PROSECUTIONSHONG KONG

香港刑事檢控

PROSECUTIONSHONG KONG

香港刑事檢控

Letter to Secretary for Justice給律政司司長的信

律政司司長袁國強資深大律師

袁司長：

謹呈上《2015 年刑事檢控科工作回顧》。

從這工作回顧可見，2015 年對刑事檢控科又是充滿挑戰的一年。年內本

科檢控人員不僅要克服沉重的工作量，更要妥善處理一些備受關注和具爭議性的案

件。在這雙重挑戰下，我非常欣慰我們的檢控團隊依然能專業地履行職務，公正、

獨立、並不偏不倚地為秉行公義而克盡己職。檢控人員在面對艱巨挑戰時，各自緊

守作為公義守護者的崗位，忠誠地依法協助法院找出事實真相以彰顯公義。他們的

工作及所付出的不懈努力，對維持刑事司法制度公正實在至為重要。我深信刑事檢

控科有能力，一如既往，完成我們的工作使命，維護法治及確保檢控獨立，根據《基

本法》第六十三條賦予律政司主管刑事檢察工作，無論是在實質或觀感方面、或在

政治或其他層面，不受任何干涉。

最後，我要向司長及刑事檢控科的精英團隊同事衷心致謝，你們在過去一

年給我在各方面的支持，令我能夠履行刑事檢控專員的職責，完成各項艱巨任務。

我有幸得到你們的信任和協助，在此再次向團隊致謝。

刑事檢控專員

楊家雄資深大律師

2016 年 12 月 14 日

The Honourable Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung, SC, JPSecretary for Justice

14 December 2016

Dear Secretary for Justice,

I am pleased to submit to you the Yearly Review of the Prosecutions Division for 2015.

As detailed in this report, 2015 is another taxing year for the team. Heavy workload aside, cases of public interests involving controversial issues or incidents have put our prosecutors to the test. I am really pleased to report that our prosecutors have discharged their duties in a most professional manner, demonstrating integrity, impartiality and independence, as well as a great dedication to the pursuit of justice. They stood up to challenges in difficult times, firmly and faithfully performing their important role as ministers of justice to assist the courts in the search for truth and justice according to law. Their work and dedication have been pivotal to the maintenance of a just criminal justice system. I am confident that the Prosecutions Division is, as always, well equipped to continue our mission of upholding the rule of law and safeguarding the prosecutorial independence conferred upon the Department of Justice by Article 63 of the Basic Law to control criminal prosecutions free from any interference – be it real or perceived, political or otherwise.

Last but not least, I would like to express, once again, my heartfelt gratitude to you and the fine team of colleagues in the Prosecutions Division for the support rendered to me in the year in my fulfilment of the public responsibility as the Director of Public Prosecutions. I am indeed most fortunate to have all your trust and help in meeting the daunting tasks.

Yours sincerely,

( Keith Yeung, SC )

Director of Public Prosecutions

目錄Contents

6 刑事檢控專員的序言 Director’s Overview

10 資深大律師任命 Senior Counsel Appointments

14 架構及職責 Structure and Duties

組織圖表Organization Chart服務承諾Performance Pledge

16 刑事檢控專員辦公室 Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

24 分科一 法律指引 Sub-division I Advisory

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

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

分科一第 3 組﹣裁判法院法律指引（一般檢控）Section I (3) - Magistrates’ Courts Advisory (General Prosecutions)

分科一第 4 組﹣裁判法院法律指引（部門檢控）Section I (4) - Magistrates’ Courts Advisory (Departmental Prosecutions)

分科一第 5 組﹣公眾秩序活動及電腦網絡罪行Section I (5) - Public Order Events and Cybercrime

法庭檢控主任Court Prosecutors

43 分科二 訟辯

48 分科三 上訴 Sub-division III Appeals

Sub-division II Advocacy

分科三第 1 組﹣裁判法院上訴Section III (1) - Magistracy Appeals

分科三第 2 組﹣上級法院上訴Section III (2) - Higher Court Appeals

分科三第 3 組﹣人權Section III (3) - Human Rights

55 分科四 商業罪案 Sub-division IV Commercial Crime

分科四第 1 組﹣嚴重詐騙案件Section IV (1) - Major Fraud

分科四第 2 組﹣證券、稅務及詐騙案件Section IV (2) - Securities, Revenue and Fraud

分科四第 3 組﹣廉政公署（公營機構）案件Section IV (3) - ICAC (Public Sector)

分科四第 4 組﹣廉政公署（私營機構）案件Section IV (4) - ICAC (Private Sector)

分科四第 5 組﹣海關案件Section IV (5) - Customs and Excise

68 行政及支援 Administration and Support

74 特稿 Feature Articles

黃惠沖資深大律師專訪Interview with Wesley Wong SC

沈仲平博士專訪Interview with Dr Alain Sham

82 外展及培訓 Outreach and Training

92 凝聚一心 Bonding

96 統計數字 Statistics

刑事檢控專員的序言Director’s Overview

刑事檢控專員

楊家雄資深大律師

Keith Yeung, SCDirector of Public Prosecutions

7

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

每年一度撰寫刑事檢控科年報序言，於我意義

極大，這是難得機會，讓我可從日常職務中抽

身，回顧過去一年團隊在工作上的經歷及成果。

今年也不例外。過程中，重歷去年面對的挑戰，

再作反思。當挑戰來臨時，考驗嚴峻，猶如驚

濤駭浪；當風暴初歇，沙泥開始沉澱，水也漸

變清澈時，我們可乘時審視過往的工作，從中

汲取經驗。本科能否成功克服挑戰不是由我評

價，但我認為答案是肯定的。我們的團隊經磨

練更見幹練自信，並已準備就緒，迎接日後更

多挑戰。身為這個優秀團隊的一分子，我引以

為傲。

對本科來說，繁重的工作仍是 2015 年中主要的

挑戰。科內有大約 130 名律師及 80 名法庭檢控

主任。我們共同肩負主管香港所有檢控工作的

使命。我們固然可以委聘外判律師提供協助，

但任務依然艱巨，當中尤以主要由本科律師處

理的法律指引工作及籌備案件職務為甚。過去

三年，本科團隊提供的法律指引持續增加，在

2015 年達 13,348 次。我們籌備在原訟法庭和

區域法院審訊的案件數目也分別高達 503 宗和

1,115 宗 (2014 年則分別有 540 宗和 1,085 宗 )。至於實際出庭日數，檢控人員 ( 包括所有本科律

師、外判律師和法庭檢控主任 ) 出庭總日數依

然高企，在 2015 年達 23,703 日，與 2014 年

(24,544 日 ) 相若。對，我們確實是非常忙碌。

然而，我們面對更艱巨而根本的挑戰，是要處

理日益增多的具爭議性案件。本科在處理所有

案件時一貫保持政治中立，但無可避免的是有

相當數量的案件有政治影響和色彩。不同人士

對案件應怎樣處理、早應怎樣處理，甚或想當

然地以為案件正是怎樣被處理等的看法，各不

相同，但都同樣各執己見。還記得某天下午，

我正在細心考慮一宗敏感案件的法律意見，並

在電腦輸入擬稿。當時我仍在考慮有關的法律

和證據，而我對案件的想法，全然開放，沒有

成見。但與此同時，我的電腦傳來幾則媒體訊

息，表示有消息來源指控方受了某些政治壓力，

而案件的結果已被操控內定。對於這失實指控，

我一笑置之。然而，我仍感到無奈：困局是不

論控方作出什麼決定，彷彿總是難免招致批評。

我在今年 6 月舉行的“檢控週”揭幕儀式上也

談過同一議題。我們尊重不同的意見，也歡迎

有益的建議，甚至批評。法治、司法和檢察獨

立，以及言論自由等基本權利，是香港整體社

會一向致力維護的核心價值。然而，對於有同

事在出庭檢控，特別是在處理一些被視為政治

敏感的案件時遭某些市民無理、惡意、不公的

謾駡的事件有所增加，我實在感到痛心。我們

不可忘記，純粹為了侮辱司法機構或檢控機關，

而在法院程序進行期間破口大罵，絕不能稱為

言論自由的恰當行使。

I find the annual task of working on the Overview for the Prosecutions Division’s yearbook useful and rewarding. It allows me a rare opportunity to step back from my daily duties and review what the Division has experienced and achieved in the preceding year. This year’s exercise is no exception. The challenges the Division faced last year are relived. They are during that process reflected upon. When happening, they presented tough ordeals. It was choppy waters. However, with the silt starting to settle and the water becoming clearer, we take stock of what we have done and what lessons learned. Whether the Division has risen to the challenges it faced is not for me to judge, though I say we have. The Division has emerged as a more mature and confident team, ready to take on further challenges. I take pride in being part of this outstanding team.

Heavy caseload remained a key challenge for the Division in 2015. The Division has about 130 lawyers and 80 court prosecutors. Together we are mandated to control all prosecutions in Hong Kong. We have the liberty to engage fiat counsel to assist. But the task remains a daunting one. That is particularly so when it comes to our advisory and case preparation duties, which are primarily undertaken in-house. The number of legal advice provided by the team continued to be on the rise during the last three years. It reached 13,348 items in 2015. Cases prepared for the Court of First Instance and District Court also stood at a high number of 503 and 1,115 respectively (comparing to 540 and 1,085 cases respectively in 2014). As for actual court appearance, the total number of days which our prosecutors (in-house, fiat counsel and court prosecutors all included) spent in court remained high at 23,703 in 2015, which is comparable to that in 2014 (24,544 days). Yes, we have been busy.

A more difficult and fundamental challenge the Division faced however related to the controversial nature of a growing number of cases that it handled. The Division approaches all cases apolitically. But there is no avoiding that quite some of the cases it handles have political implications and undertones. Different people hold different but equally vehement views on to how such cases should be handled, should have been handled, or even how they thought the cases are being handled. I recall one afternoon when I was considering and typing into my computer my draft advice on one of those sensitive cases. I was still considering the law and the evidence. My mind was free, and was completely open. But at that same time, some media clips were fed into my computer, suggesting that according to some sources, the prosecution had been under some sort of political pressure, and the results of that case had already been rigged. I laughed it off as being so untrue. But the frustration remained, that whatever decisions the prosecution reached, they were bound to be criticized, one way or the other.

I talked about this same issue during the opening of the Prosecution Week in June this year. We respect differences in opinion. We welcome constructive suggestions or even criticisms. The rule of law, judicial and prosecutorial independence and fundamental rights such as freedom of expression are core values which Hong Kong as a whole has always strived to safeguard. However, it is saddening to see that when my fellow colleagues attended court, especially in those perceived to be politically sensitive ones, they on growing occasions were subject to

8

刑事

檢控

專員

的序

言D

irect

or’s

Ove

rvie

w

這些事情實在令人沮喪。不過，我們檢控團隊

不容我們的士氣被拖垮，我們反之受到激勵。

在這情況下，我們意識到，更為重要的是檢控

人員必須能夠立場堅定，繼續忠誠地履行作為

“秉行公義者”的角色，並以此昂首自豪。正

如律政司《檢控守則》第 1.1 及 1.2 段訂明：

“……在作出決定和行使酌情權時，檢控人員

必須根據法律、可接納的證據所證明的事實、

控方已知的其他相關資料，以及任何適用的政

策或指引，公正理智地行事。檢控人員不得受

下列因素影響︰ (a) 任何涉及調查、政治、傳媒、

社羣或個人的利益或陳述；……(d) 對政府、任

何政黨、任何團體或個人在政治上帶來的影響；

(e) 傳媒或公眾對有關決定的可能反應……”這

是我們的一貫做法，亦是我們往後努力依循的

守則。

就處理某些案件需時這議題，無可否認，“遲

來的公義，等同否定公義”。事實上我們完全

認同要盡快作出檢控的決定並予以執行，是控

方的職責。然而，同樣地，在決定是否提出檢

控前，我們必須、並有責任確保案件已經過徹

底調查，並已充分考慮所有相關因素 ( 包括可接

納的證據和適用法律 )。對於那些敏感案件及涉

及重大公共秩序活動的案件，這點尤其重要。

此類案件，通常涉及大量不同來源的錄影證據，

我們必須逐一仔細研究。再者，這些案件往往

牽涉相當數量的疑人，對於應否提出檢控、檢

控哪些人、控以什麼罪名，以及哪些被告人該

一併檢控等，均是當中一些環環相扣的問題，

須謹慎思量。檢控團隊不可圖一時之便行事，

而必須恪守一貫奉行的原則，即是只有在取得

充分證據並符合公眾利益的情況下，方可提出

檢控。

去年我們面對眾多挑戰，上文所述只是其中一

部分。正如我在第一段所言，本科究竟能否克

服這些挑戰不應由我來評價，但我可撫心直言，

我們一直是同心協力、士氣高昂的團隊。我們

與社會一樣，從挑戰中學習、反省，並在過程

中進步，成為一支更成熟、優秀，及更專業的

團隊。

groundless, malicious and unfair personal verbal abuse from certain members of the public. It must not be forgotten that that any act of lashing out in court proceedings, committed with no other intention except to bring the Judiciary or prosecution into disrepute, simply cannot be a proper exercise of one’s freedom of expression.

Such were the frustrations. However, the prosecution team did not allow our spirits to be dragged down by them. We have instead been motivated by them. We realize, against such a background, that it has become all the more important that prosecutors must be able to stand firm and continue to perform their role faithfully as “minister of justice”, with pride, and with our heads up. As paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 of our Prosecution Code provide, “…In making decisions and exercising discretion a prosecutor must act fairly and dispassionately on the basis of the law, the facts provable by the admissible evidence, other relevant information known to the prosecution and any applicable policy or guidelines. A prosecutor must not be influenced by: (a) any investigatory, political, media, community or individual interest or representation; …(d) the political effect on the government, any political party, any group or individual; (e) possible media or public reaction to the decision…” That was what we have been doing, and that is what we will continue to strive to do.

On the issue of time required for processing some of the cases, there is of course no gainsaying that “justice delayed is justice denied”. Indeed, we fully recognize the duty upon the prosecution to make and proceed with any prosecutorial decision as expeditiously as possible. However, there is equally the need and responsibility to make sure that the cases are thoroughly investigated and all relevant matters (including the admissible evidence and applicable law) duly considered before a decision to prosecute or not can responsibly be made. This is particularly important for those sensitive and important public order events cases. They generally involved a large volume of video evidence from different sources, and each of the videos would need to be carefully studied. A lot of times, a large number of suspects were involved. Whether to prosecute, against whom, with what charges, and together with which defendants, are all but some of the interrelated issues that have to be carefully gauged. The prosecution must not yield to expediency but must maintain the long-held principle that prosecution will be pursued only where there is sufficient evidence and where it is in the public interest to do so.

The above were just some of the many challenges we faced last year. As I have said in the first paragraph, it is not for me to judge whether the Division has risen to them. But I can say with hands on heart that we have been working as a team in good spirits. We have learned from the challenges, in the same way as the community equally has, reflected upon them, and have matured in the process into a better and more professional team.

The discharge of our onerous prosecutorial duties aside, the Division has continued its efforts to reach out to the public (in particular our younger generations), through the various outreach programmes such as “Prosecution Week” and “Meet the Community”. We hope that the public at large will better appreciate how we prosecutors handle our work. We believe that through these initiatives, we can engender better

9

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

本科除履行繁重的檢控職務外，也會繼續透過

“檢控週”和“與公眾會面”等不同的外展計劃，

主動接觸公眾，特別是我們年輕一代。我們希

望市民對檢控人員如何處理工作有較深入的認

識。我們相信，通過有關措施，會有助他們更

了解我們為社會所做的工作，從而培養他們對

檢控工作的信心和支持。

儘管工作繁重，我們不忘加強對檢控人員的培

訓，擴闊他們的視野。同時，本司與香港法律

界、海外法律專家和國際檢控人員一直保持交

流。尤其值得一提的活動，是 2015 年 10 月與

兩個本地法律專業團體合辦的 2015 年刑事法律

研討會，參加者約 120 名，包括司法人員、檢

控官、刑事法律執業者和學者。分別來自英格

蘭及威爾斯和澳洲維多利亞省的兩名資深法官，

為會議擔任講者和裁判。會議給予本司檢控人

員一個寶貴機會，掌握各個法律議題的最新發

展。由於是次會議非常成功，我們現正積極籌

備下屆會議，預計在 2017 年舉行。

上文概述一些本科取得的工作成果，本工作回

顧隨後各章會再詳加闡述。所有工作都是科內

各組別成員集體努力的成果。就此，看到本科

的資深檢控人員的工作獲得司法機構和廣大法

律專業界認同，我深表欣慰。這份年報隨後部

分介紹的譚耀豪先生、梁卓然先生和許紹鼎先

生，同在 2015 年獲委任為資深大律師，現在他

們都是我的得力副手。加上黎婉姬女士在本年

剛獲委任為資深大律師，我的副手團隊全屬資

深大律師，“星級”陣容實在令我大感榮幸。

這不單反映他們的個人成就，也證明近年刑事

檢控科人才濟濟，他們具備的專業知識既深且

廣。有這支優秀團隊協助，儘管科內要處理的

工作是驚人的繁重和複雜，我深信本科能夠迎

難而上，繼續在工作上精益求精，克服未來

重重挑戰，確保我們繼續維持一流檢控機關的 地位。

understanding so as to nourish public confidence and support for the work that we do for the community.

Apart from the above heavy workload, we have not forgotten about the need to enhance training and exposure for our prosecutors. We at the same time have been maintaining exchanges with the local legal profession, overseas legal experts, and our international prosecutorial counterparts. Worthy of particular note is the 2015 Criminal Law Conference held in October 2015. It was organized in collaboration with the two local legal professional bodies, and was attended by some 120 participants from the Judiciary, public prosecutors, criminal law practitioners and academics. The conference, with the participation of two senior judges from England and Wales and Victoria of Australia respectively as speaker and moderator, provided an invaluable opportunity for our prosecutors to stay attuned to the latest development on various legal topics. Given the success of the Conference, we are now actively preparing for the next run of the event which is scheduled for 2017.

The works achieved by the Division highlighted above (and further explained in the ensuing chapters of this Yearly Review) were the results of the collective efforts of its team members. In this regard, I am extremely pleased to see the work of our senior prosecutors being recognized by the Judiciary and the legal profession at large. As reported in the ensuing section of this yearbook, Mr William Tam, Mr David Leung and Mr Martin Hui, who are currently my deputies, were appointed Senior Counsel in 2015. And with the appointment of Ms Anna Lai as Senior Counsel more recently this year, I am really honoured to have a “star-studded” team of deputies all being members of the Inner Bar. This is not only a reflection of their personal achievements, but also a testimony to the width and depth of expertise that the Prosecutions Division possesses in recent years. With this strong and supportive team alongside, notwithstanding the intimidating volume and complexity of work that the Division has to tackle, I have no hesitation that the Division can continue to go from strength to strength in meeting future challenges and maintaining its calibre as a first-class prosecution force.

