提交附

加證據。

除了提供法律指引及審前籌備工作外，該組檢

控官也處理大量在原訟法庭審理的保釋聆訊。

此外，該組會審查所有與死因研訊有關的事宜，

以確保死因並不涉及刑事罪行而需要進一步調

查。該組也負責處理死因裁判官依據《死因裁

判官條例》( 第 504 章 ) 第 35 條為調查刑事罪行

而轉介的事宜。

涉及嚴重性侵犯受害人的案件向來是敏感的範

疇。該組檢控官致力以關懷和尊重的態度對待

受害人。2018 年，《刑事訴訟程序條例》( 第

221 章 ) 第 79B(4A) 條和經修訂的實務指示 9.3、

9.4、9.5 及 9.10 開始實施，賦予法院酌情權，准

許某些性罪行的受害人藉閉路電視聯繫方式或

在屏障後作證，以及使用特別通道出庭，讓他

們可以在沒有威嚇的環境下作供，並保護他們

免於面對可能出現的難堪情況。自新程序實施

以來，受害人要求使用保護措施的審訊數目有

所上升。

關於法院應如何處理被告在被定罪前或後（但

於判刑前），為協助當局而提供敏感資料的問

題，在 2018 年取得新進展。該問題一直根據 R v

Sivan and Others [1988] 87 Cr App R 407 及香港特

別行政區 訴 Tse Ka-wah [1998] 1 HKLRD 925 這兩

宗案件所訂立的程序原則處理。直至 2018 年 9

月 18 日，上訴法庭在香港特別行政區 訴 Kilima

Abubakar Abbas [2018] HKLRD 88 一案的判決中

訂定多項重要原則，說明如何適當評價被告向

當局提供的協助，以及就所提供的敏感資料或

協助可換取減免多少刑期方為合適。自此，該

組發現向當局提供協助的被捕人士及／或被告

不斷增加。

該組檢控官力求掌握刑事法及訴訟程序的最新

發展，與時並進。他們定期參加科內同事及外

間專業人員舉辦的培訓課程和講座，以增進法

律知識和技巧。此外，該組檢控官定期在審訊

abundance of caution in preparing the “Indictment” as it is crucial that careful thoughts are given to the appropriateness of the charges and how the case is to be presented to the jury.

To maintain continuity in terms of case management, in cases where a not-guilty plea has been maintained since committal, the prosecutor who gave advice on the case would be required to attend “Case Management Hearings” with the trial counsel giving their input whenever needed, and to work closely with the trial counsel and render them assistance up to the conclusion of the trial. The prosecutors who gave advice on the case also deal with issues of disclosure and the filing of additional evidence.

Apart from their advisory and preparation work, members of the Section also handle a large number of bail hearings in the Court of First Instance. In addition, all matters that are to be the subject of a death inquest are screened by the Section to ensure that there is no evidence of any criminal offences committed in relation to the death of the deceased that would require further investigation. The Section also deals with referrals from the Coroner pursuant to section 35 of the Coroners Ordinance (Cap. 504) for investigation into a criminal offence.

Cases involving victims of serious sexual abuse have always been a sensitive area. Every effort is made to treat these victims with care and respect. 2018 saw the implementation of section 79B(4A) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 221) and the revised Practice Directions 9.3, 9.4, 9.5 and 9.10 (“PDs”) which together confer upon the Court a discretion to permit victims of certain sexual offences to give evidence by way of live television link or behind screen, and to use special passageways to attend court, so as to enable them to give their evidence in a non-intimidating environment and to shield them from the embarrassments that they may encounter. There has since the implementation of the new procedures been an increase in the number of requests from victims for the protective measures.

2018 also saw a new development in how the Court would deal with sensitive information relating to assistance to the authorities rendered by a defendant prior to, or subsequent to, his conviction for an offence but before his sentence. This issue has always been handled with care in accordance with the procedural principles set out in R v Sivan and Others [1988] 87 Cr App R 407 and HKSAR v Tse

Ka-wah [1998] 1 HKLRD 925. It was on 18 September 2018, that the Court of Appeal in its judgment in HKSAR v Kilima Abubakar Abbas

[2018] HKLRD 88, annunciated a number of important principles in relation to the proper approach for assessing the value of a defendant’s assistance to authorities and the appropriate discount to be given for the sensitive information or assistance provided to the authorities. This Section has since witnessed an increasing number of arrested person and/or defendant proffering assistance to the authorities.

16

香港刑事檢控

2018

PRO

SEC

UTI

ON

S H

ON

G K

ON

G

和上訴中出庭檢控，以期汲取訟辯經驗，以及

磨練提供法律指引和籌備審訊的技巧。

2018 年交付原訟法庭審理的案件有 401 宗，其

中 128 宗交付審訊，273 宗交付判刑。此外，依

據上訴法庭的重審令而提交法庭存檔的公訴書

有 10 份。與過去數年相比，2018 年交付審訊的

案件數目持續減少，這或許由上訴法庭在香港

特別行政區 訴 吳文南 [2016] 5 HKLRD 1 一案的

裁決造成，因為該裁決訂明在司法程序較後期

始認罪的被告可獲較少的刑期減免，實際鼓勵

被告在交付審判前承認控罪。

該組曾處理的一些值得注意案件包括：

在香港特別行政區 訴 莫俊賢 [2018] HKCFI 1652

一案中，被告在 2012 年結識生前任職港龍航空

空中服務員的死者，二人成為情侶，其後關係

轉差。2013 年 12 月 4 日，被告勒斃死者，把屍

體擠進死者房內衣櫃下格，並蓋上衣物和袋子。

被告又把死者的制服、鞋履、手袋和行李箱藏

起，以製造她上班的假象。被告拿走死者的手

提電話和提款卡，並在同日嘗試操作其銀行帳

戶但不果。他把殺死死者一事告知兩名朋友後，

在 2013 年 12 月 7 日離港前赴內地。死者的屍

體在翌日被發現，而被告則在 2017 年 2 月 1 日

被拘捕。被告在警誡下承認殺死死者，但聲稱

是因當時被激怒。他被控謀殺、盜竊和企圖盜

竊，陪審團裁定他全部罪名成立，他被判處強

制性終身監禁。

在香港特別行政區 訴 林嘉偉 [2018] HKCFI 2311

一案中，被告被控謀殺某著名街頭賽車手的 16

歲女兒。控方案情指，被告明知死者不懂游泳

而讓她與自己一同從橋上跳海，意圖殺死死者

Members of the Section strive to keep themselves updated with the latest developments in the criminal law and procedures. They regularly attend training sessions and lectures organized both by in-house colleagues and professionals from outside the Division to enhance their legal knowledge and skills. In addition, members regularly prosecuted trials and appeals with a view to gaining experience in advocacy and honing their advising and trial preparation skills.

In 2018, there were 401 cases committed to the Court of First Instance, of which 128 cases were committed for trial and 273 cases for sentence. In addition, 10 indictments were filed pursuant to orders for retrial made by the Court of Appeal. The number of cases committed for trial continued to decrease in 2018 when compared with previous years. The Court of Appeal’s decision in HKSAR v Ngo

Van-nam [2016] 5 HKLRD 1 might have contributed to the decrease because it in effect encourages guilty pleas at committal by reducing the discount in sentence a defendant may get upon his/her guilty plea entered only further down the road of the judicial proceedings.

Some interesting cases that have been dealt with by the Section include the following:

In HKSAR v Mok Chun-yin [2018] HKCFI 1652, the defendant came to know the deceased, who was a Dragonair flight attendant, in 2012 and they became lovers. Their relationship later turned sour. On 4 December 2013, the defendant strangled the deceased and squeezed her body inside the sunken compartment of a wardrobe in the deceased’s room, and covered it with clothing and bags. The defendant also concealed her uniform, shoes, handbag and suitcase to create an appearance that she had gone to work. Having taken away the deceased’s mobile phone and bank card, the defendant tried to operate her bank account on the same day but failed. He left Hong Kong for the Mainland on 7 December 2013 after telling 2 friends he had killed the deceased. Body of the deceased was discovered the following day while the defendant was apprehended on 1 February 2017. Under caution, he admitted killing the deceased but alleged that he was provoked. He was indicted with murder, theft and attempted theft and was found guilty of all charges by a jury. He was sentenced to a mandatory life sentence.