資深大律師任命Senior Counsel Appointments

11

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

副刑事檢控專員

譚耀豪資深大律師William Tam, SCDeputy Director of Public Prosecutions

譚耀豪先生在 1994 年 12 月加入當時的律政署

為檢察官。在 1995 完成基本訓練後，譚先生先

調往研究及一般法律意見組，其後在 1996 至

1999 年期間任職區域法院案件籌備組，主要職

責是就刑事事宜向執法機關提供法律指引。在

此期間，除了負責提供法律指引外，譚先生也

不時獲指派在法庭審訊中擔任主控官，從而磨

練他的訟辯技巧。他在加入律政署一年後，即

晉升為高級檢察官。

譚先生在 1999 至 2000 年期間調任訟辯及勞工

組，其間他被認定有潛質成為出色的訟辯律師。

2000 年，他獲派到重案檢控組，專責在高等法

院檢控較棘手或敏感的原審及上訴案件。

在 2001 至 2005 年期間，譚先生獲委擔任商業

罪案、電腦罪案及版權組的副主管，這崗位讓

他有機會接觸形形式式的複雜商業詐騙案件，並

在其中一些案件的審訊中親自出庭檢控。2005至 2007 年期間，他出任廉政公署案件 (A) ( 公

營機構 ) 組副主管，因而對反貪污的法律這另一

個重要的刑事法範疇見識大增。

譚先生在 2007 年 3 月晋升高級助理刑事檢控專

員，掌管區域法院案件籌備組，其後於 2010 至

2011 年，他調任裁判法院法律指引組主管。在

領導這兩個法律指引組期間，除了履行管理職

務外，他也繼續檢控上訴案件。

2012 年 2 月，譚先生晉升副刑事檢控專員，掌

管上訴分科，他在督導分科職務同時，也專門

在上訴法庭和終審法院執行檢控上訴案件。

回顧過去 20 多年的法律生涯，譚先生特別感謝

部門給他很多發展機會，栽培他成為一個全面

的訟辯律師。他也不忘感激一眾現任及已離職

的同事和良師，多年來向他循循善誘及鼓勵支

持。他表示，“我有幸作為檢控人員為律政司

效力，能夠以檢控人員身份服務香港社會，我

實在引以為榮。”

Mr William Tam joined the Legal Department (as it then was) in December 1994 as Crown Counsel. After completing the basic training, he was first posted to the Research and General Advice Section in 1995 and then to the Trial Preparation Unit (District Court) in 1996-1999, primarily engaged in giving legal advice to law enforcement agencies on criminal matters. During that time, apart from discharging his advisory duties, he was regularly instructed to attend court to prosecute trials and to develop his advocacy skills. Within one year of joining the Department, he was promoted to the rank of Senior Crown Counsel.

In 1999-2000, Mr Tam was posted to the Advocacy and Labour Section. His potential to become an effective advocate was recognised and in 2000, he was transferred to the Court Specialists Section, specialising in prosecuting the more difficult or sensitive trials and appeals in the High Court.

In 2001-2005, Mr Tam was appointed as the Deputy Section Head of the Commercial Crime, Computer Crime and Copyright Section. In that posting, he was given exposure to cases of complex commercial frauds and prosecuted some of those trials himself. In 2005-2007, he became the Deputy Section Head of the ICAC(A) (Public Sector) Section. That posting provided him with insights to another important area of the criminal law, namely, the law of corruption.

In March 2007, Mr Tam was promoted to the rank of Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions and became the head of the Trial Preparation Unit (District Court). In 2010-2011, he was posted to lead the Magistrates’ Courts Advisory Section. Whilst discharging the management duties as the head of those advisory sections, he continued to practise his appellate advocacy.

In February 2012, Mr Tam was promoted to the rank of Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions and became in charge of the Appeals Sub-division. In that capacity, apart from attending to his supervisory duties, he prosecuted exclusively in the Court of Appeal and the Court of Final Appeal.

Looking back at his legal career for over 20 years, Mr Tam was most grateful to the Department for giving him so many opportunities so as to train and develop him to become an all-round advocate. He was also thankful to his mentors and colleagues (some of whom had already left the Department) for their advice, guidance, support and encouragement throughout the years. “It has been my great privilege and honour serving the Department of Justice as a prosecutor, a role in which I take much pride in serving the community of Hong Kong.”

12

副刑事檢控專員

梁卓然資深大律師David Leung, SCDeputy Director of Public Prosecutions

2015 年，我與三位律政司同事一同獲委任為資深大律師，深感榮幸。小兒 Ethan 對這次委任也很雀躍，他決定在資深大律師的委任儀式舉行前剛好30 天出生，好趕及出席儀式。

當初修讀法律時，我一直希望擔任訟辯律師，因而渴望成為大律師。然而，身為家中長子，我需要有穩定的收入，於是選擇當事務律師。然而，我在成為執業事務律師後的三年間，處理了 50 多次法庭審訊，加深了我對訟辯工作的熱忱。我很感激杜浩成先生，在他的鼓勵和勸說下，我申請加入當時的律政署。在面試時，我表明只會加入刑事檢控科，因為我希望能負責更多法庭訟辯工作。

我在 1995 年 10 月 12 日上任，趕不上在 9 月開班的刑事訟辯課程，但很快便派到西區裁判法院開展檢控生涯。說起首天工作，至今仍歷歷在目：我負責檢控的三宗審訊都在鄧立泰裁判官 ( 現為 退休法官 ) 席前進行，而所有被告人最後都被裁定罪名不成立。身為檢控官，我感到挫敗，但也親身體會到，確保被告得到公平審訊 ( 而非審訊的結果 )至為重要。

有趣的是，我還記得首次在高等法院檢控由陪審團審訊的案件，以及首批裁判法院上訴的案件，都在司徒敬法官 ( 現為終審法院非常任法官 ) 席前進行。當時我的部門主管在分工表上寫道：“祝你好運”。在他的祝福下，我總算順利渡過聆訊。

感謝部門 20 年來給我眾多機會，讓我在法律專業上不斷進步，最後獲委任為資深大律師。1998 年8 月 8 日我獲認許為大律師當日，動議者開玩笑的說：“法官閣下，梁先生原先是事務律師，現在成為大律師，他的家人已厭倦出席他的畢業典禮或這類儀式，他們說日後頂多再出席一次，就是梁先生獲委任為資深大律師之時；但若要成事，法官閣下今天得先認許他為大律師。”當時可沒想過，這個玩笑竟會成真。

其實，我第一次被稱呼為“Senior Counsel”( 資深大律師 )，是 1999 年左右的事。當時我在一個電腦罪行講座擔任講者，向主辦機構提供了詳盡履 歷， 包 括 我 當 時 的 職 銜“Senior Government Counsel”( 高級政府律師 )。舉行講座當天，我發現單張上印有“David Leung, Senior Counsel”( 梁卓 然 資 深 大 律 師 )， 我 隨 即 作 出 更 正。 主 辦機 構 解 釋， 履 歷 上 已 說 明 我 在 律 政 司 工 作，“Government”一詞是多餘的，於是便予以刪除。最後我要向參加講座人士道歉，實在非常尷尬。

我想鄭重指出，我獲委任為資深大律師，不僅是我個人成就，也是對律政司一眾同事的充分肯定。他們努力不懈，竭誠維護香港的刑事司法制度。我在此衷心感謝他們的不懈支持，並就如何成為並保持一名公正的檢控官給我寶貴的意見。

資深

大律

師任

命Se

nior

Cou

nsel

App

oint

men

ts

I am deeply honoured to be appointed as a Senior Counsel, together with 3 colleagues of the Department of Justice, in 2015. My son, Ethan, was excited about the appointment too and hence decided to come to this world exactly 30 days before the silk appointment ceremony – so that he could be present.

I have always wanted to be an advocate, hence a barrister, when I was reading law. However, being the eldest son in the family, I needed a steady income and so the solicitor stream was the preferred route. Yet, after conducting 50 odd trials in the 3 years’ practice as a solicitor, my passion for conducting more advocacy work was reinforced. With the encouragement and persuasion of Mr Joseph To (to whom I am most grateful), I applied to join the then Legal Department. During the interview, I expressly indicated I would only join the Prosecutions Division as I wanted to conduct more advocacy work.

I reported duty on 12 October 1995 and was quickly sent to the Western Magistrates’ Courts to start my prosecution career after missing the Criminal Advocacy Course conducted in September. I still remember today vividly the 3 trials on my first day of prosecuting before Mr Tallentire (as His Honour then was) all ended in acquittals. With the sense of being defeated, I experienced first-hand as a prosecutor that ensuring the defendant has a fair trial (but not the result) is of utmost importance.

It is interesting to recall that my first jury trial and first batch of magistracy appeals were both before Stock J (as Stock NPJ then was). On the assignment sheet, my section head wrote: “Good luck”. With his blessings, I survived the hearings.

I am grateful for all the opportunities provided by the Department in the past 20 years for me to develop professionally leading to my appointment as Senior Counsel. When I was admitted as a barrister on 8 August 1998, I never thought the joke told by the person moving my admission would come true: “My Lord, the family members of Mr Leung are fed up with attending his graduation ceremonies and admissions, first being a solicitor and now a barrister. They said they would only attend one more ceremony – when Mr Leung takes silk. But this will only be possible if your Lordship admits him as a barrister today.”

In fact, the day I was referred to as a “Senior Counsel” came in around 1999 when I gave a talk on Cybercrime. I provided the organizers with a full CV and my title: Senior Government Counsel. On the day, I noticed the flyer read “David Leung, Senior Counsel”. I pointed out the error. The organizer explained that as my CV had stated I was working in the Department of Justice, the word “Government” would be redundant and hence they deleted it. I ended up tendering an apology to the audience with huge embarrassment.

On a serious note, my appointment as a Senior Counsel is not only a personal achievement but a true recognition of the hard work and commitment of all my colleagues in the Department of Justice in upholding the criminal justice system in Hong Kong. It remains for me to thank them for their unfailing support and invaluable guidance on how to become and remain a fair prosecutor.

13

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香港刑事檢控

副刑事檢控專員

許紹鼎資深大律師Martin Hui, SCDeputy Director of Public Prosecutions

一年易過，今天跟讀者重談與律政司另外三位我敬重的同事在去年獲委任為資深大律師，仍自覺深得眷遇，仿如做夢。能獲如此認可，固然榮幸不已，但我提醒自己在樂得殊榮之餘，勿自志高意滿，因為仍待我掌握的知識和重要技巧何其多，而在法律專業路上相逢的新知身上，又有無數地方可堪借鏡。的確，司內共事的檢控人員有眾多出類拔萃之士，他們知我所未聞，諸般表現出色令我望塵莫及，着實自嘆不如。

《論語》有云，子曰：“三人行，必有我師焉。擇其善者而從之，其不善者而改之。”

我求學時期在耶穌會學校領受很多寶訓，心坎常受謙卑的美德觸動。有智者言：“謙卑不是把自己說得微少一些，而是少談自己一點。”不過，既然我應允在本年度的工作回顧中作自我介紹，還望容許我在此不遵這至理明言，多談一點自己和我如何一路走到 今天。

從在法學院上課第一天，我就希望成為訟辯律師，尤其有志於刑事法和公法。因此，從大學畢業後，我很自然希望投身檢控官的行列。後來幸得見習律政人員計劃取錄的良機，我毫不猶豫接受，在 1995年加入當時的律政署成為助理檢察官，展開實習。我第一個政府律師崗位是 1996年派駐區域法院案件籌備組，在該組工作兩年間，我不放過每個機會盡力打好基礎，掌握對初出道的檢控官最關鍵的技巧和知識。其後，我調往管理及培訓組，有機會從另一角度了解刑事檢控科的日常運作。我晉升高級政府律師後，調往分科四服務七年，先後在分科內各組別工作，專責處理商業詐騙、貪污、電腦罪行和侵犯版權的案件。

其後，我的事業稍為轉向訟辯範疇發展。2008年，我調往重案檢控及特別職務組，負責檢控設陪審團的審訊和其他複雜的案件，磨煉訟辯技巧。2010年，我加入上訴分科，相繼派駐於其下三個組別，拓展了我熱愛的上訴訟辯工作。最後，我留在人權組發展這方面法律的專門知識，直到2011年獲擢升接掌該組。由於自覺在這個法律領域尚有不少學習空間，我報讀了人權法兩年制兼讀碩士學位課程，在 2013年取得人權法碩士學位。雖然其間不少光陰是在夜深奮幹苦讀中度過，但所得的經驗教我大開眼界，受用甚深。

2015年，我的前任黃惠沖資深大律師離開刑事檢控科，就任法律政策專員，而我被委出任人事主管的艱巨崗位，接手現在的副刑事檢控專員一職，掌管政策及政務分科。此職位工作繁重，我雖終日伏案工作，但仍熱衷訟辯工作，對不時有機會為上訴或審訊案件出庭檢控，總是十分珍惜。

回想有幸成為資深大律師，我衷心感謝這二十年來一直教導和提挈我的所有友好，指引我走到今天。我也要向各位克己敬業的同事由衷致謝，欣見他們齊心一致，秉承維護公平、公義和法治的崇高理想，其實這份榮譽他們佔的功勞最大。我能與如此傑出勤勉的檢控團隊，一起服務社會，實感榮幸。

讓我回頭以謙遜美德作結。謙遜是老子《道德經》中三寶的其中一寶，其文曰：“我有三寶，持而保之。一曰慈，二曰儉，三曰不敢為天下先。慈故能勇；儉故能廣；不敢為天下先，故能成器長。”

這些金石良言我時刻謹記，也以此繼續走前面的人 生路。

To this day it still sounds surreal to me to be able to share the great privilege of being appointed Senior Counsel a year ago with my three other more worthy contemporaries from the Department of Justice. Of course I feel extremely honoured to receive such recognition, but the privilege apart, I remind myself not to be complacent. There are still so much that I do not know and so many important skills that I have not yet mastered. And there are a lot to be learned from all those with whom I cross path in my professional career. Indeed I am truly humbled by the strengths and brilliance of many of my fellow prosecutors who know things that I don’t and who excel in many respects that I can’t.The wisdom of the Confucian Analects has a place here. When asked how a man may find instructors for himself, the Master said, “When I walk along with two others, they may serve me as my teachers. I will select their good qualities and follow them, their bad qualities and avoid them.”Amongst the many valuable teachings that I received in my formative years of Jesuit schooling, the virtues of humility have always struck deep in my heart. Someone wise has once said “humility is not to talk less of oneself but to talk of oneself less”. But since I have been asked specifically to write about myself in this yearly review, so I guess I may be forgiven for acting against that sage advice, and for talking a bit more about myself and how I have come all the way to where I am.I had always aspired to be an advocate since my first day at law school and was particularly interested in criminal and public law. A career as a prosecutor thus became a natural choice for me upon graduation from university. Hence when I was fortunate enough to be offered a place in the Legal Trainee Scheme, I grabbed the opportunity without hesitation and joined the then Attorney General’s Chambers in 1995 to undertake my pupillage as an Assistant Crown Counsel. My first posting as a Crown Counsel in 1996 was to the Trial Preparation Unit (District Court) where I stayed for two years, savouring every opportunity to build as solid a foundation as I could for the skills and knowledge that were essential to any budding prosecutor. I then moved on to the Management & Training Section where I was given the chance to acquire an understanding of the day-to-day workings of the Prosecutions Division from a different angle. Upon promotion to the rank of Senior Government Counsel, I was posted to the Sub-division IV in 2001 where I spent 7 years rotating among different teams specialising in commercial fraud, corruption, computer crime and copyright infringement cases. My career path then took a slight turn to the side of advocacy. In 2008, I was transferred to the Court Specialists & Special Duties Section to hone my advocacy skills through prosecuting jury trials and other more complicated cases. In 2010, I began my tour among the three teams under the Appeals Sub-division to develop my passion in appellate advocacy, ending up in the Human Rights Section where I stayed on and developed my specialty in this area of law. In 2011, I was promoted to head the Human Rights Section. Realising that there was still so much to learn in this area, I took a 2-year part-time master degree course studying human rights law and obtained my LLM in Human Rights in 2013. Despite the many late hours of work and study, the experience was eye-opening and rewarding. In 2015, upon the departure of my predecessor Mr Wesley Wong SC to assume the office of the Solicitor General, I was given the daunting mission of trying to fill the big shoes of the Chief of Staff and take up my present post as the deputy director heading the Policy and Administration Sub-division. Notwithstanding the mounting workload in this deskbound job, I remained eager for advocacy work and treasured every chance of being given an appeal or trial to prosecute from time to time. Reflecting upon my silk appointment, I am truly grateful to all those who have taught and supported me along the way for the past 20 years, guiding me to where I am. My deepest gratitude also extends to all those dedicated colleagues who work alongside me selflessly, all committed to the same noble cause of upholding fairness, justice and the rule of law. The accolade should in large measure be theirs. It is my honour to be able to serve the community among such a brilliant and dedicated group of fellow prosecutors. I conclude by returning to the fine virtue of humility. It is one of the three precious things that Lao Tzu spoke about in his Sayings: “I have three precious things which I hold fast and prize. The first is gentleness; the second is frugality; the third is humility, which keeps me from putting myself before others. Be gentle and you can be bold; be frugal and you can be liberal; avoid putting yourself before others and you can become a leader among men.” Heeding the wisdom of these sayings, I continue treading the path that lies ahead.