In HKSAR v Lam Ka-wai [2018] HKCFI 2311, the defendant was indicted for murder of a famous street car racer’s 16-year-old daughter. It was the prosecution case that defendant caused the deceased to fall from a bridge into the sea together with him knowing that the deceased could not swim; and the defendant intended to kill the deceased and himself. Instead of drowning, the cause of the deceased’s death was unascertainable due to decomposition of her body. After committal, the Prosecution accepted the defendant’s plea to manslaughter (suicide pact). The defendant was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment.

17

香港刑事檢控

2018

PRO

SEC

UTI

ON

S H

ON

G K

ON

G

和自殺。死者屍體腐爛，故未能確定她是否遇

溺而死。被告交付審判後，控方接納他承認誤

殺罪 ( 自殺協定 )。被告被判處監禁四年。

香港特別行政區 訴 王榮汶 ( 別名王雪欣，第一

被告 ) 及凌耀忠 ( 第二被告 ) [2018] HKCFI 1484 一

案涉及故意疏忽照顧兒童，作案手法極為卑劣，

原審法官形容為“同類案件中最嚴重之一”。

第一被告的七歲女兒在其照顧下挨餓，得不到

有營養食物。受害人由於身體虛弱，體重下降，

失去活動能力，以致身上的傷口和褥瘡日益惡

化。受害人現處於植物人狀態，腦部永久受損。

第一及第二被告 ( 受害人繼父 ) 向醫生和警方提

供明知虛假的資料，隱瞞受害人狀況欠佳，目

的是阻止或干擾警方對疏忽照顧或虐待兒童的

調查、或有關刑事訴訟程序。經審訊後，第一

被告被裁定一項故意疏忽照顧罪及兩項妨礙司

法公正罪罪名成立，就其中一項妨礙司法公正

罪，第二被告同判罪成。第一被告被判處監禁

15 年 3 個月，第二被告則判監四年零六個月。

二人正就定罪和刑罰提出上訴。

在香港特別行政區 訴 顏永周 [2018] HKCFI 2859

一案中，被告被控謀殺其遠親。閉路電視拍攝

到死者生前最後片段，死者進入被告所住樓宇

後便不知所終。同日其後，閉路電視拍攝到被

告多次拉着重行李進出樓宇。在被告寓所家具

上發現的血迹，與死者的脫氧核糖核酸吻合。

案情指死者被肢解棄置，獲法醫和法證化驗師

的證供支持。被告經審訊後被陪審團裁定一項

謀殺及一項阻止合法埋葬屍體罪罪名成立，判

處終身監禁。

在香港特別行政區 訴 許金山 [2018] HKCFI 2276

一案 ( 即備受關注的“瑜伽球案”) 中，香港中

文大學一名副教授兼麻醉科醫生的妻子及女兒

在 2015 年 5 月 22 日被發現死於西澳村外一輛

Mini Cooper 的車廂。副教授被控謀殺妻女，遭

陪審團裁定罪名成立，判處終身監禁。證據顯

示，被告把取自其大學實驗室的瑜伽球注入一

氧化碳，放進 Mini Cooper 車內，再移走球塞。

結果，致命的一氧化碳在車內被告妻女不知不

覺間泄入 Mini Cooper 車廂。控方案情指，被告

此舉是意圖殺害妻女；但被告聲稱把一氧化碳

帶回家是為了滅鼠。陪審團明顯不相信被告的

說法。原審法官判刑時指出，“被告接受過高

深教育，如此聰明、成功的人竟精心策劃殺妻

大計，實在令人震驚。儘管沒有直接證據證明

HKSAR v Wong Wing-man, Mandy alias Wang Xuexin (D1) and Ling

Yiu-chung, Rocky (D2) [2018] HKCFI 1484. This was a very bad case of willful neglect of child described by the trial judge as “one of the worst cases of its kind”. Under the care of D1, her 7-year old daughter was being starved and deprived of nutritional food. The loss of weight and mobility through weakness led to victim suffering from wounds and bedsores that were growing in severity. As a result, the victim now lies in a vegetative state with permanent brain damage. D1, and D2 who was the victim’s stepfather, knowingly provided false information to the doctors and the police to conceal the poor condition of the victim with a view to preventing or deflecting the police investigation or criminal proceedings of child neglect or abuse. After trial, D1 was found guilty of one count of wilful neglect and two counts of perverting the course of justice, one of which was jointly convicted with D2. D1 was sentenced to 15 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, while D2 was sentenced to 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. They are appealing against both conviction and sentence.

In HKSAR v Ngan Wing Chau [2018] HKCFI 2859, the defendant is charged with the murder of his distant relative who was last captured on CCTV alive entering the building where the defendant resided and had not been seen then. Later, the CCTV captured the defendant pulling heavy luggage many times in and out of the building the same day. Blood stains matching the deceased’s DNA were found on furniture inside the defendant’s premises. Forensic pathologist and scientist‘s evidence supported a case of the deceased body parts being dismembered for disposal. The defendant was convicted after trial by a jury of one count of murder and one count of preventing the lawful burial of a body. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

In the notable “yoga ball case”, HKSAR v Khaw Kim Sun [2018] HKCFI 2276, the wife and the daughter of an associate professor of the Chinese University of Hong Kong who was also an anesthetist, were found dead inside a Mini Cooper outside Sai O Village on 22 May 2015. The associate professor was charged and convicted of murder of his wife and daughter by a jury and sentenced to life imprisonment. The evidence showed that the defendant placed a yoga ball filled with carbon monoxide which he took from his laboratory at the University inside the Mini Cooper and had the stopper of the yoga ball removed. As a result, the lethal carbon monoxide leaked into the cabin of the Mini Cooper without the defendant’s wife and daughter inside knowing. It was the prosecution case that the defendant did so with the intention to kill his wife and daughter. The defendant instead alleged that he took the carbon monoxide home to kill rats. This was evidently not believed by the jury. In sentencing, the trial judge remarked that it was “shocking that a highly educated, clever and successful man such as the defendant would conjure such a calculated method to get rid of his wife. Though there is no direct evidence as to the motives for getting rid of his wife, the fact that there was a third party involved, and the fact that the defendant and his wife own certain

18

香港刑事檢控

2018

PRO

SEC

UTI

ON

S H

ON

G K

ON

G

被告有殺妻動機，但本案牽涉第三者，加上被

告與妻子擁有若干物業，一旦離異，其中一半

或會歸妻子所有，這些都或許與其動機有一定

關係”。被告已就定罪及刑罰提出上訴。

在香港特別行政區 訴 YHL [2019] HKCFI 199 一案

中，76 歲的被告自 2015 年起多次強姦當時九歲

的女兒 X，直至 2017 年 X 將事件告訴母親並向

警方舉報為止。被告被控三項強姦罪。他選擇

初級偵訊，歷時 24 天，其間他親自行事，傳召

共 18 名證人。裁判官聽取證供後將被告的案件

交付審訊。被告原有律師代表，但他其後解除

他們的職務，選擇在審訊中親自行事，審訊歷

時 36 天。他被裁定三項強姦罪名全部成立。原

審法官判刑時提到 X 和母親均須在本案兩度作

證，而被告則用盡方法使證人尷尬。被告被判

監禁 18 年，現正就定罪和刑罰提出上訴。

在香港特別行政區 訴 張儲剛 [2018] HKCFI 2551

一案中，被告承認三項企圖謀殺罪，與三名兩

歲至六歲的子女在睡房企圖燒炭自殺。被告的

妻子收到丈夫的業務伙伴通知，到場揭發事件

並拯救各人。尤幸三名子女沒有因而傷殘或永

久受傷。被告在警誡下表示因欠債纍纍而生自

殺念頭，但想到死後無人照顧三名年幼子女，

遂決定與他們一起燒炭。他被判監禁八年，已

就刑罰提出上訴。

分科一第 2 組 ― 區域法院法律指引2018 年，區域法院法律指引組由高級助理刑事

檢控專員陳大偉先生掌管，組內有兩名副主管，

分別是高級檢控官招秉茵女士及陳冰華女士，

另有高級檢控官和檢控官共 21 名。

2018 年，該組向執法機關提供 1,576 項法律指

引，並透過一般稱為 FAST 的特快法律指引制度

處理另外 205 宗案件。年內，在區域法院檢控

的案件共 1,183 宗。案件的種類有販毒、入屋犯

法、搶劫、嚴重交通意外、性罪行，以至欺詐、

串謀詐騙、行騙和洗錢等複雜商業罪案。

涉及欺詐行為的案件日益增加。在香港特別

行政區 訴 張家玲 ( 又名張嘉禧 Florence) [2018]

HKDC 1274 一案中，被告在香港中文大學修畢

Juris Doctor 課程，但學術表現不符合入讀法學

properties, half of which might, in the case of divorce, had gone to the wife, might have some bearing on his motive”. The defendant has lodged an appeal against conviction and sentence.

In HKSAR v YHL [2019] HKCFI 199, the 76-year-old defendant repeatedly raped his daughter X since 2015 when X was aged 9 until 2017 after X revealed the matter to her mother and a police report made. The defendant was charged with 3 counts of rape and elected to have a preliminary inquiry which lasted for 24 days during which he acted in person with a total of 18 witnesses called. Having heard the evidence, the magistrate committed the defendant’s case for trial. The defendant then discharged his lawyers and opted to act in person in the trial which lasted for 36 days. He was convicted of all 3 counts of rape. In sentencing, the trial judge made reference to the fact that both X and her mother had to give evidence twice in this case and the defendant used all sorts of means to embarrass the witnesses. A sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment was passed and the defendant is appealing against both conviction and sentence.

The defendant in HKSAR v Cheung Chu-kong [2018] HKCFI 2551 pleaded guilty to 3 counts of attempted murder for attempting to commit suicide by burning charcoal in his bedroom together with his 3 children aged 2 to 6. Alerted by the defendant’s business partner, the defendant’s wife attended the scene and discovered the incident, thus saving everyone. Fortunately, the three children suffered no disability or permanent injury. Under caution, the defendant said he was in heavy debts and wanted to commit suicide, and thought that since no one could take care of his 3 young children after his death, he decided to burn charcoal with them. He was sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment and he has lodged an appeal against sentence.

Section I(2) – District Court AdvisoryMr David Chan, Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, led the District Court Advisory Section in 2018 which comprises two Deputy Section Heads, Senior Public Prosecutors Ms Samantha Chiu and Ms Eva Chan; and 21 Senior Public Prosecutors and Public Prosecutors.

In 2018, this Section had rendered 1,576 advices to law enforcement agencies and had handled a further 205 cases via the speedy advisory system which is commonly known as “FAST”. A total of 1,183 cases were prosecuted in the District Court in 2018. The cases ranged from drug trafficking, burglary, robbery, serious traffic accidents and sexual offences, to complex commercial crimes of fraud, conspiracy to defraud, deception and money laundering.

Cases involving fraudulent conducts are on the rise. In HKSAR v

Cheung Ka-ling aka Cheung Ka-hei Florence [2018] HKDC 1274, the defendant completed a Juris Doctor programme at the Chinese

19

香港刑事檢控

2018

PRO

SEC

UTI

ON

S H

ON

G K

ON

G

分科一第 2 組　區域法院法律指引Section I(2) District Court Advisory

專業證書課程的資格，她遂竄改成績單，結果

成功入讀香港大學法學專業證書課程。她又在

未修畢該課程前偽造法學專業證書，獲律師行

聘任為實習律師。她被裁定五項不誠實罪行罪

名成立。她承認控罪，被判監禁共九個月。

在香港特別行政區 訴 林卓謙 [2018] HKDC 249

一案中，受害人從銀行取得按揭貸款。某天，

他收到聲稱代表該銀行的財務中介公司的促銷

電話。來電者指受害人違反按揭條款，要求他

到辦公室重新安排按揭。被告在會議上成功誘

使受害人向該公司貸款港幣 120 萬元，然後要

求受害人把其中港幣 45 萬元轉帳到被告的個人

銀行帳戶，聲稱作償還受害人債務之用，但其

實不然。被告承認控罪，被裁定一項“欺詐”

罪罪名成立，被判監禁 16 個月。

除了複雜的欺詐案外，該組也處理各類一般罪

行案件。在香港特別行政區 訴 葉炳權 [2018]

HKDC 1236 一案中，房屋委員會一名經理到被

告居住的公屋單位收樓。被告無視警告，拒絕

遷出，並突然在單位內用火水縱火，毀壞家具、

牆壁和天花板。被告承認一項“罔顧生命是否

會受到危害而縱火”罪，被法院判處監禁 24 個

月。

在香港特別行政區 訴 袁志恒 [2018] HKDC 560

一案中，被告在網上認識一名未成年女童，她

同意充當被告的“兼職女友”，被告則同意給

她港幣 25,000 元，以維持性關係一個月。兩人

University of Hong Kong, but her academic performance did not qualify her for the Postgraduate Certificate in Laws (PCLL) programme. She then falsified her academic transcripts to successfully enrol in the PCLL programme at the University of Hong Kong. Without completing the PCLL programme, she secured an employment with a law firm as a trainee solicitor by using a forged PCLL certificate. She was convicted of 5 dishonesty offences and was sentenced to a total of 9 months’ imprisonment upon her guilty pleas.

In HKSAR v Lam Cheuk-him [2018] HKDC 249, the victim had obtained a mortgage loan from a bank. One day, he received a cold call from a financial intermediary company purporting to represent the bank. The caller informed the victim that he had breached the mortgage terms and requested the victim to attend their office for refinancing. At the meeting, the defendant successfully induced the victim to take out a loan of HK$1.2 million from the company. The victim was then requested to transfer HK$450,000 of the loan to the defendant’s personal bank account, allegedly for settling the victim’s own debts, but it was not so used eventually. Upon his guilty plea, the defendant was convicted of a charge of “fraud” and was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment.

Complex fraud cases aside, the Section also dealt with a range of general crimes. In HKSAR v Yip Ping-kuen [2018] HKDC 1236, a manager of the Housing Authority attended the defendant’s home at a public housing unit for repossession. The defendant refused to move out despite warnings, and suddenly set the flat on fire with kerosene, damaging the furniture, wall and ceiling. The Court sentenced the defendant to 24 months’ imprisonment upon his guilty plea to a charge of “arson being reckless as to whether life would be endangered”.