架構及職責 Structure and Duties刑事檢控科組織圖表 Prosecutions Division Organization Chart

刑事檢控專員 osecutionsDirector of Public Pr

刑事檢控專員辦公室人事主管

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Chief of Staff

助理刑事 檢控專員

（犯罪得益）

Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions (Proceeds of Crime)

犯罪得益Proceeds of Crime

犯罪得益Proceeds of Crime

政務Administration

政務Administration

投訴組Complaints

registry

刑事檢控科遴選委員會

PDSB

高級助理刑事檢控專員

（刑事檢空專員辦公室）

Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions

(Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions)

傳媒關係Media

Relations

傳媒關係Media

relations

管理Management

管理Management

檔案室Registries

審判分配Allocation

of trials

外判Briefing out

訟費Costs

培訓Training

培訓Training

新招聘人員New recruits

政策Policy

政策研究Policy

research

投訴及意見回應

Complaints & Feedback

投訴及意見回應Complaints & feedback

投訴警察CAPO

分科二 訟辯副刑事檢控專員（二）

Sub-division II Advocacy

Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (II)

高級助理刑事 檢控專員 II (1)

Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions II (1)

高級助理刑事檢控專員 II (3)Senior Assistant

Director of Public Prosecutions II (3)

高級助理刑事檢控專員 II (4)Senior Assistant

Director of Public Prosecutions II (4)

助理刑事

檢控專員 II (2)

Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions II (2)

助理刑事檢控專員 II (3)

Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions II (3)

助理刑事檢控專員 II (4)

Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions II (4)

分科一 法律指引副刑事檢控專員（一）

Sub-division I Advisory

Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (I)

高級助理刑事檢控

專員 I (1)Senior

Assistant Director of Public

Prosecutions I (1)

原訟法院法律指引Court of

First Instance Advisory

案件籌備( 原訟法院 )

Trial preparation

(Court of First Instance)

高級助理刑事檢控專員

I (2)

Senior Assistant Director of Public

Prosecutions I (2)

區域法院法律指引

District Court

Advisory

案件籌備( 區域法院 )

Trial preparation

(District Court)

高級助理刑事檢控

專員 I (3)Senior

Assistant Director of Public

Prosecutions I (3)

裁判法院 法律指引

( 一般檢控 )

Magistrates’ Courts

Advisory (General

Prosecutions)

裁判法院案件

( 包括法庭檢控主任 )

Magistrates’ Courts cases (including

Court Prosecutors)

助理刑事檢控

專員 I (4)

Assistant Director of Public

Prosecutions I (4)

裁判法院 法律指引

( 部門檢控 )

Magistrates’ Courts

Advisory (Departmental Prosecutions)

裁判法院 案件

Magistrates’ Courts cases

助理刑事檢控專員 I (5)Assistant Director of Public

Prosecutions I (5)

公眾秩序活動及

電腦網絡罪行

Public Order Events &

Cybercrime

分科三 上訴副刑事檢控專員（三）

Sub-division III Appeals

Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (III)

高級助理刑事檢控

專員

III (1)Senior

Assistant Director of Public

Prosecutions III (1)

裁判法院上訴

Magistracy Appeals

裁判法院上訴

Magistracy Appeals

案件呈述Case stated

根據第 104 條

提出的覆核Section 104

reviews

高級助理刑事檢控專員

III (2)

Senior Assistant Director of Public

Prosecutions III (2)

上級法院上訴

Higher Court

Appeals

終審法院CFA

上訴法庭CA

藉案件呈述 提出的上訴Appeals by case stated

覆核刑罰Reviews of Sentence

高級助理刑事檢控

專員 III (3)

Senior Assistant Director of Public

Prosecutions III (3)

人權Human Rights

人權法案及基本法

Bill of Rights and Basic Law

司法覆核Judicial review

截取通訊及監察

Interception of communication & surveillance

分科四 商業罪案副刑事檢控專員（四）

Sub-division IV Commercial Crime

Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (IV)

高級助理刑事檢控

專員 IV (1)Senior

Assistant Director of Public

Prosecutions IV (1)

嚴重詐騙 案件Major Fraud

商業詐騙Commercial

fraud

高級助理刑事檢控專員

IV (2)

Senior Assistant Director of Public

Prosecutions IV (2)

證券、稅務及詐騙

案件

Securities, Revenue

and Fraud

證券詐騙Securities

fraud

稅務Inland

revenue

商業詐騙Commercial

fraud

高級助理刑事檢控專員

IV (3)

Assistant Director of Public

Prosecutions IV (3)

Senior

廉政公署案件

( 公營機構 )

ICAC (Public Sector)

廉政公署案件

( 公營機構 )ICAC

(Public Sector)

高級助理刑事檢控專員

IV (4)

Senior Assistant Director of Public

Prosecutions IV 4)

廉政公署案件

( 私營機構 )

ICAC

(PrivateSector)

廉政公署案件

( 私營機構 )ICAC

(Private Sector)

助理刑事檢控

專員 IV (5)Senior

Assistant Director of Public

Prosecutions IV (5)

海關Customs &

Excise

應課稅品Dutiable

commodities

版權 Copyright

商品說明Trade

descriptions

高級助理刑事檢控

專員

( 特別職務 )

Senior Assistant Director of Public

Prosecutions (Special Duties)

高級助理刑事檢控

專員

( 特別檢控 )

Senior Assistant Director of Public

Prosecutions (Special

Prosecution)

Establishment編制 人手 Stregth

首長級人員 Directorate Officer 28 27高級政府律師 Senior Government Counsel 67 48政府律師 Government Counsel 40 56法庭檢控主任職系 Court Prosecutor Grade 102 76律政書記職系 Law Clerk Grade 27 26法庭翻譯主任 Law Translation Officer 6 6其他支援人員 Other support staff 216 211總數 Total 486 450

註：上面的組織圖為截至 2015 年 11 月 17 日刑事檢控科的組織架構。自 2015 年 11 月 18 日起，重案檢控小組（原屬分科二）改屬分科三，而裁判法院法律指引（部門檢控）組（原屬分科一第 4 組）改屬分科二，並改稱部門檢控。經調動後，分科二（訟辯）改稱分科二（政策及政務），而分科三（上訴）改稱分科三（訟辯及上訴）。分科一轄下原為第 5 組的公眾秩序活動及電腦網絡罪行組，重新編為分科一第 4 組。

Note: The above organization chart represents the office structure of the Prosecutions Division up to 17 November 2015. With effect from 18 November 2015, the Court Specialists Team (originally under Sub-division II) was transferred to Sub-division III whereas the Magistrates’ Court Advisory (Departmental Prosecutions) Section (originally Section I (4)) was transferred to Sub-division II and renamed as Departmental Prosecutions. After the transfer, Sub-division II (Advocacy) was renamed as Sub-division II (Policy and Administration) while Sub-division III (Appeals) was renamed as Sub-division III (Advocacy & Appeals). The Section on Public Order Events & Cybercrime of Sub-division I was retitled from Section I (5) to Section I (4).

圖例 Legend:

CFA = Court of Final AppealCA = Court of AppealICAC = Independent Commission Against Corruption

osecutions Division Selection BoardPDSB = PrCAPO = Complaints Against Police Office

15

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

服務承諾

本科負責向執法機關提供有關刑事方面的法律

指引，並代表律政司司長行使《基本法》第

六十三條規定的酌情權，以決定是否提出刑事

訴訟。本科並負責在香港各級法院進行一切刑

事案件的主控工作。

本科承諾如下：

• 在刑事訴訟程序方面執行律政司的《檢控 守則》

• 就提出和進行刑事訴訟的決定，周詳考慮所

有有關事宜

• 在接獲執法機關要求提供法律指引時，於 14個工作天內作覆；如案件較為複雜，則於 14個工作天內給予初步回覆，說明估計可於何

時提供指引；如投訴警察課要求提供指引，

於法律程序完成並取得所有資料後的 14 天

內作覆

• 在法院所定的期限內就案件有關事宜提供法

律指引

• 在裁判法院命令將被控人交付審判後七天

內，擬備公訴書並送交原訟法庭

• 在裁判法院命令將案件移交區域法院的日期

後 14 天內，擬備控罪書並交付區域法院司

法常務官

• 在刑事訴訟中，恪守充分而適當地向辯方披

露資料的責任，尤其遵行與香港大律師公會

和香港律師會就送達文件所達成的協議

• 按照《罪行受害者約章》規定，將不提出檢

控的決定通知罪行受害者並處理他們的查詢

• 在接獲關於檢控政策或決定的查詢時，於 14個工作天內作覆；如果未能在這限期內詳盡

作覆，也會給予初步回覆

Performance Pledge

The Division advises law enforcement agencies in relation to criminal matters and exercises on behalf of the Secretary for Justice the discretion of whether or not to bring criminal proceedings, in accordance with Article 63 of the Basic Law. It also has conduct of all criminal cases in the courts of Hong Kong.

Our pledges are:

• Toapply theProsecutionCodeof theDepartmentof Justice inrelation to criminal proceedings

• Togivethoroughconsiderationtoallmattersrelevanttothemakingof decisions in relation to the institution and conduct of criminal proceedings

• Uponthereceiptofarequestfroma lawenforcementagencyforlegal advice, to provide such advice within 14 working days, and in more complex cases to provide an interim reply within 14 working days with an estimated time within which the advice will be provided; for requests from Complaints Against Police Office of the Police, to provide information about court proceedings within 14 days after all materials are available upon completion of those proceedings

• Toprovidelegaladviceinmattersconnectedwithcourtcaseswithinthe time limit set by the courts

• ToprepareandfileindictmentsintheCourtofFirstInstancewithin7days of committal of the accused in the Magistrates’ Court

• ToprepareanddeliverchargesheetstotheRegistraroftheDistrictCourt within 14 days after the date of the order of transfer of the case from the Magistrates’ Court to the District Court

• Torigorouslycomplywithourobligationtomakefullandproperdisclosure of material to the defence in criminal proceedings and in particular to abide by agreements reached with the Hong Kong Bar Association and the Law Society of Hong Kong in respect of the service of documents

• Toinformvictimsofcrimeofthedecisionnottoprosecute,andtoattend to their enquiries, in accordance with The Victims of Crime Charter

• Toreply toenquiriesonmatters relatedtoprosecutionpolicyordecision within 14 working days of receipt of such enquiries, and to issue an interim reply if a substantive reply is not available within this period

刑事檢控專員辦公室Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

刑事檢控專員辦公室 ( 專員辦公室 ) 在 2010 年設立，專責確保刑事檢控科的日常運作

暢順有效。在 2015 年，專員辦公室由人事主管兼副刑事檢控專員黃惠沖資深大律師

領導，直至同年 9 月他獲委任為法律政策專員，副刑事檢控專員許紹鼎資深大律師便

接掌專員辦公室。人事主管轄下有一名高級助理刑事檢控專員擔任副手，何詠光先生

在 2015 年 1 月出任此職位。

Established in 2010, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) is dedicated

to facilitating the effective day-to-day operation of the Prosecutions Division. During the

year 2015, the ODPP was led by the Chief of Staff Mr Wesley Wong, SC, Deputy Director

of Public Prosecutions (DDPP) until September, when Mr Wong, SC was appointed the

Solicitor General. He was succeeded by Mr Martin Hui, SC, DDPP. The Chief of Staff was

assisted by a Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions (SADPP) and Mr Paul Ho

took up the post in January 2015.

17

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

專員辦公室的職責廣泛又涉多方面範疇，涵蓋

本科所有行政、管理及制定政策事宜。在高級

助理刑事檢控專員的督導下，專員辦公室的檢

控官分別擔任五個主要工作範疇的經理，即傳

媒關係、管理、培訓、政策研究和投訴及意見。

專員辦公室高級助理刑事檢控專員也負責督導

本科的法律支援團隊，當中包括六名法律翻譯

主任及 26 名律政書記。他們提供重要的法律支

援服務，協助本科檢控官履行專業職務。

傳媒關係組

傳媒在向公眾發放有關刑事司法制度在運作方

面的資訊，扮演重要角色。傳媒與刑事司法制

度的互動關係，會相當影響公眾對刑事司法制

度的成效和司法是否公開執行的觀感。

刑事檢控科有既定的機制確保能在合適的情況

下向傳媒提供相關的資訊。專員辦公室內負責

傳媒關係職務的同事會適時向傳媒提供完整的

資訊，協助傳媒作出公正和準確的報導。這些

資訊包括在法庭聆訊中已公開的事宜、一些已

確定的未來事態及其他就有關案件的一般公開

資料。為了協助和方便傳媒藉數碼媒體作出準

確的即時報導，本組會迅速向傳媒提供在法庭

聆訊中公開宣讀的控罪及案情摘要等文件。

2015 年，傳媒向我們提出了逾百項有關各類刑

事案件資訊的查詢，包括本司對法庭裁決的回

應、某些敏感刑事案件的調查進度和檢控政策。

傳媒也經常問及本司在一些案件提出的覆核或

上訴決定，以及中止檢控的理由。本組不時提

供數據和統計數字，協助傳媒發表有關刑事司

法制度各方面的特稿，並解釋本司在社會廣泛

關注的重要或具爭議的刑事案件中所作的檢控

決定，以增加司法工作的透明度，同時也確保

刑事司法制度公正運作。

專員辦公室在回應傳媒查詢時，力求能在公眾

的知情權和罪行受害人或證人的私隱權和尊嚴

之間取得平衡。我們採取謹慎的措施，確保本

科人員依據《檢控守則》內的指導原則，向傳

媒提供資料。

管理組

刑事檢控科負責所有香港各級法院的刑事案件

檢控工作。專員辦公室轄下管理組的職責是維

持本科能有效暢順運作，並確保能適時和妥善

處理執法機關和其他政府部門就提供法律指引

或委派律師出庭檢控的各項要求，使本科保持

高水準的服務並貫徹履行服務承諾。

The responsibilities of the ODPP are extensive and multifarious. They cover all administrative and management matters and policy development of the Division. Under the supervision of SADPP of the ODPP, Public Prosecutors work in their capacity as managers across five major areas of work within the ODPP, namely, media relations, management, training, policy research and complaints and feedback.

The SADPP of the ODPP also supervises the Division’s legal support team, comprising 6 Law Translation Officers and 26 Law Clerks. Their legal support service is essential to the professional discharge of the duties of Public Prosecutors within the Division.

Media Relations

Media plays an important role in conveying messages to the community on the operation of the criminal justice system. The interaction between the media and the criminal justice system has a significant impact on the public’s perception of the effectiveness of the system and the delivery of open justice.

The Prosecutions Division is well placed to assist the media by providing the relevant information when appropriate. Colleagues of the ODPP tasked with media relation work provide timely and complete information to assist the press in making fair and accurate reports. Such information includes matters already presented in open court, the settled future course of events and other general open information about a case. To assist and facilitate accurate and contemporaneous reporting by way of digital media, public documents such as the charges and brief facts read in open court are provided in a speedy manner.

In 2015, over 100 media enquiries were made by the press requesting for information about various criminal cases. Enquiries include the Department’s response to Courts’ decisions, progress of sensitive criminal investigations and prosecution policy. Questions are often asked about the decisions to review or appeal and reasons for discontinuation of prosecution. From time to time, figures and statistics are provided to assist the publications of feature articles on different aspects of the criminal justice system. Prosecutorial decisions made in significant or controversial criminal cases attracting widespread public concern are explained to enhance transparency of the administration of justice, whilst preserving the integrity of the criminal justice system at the same time.

In giving a response to enquiries made by the media, ODPP strives to balance the public’s right to knowledge and information against the right to privacy and the dignity of the victims or witnesses of crimes. Steps are carefully taken to ensure information and materials are provided to the press in accordance with the guiding principles set out in the Prosecution Code.

Management

The Prosecutions Division has conduct of all criminal cases in the Courts of Hong Kong. The Management Unit of the ODPP has the duty of maintaining the efficient and smooth functioning of the Division and seeing to that every request from law enforcement agencies or other

18

此外，管理組在調配工作給律師時，既要善用

資源，同時也要顧及個別律師在汲取經驗和培

訓方面的需要。

在運作方面，管理組律師負責審閱和評估所有

本科接收的個案，把每宗法庭案件分派給合適

的科內律師或外判律師，或把要求法律指引的

個案轉交相關組別處理。在 2015 年，分派給

科內律師處理的法庭聆訊案件超過 3,600 宗。

管理組的工作目標是因應案件的複雜程度，按

照律師的資歷、專業經驗和事業發展需要分派 案件。

無論是分派給律師出庭檢控的法庭聆訊案件，

或是轉交要求法律指引的個案，當中很多案件

都涉及相當緊迫的聆訊日期或必須提出檢控的

時限。管理組經理負責監督機制及本組人員的

運作，以確保案件檔案的流程和在個別案件所

加入通報機制均有效運作，令律師能妥善執行

職務。

在科內人手緊張或本科律師在處理某宗案件有

涉及利益衝突，又或基於某些個案的性質或複

雜程度而有需要時，本組會把一些案件外判予

私人執業的大律師或事務律師處理。本組會不

斷檢討和監察外判案件的機制和外判律師的表

現，以貫徹律政司致力確保刑事檢控必須具高

專業水平的目標。

管理組也負責處理訟費事宜。專員辦公室的律

師負責有關控方所提出和辯方向控方提出的訟

費申索，以及出席訟費評定的法庭聆訊 ( 包括覆

核及有關上訴程序 )。在 2015 年 1 月至 12 月

期間，由專員辦公室處理的待決訟費個案約有

420 宗。

培訓組

培訓組經理是高級檢控官金玉女士，她專責安

排刑事檢控科及其他有檢控職能的執法機關的

法律培訓。

一如以往，我們在 2015 年為新入職的檢控官和

見習律政人員舉辦了兩班刑事訟辯課程。課程

分為三部分︰首先，學員出席為期三星期的課

堂講座，內容集中講解刑事法律及程序的一些

重要議題，期間學員會到中區警署和政府化驗

所參觀，以加深他們對調查過程的認識。隨後

他們參與兩星期的模擬法庭實習訓練，在模擬

審訊中扮演控辯雙方律師、被告和證人等不同

角色。最後，學員獲派駐各裁判法院檢控刑事

案件，為期七星期，其中的首兩星期由我們的

資深檢控官從旁督導。

至於執法部門的檢控人員，我們在 2015 年 11月舉辦了為期 14 天的檢控人員培訓課程，有

government departments for legal advice or the provision of counsel to prosecute is timely and properly attended to, so that the Division can maintain its high standard of work and meet its performance pledges consistently.

In addition, the Management Unit must deploy counsel to the maximization of resource effectiveness and, at the same time, for the benefit of counsel in terms of exposure and training needs.

On the operation level, the Management Unit peruses and assesses incoming cases and assigns court cases to appropriate in-house or fiat counsel, or refers requests for legal advice to the sections concerned. In 2015, over 3,600 Court cases were assigned to in-house counsel. It has been the mission of the Management Unit to accord the complexity of the cases with the seniority, exposure and career development needs of the counsel assigned.

Whether it is the assignment of Court cases or referral of requests for legal advice, many cases carried with them imminent Court dates and time bars for commencement of proceedings. The Unit Manager monitors and supervises the system and the personnel to ensure that the file movement system and the notification mechanism function properly so as to facilitate counsel’s work.

When manpower in the Division is strained or when there is a conflict of interest or when the nature or complexity of a case so warrants, cases are briefed out to barristers or solicitors in private practice. The briefing out system and the performance of lawyers on fiat are kept under constant review and scrutiny. This is to give effect to the Department’s commitment in ensuring that the public prosecution service is provided at a high level of professional competency.

The Management Unit also handles costs matter. Counsel in ODPP are responsible for assessing claims for costs by and against the Prosecution and attending taxation hearings (including reviews and related appellate proceedings). Between January and December 2015, there were around 420 active costs cases handled by the ODPP.

Training

As Training Manager, Ms Teresa Kam, Senior Public Prosecutor took charge of the provision of legal training for the Prosecutions Division and other law enforcement agencies that carried out prosecution work.

As in previous years, 2 rounds of Criminal Advocacy Course were arranged for the newly recruited Public Prosecutors and Legal Trainees in 2015. The course was divided into 3 parts. Firstly, the participants attended a 3-week lecture which focused on the important topics of criminal law and procedures. During the period, they also visited the Central Police Station and the Government Laboratory to gain better understanding of the investigation process. Secondly, they had 2 weeks of mock court exercises where they conducted mock trials in the roles of a prosecuting and defence counsel, defendant and witness. Finally, they were attached to various Magistrates’ Courts to prosecute criminal cases for 7 weeks, the first 2 weeks of which were supervised by our experienced counsel.