20

香港刑事檢控

2018

PRO

SEC

UTI

ON

S H

ON

G K

ON

G

在被告的住所首次見面時，被告性侵犯該女童，

但拒絕按協議付款。被告更用刀恐嚇女童，不

准她離開，並繼續猥褻侵犯她。女童在其後的

糾纏中受傷。被告認罪，被裁定“猥褻侵犯”、

“非法禁錮”、“刑事恐嚇”和“傷人”罪罪

名成立，判監共 30 個月。

香港特別行政區 訴 陳天佑 ( 第一被告 ) 及另一

人 ( 第二被告 ) [2019] HKDC 70 一案涉及虐待兒

童。案中一名單親母親把一對四歲孿生女兒交

託兩名被告照顧。一天，該母親到第一和第二

被告家中接回長女時發現她失去知覺，身上有

多處瘀傷和傷口。第一和第二被告承認曾毆打

女童，包括掌摑、拳打，又用打火機燒她雙腿。

另一方面，第一被告承認是濫用藥物者，警方

在她家中搜出若干數量的毒品和適合用作服用

毒品的器具。兩名被告認罪，第一被告被裁定

三項控罪罪名成立，包括“看管兒童的人虐待

兒童”罪及其他毒品相關罪行，判處監禁共兩

年零十個月；第二被告同樣被裁定“虐待兒童”

罪罪名成立，判處監禁兩年零八個月。

2018 年，區域法院審理多宗導致死亡或重傷的

嚴重交通罪行案件，每宗案件均獲法院嚴正處

理。在香港特別行政區 訴 方烱華 [2018] HKDC

1593 一案中，被告在深水埗駕駛雙層巴士，沒

有遵從前面的紅色交通燈號停車，巴士剷上行

人路，導致三人死亡，另外七名行人重傷。被

告在認罪後被裁定“危險駕駛引致他人死亡”

In HKSAR v Yuen Chi-hang [2018] HKDC 560, the defendant was acquainted with an underage girl online who agreed to be his “part-time girlfriend” and the defendant agreed to pay her HK$25,000 for maintaining a sexual relationship with him for one month. On their first encounter at the defendant’s flat, the defendant sexually abused the girl but refused to pay her any money as agreed. The defendant further threatened her with a knife disallowing her to leave, and continued to indecently assault her. A struggle ensued which injured the girl. Upon his guilty plea, the defendant was convicted of charges of “indecent assault”, “false imprisonment”, “criminal intimidation” and “wounding”; and was sentenced to a total of 30 months’ imprisonment.

The case of HKSAR v Chan Tin-yau (D1) & Another (D2) [2019] HKDC 70 is a case of child abuse. A single mother entrusted the defendants to take care of her twin daughters both aged 4. One day, the mother came to D1 and D2’s home to pick up the elder daughter only to find that she was in a state of unconsciousness with multiple bruises and wounds. D1 and D2 admitted having assaulted the girl by slapping her face, punching her body and burning her legs with a lighter. On the other hand, D1 was admittedly a drug abuser and a quantity of drugs and apparatus fit for consuming drugs were found at her home. Upon their guilty pleas, D1 was convicted of 3 charges including “ill-treatment of child by persons in charge of that child” and other drug-related offences; and was sentenced to a total of 2 years and 10 months’ imprisonment. D2 was convicted of the same offence of “ill-treatment of child” and was sentenced to 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

In 2018, the District Court saw a number of trials of serious traffic offences involving death or serious injuries; and the Court had dealt with such cases sternly. In HKSAR v Fong Kwing-wah [2018] HKDC

21

香港刑事檢控

2018

PRO

SEC

UTI

ON

S H

ON

G K

ON

G

及“危險駕駛引致他人身體受嚴重傷害”罪罪

名成立，判監共 30 個月，取消駕駛資格五年。

該組在過去一年就多種不同罪行提供法律指引。

儘管工作繁重，該組成員還為待審案件作審前

準備，並出席法院就提訊、答辯和判刑、保釋

申請、死因研訊、審訊和上訴進行的聆訊。

分科一第 3 組 ― 裁判法院法律指引裁判法院法律指引組負責確保在香港七個裁判

法院循簡易程序檢控刑事案件的工作績效俱備。

該組 20 名高級檢控官及檢控官的職責是就這些

案件向執法機關提供法律指引，並在審訊和上

訴聆訊中出庭檢控較複雜和敏感的案件；而該

組督導的 76 名法庭檢控主任則在審訊中出庭檢

控其餘大部分案件。法庭檢控主任的工作會在

本工作回顧較後部分談及。該組在 2018 年 10

月前由高級助理刑事檢控專員溫淑芳女士掌管，

其後由署理高級助理刑事檢控專員鄭凱聰先生

接掌。

由於裁判法院審理香港絕大部分的刑事案件，

該組檢控官提供法律指引的職責繁重。2018 年，

該組檢控官提供法律指引共 3,880 項，涉及林林

總總的案件，包括複雜詐騙、行騙、偽造、盜竊、

拍攝女子裙底、沒有出租汽車許可證而駕駛私

家車作出租或取酬載客用途、虐待兒童、性侵

犯、與三合會有關的色情及賭博罪行，以及洗

錢等。這些循簡易程序檢控的案件儘管不屬最

嚴重的類別，但與市民的日常生活相關，伴隨

社會發展而演變，並往往關乎公眾利益和引起

傳媒關注。該組檢控官已整裝待發，按照《檢

控守則》為上述種種案件提供專業可靠的法律

指引。

下文載述該組處理的一些值得關注或重要的案

件：

接近 2017 年年底，原訟法庭在岑永根 訴 警務

處處長 [2017] 5 HKLRD 589 一案中裁定，為使受

憲法保障的私隱權具有實際效力，根據對《警

隊條例》( 第 232 章 ) 第 50(6) 條的恰當解釋，警

務人員雖獲授權無需手令而查閱經拘捕後撿取

的手提電話或電子器材內容，但只限於逼切情

況，即 (a) 為防止公共或警方安全受到逼切威脅；

1593, the defendant drove a double-decker bus in Sham Shui Po and failed to stop in compliance with a red traffic light signal ahead. The bus crashed onto the pavement, causing 3 deaths and serious injuries to 7 other pedestrians. Upon his guilty plea, the defendant was convicted of the offences of “causing death by dangerous driving” and “causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving”. He was sentenced to a total of 30 months’ imprisonment and was being disqualified from driving for 5 years.

Throughout the year, the Section delivered advices on a variety of offences. Despite the caseload, members of the Section also prepared cases for trial, and attended Court hearings for plea days, plea and sentences, bail applications, death inquests, trials and appeals.

Section I(3) – Magistrates’ Courts AdvisoryThe Magistrates’ Courts Advisory Section is responsible for the efficient and effective prosecutions of criminal cases at the summary level in the seven Magistrates’ Courts in Hong Kong. Our 20-strong Senior Public Prosecutors and Public Prosecutors of the Section are tasked to give legal advice to law enforcement agencies regarding these cases and prosecute the more complex and sensitive ones for trial and appeal; whilst our 76-strong Court Prosecutors under the Section’s supervision prosecute the bulk of the rest for trial whose work is discussed later in this Review. At the helm of the Section until October 2018 was Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Ms Polly Wan who was succeeded by Acting Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Mr Raymond Cheng.

Since the Magistrates’ Courts deal with the lion’s share of criminal cases in Hong Kong, the advisory commitment of our prosecutors is heavy. In 2018, our prosecutors had given 3,880 legal advices involving an array of cases ranging from complicated fraud, deception, forgery and theft, to taking upskirt photographs, driving a private car for carriage of passengers for hire or reward without a hire car permit, child and sexual abuses, triad-related vice and gambling, and money laundering. Although such cases at summary level are not the most serious ones, they concern the everyday life of members of our community, evolve as our society does, and often attract public interest and media attention. Our prosecutors are well equipped to give sound and professional legal advices for such diverse cases in adherence to the Prosecution’s Code.

Some of the interesting or significant cases dealt with by the Section are set out below.