刑事

檢控

專員

辦公

室O

ffice

of

the

Dire

ctor

of

Publ

ic P

rose

cutio

ns

19

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

40 名來自 21 個政府執法部門的人員參加。課

程包括七天的法律專題講座、六天模擬法庭實

習訓練，以及一天法庭旁聽聆訊。

刑事檢控科保持與法律界緊密連繫和交流，在

2015 年 3 月及 9 月我們與香港大律師公會和香

港律師會繼續攜手合作，為年資較淺的律師安

排聯合培訓課程。這課程是在 2011 年 2 月首

次舉辦，其後每半年一次，目的是為執業少於

五年的律師提供培訓。課程包括一日專題講座

暨工作坊，隨後兩星期在裁判法院實習，並有

定額酬金。在 2015 年的課程中，刑事檢控專員 楊家雄資深大律師 ( 本科代表 )、余承章資深大

律師和謝華淵資深大律師 ( 香港大律師公會代

表 )，以及黎得基先生 ( 香港律師會代表 ) 在上

午時段為參加者主持講座，而本科較資深的首

長級人員則在下午時段主持模擬法庭訓練工作

坊。課程非常成功，深受一眾新晉律師歡迎。

本科也舉辦了全新系列的研討會和交流會，作

為“持續法律進修課程”的一部分，讓我們的

律師了解法律程序和專題法律的最新發展，增

進法律知識並提升檢控技巧。在 2015 年多個星

期五晚上，我們舉辦了一系列研討會，由本科

資深律師分享他們在其專業範疇的實務知識，

而來自不同執法機關的專家及非政府機構人員，

也應邀與我們的律師分享他們所屬專業領域的

工作和經驗。

2015 年，我們亦舉辦了四次交流會，負責處理

重要案件的資深律師在會上就案件所涉的法律

議題和對法律發展的影響分享心得。他們講解

這些重要案件所涉的法律論點和相關事實，此

等第一手資料令同事獲益良多。此外，分享會

有助同事理解案件的複雜細節和相關法律論點

的重要性，比他們自行閱讀案件判詞更為有效。

此外，我們在 2015 年辦了新一系列的內部訟

辯培訓課程。我們的課程採用澳洲御用大律師

George Hampel教授設計的有系統訟辯訓練法。

英國在 1994 年從澳洲引入該套訓練法培訓大律

For the Departmental Prosecutors, a 14-day Departmental Prosecutors Training Course was held and attended by 40 participants from 21 government departments in November 2015. The course comprised 7 days of lectures on various legal topics, 6 days of mock court exercise and 1 day of court visit.

To continue cross fertilization within the private legal profession, the Joint Training Programme for young lawyers jointly organized by the Division, the Hong Kong Bar Association and the Law Society of Hong Kong was arranged in March and September 2015. The Programme was first introduced in February 2011 and since then has been held biannually, with the aim to provide training to lawyers with less than 5 years’ experience. It comprises a 1-day lecture-cum-workshops, followed by a 2-week attachment to the Magistrates’ Courts, for which a fixed remuneration is paid. For the Programme in 2015, Mr Keith Yeung, SC, Director of Public Prosecutions for the Division, Mr Selwyn Yu, SC and Mr Joseph Tse, SC, for the Hong Kong Bar Association and Mr Christopher Knight for the Law Society of Hong Kong gave lectures to the participants during the morning session, while experienced Directorate Officers from the Division chaired the workshops in the form of mock court exercise in the afternoon session. The Programme has been a great success and is popular among young lawyers.

As part of the Division’s Continuing Legal Education Programme, a new series of seminars and sharing sessions were held to keep our counsel abreast of the latest developments in procedural and substantive law and to enrich their legal knowledge as well as sharpen their prosecutorial skills. A series of seminars were conducted on Friday evenings in 2015. Experienced counsel of the Division shared their practical knowledge in their respective area of expertise. Experts from various law enforcement agencies and officers from non-governmental organizations were also invited to share their works and experience in their areas of expertise.

4 sharing sessions were also held in 2015 during which experienced counsel who handled significant cases shared their insights in the legal issues involved in the cases and the implications to the development of the law. Our colleagues benefited tremendously from the first-hand knowledge of those experienced counsel on the legal arguments and the relevant facts involved in those significant cases. The sharing sessions also helped our colleagues understand the intricacies and significance of the cases beyond what colleagues could learn from reading the judgments themselves.

In addition, a new series of In-House Advocacy Training was introduced in 2015. The Training adopts a structured advocacy training method devised by Professor George Hampel, QC of the Australian Bar. The method was imported from Australia to the English Bar in 1994. It has also been used by the British Advocacy Training Council and the Hong Kong Advocacy Training Council. The first session was held on a Saturday morning on 28 November 2015, modelling after the training provided to advocates by the Hong Kong Advocacy Training Council. They were mock court exercises adopting the modified Hampel method pitching at a level commensurate with that of our junior Public Prosecutors. 4 directorate officers with vast experience were appointed as our in-house trainers. A total of 22 Public Prosecutors participated in the training. They were divided into 4 groups and were required to perform examination-

20

師後，英國訟辯培訓學會和香港訟辯培訓學會

也採用該套訓練法。首節課堂於 2015 年 11 月

28 日星期六早上舉行，以香港訟辯培訓學會的

訟辯律師訓練課程為藍本。當中的模擬法庭訓

練採用經修訂的 Hampel 訓練法，程度相當於本

科年資較淺檢控官的水平。四名經驗豐富的首

長級人員獲委任為培訓導師，共 22 名檢控官參

加了這課程。他們分為四組，各人須於其中一

名導師面前進行主問及盤問練習，然後由導師

品評他們的盤問技巧。學員認為課程實用有效，

令他們獲益良多。

政策研究組

2015 年，政策研究組經理高級檢控官何眉語女

士就着多項現行法例的修訂，從控方的角度向

政府各決策局及部門提供法律指引。這些法例

包括《旅館業條例》( 第 349 章 )、《僱傭條例》

( 第 57 章 )、《空氣污染管制 ( 遠洋船隻 )( 停泊

期間所用燃料 ) 規例》( 第 311AA 章 ) 及《商船 ( 防止污水污染 ) 規例》( 第 413K 章 )。

此外，本組也在多個法律條例草案的不同草擬

階段，適時提供法律意見。這些條例草案包括

《電子健康紀錄互通系統條例草案》、《促進

循環再造及妥善處置 ( 電氣設備及電子設備 )( 修

訂 ) 條例草案》、《定額罰款 ( 公眾地方潔淨罪行 )( 修訂 ) 條例草案》、《僱傭 ( 修訂 ) 條例草案》、

《啟德郵輪碼頭條例草案》及《人類生殖科技 ( 修訂 ) 條例草案》。

何女士從有關條例立法建議的最初構思、公眾

諮詢、編訂草擬指示和草擬的條文，以至在憲

報刊登條例草案、立法會三讀程序和委員會審

議的每個階段，她都參與提供法律指引。涉及

的事項通常包括擬增罪行和證據條文的舉證責

任及舉證標準、條文的合憲性、法律效力和執

法問題。

何女士不時就立法會 ( 事務委員會╱其下的小組

委員會 ) 會議期間對擬訂的法例、執法政策及常

規提出的查詢，為當局提供意見。這些查詢包

括與《電視直播聯繫 ( 在香港以外的證人 ) 規則》

和《高等法院規則 ( 修訂 ) 規則》有關的事宜。

何女士也向多個政府部門提供法律意見，所涉

事項包括：(i) 出現具爭議性的議題時，對現行

法例的解釋；(ii) 針對罪行數目不斷上升或犯罪

模式轉變而擬訂新的或修訂執法政策、常規及

指引；(iii) 執法機關注意到或公眾作出投訴的一

些不尋常現象或新弊端的刑責問題；以及 (iv) 一

般性的舉證問題。

政府各決策局及跨部門組成的工作小組或委員

會，經常邀請何女士就罪案的最新發展趨勢及

現行法例的修訂建議提供意見，例如何女士會

in-chief and cross-examination in front of one of the trainers. The trainers then commented on their questioning skills. The participants found the advocacy training useful and practical.

Policy Research

In 2015, Ms Ho May Yu, Lily, Senior Public Prosecutor, the Policy Manager, advised government bureaux and departments of the Prosecution’s perspective on amendments to existing legislation including the Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation Ordinance (Cap. 349), the Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57), the Air Pollution Control (Ocean Going Vessels)(Fuel at Berth) Regulation (Cap. 311AA) and the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Sewage) Regulation (Cap. 413K).

Timely inputs were also made during various stages of a number of bills including the Electronic Health Record Sharing System Bill, the Promotion of Recycling and Proper Disposal (Electrical Equipment and Electronic Equipment)(Amendment) Bill, the Fixed Penalty (Public Cleanliness Offences)(Amendment) Bill, the Employment (Amendment) Bill, the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal Bill and the Human Reproductive Technology (Amendment) Bill.

Ms Ho’s contribution starts from the conception of the legislative proposals to public consultations and the compilation of drafting instructions and drafted provisions, and from the gazetting of the bills to the Legislative Council reading and committee stages. Typical issues raised were the burden and standard of proof, constitutionality, legal effect and enforcement problems of proposed offences and evidential provisions.

From time to time, Ms Ho’s comments are sought on queries raised at Legislative Council (panel/subcommittee) meetings on proposed legislation or enforcement policy and practice. Queries dealt with included matters in relation to the Live Television Link (Witnesses outside Hong Kong) Rules and the Rules of the High Court (Amendment) Rules.

Ms Ho also gives advice to various government departments on (i) the interpretation of current legislation when controversial issues are raised; (ii) new or revised enforcement policies, practice and guidelines formulated to tackle rising offences or mutated modes of committing offences; (iii) the criminality of unusual phenomena or new mischief noted by the law enforcement agencies or complained of by the public; and (iv) general evidentiary issues.

Frequently, working groups or committees comprising of government bureaux and departments invite Ms Ho’s views on current trends of crime and proposed changes to the existing law. For example, Ms Ho regularly attends meetings of the Standing Committee on Young Offenders and the Working Group on Combating Domestic Violence to offer her views as the Policy Manager.

Ms Ho’s responsibility also includes vetting and approving costs assessments for cases when there was a costs order against the Prosecution. Ms Ho made referrals to the relevant law enforcement agencies for criminal investigations if suspected offences were disclosed during court proceedings.

刑事

檢控

專員

辦公

室O

ffice

of

the

Dire

ctor

of

Publ

ic P

rose

cutio

ns

21

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

定期出席青少年罪犯問題常務委員會和關注家

庭暴力工作小組的會議，以政策經理的身份提

供意見。

何女士也負責審批就控方被命令支付訟費的案

件作出的訟費評核。此外，如審訊期間披露了

某些懷疑罪行，她會把案件轉介相關的執法機

關進行刑事調查。

對於改善保護證人的措施，何女士也不遺餘力。

她一直與相關的執法機關、非政府機構和司法

機構緊密合作，就在法庭耹訊中作供時為性罪

行案件受害人提供保護屏障和閉路電視聯繫的

建議，提供意見。

投訴及意見組

投訴及意見組在 2010 年成立，主要負責處理公

眾對刑事檢控科的投訴、意見、查詢和評語。

2015 年，在專員辦公室高級助理刑事檢控專員

的督導下，高級檢控官潘藹蓮女士出任本組經

理，直至同年 11 月由檢控官羅永健先生接任。

“公義必須執行，更要彰顯人前”，這句格言

耳熟能詳。本司檢控人員身為秉行公義者，自

當盡力與公眾保持接觸，在維護社會公義的原

則下盡量提高工作透明度。傳媒關係組主力負

責協助傳媒，本組則專責回應罪行受害者、他

們的家人和朋友、( 如情況合適下 ) 刑事案件的

被告、非政府組織，以及對傳媒關注的某些案

件希望發表其意見的市民。

當公眾對我們某方面的工作表達關注或作出投

訴，我們必須認真看待這些投訴，按照《檢控

守則》和既定程序，以公正無私的態度獨立地

處理。同樣重要的是，我們也要向公眾保證會

聆聽和審慎考慮他們的意見。本組負責調查投

訴，並以適當的行動跟進針對個別案件表達的

關注。當中除了回應有關投訴，也採取其他的

跟進行動，例如在可行範圍內提供有關案件檢

控的資料、獨立覆核在個別案件作出的不檢控

決定、評估覆核判刑或上訴的勝訴機會，以及

檢討在檢控個別案件的聆訊。我們相信願意聆

聽和樂意回應，可以增進刑事檢控科與公眾的

溝通，加強公眾對我們的工作和刑事司法制度

的信心。我們的工作恰似一個窗口，讓公眾能

看見刑事檢控科奉行最高的專業標準，獨立行

事，不受任何干涉。

2015 年，投訴及意見組處理的投訴及查詢共

536 宗，其中 535 宗本組以書面回覆投訴人，

餘下一宗則以口頭回覆。

投訴組經理也負責向投訴警察課就指控警務人

員行為不當提供法律意見。2015 年，投訴組處

理了六宗有關個案。

Ms Ho was also involved in the enhancement of witness protection facilities. She had been working closely with the relevant law enforcement agencies, non-governmental organizations and the Judiciary on proposals to provide protective screens and closed-circuit television link for complainants in sexual offence cases when giving evidence in court proceedings.

Complaints and Feedback

Established in 2010, the Complaints and Feedback Unit is mainly responsible for dealing with complaints, feedback, enquiries and comments received from the general public concerning the Prosecutions Division. During the year 2015, under the supervision of SADPP/ODPP, Ms Irene Poon, Senior Public Prosecutor, was its manager until November 2015, when she was succeeded by Mr Paddy Law, Public Prosecutor.

As the oft-quoted aphorism goes, “not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done”. As ministers of justice, public prosecutors are committed to active engagement with the public and as much transparency as is consistent with the interests of public justice. Whilst the Media Relations team focuses on assisting the media, the Complaints and Feedback Unit is dedicated to responding to victims of crime, their families and friends, (where appropriate) defendants of criminal cases, non-governmental organizations as well as members of the general public who want to express their views and opinions on certain media-sensitive cases.

When the public expresses concerns or complains about certain aspects of our work, it is important that such complaints are taken seriously and handled in a fair, impartial and independent manner in accordance with the Prosecution Code and established procedures. Further, it is equally vital to ensure the public that their representations to us are heard and duly considered. The Complaints and Feedback Unit investigates complaints and takes appropriate follow-up actions in a case-sensitive manner in order to address the concerns raised in individual cases. Apart from responding to complaints, other follow-up actions may include, for instance, providing information concerning the prosecutorial process so far as practicable, conducting an independent review of the decision not to prosecute in a particular case, assessing merits for review of sentence or appeal and reviewing the conduct of prosecution proceedings. We believe our willingness to listen and readiness to respond will improve communication between the Division and the general public and boost public confidence in our work and the administration of criminal justice. Through this window, the public will see that the Division adheres to the highest standards of professionalism and that we act independently, free from any interference.

During the year 2015, the Complaints and Feedback Unit handled a total of 536 cases of complaints and enquiries. Out of these cases, 535 written replies and one oral reply were given to the complainants.

The Complaints Manager is also responsible for advising the Complaints Against Police Office on alleged cases of police misconduct. In 2015, the Complaints Registry handled 6 such cases.

22

犯罪得益組Proceeds of Crime Section

犯罪得益

香港作為一個重要國際金融中心，一直奉行自

由經濟，有穩健完善的金融和法律架構讓資金

快速順暢流轉。當然，讓大量環球營商資金流

入香港是我們的優勢，但同時也令我們的經濟

面對重大考驗，尤其是洗錢的問題。

剝奪罪犯的非法得益，能有效遏止犯罪活動。

這措施不但有阻嚇作用，也可以防止罪犯進一

步從事犯罪活動。

2015年 1月至 11月，本組由助理刑事檢控專員高寶翠女士掌管，首八個月由副刑事檢控專

員黃惠沖資深大律師監督，餘下數月則由副刑

事檢控專員許紹鼎資深大律師監督。組內其他

三名成員是高級檢控官陳鳳珊女士、陳冰華女

士和劉理蘭女士。陳鳳珊女士其後於 12月接替高女士負責掌管本組。

2015年，本組律師採取主動措施執行本港打擊洗錢的法律。本組取得 28項限制令，凍結了約值港幣 3.55億元的可變現財產，當中包括物業、證券及銀行結餘。同時法院也作出了共 23項沒收令，命令沒收罪犯的非法得益歸香港特區政

府所有，款額約達港幣 1.387億元，而經變現並撥入政府一般收入帳目的款額共達港幣 5,500萬元。這顯示本組律師堅決執行打擊洗錢法律

及嚴厲對付在區內轉移黑錢。

除申請限制令及沒收令外，本組人員在有需要

時會處理更改及撤銷限制令的申請和有關訴訟，

以及在上訴法庭處理上訴。

此外，本組就管理被限制資產，與財產接管人

保持緊密的夥伴關係，在執行有關措施時與本

港及海外的執法機關合作無間。

Proceeds of Crime

Hong Kong, as a major international financial centre, has a free economy which allows smooth and speedy transfer of funds within a safe and comprehensive financial and legal framework. Whilst this serves as an asset, allowing tremendous flow of business capital into Hong Kong from worldwide, at the same time it exposes our economy to great challenges, not least those posed by problems of money laundering.

Stripping criminals of their illicit gains is an effective way to curb criminal activities. By doing so, not only can it deter others from committing similar crimes, it also prevents criminals from engaging further in criminal activities.

From January to November 2015, the Section was headed by Ms Catherine Ko, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, supervised by Mr Wesley Wong, SC, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DDPP) for the first 8 months and the remaining months by Mr Martin Hui, SC, DDPP. The three other members of the Section were Senior Public Prosecutors, Ms Denise Chan, Ms Eva Chan and Ms Margaret Lau. Ms Denise Chan subsequently succeeded Ms Ko in December in heading the Section.

2015 saw counsel of the Section taking proactive action in enforcing the anti-money laundering laws in Hong Kong. The Section obtained 28 restraint orders and successfully froze approximately HK$355 million worth of realizable properties, including, amongst others, landed properties, securities and account balances in banks. A total of 23 confiscation orders amounting to approximately HK$138.7 million of illicit proceeds were ordered by the Court to be confiscated from criminals to the HKSAR Government and a total of HK$55 million has been duly realized and paid into the General Revenue. This demonstrated the determination of our counsel in enforcing anti-money laundering laws and detesting the transfer of tainted money in the region.

Apart from seeking restraint orders and confiscation orders, members of the Section dealt with and contested, if necessary, variation and discharge applications of the restraint orders. They also attended appeals in the Court of Appeal. 刑

事檢控專員辦公室

Offi

ce o

f th

e D

irect

or o

f Pu

blic

Pro

secu

tions

23

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

香港有完善的法律打擊洗錢及恐怖分子資金籌

集活動，防止犯罪得益耗散。當中包括《販毒

( 追討得益 ) 條例》( 第 405 章 ) 及《有組織及嚴

重罪行條例》( 第 455 章 )，兩者同樣賦予法庭

權力限制和沒收來自眾多不同可公訴罪行 (《有

組織及嚴重罪行條例》訂明，包括大部分可由

區域法院或高等法院審訊的嚴重罪行 ) 的非法得

益；旨在對付恐怖分子財產的《聯合國 ( 反恐怖

主義措施 ) 條例》( 第 575 章 )；以及把金融機

構違反就客戶盡職審查的規定列為刑事罪行的

《打擊洗錢及恐怖分子資金籌集 ( 金融機構 ) 條

例》( 第 615 章 )。

此外，本組與律政司國際法律科司法互助組緊

密合作，處理國際間根據外地調查提出限制和

沒收犯罪得益的請求。本組人員與香港警務處

及香港海關人員組成的聯合財富情報組也是合

作夥伴。

本組人員與本港執法機關積極合作之餘，與海

外檢控人員也保持緊密連繫，聯手打擊世界各

地的洗錢活動。香港是打擊清洗黑錢財務行動

特別組織 (FATF) 和亞洲／太平洋反洗黑錢組織

(APG) 的活躍成員。FATF 是一個卓越的跨政府

組織，專責研究和建議措施打擊洗錢及恐怖分

子籌資活動，而 APG 則是區域組織。

2015 年初，身為合資格 FATF ／ APG 評估人員

的陳鳳珊女士參與 2014 至 2015 年度瓦努阿圖

相互評核工作。此外，陳女士出席在新西蘭奧

克蘭舉行的亞洲／太平洋反洗黑錢組織第十八

屆周年大會暨技術援助及培訓周年論壇，並聯

同刑事檢控專員楊家雄資深大律師和副刑事檢

控專員許紹鼎資深大律師，到中國廣西南寧市

出席第九屆中國—東盟成員國總檢察長會議。

2015 年 6 月，高寶翠女士出席在澳洲布里斯本

舉行的 FATF 全體及工作小組會議。

陳冰華女士也在 2015 年 1 月出席在泰國曼谷舉

行的追討野生生物及木材罪行得益工作坊。

年內，本組人員為協助本港及海外執法機關和

其他對打擊洗錢有興趣的機構，主持了多個講

座和工作坊，主題包括洗錢及追討資產法律，

以及就檢控洗錢罪行的調查技巧。

Furthermore, the Section is in close partnership with receivers in managing the restrained assets, as well as in close co-operation with both local and overseas law enforcement agencies in enforcing the regime.

Hong Kong has comprehensive laws to combat money laundering and terrorist financing and to prevent dissipation of proceeds of crime. They include the Drug Trafficking (Recovery of Proceeds) Ordinance (Cap. 405) and the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (OSCO) (Cap. 455), both empower the Courts to restrain and confiscate illicit proceeds emanating from a wide range of indictable offences (as defined in OSCO, which include the majority of serious offences triable in the District Court or above); the United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Ordinance (Cap. 575) which targets terrorist property; and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing (Financial Institutions) Ordinance (Cap. 615) which criminalizes the non-compliance with customer due diligence requirements by financial institutions.

The Section also works very closely with the Mutual Legal Assistance Unit of the International Law Division of the Department, in order to deal with international requests for restraint and confiscation of proceeds of crime based upon foreign investigations. In addition, members also work in partnership with the Joint Financial Intelligence Unit, jointly run by staff of the Hong Kong Police Force and the Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department.

Not only do members of the Section actively co-operate with our local law enforcement agencies, we are also in close liaison with our overseas counterparts in our joint efforts against money laundering worldwide. Hong Kong is an active member of both the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) and the Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering (APG). FATF is a pre-eminent inter-governmental body with the responsibility of examining and recommending anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing measures, whereas APG is a regional body.

In early 2015, Ms Denise Chan, a qualified FATF / APG assessor, performed the mutual evaluation of Vanuatu 2014 to 2015. In addition, Ms Chan attended the 18th Annual Meeting of the Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering & Annual Forum on Technical Assistance and Training held in Auckland, New Zealand, as well as the 9th China-ASEAN Prosecutors General Conference at Nanning city, Guangxi, China with Mr Keith Yeung, SC, DPP and Mr Martin Hui, SC, DDPP.

In June 2015, Ms Catherine Ko attended the FATF Plenary and Working Group Meeting held at Brisbane, Australia.

Similarly, in January 2015, Ms Eva Chan attended the Workshop on Recovering the Proceeds of Crime from Wildlife and Timber Crime held in Bangkok, Thailand.

Throughout the year, members of the Section conducted lectures and workshops to assist local and overseas law enforcement agents and other interested parties. Topics of the lectures and workshops given included money laundering and asset recovery laws and investigation techniques in the prosecution of money laundering offences.

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。本科律師是否就案件提出檢控，是根據《檢控守則》

決定，即首先判斷現有的證據能否支持有合理機會達致定罪，如果有的話則考慮檢控

是否符合公眾利益。本科律師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. Counsel decide

whether or not to prosecute in accordance with 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. Counsel also advise on the appropriate

charges to be laid as well as the proper venue of trial.

25

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

分科一設有五組，各組有特定的工作範疇。下

文闡述有關的工作範疇及 2015 年內經本分科處

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

本組由高級助理刑事檢控專員鮑偉華先生掌管，

職責是就所有由高等法院原訟法庭審理的案件

( 商業罪案除外 )，向執法機關提供法律指引。

這包括法律上只容許在原訟法庭審理的案件 ( 例

如殺人及強姦案 )，以及經考慮《檢控守則》 內載的準則後決定交付原訟法庭審理的案件。

本組向執法機關提供準確及適時的法律指引。

尋求法律指引的案件檔案會分配給本組律師，

負責案件的律師會就證據是否充分及控罪是否

適當提供法律指引。接着，律師會處理法律程

序事宜，以確保案件可適時交付原訟法庭審理

或判刑。我們的律師也會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，以加強控

方的證據。

本組律師在案件提供法律指引並不止於決定落

案起訴受疑人。提供法律指引後，律師也負

責處理案件交付原訟法庭審判的整個程序。在

2015 年，交付審判程序也一如以往，幾乎全部

以書面進行。初級偵訊仍屬罕有，本組成員在

2015 年只處理了四宗初級偵訊。如被告在交付

審判時承認控罪，案件會交付原訟法庭判刑，

負責給予法律指引的律師會出席判刑聆訊，從

而由提供法律指引至被告被定罪和判刑的整個

程序都參與其中。

如被告在交付審判時否認控罪，負責案件的律

師會隨之擬備公訴書，送交法庭存檔。擬備公

訴書是負責案件的律師最重要職能之一。他必

須慎重考慮最終提交陪審團的公訴書應列出那

些控罪。

在法庭存檔公訴書後，如果被告在我們把案件

委託給在審訊出庭檢控的律師之前表示認罪，

本組負責案件的律師亦會親自處理和出席判刑

聆訊。

為了使處理不認罪案件能貫徹一致，本組負責

律師會與負責在法庭審訊時檢控的律師一同出

席審前覆核聆訊，在有需要時提供協助。這種

檢控人員之間的合作已實行數年，一直行之有

效。

本組負責案件的律師也處理向辯方披露案件資

料的事宜和在有需要時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，本組成

員也處理大量在原訟法庭席前審理的保釋聆訊。

Sub-division I comprises five sections, each handling its specific area. A description of those areas and a highlight of some notable cases handled by the Sub-division during 2015 are set out below.

Section I(1) Court of First Instance Advisory

This Section, headed by Mr Peter Power, Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, gives advice to law enforcement agencies on all matters that are dealt with in the Court of First Instance, except commercial crime. These include cases such as homicide and rape which can only be lawfully tried in that jurisdiction and cases that are recommended to be tried in that jurisdiction after consideration of the criteria that are now set out in the Prosecution Code.

The Section provides accurate and timely legal advice to law enforcement agencies. Files submitted for advice are allocated to counsel who then advise on the sufficiency of evidence and the appropriate charges. Counsel 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. Counsel also work closely with the law enforcement agencies to decide whether, and if so, what further enquiries or evidence is needed to strengthen the prosecution case.

The role of advising counsel does not end with the decision to charge a suspect. After giving advice, counsel are responsible for seeing the case through the committal proceedings. In 2015, these were again almost exclusively “paper committals”. Preliminary Inquiries are still a rare feature, and in 2015, section members handled only 4 such Inquiries. Where a case has been committed for sentence after a guilty plea at committal, advising counsel attend the sentencing hearing in the Court of First Instance, thus taking the case through from advice to conviction and sentence.

Where a defendant pleads not guilty at committal, advising counsel then deals with the subsequent preparation and filing of the indictment. Preparation of the indictment is one of the most important functions of advising counsel, and it is crucial that careful thought is given to what counts should be included and ultimately presented to the Jury.

Where, subsequent to the filing of indictment and prior to the case being briefed to trial counsel, a defendant indicates a plea of guilty, advising counsel will also deal with and attend the sentencing hearing.

To maintain continuity in those cases where a not guilty plea has been maintained, advising counsel attend pre-trial reviews with trial counsel giving their input whenever needed. This prosecution partnership has worked well since its introduction some years ago.

Advising counsel also deal with issues of disclosure and when necessary the filing of additional evidence. In addition to their advisory and preparation work, members of the Section also deal with a large number of bail hearings in the Court of First Instance.

In addition, all matters that are to be the subject of an Inquest are screened to ensure that there is no evidence of criminality relating to the

26

此外，本組會審查所有與死因研訊有關的事宜，

以確保死因沒有涉及刑事行為而需要作進一步

調查。死因研訊數目頗多，相關的審查工作費

時，但卻是必需的。本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條轉介的事宜。

處理涉及受嚴重性侵犯的受害人 ( 涉及成人及易

受傷害受害人 ) 的案件和其他涉及易受傷害的證

人的案件，繼續是我們極具挑戰的工作。負責

律師會小心體諒受害人被侵犯後至完成作供期

間一直承受的創傷。我們致力以關懷和尊重的

態度對待受害人及證人，並在有需要時向法庭

作出適當的申請，讓他們可在沒有威嚇性的環

境下作供。

我們會向法庭申請採取相關的措施，讓這些受

害人及證人可以在最理想的條件下作證。這個

做法在某些司法管轄區稱為“獲取最佳證據”。

如案件涉及易受傷害證人，我們可引用法例處

理，但對於其他受害人及證人，則須就個別案

件根據普通法賦予法庭權力規管案件處理。在

要求採取的措施中，如若受害人或證人在出庭

作供時因要提供一些非常私隱的個人資料而令

他們感到尷尬，那麼最好的措施也許就是以屏

障把他們與公眾 ( 但並非被告或其律師 ) 分隔開。

當然，這類申請經常受到質疑，而在香港特別

行政區 訴 Shamsul Hoque ( 高院刑事案件 2013年第 379 號 ) 一案中，薛偉成法官就香港及其

他普通法司法管轄區在提供該等措施方面的法

理觀點作出詳盡裁決。這裁決大大釐清了法院

在什麼情況下會批准及應該批准有關申請。

death that would require further investigation. Given the number of inquests, this is a time consuming but necessary exercise. The Section also deals with referrals by the Coroner pursuant to section 35 of the Coroner’s Ordinance (Cap. 504).

Cases involving victims of serious sexual abuse (involving both adult and vulnerable victims) and other cases involving vulnerable witnesses continue to be a challenging area. Counsel are careful to recognize the continuing trauma suffered by these victims from the time of their abuse to the conclusion of their testimony. Every effort is made to treat these victims and witnesses with care and respect, and where necessary, the appropriate applications are made to the Court to enable them to give their evidence in a non-intimidating environment.

Applications are made to the Court for measures designed to enhance the ability of these victims and witnesses to give their evidence in the best possible circumstances. In some jurisdictions, this is known as “achieving best evidence“. Where vulnerable witnesses are involved, there are statutory provisions that can be utilized but other victims and witnesses have to rely on the rulings made in individual cases based on the Court’s common law powers to regulate their own proceedings. Amongst the measures sought perhaps the most beneficial to a victim or a witness who has to give sometimes very embarrassing details of an intimate personal nature is that of a screen to shield them from the public, but not the defendant or his or her counsel, present in court whilst the evidence is given. Of course such applications are regularly challenged and in one such case, HKSAR v Shamsul Hoque HCCC 379/2013, the Honourable Mr Justice Zervos gave a detailed ruling, dealing with the jurisprudence from both Hong Kong and other common law jurisdictions, in relation to the provision of such measures, that has gone a long way to clarify the circumstances in which such applications will and should be granted.

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

分科

一 法

律指

引Su

b-di

visi

on I

Adv

isor

y

27

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

向辯方披露案件資料，從來是負責律師在籌備

案件審訊時首要考慮的問題。相關的指導原則

載於上議院在 R v H [2004] 2 AC 134 一案的裁

決，以及終審法院在香港特別行政區 訴 李明

治 (2003) 6 HKCFAR 336 一案的裁決。負責律

師在處理每宗案件時都會緊記這些原則。

律師最常要處理的披露案件資料問題，就是與

線人有關的問題，這類由來性質敏感的問題有

時相當棘手。上訴法庭在香港特別行政區 訴 Agara Isaiah Bishop [2014] 2 HKLRD 648 這 重

要案件中處理了這問題，就審理過程中就控方

在極有限的情況下須披露與案相關的線人身分

作出裁定。一如法庭所料，在此案裁決後，辯

方要求披露線人身分的案件有所增加。原訟法

庭以 Bishop 案所訂的原則為指引，全部拒絕這

類申請，這類申請現時已經減少。

另一個屢見不鮮的問題，就是被告在被定罪前

後但於判刑前向當局提供協助的問題。這問題

同樣必須非常審慎處理。法院在 R v Sivan and Others [1988] 87 Cr App R 407 及香港特別行

政 區 訴 Tse Ka-wah [1998] 3 HKC 74 這 兩 宗

案件訂明相關的程序原則，其後再由 R v Hyde [2013] NICA 8 一案的附件和 AXN v The Queen [2016] EWCA Crim 590 一案所作的指引加以補

充及闡釋。

不少在原訟法庭處理的案件，由交付審判至

審訊，需時甚久，令人關注。我們希望上訴

法 庭 在 香 港 特 別 行 政 區 訴 Abdou Maikido Abdoulkarim ( 刑事上訴 2015 年第 327 號 ) 及

香港特別行政區 訴 吳文南 ( 刑事上訴 2014 年

第 418 號 ) 這兩宗案件中，就被告認罪可獲的

扣減刑期所作的裁決，可有助解決這個問題。

年內，本組在人員方面大致保持穩定，這有助

本組律師就案件提供法律指引，以及其後對案

件一直到交付審訊及／或判刑時的處理能貫徹

一致。

本組律師經常參加本科內部及外間舉辦的持續

法律進修課程講座，務求不斷掌握最新情況，

與時並進。我們積極鼓勵組內人員在研究法律

時不要局限於標準文本，也要借助現代科技。

2015 年交付原訟法庭審理的案件有 496 宗，其

中 358 宗交付審訊，138 宗交付判刑。此外，

根據上訴法庭作出重審令而交法庭存檔的公訴

書有七份。

2015 年內審結的案件包括：

(i) 在香港特別行政區 訴 周志偉 ( 第一被告 )及黎細明 ( 第二被告 ) ( 高院刑事案件 2013年第 458 號 ) 一案中，兩名被告分別是南丫

四號和海泰號的船長，該兩艘客輪在 2012

The issue of disclosure remains very much at the forefront of counsel’s mind when preparing a case for trial. The guiding principles are to be found in the decision of the House of Lords R v H [2004] 2 AC 134 and the decision of the Court of Final Appeal in HKSAR v Lee Ming-tee (2003) 6 HKCFAR 336 and counsel bear these principles in mind in every case.

The sometimes difficult, but ever sensitive, issue of informers is one of the most common disclosure issue counsel have to deal with. This issue was dealt with by the Court of Appeal in the important case of HKSAR v Agara Isaiah Bishop [2014] 2 HKLRD 648 where the Court dealt with the very limited circumstances in which the identity of an informer was relevant and therefore disclosable by the Prosecution. As predicted by the Court, subsequent to the decision, there was an increase in cases where the identity of an informer was sought to be disclosed by the defence. Guided by the principles in the case of Bishop (ante) such applications have invariably been declined in the Court of First Instance and they have now become less frequent.

Another issue which has become all too common is the question of assistance given by a defendant prior or subsequent to conviction but before sentence. Again this issue has to be handled with a large degree of sensitivity and the procedural principles set out in R v Sivan and Others [1988] 87 Cr App R 407 and HKSAR v Tse Ka-wah [1998] 3 HKC 74 have been supplemented and expanded upon by the guidance given in the Annex to R v Hyde [2013] NICA 8 and in AXN v The Queen [2016] EWCA Crim 590.

The time taken from committal to trial for many cases in the Court of First Instance has become a concern and it is hoped that the recent decisions of the Court of Appeal in the cases of HKSAR v Abdou Maikido Abdoulkarim CACC 327/2015 and HKSAR v Ngo Van-nam CACC 418/2014, in respect of discounts in sentence for pleas of guilty will go some way to alleviate this.

Membership of the Section has largely remained stable during the year and this stability has aided in the consistent approaches by members to the way in which cases are advised upon and their subsequent progression through the criminal justice system to trial and/or sentence.

Members of the Section constantly strive to keep themselves updated by attending Continuing Legal Education lectures organized both within and outside the Division. Members are positively encouraged to go beyond the standard texts and deploy modern technology in their researches.

In 2015, 496 cases were committed to the Court of First Instance, of which 358 cases were committed for trial and 138 cases were committed for sentence. In addition, 7 Indictments were filed pursuant to orders for retrial made by the Court of Appeal.