Towards the end of 2017, the Court of First Instance held in Sham

Wing Kan v Commissioner of Police [2017] 5 HKLRD 589 that to give meaningful effect to the constitutionally protected right to

22

香港刑事檢控

2018

PRO

SEC

UTI

ON

S H

ON

G K

ON

G

分科一第 3 組　裁判法院法律指引Section I(3) Magistrates’ Courts Advisory

(b) 為防止證據即將失去或毀滅；或 (c) 在極其緊

急的情況下從中搜查證據。因為此判決，警務

人員在沒有手令的情況下查閱手提電話或電子

器材內容的合法性在 2018 年開始廣受質疑，甚

而延伸至持依據第 232 章第 50(7) 條發出的手令

進行的搜查，香港特別行政區 訴 莊志強 ( 觀塘

裁判法院刑事案件 2018 年第 650 號 ) 一案正是

一例。案中被告是休班警務人員，在自動梯攝

錄一名女子裙底，當場被捕，其後被控“作出

有違公德行為”這項普通法罪行。被告被捕後，

被發現管有內藏記憶卡的手機。由於情況並非

逼切至可無需手令而查閱手機和記憶卡，警方

就該手機和記憶卡申請兩項搜查令，均獲批准，

被刪除的該段裙底錄像其後從記憶卡修復。被

告在審訊期間提出的答辯論點包括：(1) 依據第

232 章第 50(7) 條發出的搜查令無效，因該條只

賦權搜查“地方”，而“地方”不包括手機或

記憶卡；以及 (2) 即使手令有效，主審裁判官也

不應行使酌情權接納從搜查取得的裙底錄像為

證據。主審裁判官將被告定罪時駁回被告的論

點 (1)，並就論點 (2) 進一步裁定，接納該段裙

底錄像為證據 (a) 有利公平審訊；(b) 可兼顧並

協調對私隱權的尊重；以及 (c) 不大可能促使這

項權利在日後被侵犯。被告被判監禁兩個月。

同樣在 2017 年年底左右，抗議性侵犯的“#Me

Too”運動席捲香港。裁判法院在 2018 年審理

部分此類案件，其一為香港特別行政區 訴 CCT

( 九龍城裁判法院刑事案件 2018 年第 1695 號 )

一案。案中被告被控三項猥褻侵犯罪，違反《刑

事罪行條例》( 第 200 章 ) 第 122(1) 條，案情指

privacy, on a proper construction of section 50(6) of the Police Force Ordinance, Cap 232, a police officer was authorized to search without a warrant the digital content of a mobile phone or digital device seized on arrest only in exigent circumstances, namely, (a) to prevent an imminent threat to public or Police safety; (b) to prevent an imminent loss or destruction of evidence; or (c) circumstances which may lead to the discovery of evidence in extremely urgent situations. As a result, challenges to the lawfulness of police officers’ warrantless searches of digital content of mobile phone or digital device began to loom large in 2018 and extend even to such searches with warrant issued pursuant to section 50(7) of Cap 232. The case HKSAR

v CHONG Chi-keung KTCC 650/2018 was one of such cases. The defendant, an off-duty police officer, was charged with the offence of “committing an act outraging public decency” contrary to Common Law for having taken an upskirt video of a female on an escalator and he was caught red-handed. Upon arrest, the defendant was found in possession of a mobile phone which contained an SD card. Since there were no exigent circumstances which might otherwise warrant a warrantless search of the mobile phone and the SD card, the Police applied for two search warrants in respect of the mobile phone and the SD card and the applications were granted. The deleted subject upskirt video was recovered from the SD card. The defendant sought to argue at trial, amongst other things, that (1) the search warrants issued pursuant to section 50(7) of Cap 232 were invalid because the section empowers only search of a “place” which does not include mobile phone or SD card; and (2) even if the warrants were valid, the trial magistrate should not exercise his discretion to admit the upskirt video obtained from the search. In convicting the defendant, the trial magistrate rejected the defendant’s argument under (1) and further held under (2) that the admission of the upskirt video into evidence would be (a) conducive to a fair trial; (b) reconcilable with the respect due to the right to privacy; and (c) would unlikely encourage any future breach of such right. The defendant was sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment.

23

香港刑事檢控

2018

PRO

SEC

UTI

ON

S H

ON

G K

ON

G

20 年前 (1996 至 1997 年期間 ) 被告 15 歲時三度

猥褻侵犯當時八歲的表妹。被告以時效早已消

失為由申請擱置法律程序失敗，經審訊後被裁

定所有控罪成立，被判接受 12 個月感化。

另一方面，2018 年繼續有一些被指非法侵犯個

人權利與自由的法定罪行被質疑是否合憲，令

這方面的法律難題得以闡釋。在香港特別行政

區 訴 黃敬牧 ( 粉嶺裁判法院刑事案件 2017 年第

2466 號 ) 一案中，被告無視警務人員多番警告，

進入屬禁區的落馬洲港鐵站售票大堂，並留在

該處接收來自身分不詳人士的多袋貨物，被控

“無許可證進入禁區”罪，違反《公安條例》( 第

245 章 ) 第 38(1)(a) 條。被告試圖辯稱，該罪行

條文限制《基本法》第三十一條及適用於香港

的《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》相關條文

所確立的遷徙自由，故屬違憲。裁判官將被告

定罪時裁定，該罪行條文有必要對禁區內的遷

徙自由施加限制，以保障公眾安全及維持公眾

秩序。被告被判監禁六星期。

該組鼓勵檢控官與時並進，在百忙中抽空了解

法律的最新發展，並透過參與內部研討會、培

訓及教育暨消閒活動，建立協作關係。下文概

述這類特別為該組檢控官設計的活動。

該組的檢控官在 2 月參加社會福利署舉辦的培

訓課程，內容講述如何處理涉及兒童和精神上

無行為能力人士的虐待個案。課程讓檢控官了

解問題複雜之處，有助他們處理裁判法院絕大

部分此類案件。

Also around the end of 2017, the “#MeToo” movement against sexual violation also spread to Hong Kong. In 2018 some of these cases were heard in the Magistrates’ Courts. One of them was HKSAR v CCT KCCC 1695/2018. In this case the defendant was prosecuted with 3 counts of indecent assault, contrary to section 122(1) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200, for having indecently assaulted his female cousin on 3 occasions 20 years ago back in 1996 to 1997 when she was 8 years old and the defendant 15 years old. Following an unsuccessful application for stay of proceedings on the ground of long lapse of time, the defendant was convicted of all the charges after trial and was sentenced to being placed under a Probation Order for 12 months.

On the other hand, challenges on constitutionality of statutory offences that allegedly impermissibly infringe one’s rights and freedom continued in 2018 to help explicate this difficult area of law. In HKSAR v WONG King-muk FLCC 2466/2017, the defendant was charged with an offence of “entering a closed area without a permit”, contrary to section 38(1)(a) of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap 245, for having entered the Ticketing Hall of the Lok Ma Chau MTR Station which is a closed area and stayed therein to collect bags of goods from unknown persons despite repeated warnings given by police officers. The defendant sought to argue that the restriction imposed on his freedom of movement enshrined under Articles 31 of the Basic Law and the relevant provisions under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as applied to Hong Kong by the offence provision was unconstitutional. In convicting the defendant the magistrate held that the restrictions on one’s freedom of movement in closed area imposed by the offence provision was necessary for upholding public safety and public order. The defendant was sentenced to 6 week’s imprisonment.

Amidst the hectic work of the prosecutors of the Section, they are encouraged to keep themselves abreast of the latest developments in the law and participate in synergy-building activities through in-house seminars, trainings, and educational cum leisure activities. Some of these activities specifically designed for prosecutors of the Section are highlighted below.

In February, our prosecutors attended a training course organized by the Social Welfare Department on how abuse cases involving children and mentally incapacitated persons should be handled. The course helped our prosecutors understand the intricacy of such matters which in turn helped them handle the lion share of such cases in the magistrates’ courts.