Completed cases in 2015 include the following:-

(i) In HKSAR v Chow Chi-wai (D1) and Lai Sai-ming (D2) HCCC 458/2013, the defendants were respectively the coxwains of the vessels Lamma IV and Sea Smooth which collided on the evening of 1 October 2012 resulting in the loss of life of 39 persons. D1 was acquitted after trial of the 39 counts of manslaughter but convicted of endangering the safety of others at sea for which he

28

年 10 月 1 日晚上相撞，導致 39 人死亡。

第一被告經審訊後被裁定 39 項誤殺罪罪名

不成立，但危及他人在海上的安全罪罪名成

立，被判處監禁九個月。第二被告經審訊後

被裁定 39 項誤殺罪及一項危及他人在海上

的安全罪罪名成立，每項誤殺罪判處監禁八

年，同期執行；餘下的控罪判處監禁 18 個

月，同期執行。他就刑罰提出上訴，但遭上

訴法庭駁回。

(ii) 在香港特別行政區 訴 胡錦祥 ( 高院刑事案

件 2015 年第 48 號 ) 一案中，76 歲的被告

因金錢問題與妻子在住所爭執把她殺死，死

因是多處刀傷。被告經審訊後被裁定因受激

怒而誤殺罪名成立，被判處監禁七年。

(iii) 在香港特別行政區 訴 潘文琛 ( 高院刑事案

件 2015 年第 157 號 ) 一案中，被告刺死女

友後把屍體放在她家中床上，經審訊後被裁

定謀殺罪罪名成立。此案是經上訴法庭早前

下令重審，被告被判處終身監禁。

(iv) 在香港特別行政區 訴 唐望亮 ( 高院刑事案

件 2015 年第 33 號 ) 一案中，22 歲的被告

被診斷患有精神分裂症，他認罪而被裁定誤

殺罪名成立，被判入院令接受無限期治療。

被告在旺角一大廈天台飲酒後，從天台擲下

一張重量相當的椅子，椅子擊中一名 29 歲

的男途人，該途人其後傷重不治。

(v) 在香港特別行政區 訴 葉劍華 ( 第一被告 )及黃志華 ( 第二被告 ) ( 高院刑事案件 2014年第 328 號 ) 一案中，兩名被告盜竊電單車

車牌及蓄意傷害一份本地報紙的資深編輯，

經審訊後被裁定罪名成立。第一被告就另一

項盜竊電單車罪被裁定罪成。兩名被告騎電

單車跟蹤受害人駕駛的車輛，其後襲擊受害

人，當中一人持刀，趁受害人下車時，把他

斬至重傷。控方在審訊時指出，被告是收取

酬金以受害人為目標襲擊他。兩名被告就蓄

意傷人罪，各被判監禁 19 年；二人另因盜

竊罪，分別被判監六個月和 12 個月，與上

述 19 年的監禁同期執行。

分科一第 2 組 區域法院法律指引

本組由高級助理刑事檢控專員劉少儀女士掌管，

主要工作是就在區域法院檢控的案件提供法律

指引並籌備案件審訊。2015 年，本組律師向執

法機關提供共 1,644 次法律指引，負責籌備由

本組律師提供指引轉交區域法院審理的案件共

863 宗，而由其他組別的律師透過 FAST 快速法

律指引制度轉介本組籌備審訊的案件共 259 宗。

was sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment. D2 was convicted after trial of 39 counts of manslaughter and 1 count of endangering the safety of others at sea. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of 8 years’ imprisonment on each of the manslaughter counts and a concurrent term of 18 months’ imprisonment on the remaining count. D2’s appeal against sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

(ii) In HKSAR v Woo Kam-cheung HCCC 48/2015, the 76-year-old defendant killed his wife at their residence after an argument over money matters. The deceased died of multiple cut wounds. The defendant was convicted of manslaughter on the basis of provocation after trial and sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment.

(iii) In HKSAR v Poon Man-sum HCCC 157/2015, the defendant was convicted after trial of the murder of his girlfriend whom he stabbed and then left her body in the bed at her home. This was a retrial ordered by the Court of Appeal. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment.

(iv) In HKSAR v Tong Mong-leong HCCC 33/2015, the 22-year-old defendant, diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia, was convicted of manslaughter after plea and was made the subject of a Hospital Order for an indefinite period. He had, after drinking on the rooftop of a Mongkok building, thrown a heavy chair off the rooftop which struck a 29-year-old male pedestrian who suffered serious injuries and died soon afterwards.

(v) In HKSAR v Yip Kim-wah (D1) and Wong Chi-wah (D2) HCCC 328/2014, the 2 defendants were convicted after trial of offences of theft of a motor cycle licence and wounding a senior editor of a local newspaper with intent. D1 was also convicted of an additional offence of theft of a motor cycle. The victim was attacked after the defendants had followed his car on a motor cycle and one of them, armed with a knife, chopped the victim when he alighted from his vehicle, causing serious injuries. It was alleged at the trial that the attack was a targeted one for which the defendants had been paid. The defendants were sentenced to 19 years’ imprisonment for the offence of wounding with intent which period was to run concurrently with sentences of 6 and 12 months respectively for the offences of theft.

Section I(2) District Court Advisory

The primary task of this Section, headed by Ms Virginia Lau, Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, is to provide legal advice and trial preparation of cases to be prosecuted in the District Court. In 2015, a total of 1,644 pieces of legal advice were given to law enforcement agencies and 863 cases advised to be transferred to the District Court for trial were prepared by counsel of this Section. In addition, there were 259 cases which were referred by counsel in other teams via the fast track advisory system (FAST) for trial preparation.

分科

一 法

律指

引Su

b-di

visi

on I

Adv

isor

y

29

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

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

本組律師在決定每宗交予本組的案件應否提出

檢控，會評估案中證據，及應用相關的法律和

檢控政策。除了評估證據及擬訂控罪之外，他

們負責擬備把案件從裁判法院移交區域法院的

相關法庭文件，向辯方送達載有披露資料的文

件冊╱未經採用的案件材料，並且擬定案情摘

要。本組律師也出席各級法院的聆訊，包括應

訊日、答辯和判刑、審訊、保釋申請、裁判法

院上訴案，以及向上訴法庭上訴的聆訊。

本組處理的案件種類繁多，有蓄意傷人、搶劫、

入屋犯法、性虐待、販運危險藥物等一般刑事

案件，也有詐騙、行騙、偽造帳目及洗錢等「白

領」罪案。就涉及嚴重交通罪行、兒童色情物

品及協助未獲授權進境者前來香港的旅程的案

件也佔相當數量。

自 2010 年以來，經執法機關調查的電話騙案舉

報數目不斷上升。騙徒行騙的手法層出不窮，

例如假扮受害人朋友或家人要求贖金，又或冒

充速遞員、財務機構職員、中國內地的執法機

關人員或官員。本組律師負責就適當的控罪和

合適的審訊法院提供法律指引，並為案件作審

訊籌備。此外，針對屬於《有組織及嚴重罪行

條例》( 第 455 章 ) “指明的罪行”定義所指的

罪行，本組律師會因應第 27(2)(c) 條所訂的理

由，即罪行普遍程度，以及╱或第 27(2)(d) 條所

指的最近發生有關指明罪行對社區造成的損害，

而申請加重刑罰。

2015年，本組處理了多宗備受關注的重要案件，

以下為其中一些案件。

在香港特別行政區 訴 左國法 ( 區院刑事案件

2015 年第 841 號 ) 一案中，基於証據指被告在

並非在香港境內航行的非香港控制飛機上盜竊，

被告被控在飛機上作出擾亂秩序的行為，違反

《航空保安條例》( 第 494 章 ) 第 12B(3) 條。他

Counsel in the Section assess the evidence and apply the law and the prosecution policy for each case submitted to determine whether a prosecution is warranted. Apart from evaluating the evidence and drafting the charges, counsel in this Section are responsible for preparing Court documents for transfer of the cases from the Magistrates’ Courts to the District Court, compiling for disclosure purpose a bundle of statements/documents/unused materials for service to the Defence and settling the summary of facts. Counsel in this Section also attend Court hearings including plea days, plea and sentence, trials, bail applications, magistracy appeals and appeals in the Court of Appeal.

The Section handled cases of a wide variety, ranging from general crime cases including wounding with intent, robbery, burglary, sexual abuse, trafficking in dangerous drugs, to white-collar crime cases including fraud, deception, false accounting, and money laundering. The number of cases concerning serious traffic offences, child pornography and assisting passenger of unauthorized entrants is also notable.

Since 2010, an increasing number of telephone deception cases have been reported and investigated by law enforcement agencies. A wide range of modus operandi have been employed by the fraudsters, such as pretending to be a victim’s friends or family members in seeking the payment of a ransom, impersonating couriers and staff of financial institutions, and pretending to be law enforcement agents and other public officials in Mainland China. Counsel in this Section provided legal advice on the appropriate charges and venue, and prepared the cases for trial. Furthermore, for offences which fall within the definition of a “specified offence” under the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 455), applications for enhancement of sentence would be made on the ground of prevalence under section 27(2)(c) and/or harm caused to the community by recent occurrences of the specified offence under section 27(2)(d).

In 2015, the Section handled a number of significant cases which have attracted publicity. Below are some of the examples:-

In HKSAR v Zuo Guofa DCCC 841/2015, the defendant was charged with behaving in a disorderly manner on board an aircraft, contrary to

30

承認干犯上述罪行，被裁定罪名成立。法院採

納以監禁九個月為量刑起點，因應被告認罪而

判處監禁六個月。

在香港特別行政區 訴 朱志豪 ( 區院刑事案件

2015 年第 331 號 ) 一案中，任職警長的被告，

藉著向一名妓女表露他的警察身分而索取免費

性服務，在完事後他更威脅對方必須立即返回

中國內地，否則會被拘留七天。被告經審訊後

被裁定一項公職人員行為不當罪罪名成立，被

判處監禁 20 個月。

在香港特別行政區 訴 蘇達偉 ( 區院刑事案件

2015 年第 431 號 ) 一案中，被告承認一項串謀

製造虛假文書罪，違反《刑事罪行條例》( 第

200 章 ) 第 71 條。被告發出多份檢驗報告，證

明若干豬油產品經檢驗後證實適宜供人食用。

被告在警誡下承認從未檢驗涉事豬油，有關報

告都是他所製造的虛假文書，目的是使豬油可

由香港出口至台灣。在 2007 至 2014 年間，他

製造並使用的虛假檢驗報告共 27 份。法院在判

刑時表示，此案涉及嚴重違反誠信，令台灣食

店蒙受經濟損失。法院以監禁三年半為量刑起

點，但考慮到被告認罪及其他減刑因素，把刑

期減至監禁兩年。

在香港特別行政區 訴 杜志邦 ( 區院刑事案件

2014 年第 890 號 ) 一案中，任職消防員的被告

發信要求本港名人 X 就其家人的安危與被告聯

絡。X 報警後，一名警務人員假扮 X 的秘書致

電被告，被告在電話對話中索取港幣 4,000 萬

元，作為他殺死一幫計劃綁架 X 的中國內地綁

匪的酬金。被告承認一項勒索罪。法官以監禁

四年為量刑起點，在扣減刑期後，判處被告監

禁兩年半。

分科一第 3 組 裁判法院法律指引 ( 一般檢控 )

2015 年間，分科一第 3 組的人員繼續在高級助

理刑事檢控專員溫淑芳女士督導下，緊守“秉

行公義者”的職責，向主要是香港警務處和其

他執法機關，就適合在裁判法院審理的案件提

供詳盡和適時的法律指引。年內，要求本組提

供法律指引的案件有 3,431 宗。

要尋求提供法律指引的案件案情龐雜，包括拍

攝女子裙底、虐待兒童、性侵犯、家庭暴力、

三合會相關罪行、經營╱管理賣淫場所╱按摩

院、賭博╱收受賭注、洗錢，以及各種涉及詐

騙、偽造和盜竊等不誠實行為的罪行。隨着社

會不斷演變，若干以往少有的罪案也有轉介本

組尋求法律指引，例如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。

section 12B(3) of the Aviation Security Ordinance (Cap. 494) following a report of theft that occurred on a non-Hong Kong controlled aircraft which was in flight elsewhere than in Hong Kong. He was convicted on his own plea. Having adopted a starting point of 9 months’ imprisonment, the Court imposed a sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment to reflect his guilty plea.

In HKSAR v Chu Chi-ho DCCC 331/2015, the defendant, a serving police sergeant, procured unpaid sexual service from a prostitute by revealing his police identity to her. Once sexual service was provided, he threatened that she must return to Mainland China at once, or else she would be detained for 7 days. The defendant was convicted after trial of 1 count of misconduct in public office and was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.

In HKSAR v So Tat-wai DCCC 431/2015, the defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to make false instrument, contrary to section 71 of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200). The defendant issued survey reports certifying that certain lard products had been examined and found to be fit for human use. The defendant admitted under caution that he had never conducted any examination on the lard and the reports were false instruments which had been created for the purpose of exporting lard from Hong Kong to Taiwan. There were 27 false survey reports prepared and used between 2007 and 2014. In sentencing, the Court said that this case involved a serious breach of trust which had caused economic loss to Taiwanese food stores. The Court adopted a starting point of 3½ years’ imprisonment but reduced it to a 2 years’ imprisonment term, having considered the defendant’s guilty plea and other mitigating factors.

In HKSAR v To Chi-bong DCCC 890/2014, the defendant, a serving fireman, sent a letter to a celebrity, X, in Hong Kong, asking him to contact the defendant concerning the safety of X’s family members. The case was reported to the Police and a police officer posing as the secretary of X called the defendant. During the telephone conversations, the defendant asked for a sum of HK$40 million for his service to kill a group of gangsters in Mainland China who were planning to kidnap X. The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of blackmail. The Judge adopted a starting point of 4 years’ imprisonment, and after deduction, sentenced the defendant to a 2½ years’ imprisonment term.

Section I(3) Magistrates’ Court Advisory (General Prosecutions)

Throughout 2015, under the continued supervision of Ms Polly Wan, Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, members of Section I(3) vigilantly discharged their duties as “ministers of justice” by providing substantive and timely legal advice to law enforcement agencies, primarily the Hong Kong Police, for cases to be suitably dealt with at the Magistrates’ Courts. During the year, 3,431 cases were sent to the Section for legal advice.

Cases submitted to the Section for legal advice bore an array of circumstances, including taking upskirt photos, child abuse, sexual

分科

一 法

律指

引Su

b-di

visi

on I

Adv

isor

y

31

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

分科一第 3 組 ― 裁判法院法律指引 ( 一般檢控 )Section I (3) – Magistrates’ Court Advisory (General Prosecutions)

隨着社會對個人資料私隱權利的認識日增，市

民對不需要的直接促銷活動日益反感。在香港

特別行政區 訴 香港寬頻網絡有限公司 ( 荃灣裁

判法院傳票案件 2015 年第 6311 號 ) 一案中，

資料當事人 ( 即案中顧客 ) 自 2011 年起使用被

告公司的寬頻服務，有關合約在 2013 年 10 月

即到屆滿期。2013 年 4 月 8 日，資料當事人把

“拒收直銷訊息”的要求電郵至被告公司。後

來，被告公司的電話直銷職員致電資料當事人，

但沒有人接聽，於是在該當事人的流動電話信

箱留下話音訊息，提及即將到期的寬頻合約和

續約優惠。由於被告公司作為資料使用者沒有

依從資料當事人的要求，停止在直接促銷中使

用其個人資料，違反《個人資料 ( 私隱 ) 條例》( 第486 章 ) 第 35G 條，因而被票控。被告公司經

審訊後被裁定罪名成立，判處罰款港幣 30,000元。這是首宗有關直接促銷的法例自 2013 年 4月 1 日生效後的定罪案件。

2015 年 4 月， 在 得 悉 24 歲 被 告 在 2015 年 3至 4 月期間多次假扮醫生，順利進入一間醫院

的病房，社會各界大為震驚。在香港特別行政

區 訴 毛文業 ( 觀塘裁判法院刑事案件 2015 年

第 1812 號 ) 一案中，被告被控八項自稱執業醫

生和六項冒充公職人員罪。他承認全部控罪，

被判罪名成立。辯方求情陳詞指出，被告只是

太渴望當醫生。法院判處這名青年監禁合共八

個月。

任何受過醫護訓練人士都應該照顧及護理有需

要者，但一名 42 歲男護士卻沒有為家中的小寵

物提供可接受的居住環境。在香港特別行政區 訴 林志强 ( 屯門裁判法院刑事案件 2015 年第

829 號 ) 一案中，被告被控兩項殘酷對待動物和

一項無牌養狗罪。被告在新界八鄉村屋獨居，

他的鄰居聽到村屋傳來狗吠聲，以為有人爆竊，

abuse, domestic violence, triad-related offences, keeping/managing vice/massage establishments, gambling/bookmaking, money laundering, and various kinds of offences involving dishonesty such as deception, forgery and theft. As our society is always evolving, cases pertaining to some unconventional offences, for example, driving a private car for carriage of passengers for hire or reward without a hire car permit, have also been submitted to the Section for legal advice.

In the midst of growing awareness in data privacy rights, unwanted direct marketing activities were met with decreasing tolerance. In HKSAR v Hong Kong Broadband Network Limited TWS 6311/2015, the data subject, i.e. the customer, had been using the broadband service of the defendant company since 2011 and the contract was due to expire in October 2013. On 8 April 2013, the data subject e-mailed his “opt-out” request to the defendant company. Thereafter, a telemarketing staff of the defendant company phoned the data subject but the call was unanswered. The staff then left a voice message at the data subject’s mobile phone. The content of the voice message referred to the to-be-expired broadband contract and a promotional offer for a renewal contract. The defendant company was thus summonsed for being a data user that failed to comply with the data subject’s request for ceasing to use his personal data in direct marketing, contrary to section 35G of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486). After trial, the defendant company was found guilty and was fined HK$30,000. It was the first conviction since the direct marketing legislation came into effect on 1 April 2013.

In April 2015, the community was shocked by the 24-year-old who had successfully gained access to the wards of a hospital under the pretext of a medical doctor on various occasions between March and April 2015. In HKSAR v Mo Man-yip KTCC 1812/2015, the defendant was charged with 8 counts of professing to practise medicine and 6 counts of falsely pretending to be a public officer. He was convicted upon his guilty plea. In mitigation, it was submitted that the defendant was just too eager to be a doctor. The Court sentenced this young man to an overall term of 8 months’ imprisonment.

32

於是報警。警方在被告村屋內發現 36 頭沒有領

牌狗隻，屋內有籠而整體衞生極差。籠內積聚

動物排泄物，且滿布蜘蛛網。禁閉在籠內的狗

隻沒有食水供應，皮毛沾染動物排泄物。獸醫

檢查後，發現當中 19 頭狗健康有問題，例如嚴

重皮膚病、牙患、體重過輕、脫水，以及眼睛

和耳朵感染。被告承認所有控罪，被判處 160小時社會服務令和罰款港幣 13,000 元。被告放

棄所有狗隻，交由愛護動物協會安排他人領養。

一如以往，我們竭力確保兒童受妥善保護，尤其

是弱智兒童。在香港特別行政區 訴 梁佩琪 ( 屯

門裁判法院刑事案件 2015 年第 672 號 ) 一案中，

47 歲的女被告被控 15 項故意襲擊導致兒童受

到損害罪。被告是一所嚴重智障兒童特殊學校

的老師，她被發現多次在課室內近距離地向多

名智障學生的面部噴消毒劑。由於這些學生的

活動能力和口語溝通能力有限，他們無能力反

抗、躲避，甚或投訴。校內其他員工目睹被告

的作為，而當中部分過程也被身份不詳人士錄

影。被告經審訊後被裁定 11 項罪名成立，被判

處監禁合共十個月。

正如多個舉報案件顯示，毒販往往用各種技倆迴

避偵查。在杯子蛋糕及布朗尼蛋糕中混入大麻，

就不僅是一般的“蛋糕上的糖霜”。在香港特

別行政區 訴 Dora Radic ( 第一被告 ) 及 Natasha Rachel Richards ( 第二被告 ) ( 荃灣裁判法院刑

事案件 2015 年第 2139 號 ) 一案中，兩名十多

歲的學生趁學校在青衣運動場舉行運動會期間，

向同學出售含有大麻的蛋糕，他們被控共同販

運毒品。第二被告在家中按網上食譜製成大麻

蛋糕。她以大麻草炒油，然後把油加入蛋糕配

料內。二人以社交網站和網上即時通訊，向同

學推銷這些混有毒品的蛋糕，每件售港幣 25 或

35 元。校內教師在運動場阻截兩名被告，並向

警方報案。在她們身上搜出共 22 件未售出的大

麻蛋糕和五件布朗尼蛋糕。化驗師化驗後證實

22 件杯子蛋糕和五件布朗尼蛋糕的四氫大麻酚

總含量，均是 0.19 克。兩名被告承認控罪。第分科

一 法

律指

引Su

b-di

visi

on I

Adv

isor

y

While medically trained persons were expected to provide care to those in need, a 42-year-old male nurse failed to provide an acceptable environment for his fur babies at home. In HKSAR v Lam Chi-keung TMCC 829/2015, the defendant was charged with 2 counts of cruelty to animals and 1 count of keeping dogs without licence. The defendant lived alone in a village house in Pat Heung, New Territories. His neighbour heard dogs barking from the village house and thought it was burgled. The neighbour then called the Police who ended up finding 36 unlicensed dogs inside the village house. There were cages in the house and the overall hygiene was extremely poor. The cages were accumulated with animal excreta and spider webs. For those dogs which were confined in cages, no water was provided. The coats of those confined dogs were contaminated by animal excreta. Veterinary examination revealed that 19 dogs had health problems, such as severe skin diseases, dental diseases, underweight, dehydration, eye infection and ear infection. The defendant pleaded guilty to all charges and was sentenced to a Community Service Order for 160 hours plus a fine of HK$13,000. The defendant surrendered the ownership of all the dogs to The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for adoption arrangement.

As always, our efforts to ensure children, especially those mentally handicapped, are being well protected never slacked. In HKSAR v Leung Pui-ki TMCC 672/2015, the 47-year-old female defendant was charged with 15 counts of wilful assault causing injury to a child. The defendant was a teacher of a special school for severe mentally handicapped children. She was found spraying disinfectant on the face of the mentally handicapped students at a close distance inside the classroom on various occasions. As those students were limited in their mobility and verbal communication abilities, they were unable to resist, shun or even complain. The defendant’s acts were witnessed by other staff members of the school and were partly video recorded by an anonymous person. After trial, the defendant was convicted of 11 charges and sentenced to an overall term of 10 months’ imprisonment.

As shown in reported cases, drug traffickers had used every trick in the book to avoid detection. When cannabis was mixed in cupcakes and brownies, it was more than “the icing on the cake”. In HKSAR v Dora Radic (D1) & Natasha Rachel Richards (D2) TWCC 2139/2015, 2 teenage students were jointly charged with trafficking in a dangerous drug for selling cakes containing cannabis to their schoolmates during the school sports day at Tsing Yi Sports Ground. The cannabis cakes were prepared by D2 at home by following online recipes. She fried the herbal cannabis in oil and then added the oil to the cake mix. The pair promoted these tainted cakes at HK$25 or HK$35 each to schoolmates on social media websites and through instant internet messaging services. At the sports ground, the defendants were intercepted by school teachers who reported the case to the Police. A total of 22 unsold cannabis cakes and 5 brownies were found on them. Chemist examination confirmed that 22 cupcakes, collectively contained a total of 0.19 grammes of tetrahydrocannabinol and 5 brownies, collectively contained a total of 0.19 grammes of tetrahydrocannabinol. Both defendants pleaded guilty to the charge. D1 was fined HK$10,000 whereas D2 was put on probation for 12 months.

33

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

一被告被判罰款港幣 10,000 元，而第二被告被

判接受 12 個月感化。

罪犯犯案手法層出不窮，因此，與執法機關同

心協力，把罪犯繩之於法，正是本組每名成員

拼搏背後感受的工作滿足感和動力。

分科一第 4 組 裁判法院法律指引 ( 部門檢控 )

2015 年，裁判法院法律指引 ( 部門檢控 ) 組繼

續就不同政府部門和規管機構呈交的案件提供

全面的法律指引，並在相關案件提出檢控。向

本組尋求法律指引的部門和機構甚多，當中包

括入境事務處、勞工處、屋宇署、地政總署、

環境保護署、食物環境衞生署、房屋署、衞生

署、機電工程署、漁農自然護理署、社會福利

署、稅務局、消防處、民政事務總署、康樂及

文化事務署、規劃署、運輸署、水務署、差餉

物業估價署、海事處、土木工程拓展署、一手

住宅物業銷售監管局、強制性公積金計劃管理

局、破產管理署、通訊事務管理局辦公室（包

括電影、報刊及物品管理辦事處）、公司註冊

處、土地註冊處、教育局以及建造業議會。

本組自 2015 年 1 月起由助理刑事檢控專員黃堅

邦先生掌管，副組長是高級檢控官伍淑娟女士，

另有三名高級檢控官和六名檢控官為團隊的 成員。

交予本組提供法律指引的案件涵蓋面廣，涉及

通稱“規管性質的罪行”。由於屬規管性質，

這類案件無可避免牽涉社會大眾的福祉和日常

生活，而且往往受到傳媒關注，尤其是對普遍

市民重要又影響廣泛的案件。

本組律師須在緊迫的時間內處理日益繁重又具

難度的工作。由於這些案件屬規管性質，因此

往往要在個別條例及╱或規例指明的時效期限

內提出檢控。如沒有具體條文，則按照《裁判

官條例》( 第 227 章 ) 第 26 條訂明的一般時效期，

在所涉罪行發生後起計六個月內提出檢控。由

於政府部門和規管機構確實需時調查，有時候

又要取得專家意見方可提交檔案尋求法律指引，

令所需時間加長，因而加重我們要趕及時限的

壓力。這意味着部分檔案送抵本組尋求法律指

引時，其實律師已沒有多少時間可細閱檔案材

料及就所有相關問題提供意見。

本組律師處理的案件通常案情複雜，並且涉及

技術性的法律問題。他們提供法律指引和檢控

案件時，除了考慮每宗案件的證據和所有相關

There was always novel modus operandi in which crimes were committed. In the concerted efforts with the law enforcement agencies, the culprits were duly brought to justice. This was the unspoken comfort and drive behind the hard work of every member of this Section.

Section I(4) Magistrates’ Courts Advisory (Departmental Prosecutions)

In 2015, the Magistrates’ Courts Advisory (Departmental Prosecutions) Section continues to provide comprehensive legal advice and prosecute cases submitted by various government departments and regulatory bodies. Those departments and bodies which seek legal advice from the Section are numerous. They include, but are not limited to, the Immigration, Labour, Buildings, Lands, Environmental Protection, Food and Environmental Hygiene, Housing, Health, Electrical and Mechanical Services, Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation, Social Welfare, Inland Revenue, Fire Services, Home Affairs, Leisure and Cultural Services, Planning, Transport, Water Supplies, Rating and Valuation, Marine, Civil Engineering and Development Departments, Sales of First-hand Residential Properties Authority, Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority, Official Receiver’s Office, Office of the Telecommunications Authority ( including Office for Fi lm, Newspaper and Article Administration), Companies Registry, Land Registry, Education Bureau and Construction Industry Authority.

Since January 2015, the Section has been headed by Mr Michael Wong, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, who was assisted by the Deputy Section Head, Ms Laura Ng, Senior Public Prosecutor and a team of 3 Senior Public Prosecutors and 6 Public Prosecutors.

The cases submitted to the Section for advice cover a spectrum and involve what are commonly known as the “regulatory offences”. Given their regulatory nature, the cases inevitably touch on the welfare and daily lives of the general public and are often media-sensitive, especially for cases which are of general importance and have wide implication.

Counsel from the Section have to cope with the demanding and increasing workload within a tight time schedule. Given their regulatory nature, prosecution of such offences would often be subject to specific time bar limitations as stipulated by individual Ordinances and/or Regulations. In the absence of specific provisions, the usual time bar period of 6 months from the commission of the offences as stipulated by section 26 of the Magistrates Ordinance (Cap. 227) applies. The task to meet time schedule would be aggravated by the fact that investigations conducted by the government departments and regulatory bodies do take time and sometimes being prolonged by the need to obtain expert opinions before the files are submitted for seeking legal advice. It means that by the time some of the files are received by the Section for legal advice, there is in fact not much time left for counsel to peruse the materials and advise on all the relevant issues.

The cases dealt with by counsel of this Section are often factually complicated and involve technical legal issues. In advising and prosecuting cases, apart from considering the evidence in specific cases and all relevant case authorities, counsel would frequently be required to

34

分科一第 4 組 ― 裁判法院法律指引 ( 部門檢控 )Section I (4) – Magistrates’ Courts Advisory (Departmental Prosecutions)

分科

一 法

律指

引Su

b-di

visi

on I

Adv

isor

y

案例外，也要為了評估法例條文的真正立法原

意，必須經常參考議事錄等相關的立法會資料，

以及法律草擬科所保存的草擬指示。這些資料

往往有助他們了解應如何正確詮釋有關條文。

律師不單提供法律指引，還負責一般法庭訟辯

工作，包括不同級別法院審理的保釋申請、審

訊和上訴。

為提供貫徹一致的法律指引，及避免其他成員

花時間進行本組律師先前處理過的法律研究，

本組主管設立資料庫，貯存重要法律指引、研

究資料，以及不同檢控機關的檢控政策，供本

組所有人員參閱。

本組律師一直與各執法機關緊密聯繫。我們在

2015 年除了舉辦一次部門檢控人員培訓課程

外，也專為調查人員與部門檢控人員舉行研討

會和研習班，以改進和更新他們的相關調查和

檢控技巧。

對本組來說，2015 年是充滿挑戰又碩果豐收。

年內經本組處理性質敏感和重要的案件選錄如

下。

在 沙 田 裁 判 法 院 傳 票 案 件 2014 年 第 13702-13718 號、2015 年 第 904-924、2114-2115、

2352-2362、2374-2392、2412-2433 及 2876-2885 號一案中，勞工處根據《僱傭條例》( 第

57 章 ) 第 23 和 25 條， 就 亞 洲 電 視 有 限 公 司

(“亞視”) 過期支付工資，向亞視發出 102 張

傳票。案中涉及僱員共 24 名，過期支付的工資

總額達港幣 1,130,597 元。在 2015 年 2 月 13日至 4 月 10 日期間，亞視就該 102 張傳票認

罪，被裁定罪名成立，罰款合共港幣 1,070,000元。在沙田裁判法院傳票案件 2014 年 13719-13735 號、2015 年 第 925-945、2116-2117、

2363-2373、2393-2411、2434-2455 及 2886-

assess the true legislative intent of legislative provisions by reference to the relevant Legislative Council materials, such as the Hansard and the drafting instructions kept by the Law Drafting Division. They often shed light on how the provisions in question should be properly interpreted. Apart from advisory duties, counsel are also required to take up general Court duties including bail applications, trials and appeals at different levels of the Courts.

In order to provide consistent legal advice and to save members from spending extra time in conducting legal research which have already been dealt with by members of the Section on previous occasions, a library of significant legal advice, research materials and prosecution policies in relation to different prosecuting authorities has been created by the Section Head and made accessible to all members of the Section.

Counsel of the Section maintain close contact with the law enforcement agencies at all times. Apart from the Departmental Prosecutors Training Course which was held once in 2015, seminars and training sessions were provided to investigators and departmental prosecutors for the purpose of improving and updating them with the relevant investigation and prosecution techniques.

The year of 2015 was challenging and fruitful. The following are examples of some of the sensitive and significant cases handled by the Section.

In STS 13702-13718/2014, 904-924, 2114-2115, 2352-2362, 2374-2392, 2412-2433, 2876-2885/2015, the Labour Department caused 102 summonses to be issued relating to late payment of wages under sections 23 and 25 of the Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57) against Asia Television Limited (ATV). A total of 24 employees relating to late payment of wages amounting to HK$1,130,597 were involved. Between 13 February and 10 April 2015, ATV was convicted of 102 summonses on its own plea and was fined a total of HK$1,070,000. At the same proceedings in STS 13719-13735/2014, 925-945, 2116-2117, 2363-2373, 2393-2411, 2434-2455, 2886-2895/2015, the Labour Department caused 102 summonses to be issued under section 64B(1)

35

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

2895號一案的同一法律程序中，勞工處根據《僱

傭條例》第 64B(1) 條安排向時任亞視執行董事

的被告發出 102 張傳票，控以在董事的同意、

縱容或疏忽下干犯有關罪行。被告否認該 102張傳票的所有控罪，案件於是法院進行審訊。

2015 年 12 月 2 日，被告經審訊後被裁定其中

100 張傳票的控罪罪名成立，判處罰款合共港幣

150,000 元。

在香港特別行政區 訴 遠東環保垃圾堆填有限公

司及另一人 ( 粉嶺裁判法院傳票案件 2014 年第

929、2386、2388-2390、2392-2394、2396-2397、3151、3694、3696-3699、3701-3702號 ) 一案中，當局根據《水污染管制條例》( 第

358 章 ) 第 9(1) 及 10A 條，向新界東北堆填區

承辦商及其三名董事發出 23 張傳票。針對該承

辦商發出的傳票，涉及 2013 年 8 月至 9 月期間

新界東北堆填區六宗非法排放並非沒有污染的

水的事件。至於針對董事發出的傳票，是關於

他們就在有關事件裏有同意、縱容、疏忽或不

作為。該承辦商其中一名董事去世，其餘兩名

董事獲撤銷針對他們的傳票。控方作出上述決

定，是經考慮辯方交出的最新專家報告關於該

承辦商在事發之前和其間所採取的措施，及該

承辦商同意承認六張傳票上的非法排污控罪。

2015 年 6 月 8 日，承辦商承認六項非法排污控

罪，法院裁定有罪，並判令繳付港幣 60,000 元

罰款。

在香港特別行政區 訴 周紹璇 ( 沙田裁判法院刑

事案件 2015 年第 2929 號 ) 一案中，被告被控

一項協助、教唆、慫使或促致他人違反逗留條

件罪，違反《刑事訴訟程序條例》( 第 221 章 )第 89 條和《入境條例》( 第 115 章 ) 第 41 條。

被告在 2006 年 10 月帶同當時三歲的外孫來港。

儘管被告知道他只獲准在港逗留七日，但繼續

與他一起生活，自此該男孩一直在香港逾期逗

留。留港期間他一直由被告照顧生活所需，教

他讀書寫字。2015 年 5 月 21 日，被告帶該男

孩到入境事務處自首，希望為他取得擔保書，

當時該男孩已在香港逾期逗留八年六個半月。

2015 年 10 月 19 日，被告認罪，被判罪名成立，

監禁四個月及緩刑三年。本案的裁決向社會傳

達一個清晰的信息，法律絕不姑息這類行為，

而法院定當嚴正處理事件。

漁農自然護理署 (“漁護署”) 在 2015 年檢控

西營盤一家海味店，案件在東區裁判法院審訊

( 東區裁判法院傳票案件 2015 年第 40157 及

40158 號 )。在該案中，漁護署根據《保護瀕危

動植物物種條例》( 第 586 章 ) 第 9(1) 及 10 條，

就該店為商業目的而管有該條例附錄 I 物種的標

本發出兩張傳票，分別控告店東及該店的營運

公司。案中涉及三件石首魚花膠。2015 年 12月 22 日，二名被告認罪後被判罪名成立，各判

處罰款港幣 15,000 元。這是石首魚在 1977 年

of the Employment Ordinance, which offences were committed with the consent, connivance or neglect of director, against the then executive director of ATV. The defendant pleaded not guilty to all 102 summonses issued against him and a trial was conducted. On 2 December 2015, he was convicted after trial of 100 summonses and was fined a total sum of HK$150,000.

In HKSAR v Far East Landfill Technologies Limited and Anor FLS 929, 2386, 2388-2390, 2392-2394, 2396-2397, 3151, 3694, 3696-3699, 3701-3702/2014, 23 summonses were issued to the operator of the North East New Territories (NENT) Landfill and three of its directors under sections 9(1) and 10A of the Water Pollution Control Ordinance (Cap. 358). The summonses against the operator related to 6 unlawful discharge incidents of not unpolluted water at the NENT Landfill between August and September 2013. On the other hand, the summonses against the directors were in relation to their consent, connivance, neglect or omission in those incidents. Whilst a director of the operator passed away, the summonses against the remaining two directors were withdrawn by the Prosecution after considering the measures taken by the operator before and during the incidents covered by the latest expert report produced by Defence and on the condition that the operator would plead guilty to the 6 summonses of unlawful discharge. On 8 June 2015, the operator was convicted upon its own plea of 6 counts of unlawful discharge offences and was ordered to pay a fine of HK$60,000.

In HKSAR v Chow Siu-shuen STCC 2929/2015, the defendant was charged with one count of aiding, abetting, counseling or procuring breach of condition of stay, contrary to section 89 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 221) and section 41 of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115). The defendant brought her grandson to Hong Kong in October 2006 when he was at the age of 3. Although the defendant knew the boy was only permitted to remain in Hong Kong for 7 days, she continued to live with him, who since then overstayed in Hong Kong. During his stay in Hong Kong, the defendant took care of his daily needs and taught him how to read and write. On 21 May 2015, the defendant surrendered to the Immigration Department with the boy with a view to obtaining a Recognizance Form and by then, he had overstayed in Hong Kong for 8 years and 6.5 months. On 19 October 2015, the defendant was convicted upon her own plea and was sentenced to 4 months imprisonment, suspended for 3 years. The decision sent a clear message to the society that the law would not tolerate such conduct and that the matter would be treated seriously by the Court.