In December, our prosecutors visited the Police Traffic Branch Headquarters and the Police Driving and Traffic Training Centre, where they participated in a series of experience sharing activities which helped brush up our prosecutors’ understanding of the most up-to-date traffic enforcement policies and prosecutions. Our

24

香港刑事檢控

2018

PRO

SEC

UTI

ON

S H

ON

G K

ON

G

該組檢控官在 12 月參觀警務處交通總部和警察

駕駛及交通訓練中心，其間參與連串經驗分享

活動。這些活動有助檢控官加深對最新交通執

法政策和交通違例檢控工作的了解，警方更向

他們示範如何操作先進的交通執法設備。

該組檢控官也參與多個國際會議，例如在南非

約翰內斯堡舉行的第五十六屆國際檢察官聯合

會年會，以及在香港舉行的平等共融亞太區

會議。

分科一第 4 組 ― 公眾秩序活動及電腦網絡罪行該組先後由時任助理刑事檢控專員鄭凱聰先生

和雷芷茗先生掌管，組內有四名高級檢控官。

該組自 2015 年成立至今已有四年，繼續就涉及

擾亂公眾秩序的案件 ( 包括暴動、非法集結及其

他暴力相關罪行 )，向警方提供法律指引。年內，

多宗源於 2014 年 9 月至 12 月期間的佔領中環

行動和 2016 年農曆新年期間的旺角暴亂事件的

案件審結，下文概述一些值得注意的案件。

在香港特別行政區 訴 戴耀廷及另八人 [2019]

HKDC 450 一案中，相關被告串謀進行稱為“佔

領中環”的公民抗命運動，非法阻礙中環或中

環周圍的公眾地方和道路，對公眾造成妨擾，

被控“串謀犯公眾妨擾”罪。一眾被告也就

2014 年 9 月 27 和 28 日非法煽惑他人和煽惑他

人去煽惑其他人非法阻礙金鐘的主要道路，對

公眾造成妨擾，被控“煽惑他人犯公眾妨擾”

罪和“煽惑他人煽惑公眾妨擾”罪。各被告一

律不認罪，經審訊後被裁定相關控罪成立 ( 除了

第一至第三被告若干控罪不成立 )，分別判處緩

刑、社會服務令，以至監禁 16 個月不等。

在香港特別行政區 訴 莫嘉濤及另十人 [2018]

HKDC 225 一案中，被告被控“暴動”及其他刑

事罪行。此案源自 2016 年 2 月 9 日的旺角暴亂

事件，當日大批示威人士襲擊正在執勤維持公

眾秩序的警員，並向他們投擲磚頭和玻璃樽。

其中一名被告潛逃不應訊，而另一名被告承認

一項“暴動”控罪，被判監禁 28 個月。其餘九

名被告經審訊後被裁定“暴動”罪及其他刑事

prosecutors were also given a treat to a demonstration of the state-of-the-art traffic enforcement equipment.

Prosecutors of the Section also took part in international conferences such as the 56th Annual Conference of the International Association of Prosecutors held in Johannesburg, South Africa; and the Conference on Equality in Asia Pacific held in Hong Kong.

Section I(4) – Public Order Events & CybercrimeThe Section was headed by Mr Raymond Cheng and subsequently by Mr Ira Lui, both Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions at the time. There were 4 Senior Public Prosecutors in the Section.

Into the fourth year since its establishment in 2015, the Section continued to provide legal advice to the Police on cases involving disruption of public order, including riot, unlawful assembly and other violence related offences. The year of 2018 also saw a number of cases emanating from the Occupy Central Movement between September and December 2014 and the riotous incident in Mongkok over the Chinese New Year of 2016 reaching conclusions at trial. Some of the notable cases are highlighted below.

In HKSAR v Tai Yiu-ting & 8 Others [2019] HKDC 450, the relevant defendants were charged with “conspiracy to commit public nuisance” for having conspired to conduct a civil disobedience movement known as “Occupy Central” to cause a nuisance to the public through unlawful obstruction of public places and roads in or in the neighbourhood of Central. The defendants were also charged with offences of “incitement to commit public nuisance” and “incitement to incite public nuisance”, for having unlawfully incited other persons to cause, and to incite others to cause, a nuisance to the public by unlawfully obstructing the major thoroughfares in Admiralty on 27 and 28 September 2014. All the defendants pleaded not guilty and were convicted of the respective charges after trial (save and except D1 to D3 who were acquitted on some of the charges). They were sentenced to sentences ranging from suspended sentence, community service order, to imprisonment for 16 months.

In HKSAR v Mo Jia-tao & 10 Others [2018] HKDC 225, the defendants were charged with offences of “riot” and other criminal offences. The case arose from the riotous incident in Mongkok on 9 February 2016, when a large crowd of protesters attacked the police officers who were performing the duties to maintain public order and hurled objects including bricks and glass bottles at the Police. One of the defendants absconded from the proceedings, and another defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of “riot” and was sentenced to 28 months’ imprisonment. The remaining 9 defendants were convicted after trial of “riot” and other criminal offences. 8 of them

25

香港刑事檢控

2018

PRO

SEC

UTI

ON

S H

ON

G K

ON

G

分科一第 4 組　公眾秩序活動及電腦網絡罪行Section I(4) Public Order Events & Cybercrime

罪行罪名成立，當中八人判監 33 至 51 個月不

等，一人判入教導所。

在香港特別行政區 訴 鄧浩賢 [2018] HKDC 393

一案中，被告在 2016 年 2 月 9 日參與旺角暴亂

事件期間，與其他示威人士一起向警方防線投

擲磚頭。他承認干犯“暴動”罪，被判監禁兩

年零十個月。被告就刑罰提出上訴，被上訴法

庭駁回。

2018 年也有多宗案件源自在立法會範圍內及其

他公眾地方發生的衝突。

在香港特別行政區 訴 梁頌恆及另四人 ( 九龍城

裁判法院刑事案件 2017 年第 2035 號 ) 一案中，

一眾被告被控“在立法會內參與非法集結”，

衝擊保安人員防線，並企圖強行進入舉行立法

會會議的會議室。多名立法會保安人員在混亂

中受傷。所有被告經審訊後被裁定罪名成立，

各判監四星期。

在香港特別行政區 訴 高傑飛及另三人 [2018]

HKCFI 2819 一案中，四名上訴人及另一人趁對

立政治陣營一名成員出訪台灣後抵達香港國際

機場時，施以包圍、責罵和襲擊，被裁定“參

與非法集結”罪名成立，各判監三個月。他們

不服定罪提出上訴，被原訟法庭駁回。

該組也就涉及對公眾構成不便或危險的行為的

案件，提供法律指引。在香港特別行政區 訴 蘇

良恩及另十八人 ( 東區裁判法院刑事案件 2018

年第 1473 號 ) 一案中，19 名被告被控“擅入機

動遊戲機”罪。他們擅入位於中環的香港摩天

輪，爬上摩天輪的輪輻，企圖展示橫額抗議。

然而，當時風大，橫額未能展開，反而纏着摩

天輪的風速儀使之損毀，最終令摩天輪停止運

作一天，多名訪客無法乘坐摩天輪，而警方為

安全計須封鎖摩天輪附近道路。各被告在認罪

後一律被裁定罪名成立，判處罰款。

此外，該組也就涉及電腦網絡罪行 ( 包括在電腦

管有兒童色情物品罪 ) 的案件，提供法律指引。

在香港特別行政區 訴 黃希樂 [2018] HKDC 1365

一案中，被告被控一項“管有兒童色情物品”

罪。警方在搜查被告寓所期間檢取其電腦，經

鑑證後發現其內儲存共 107 段兒童色情錄影片

段和 54 幅兒童色情照片。被告在認罪後被裁定

罪名成立，判監十個月。

were sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from 33 months to 51 months, and one was sentenced to detention in a Training Centre.

In HKSAR v Tang Ho-yin [2018] HKDC 393, the defendant pleaded guilty to “riot” for having hurled bricks at a checkline formed by the Police together with other protesters during the Mongkok riotous incident on 9 February 2016. He was sentenced to 2 years and 10 months’ imprisonment. His appeal against sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

The year of 2018 also saw cases arising from clashes within precincts of the Legislative Council and in other public places.

In HKSAR v Leung Chung-hang Sixtus & 4 Others KCCC 2035/2017, the defendants were charged with “taking part in an unlawful assembly” inside the Legislative Council for charging at a defence line formed by the security officers and attempting to force their way into the Conference Room where the Legislative Council meeting was held. A number of the security officers of the Legislative Council were injured in the chaos. All defendants were convicted after trial and each was sentenced to 4 weeks’ imprisonment.

In HKSAR v Giok Kheng & 3 Others [2018] HKCFI 2819, the 4 appellants and another were found guilty of “taking part in an unlawful assembly” for having surrounded, scolded and assaulted a person of the opposing political camp when he arrived at the Hong Kong International Airport following a trip to Taiwan. Each of the appellants was sentenced to a term of 3 months’ imprisonment. Their appeals against conviction were dismissed by the Court of First Instance.

The Section also advised on cases involving conduct that gave rise to inconvenience or posed a danger to members of the public.

26

香港刑事檢控

2018

PRO

SEC

UTI

ON

S H

ON

G K

ON

G

總法庭檢控主任　Chief Court Prosecutors

法庭檢控主任對法庭檢控主任來說，2018 年是碩果豐收的一

年。《在裁判法院的檢控工作：未來的發展路

向》諮詢文件建議的各項措施，在 2018 和 2019

年逐步落實。其中一項措施關乎自 2017 年起在

東區和西九龍裁判法院派駐高級檢控官，負責

掌管法庭檢控主任團隊。這些高級檢控官與法

庭檢控主任緊密合作，就突發情況或敏感事宜，

適時向法庭檢控主任提供意見。此外，他們也

為檢控案件的外判律師提供強大的支援和確切

的指引。另一項措施是把裁判法院檢控辦事處

的種種職務分類為“表列”和“非表列”職務，

法庭檢控主任現只須履行“非表列”職務，故

可分配更多時間集中精力專責處理“非表列”

職務，使工作效率和質素得以大大提高。另一

方面，2018 年恢復招聘法庭檢控主任，也有助

解決人手短缺問題，並使法庭檢控主任職系更

為年輕。新入職人員自 2018 年 8 月起參加培訓

課程，學習在裁判法院進行檢控工作所必需的

法律知識和實用技巧。他們將於 2019 年 5 月派

駐不同裁判法院。為進一步緩和人手短缺問題

並改善職系的晉升前景，2019 年將分階段增設

高級二等法庭檢控主任的職位。

2018 年，律政司在全港七個裁判法院派駐 66 名

法庭檢控主任。他們聯同外判檢控人員年內共

處理 146,352 宗裁判法院審理的案件。法庭檢控

主任負責檢控由警方、香港海關和強制性公積

金計劃管理局提供資料的案件，也負責檢控由

入境事務處、食物環境衞生署和其他執法機關

及法定機構調查的若干特別案件。

In HKSAR v So Leung-yan & 18 Others ESCC 1473/2018, the 19 defendants were charged with the offence of “trespassing on an amusement ride”. The defendants trespassed onto the Hong Kong Observation Wheel in Central and climbed onto the spokes of the wheel in an attempt to display a banner for demonstration. Due to the strong wind, they failed to unfold the banner, which got entangled with and damaged an anemometer on the wheel. As a result, the wheel was closed for operation for 1 day, and a number of visitors were prevented from riding the wheel. The Police had to cordon off the roads in the vicinity of the wheel for safety reasons. All the defendants were convicted on their own pleas and were fined.

The Section also rendered legal advice on cases involving cybercrime, including offences of possession of child pornography on computers. In HKSAR v Wong Hay-lok [2018] HKDC 1365, the defendant faced a charge of possession of child pornography. The defendant’s computer was seized by the Police during a house search. Forensic examination of the defendant’s computer revealed that a total of 107 video clips and 54 photographs containing child pornography were stored on the computer. Convicted on his own plea, the defendant was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment.

Court Prosecutors2018 was a fruitful year for the Court Prosecutors. The initiatives proposed in the Consultation Paper on “Prosecution Works in the Magistracy: Direction for the Future” have been implemented progressively in 2018 and 2019. One of the initiatives concerned the posting of Senior Public Prosecutors to the Eastern and West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts since 2017 to head the teams of Court Prosecutors. The Senior Public Prosecutors worked closely with the Court Prosecutors by providing them with timely advice on ad hoc or sensitive issues; and they also gave strong support and guidance to lawyers who prosecuted cases on fiat. Another initiative concerned the classification of the myriad duties of the Prosecution Offices in the Magistracies into “scheduled” and “non-scheduled” duties whereby the Court Prosecutors are now only required to perform “non-scheduled” duties so that they can devote more time and effort to focus and specialise on such duties which greatly enhanced their efficiency and the quality of their work. On the other hand, the resumption of recruitment of Court Prosecutors in 2018 had also helped address the shortage in manpower and rejuvenate the Court Prosecutors Grade. The new recruits had since August 2018 been attending courses to equip themselves with the requisite legal knowledge and practical skills for prosecution work in the Magistracies. They will be posted to different Magistracies in May 2019. To further help alleviate the shortage in manpower and enhance the promotional prospect of the Grade, additional posts at the rank of Senior Court Prosecutors II will be created in stages in 2019.

27

香港刑事檢控

2018

PRO

SEC

UTI

ON

S H

ON

G K

ON

G

觀塘裁判法院法庭檢控主任Court Prosecutors in the Kwun Tong Magistrates’ Courts

東區裁判法院法庭檢控主任　Court Prosecutors in the Eastern Magistrates’ Courts

九龍城裁判法院法庭檢控主任　Court Prosecutors in the Kowloon City Magistrates’ Courts

裁判法院審理過一些多人談論並獲廣泛報道的

案件，現概述如下。

在香港特別行政區 訴 李亮 ( 東區裁判法院刑事

案件 2015 年第 1798 號及東區裁判法院刑事案

件 2018 年第 2794 號 ) 一案中，被告被裁定“使

用偽造身分證”、“沒有歸押”、“逃離合法

羈押”及“抗拒警務人員”罪罪名成立。2015

年，被告使用偽造身分證向美國領事館申請簽

證，但被領事館職員揭發。被告在審訊期間不

知所終，法庭遂向他發出拘捕令。2018 年 11 月，

被告試圖持前所未知的護照經香港國際機場進

入香港，被揭發為通緝人士。被告在警方扣押

期間指稱身體不適，送院診治，其後趁機從病

房廁所的假天花逃走。被告翌日被發現身處灣

仔某酒店內，被捕時向警方作出反抗。被告承

認上述控罪，判監共 18 個月。

在香港特別行政區 訴 雲泉仙館有限公司 ( 粉嶺

裁判法院傳票案件 2018 年第 9068 號 ) 一案中，

被告公司在認罪後被裁定“殘酷對待動物”罪

In 2018, 66 Court Prosecutors were attached to the 7 Magistrates’ Courts. Together with the prosecutors on fiat, they had dealt with a total of 146,352 cases heard in the Magistracies in 2018. The Court Prosecutors prosecuted cases involving information laid by the Police, the Customs and Excise Department and the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority. They also prosecuted some special cases investigated by the Immigration Department, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department and other law enforcement agencies and statutory bodies.

Highlighted below are some of the cases heard in the Magistracies which were particularly interesting and had attracted a great deal of publicity.

In HKSAR v Li Leon ESCC 1798/2015 & ESCC 2794/2018, the defendant was convicted of “using a forged identify card”, “failing to surrender to custody”, “escape from legal custody” and “resisting a police officer”. In 2015, the defendant used a forged identity card to apply for a visa from the US Consulate but was discovered by its staff. In the middle of the trial, the defendant disappeared and a warrant for his arrest was issued. In November 2018, the defendant attempted to enter Hong Kong at the International Airport on the strength of a previously unknown passport. His wanted status was discovered. During police custody, the defendant was sent to the hospital for allegedly feeling unwell where he took the chance to escape via the suspended ceiling of a toilet in his ward. The defendant was later located inside a hotel in Wanchai on the following day. He put up a struggle with the police upon arrest. The defendant was charged with the above offences to which he pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to a total of 18 months’ imprisonment.

In HKSAR v The Wun Chuen Sin Kwoon Association Ltd FLS 9068/2018, the defendant company was convicted of “cruelty to animals” upon its own plea. The defendant company ran a temple which allowed visitors to set free their turtles by placing them in a pool within the temple’s premises. However, 5 of such turtles in the pool were found dead and 38 others were found in poor condition of underweight

28

香港刑事檢控

2018

PRO

SEC

UTI

ON

S H

ON

G K

ON

G

屯門裁判法院法庭檢控主任Court Prosecutors in the Tuen Mun Magistrates’ Courts

西九龍裁判法院法庭檢控主任　Court Prosecutors in the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts

名成立。被告公司經營的廟宇容許訪客到廟宇

內的水池放生烏龜。然而，有人發現水池內有

五隻烏龜死去，另有 38 隻身體狀況欠佳，不是

過輕就是脫水。獸醫專家認為這些烏龜因食物

和食水不足而蒙受不必要的痛苦。被告公司遭

罰款共港幣 50,000 元。

在香港特別行政區 訴 徐新群 ( 觀塘裁判法院刑

事案件 2018 年第 2001 號 ) 一案中，被告在認罪

後被裁定“意圖損害而施用毒藥或其他殘害性

物品或有害物品”罪罪名成立。控罪中的受害

人是被告兒子就讀小學的一名教師。被告因教

師批評其兒子有行為問題而感到受屈，在學校

大堂手持罐裝殺蟲劑走向受害人，朝受害人臉

部噴灑殺蟲劑，即使受害人嘗試走避，被告仍

繼續噴灑，令受害人雙眼發紅。被告被判接受

18 個月感化。

在香港特別行政區 訴 彭玉貞 ( 九龍城裁判法院

刑事案件 2018 年第 1581 號 ) 一案中，被告為一

名 80 歲老婦，被控“普通襲擊”和“刑事恐嚇”

罪。控罪中的受害人是被告兒子僱用的印尼籍

家庭傭工，負責照顧被告。被告曾多次責罵受

害人，掌摑其嘴巴，又拍打其胸部和手臂，更

恐嚇會傷害和殺死受害人。其中一次襲擊事件

被攝錄下來，並上載到互聯網。被告其後被發

現患有認知障礙症。雖然有充分證據起訴被告，

但考慮到該案的特殊情況，包括受害人只受輕

傷；受害人同意讓被告簽保；以及被告健康欠

佳，經法院許可，被告獲撤銷控罪，並准以港

幣 3,000 元簽保，守行為兩年。

and dehydrated. The veterinary expert was of the view that the turtles had endured unnecessary suffering due to insufficient food and water. The defendant company was fined a total of HK$50,000.

In HKSAR v Tsui San-kwan KTCC 2001/2018, the defendant was convicted of “administering poison or other destructive or noxious thing with intent to injure” upon her own plea. The defendant’s son was studying in a primary school where the victim in the charges was one of the teachers. Being aggrieved with the teacher’s comments that her son was having behavioural problem, the defendant approached the victim in the lobby of the school with a canister of insecticide. She sprayed insecticide at the victim’s face and kept doing it even though the victim tried to run away from her. As a result, the victim sustained bilateral eye redness. The defendant was put on probation for 18 months.

In HKSAR v Pang Yuk-ching KCCC 1581/2018, the defendant, an elderly woman aged 80, was charged with “common assault” and “criminal intimidation”. The defendant’s son employed the victim in the charges who was an Indonesian domestic helper to take care of the defendant. On various occasions, the defendant scolded the victim and slapped her mouth, chest and arms. The defendant also threatened to injure and kill her. One of such incidents of assault was recorded and uploaded to the Internet. The defendant was later found to suffer from dementia. Although there was sufficient evidence to proceed with the charges laid against the defendant, having considered the special circumstances of the case, including the minor injuries suffered by the victim; the victim’s agreement to allowing the defendant to be bound over; and the poor health condition of the defendant, with the leave of the court, the defendant was bound over in the sum of HK$3,000 for 2 years with the charges withdrawn.

29

香港刑事檢控

2018

PRO

SEC

UTI

ON

S H

ON

G K

ON

G

沙田裁判法院法庭檢控主任Court Prosecutors in the Sha Tin Magistrates’ Courts

粉嶺裁判法院法庭檢控主任　Court Prosecutors in the Fanling Magistrates’ Courts

為改善裁判法院檢控工作的質素，法庭檢控主

任積極參與培訓工作，對象為負責調查和籌備

案件審訊的執法機構人員，以及可在裁判法院

檢控案件但年資較淺的法律執業者。總法庭檢

控主任李家雄先生為 30 名總督察舉辦工作坊，

就毒品案所涉的種種問題分享經驗。李先生也

為該科新入職的檢控官和見習律政人員舉辦講

座，講解裁判法院的檢控工作和法院程序，向

他們灌輸最新資訊，俾能在短期內獨自進行檢

控工作。此外，高級一等法庭檢控主任黎莉莉

女士與警務處見習督察分享經驗，談論如何適

當地籌備案件和在庭上作證的常見錯誤。高級

二等法庭檢控主任黃華芬先生和署理高級二等

法庭檢控主任邱錫倫先生分別為警務人員舉辦

研討會，探討籌備案件的常見錯誤和在庭上作

證的正確方式。另外，兩名高級二等法庭檢控

主任黃華芬先生與周晅女士各自為東九龍警區

的警務人員講解有關法院程序的事宜。上述所

有工作坊、研討會、講座和演講均以已審結的

案件為輔助例子，有助解釋常犯的錯誤和適當

的補救方法，大獲參加者好評。

2018 年，該科法庭檢控主任不斷提升法律專業

資格。截至 2018 年年底，在 76 名法庭檢控主

任 ( 包括 10 名新聘的法庭檢控主任 ) 中，有八

人擁有執業律師資格，其中一人獲認許為大律

師；五人持有法學專業證書；九人完成法學碩

士課程；24 人取得法學士學位或同等學歷。現

時，一名法庭檢控主任正就讀第三年兼讀制法

學士學位課程。

With a view to enhancing the quality of the prosecution work in the Magistracies, our Court Prosecutors took active part in training officers of the law enforcement agencies who are responsible for conducting investigations and preparation of cases for trial; and training junior members of the legal professions who may prosecute cases in the Magistracies. Our Chief Court Prosecutor Mr Angus Lee had conducted workshop for 30 Chief Inspectors of the Police to share his experiences on various issues relating to drug cases. Mr Lee also gave talks to the newly recruited Public Prosecutors and legal trainees of the Prosecutions Division about prosecution work and curial procedures in the Magistracies to equip them with the latest information so that they can stand on their own feet to prosecute in the near future. Our Senior Court Prosecutor I Ms Lily Lai also shared her experiences with the Probationary Inspectors of the Police on how to prepare cases properly and common mistakes in giving evidence in court. Our Senior Court Prosecutor II Mr William Wong and Acting Senior Court Prosecutor II Mr Alan Yau each conducted a seminar for police officers on common mistakes in case preparation and proper manner in giving evidence in court. Further, Senior Court Prosecutor IIs Mr William Wong and Ms Ivy Chau each gave a lecture to police officers of the Kowloon East District on matters about the court proceedings. All the aforesaid workshops, seminars, talks and lectures were well received with the aid of some concluded cases as examples which helped explain the common mistakes made and the appropriate remedies.

Our Court Prosecutors keep on improving their legal qualifications in 2018. As at the end of 2018, of the 76 Court Prosecutors (including the 10 new recruits), 8 were fully qualified lawyers with 1 of them called to the Bar; 5 of them had obtained the PCLL qualification; 9 an LLM and 24 an LLB or equivalent qualification. 1 Court Prosecutor is currently doing his third year LLB part-time study.