In 2015, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department took prosecution action against a shop selling marine products in Sai Ying Pun. In ESS 40157/2015 and ESS 40158/2015, 2 summonses were issued relating to possession of specimens of Appendix I species for commercial purpose under sections 9(1) and 10 of the Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586) against the shopkeeper and the company operating the shop respectively. 3 pieces of dried bladder of Totoaba macdonaldi ( 石首魚花膠 ) were involved. On 22 December 2015, the defendants were convicted on their own plea and each of them was fined HK$15,000. This was the first prosecution in Hong Kong concerning Totoaba macdonaldi, which has since 1977

36

列入《瀕危野生動植物種國際貿易公約》附錄 I以來，本港首宗就石首魚提出檢控的案件。

分科一第 5 組 公眾秩序活動及電腦網絡罪行

公眾秩序活動及電腦網絡罪行組在 2015 年 1 月

正式成立，就涉及這兩方面刑事法律的案件向

警方提供法律指引。本組由助理刑事檢控專員

黎嘉誼先生掌管，另有一名高級檢控官和五名

檢控官。

一如處理所有其他案件的檢控，檢控官處理公

共秩序活動及電腦網絡罪行的案件時，總是嚴

格依從《檢控守則》行事。該守則對於如何恰

當地履行檢控職能，以期最有效地保障公眾利

益，提供指引。

近年來，在公共秩序活動中，不同羣組的人不

時會發生衝突，這種現象令人憂慮。每當情況

開始惡化，往往有不少人已作出不守規矩甚至

暴力行為，而活動現場情況瞬間轉變及愈發混

亂。這些極端情況對前線警務人員處理公共秩

序活動的工作，帶來異常挑戰，也會對就刑事

行為蒐證的警方人員的工作帶來負面的影響。

在公眾秩序活動事件中拍攝得的關鍵部分片段，

在很多檢控案件中都成為重要的錄影證據，而

這些包括在公眾秩序活動期間拍攝得的相關錄

影片段，很多時候都是經新聞媒體和社交網絡

平台發布。不過，法例規定，在刑事法律程序

中，必須有充分可予接納的證據，才可確立錄

影片段是否可接納為證據 ( 見 R v Murphy and Anor [1990] N.I. 306，香港特別行政區 訴 Lee Chi-fai and Others [2003] 3 HKLRD 751 及 香

港特別行政區 訴 楊家豪及另一人 (2013) 16 HKCFAR 609)。一般而言，這些錄像的攝影師或

製作人很少會或願意出庭作證。為確立這類相

關的來自公開媒體錄像的可接納性，警方需利

用其他間接的或環境證據，例如現場目擊證人 及╱或其他可予接納的錄影片段，包括警方從

另一個位置或角度拍攝的同一事件的錄像，才

可充分確立這類公開媒體錄像的可接納性。

檢控官尊重任何人依法行使憲法權利，例如言

論自由、和平集會和示威。不過，合法範圍的

界線一經僭越成為違法，例如使用或威脅使用

暴力，就會牽涉刑事法律。若使用或威脅使用

暴力的人集體行事，情況就更嚴重。因應這些

不當行為，法院會在適當的案件施加阻嚇性刑

罰，藉此顯示法律必須充分保護公眾。

下文載述本組在 2015 年處理的一些值得注意的

案件：

been listed in Appendix I to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

Section I(5) Public Order Events & Cybercrime

The Public Order Events & Cybercrime Section was formally set up in January 2015 to provide legal advice to the Police on cases involving these two aspects of the criminal law. The Section was headed by Mr Ned Lai, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions with 1 Senior Public Prosecutor and 5 Public Prosecutors.

When handling cases of Public Order Events or Cybercrime, as in all other prosecutions, Public Prosecutors always act in strict compliance with the Prosecution Code which provides guidance as to how best to promote the public interest through the proper discharge of their prosecutorial functions.

Recent years saw a disturbing phenomenon of clashes sometimes taking place amongst individuals from different groups during a public order event. When the situation begins to deteriorate, often a multitude of individuals might already be acting in a disorderly or even violent manner and the situation is susceptible to changing quickly and becoming more and more chaotic. These extreme features, associated with policing public order events, not only present extraordinary challenges to frontline police officers, but they also significantly undercut the ability of police officers in gathering evidence of the criminal conduct.

Videotaped evidence capturing the material parts of an incident during a public order event is found to be important in many prosecutions. Not infrequently, relevant video clips filmed during a public order event are published, amongst others, by the news media and social network platforms. However, the law requires that there must be sufficient admissible evidence to establish the admissibility of a video clip as evidence in criminal proceedings (see: R v Murphy and Anor [1990] N.I. 306, HKSAR v Lee Chi-fai and Others [2003] 3 HKLRD 751 and HKSAR v Yeung Ka-ho and Anor (2013) 16 HKCFAR 609). Generally speaking, the cameramen or makers of such videos are seldom available or

分科一第 5 組 ― 公眾秩序活動及電腦網絡罪行Section I (5) – Public Order Events & Cybercrime分

科一

法律

指引

Sub-

divi

sion

I A

dvis

ory

37

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

在香港特別行政區 訴 鄭陽 ( 第一被告 ) 及另三

人 ( 第二至第四被告 ) ( 東區裁判法院刑事案件

2014 年第 3985 號 ) 一案中，一羣人在 2014 年

11 月 19 日清晨時分於佔領中環行動期間，暴

力衝擊立法會綜合大樓，造成大規模破壞 ( 維修

費用逾港幣 500,000 元 )。第一至第四被告因參

與暴力騷亂，各被控兩項共同控罪，即刑事毁

壞 ( 第一項控罪 ) 和參與非法集結 ( 第二項控罪 )。各被告認罪，法院就每項控罪判處各人 150 小

時社會服務令，同期執行。不過，控方根據《裁

判官條例》( 第 227 章 ) 第 104 條申請覆核刑罰，

裁判官在觀看並接納相關的來自公開的媒體就

該事件錄影證據後，更改第二至第四被告的社

會服務令，第一項控罪改為判監一個半月，第

二項控罪判監三個半月。由於第一被告年僅 19歲，獲法院維持判處社會服務令。原訟法庭在

第二至第四被告的判刑上訴中，維持各人的判

刑。

在香港特別行政區 訴 蘇永健 ( 第一被告 ) 及吳

定邦 ( 第二被告 ) ( 東區裁判法院刑事案件 2015年第 302 號 ) 一案中，有關事件亦是在佔領中

環行動期間發生。在 2014 年 12 月 1 日，三名

休班警務人員經港鐵返回警署途中，在海富中

心被一批激動的示威者包圍和辱罵。第二被告

聯同其他示威者羣起襲擊三人，導致他們受到

不同傷害。第二被告經審訊後被裁定襲警和普

通襲擊罪罪名成立，被判處監禁合共十個月。

第一被告被控襲擊在正當執行職務的警務人員，

經審訊後，被判無罪。

在香港特別行政區 訴 鄧德全 ( 高院裁判法院上

訴 2015 年第 493 號 ) 一案中，一大羣示威者在

2014 年 10 月 17 日傍晚佔領中環行動期間，嘗

試推進並佔領彌敦道的行車道。警員築起防線，

阻止示威者湧至行車道。其後警務人員拘捕一

名男子時，被告突然出現搶一名女警的警棍，

並漠視警方的警告，搶走警棍即逃入人羣，但

他被多名警務人員制服。被告經審訊後被裁定

一項故意阻撓警務人員罪罪名成立，違反《侵

害人身罪條例》( 第 212 章 ) 第 36(b) 條，被判

處監禁四星期。他就定罪及刑罰提出上訴，但

全被駁回。

forthcoming as witnesses. In order to establish the admissibility of such a relevant open source video, the Police need to have recourse to other indirect or circumstantial evidence, such as eye-witnesses present at the scene and/or other admissible video clips including Police video capturing the same incident from a different position or angle, to sufficiently establish the admissibility of such open source video.

Prosecutors respect the lawful exercise of constitutional rights, e.g. freedom of speech, peaceful assembly and demonstration. However, once the line separating what is lawful and what is not is crossed, for example, by using or threatening violence, the criminal law is engaged. It would be an aggravating feature if individuals using or threatening violence were acting in groups. In respect of such misbehaviour, the Court will in appropriate cases adamantly bring home the need to adequately protect the public by imposing a deterrent sentence.

Examples of some notable cases dealt with by the Section in 2015 are as follows:

In HKSAR v Cheng Yeung (D1) and 3 others (D2-D4) ESCC 3985/2014, a group violently stormed and caused extensive damage (with the cost of repairs over HK$500,000) to the Legislative Council Complex in the early hours on 19 November 2014 during the Occupy Central Movement. D1-D4 faced and pleaded guilty to two joint charges, namely, criminal damage (Charge 1) and taking part in an unlawful assembly (Charge 2) for their involvement in the violent disturbance. Each of them was sentenced concurrently on each charge to perform 150 hours of Community Service. However, upon the application for review of sentences by the Prosecution under section 104 of the Magistrates Ordinance (Cap. 227), the learned magistrate viewed and accepted the relevant open source video evidence capturing the relevant incident and substituted the Community Service Orders with a 1½ months’ imprisonment term for Charge 1 and 3½ months’ imprisonment term for Charge 2 on each of D2-D4. D1’s sentence of Community Service Order was maintained due to his young age of 19 years. On appeal, the sentences of D2-D4 were upheld by the Court of First Instance.

In HKSAR v So Wing-kin (D1) and Ng Ting-pong (D2) ESCC 302/2015, an incident which also took place during the Occupy Central Movement on 1 December 2014 when 3 off-duty police officers, on their way to return to the police station via the MTR, were surrounded and scolded by a number of agitated protesters at Admiralty Centre. D2, together with other protesters, took part in a gang assault on the officers who sustained various injuries as a result. D2 was convicted after trial of offences of assaulting police officer and common assault. He was sentenced to a total term of 10 months’ imprisonment. D1 was acquitted of the charge of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty after trial.

In HKSAR v Tang Tak-chuen HCMA 493/2015, in the evening on 17 October 2014 during the Occupy Central Movement, a large crowd of protestors attempted to move onto and occupy the carriageways of Nathan Road. Police officers then formed a cordon line to stop the protestors from spreading to the carriageways. Afterwards, when a man was being arrested by police officers, the defendant suddenly appeared and snatched the police baton from a woman police constable. The

38

在香港特別行政區 訴 林達榮 ( 屯門裁判法院刑

事案件 2015 年第 581 號 ) 一案中，在 2015 年

3 月 1 日元朗反水貨客示威期間，被告衝向一批

示威者時被警方截停，他當時外套右袋藏有一

瓶含辣椒油和酒精液體混合物的噴劑。科學鑑

證發現，該噴劑內含辣椒素和異丙醇溶液，可

對人造成傷害。被告經審訊後被裁定一項在公

眾地方管有攻擊性武器罪罪名成立，違反《公

安條例》( 第 245 章 ) 第 33 條，被判處監禁四

個月。

在香港特別行政區 訴 郭賀彬 ( 第一被告 ) 及陳

寶基 ( 第二被告 ) ( 屯門裁判法院刑事案件 2015年第 1873 號 ) 一案中，在 2015 年 3 月 8 日屯

門反水貨客示威期間，第一、第二被告及其他

人截停一名帶着年幼女兒的女子。他們見該女

子拉着拖篋，便喝令她打開行李讓公眾檢查，

並辱罵母女二人，令她們受驚及難堪。第一及

第二被告承認一項在公眾地方作出擾亂秩序行

為罪，違反《公安條例》( 第 245 章 ) 第 17B(2)條。第一被告被判處 120 小時社會服務令，而

第二被告則監禁一個月，緩刑 12 個月。

2015 年，本組律師也就涉及誤用電腦，或危害

電腦或電腦系統完整性等罪行的多宗案件，提

供法律指引。

今時今日，流動通訊科技日新月異，互聯網普

及暢通，幾乎滲入香港生活中所有層面。新科

技加強了人與人的聯繫，令社會更加公開透明，

但同時卻使人更容易因層出不窮的新犯罪手法

受損。這些罪犯利用科技達成犯罪目的，所犯

的相關科技相關罪行包括在未獲授權下取用電

腦資料、經網上社交平台煽惑他人干犯刑事罪

行、在網上勒索或刑事恐嚇等。下文載述一些

值得注意的案件：

香港特別行政區 訴 余偉信 ( 觀塘裁判法院刑事

案件 2015 年第 4859 號 ) 一案，是使用電腦和

互聯網犯罪的例子。被告經不同互聯網論壇推

銷女性裸體的錄像。警方接獲投訴，在確定被

告的住所後把他拘捕。被告的電腦經科學驗證

後，共檢獲 68 套由他保存以供銷售的女性裸

體錄像。被告被控管有淫褻物品以供發布，違

反《淫褻及不雅物品管制條例》( 第 390 章 ) 第

21(1)(b) 條。被告承認控罪，原先被判緩刑。裁

判官其後准許控方根據《裁判官條例》( 第 227章 ) 第 104 條申請覆核刑罰，把緩刑改為監禁

兩個月。

在香港特別行政區 訴 顧家豪 ( 觀塘裁判法院

刑事案件 2015 年第 4735 號 ) 一案中，被告在

Facebook 上留言，建議網友加入六個不同的群

組，每組約 60 人，在 2014 年平安夜及其後兩

天在彌敦道和立法會綜合大樓襲擊警方。被告

經審訊後被裁定兩項有犯罪意圖而取用電腦罪

defendant ignored the warning and snatched the baton. He then fled into the crowd but was subdued by a number of police officers. The defendant was convicted after trial of one count of wilfully obstructing a police officer, contrary to section 36(b) of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance (Cap. 212) and sentenced to 4 weeks’ imprisonment. His appeals against both conviction and sentence were dismissed.

In HKSAR v Lam Tat-wing TMCC 581/2015, it concerned a protest against general merchandise operators which took place at Yuen Long on 1 March 2015. When the defendant, holding a spray bottle containing a liquid mixture of chilli oil and alcohol in his right jacket pocket, rushed towards a group of protestors, he was stopped by the Police. Forensic examination found that the subject spray bottle contained capsaicinoid and isopropyl alcohol solution which could cause injury to a person. The defendant was convicted after trial of one count of possession of offensive weapon in public place, contrary to section 33 of the Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245) and was sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment.

In HKSAR v Kuoc Ho-pan (D1) and Chan Bo-kee (D2) TMCC 1873/2015, an Anti-General Merchandise Operators Protest was held in Tuen Mun on 8 March 2015. D1, D2 and other individuals intercepted and became embroiled with a woman together with a young daughter. As the woman was carrying a wheeled luggage, the individuals asked the woman in a loud voice to open the luggage for public inspection. The individuals also swore at the woman and the daughter, thereby causing them alarm and distress. D1 and D2 pleaded guilty to one count of disorderly conduct in public place, contrary to section 17B(2) of the Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245). D1 was sentenced to perform 120 hours of Community Service whereas D2 to 1 month’s imprisonment suspended for 12 months.

In 2015, counsel of this Section also gave legal advice on a number of cases involving offences concerning the misuse of computer or against the integrity of computer or computer systems.

In this day and age, technological advances in mobile communication already made internet accessibility penetrate almost all aspects of modern life in Hong Kong. The enhanced connectivity and openness of our society brought about by new technology at the same time make us vulnerable to criminals in a way not anticipated before. These criminals exploit such technology to further criminal objectives by committing technology-related offences, including but not limited to unauthorized access to computer, online incitement to commit criminal offences through social network platforms, online blackmail or criminal intimidation. Some notable cases are as follows:

HKSAR v Yu Wilson KTCC 4859/2015 is an example of crime committed through the use of computer and internet. The defendant advertised the sale of videos showing nude females through various internet forums. Upon receiving complaints, the Police located and arrested the defendant. Upon forensic examination of the defendant’s computer, a total of 68 videos featuring images of female nudity kept by him for the purpose of sale were retrieved. The defendant pleaded guilty to the offence of possession of obscene articles for the purpose of publication, contrary to section 21(1)(b) of the Control of Obscene and Indecent

分科

一 法

律指

引Su

b-di

visi

on I

Adv

isor

y

39

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

罪名成立，違反《刑事罪行條例》( 第 200 章 )第 161 條，每項控罪判處監禁六個月，同期執

行。

危害電腦或電腦系統完整性的罪行，例如拒絕

服務攻擊，主要依據科學鑑證證據證明。香港

特別行政區 訴 辛德發 ( 東區裁判法院刑事案件

2015 年第 3648 號 ) 案正是一例。案中被告承

認三項刑事毁壞罪，在佔領中環行動期間對香

港公共圖書館網頁發動拒絕服務攻擊。法院判

處他接受感化 18 個月。

2015 年 6 月 12 日，刑事檢控專員楊家雄資深

大律師、副刑事檢控專員梁卓然資深大律師、

助理刑事檢控專員黎嘉誼先生及檢控官劉德偉

先生應香港警務處邀請，在警察總部主持一個

有關在公眾秩序活動中執法的法律事宜的研討

會，與警務人員探討相關議題。

2015 年 9 月，高級檢控官陳淑儀女士和檢控官

劉德偉先生參加一個流動裝置科學鑑證課程。

該課程由香港警務處專家及海外導師主講，涵

蓋流動裝置科學鑑證的基本知識，以及流動裝

置惡意軟件的最新趨勢分析。

法庭檢控主任

對法庭檢控主任來說，2015 年既繁忙又充滿挑

戰。儘管工作繁重及人手非常短缺，但所有現

職檢控人員都堅持不懈，勤奮拼搏，竭力把工

作做好。

所有涉及控罪或傳票的刑事程序都在裁判法院

展開，本科法庭檢控主任是主力負責處理這些

案件。法庭檢控主任是保障社會整體利益確保

案件在裁判法院得到恰當審理的前線人員。縱

使工作壓力沉重，法庭檢控主任也要致力就在

裁判法院處理的案件作出穩定而優質的檢控。

Articles Ordinance (Cap. 390) and was originally given a suspended sentence. The magistrate later allowed the prosecution’s application for review of sentence under section 104 of The Magistrates Ordinance (Cap. 227) and substituted the suspended sentence with an imprisonment term of 2 months.

In HKSAR v Ku Ka-ho KTCC 4735/2015 the defendant posted messages on Facebook suggesting people to join in 6 different teams, each of around 60 people, to attack the Police at Nathan Road and the Legislative Council Complex on Christmas Eve of 2014 and the following two days. The defendant was convicted after trial of two counts of obtaining access to computer with criminal intent, contrary to section 161 of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200) and was sentenced to a concurrent term of 6 months’ imprisonment for each charge.

Offences against the integrity of computer or computer systems, such as denial-of-service attacks, rely heavily on forensic examination evidence. This was also the case in HKSAR v Sun Tak-fah ESCC 3648/2015, where the defendant pleaded guilty to 3 counts of criminal damage for having conducted denial-of-service attack against the Hong Kong Public Library website during the Occupy Central Movement period. The Court sentenced the defendant to probation for 18 months.

On 12 June 2015, at the invitation of the Hong Kong Police, Mr Keith Yeung, SC, Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr David Leung, SC, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Ned Lai, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions and Mr Derek Lau, Public Prosecutor jointly delivered a Seminar on Legal Issues Related to Public Order Events Policing to and had discussions with police officers at the Police Headquarters.

In September 2015, Ms Christal Chan, Senior Public Prosecutor and Mr Derek Lau, Public Prosecutor attended the Mobile Device Forensic Course delivered by Hong Kong Police experts and overseas trainers covering the fundamentals on mobile forensics and the latest trend of mobile malware analysis.

Court Prosecutors

2015 was an eventful and challenging year to the Court Prosecutors. Despite heavy workload and substantial shortage of manpower, all serving prosecutors demonstrated their perseverance and diligence in accomplishing their tasks at the best they could.

All criminal charges and summonses begin in the Magistrates’ Courts and our Court Prosecutors are primarily responsible for the conduct of these cases. Court Prosecutors stand in the frontline to safeguard the interests of the community in general and ensure the proper disposal of the cases in the Magistrates’ Courts. Though subject to tremendous work pressure, Court Prosecutors strive their best to provide steady and high quality prosecution service at the summary level. Occasionally, they have to handle a substantial number of cases brought up to the Court at the same time, particularly after large scale public order events have taken place. Despite limited time given for case preparation, Court Prosecutors are able to handle the ad hoc court duties effectively with their extensive experience and sound legal knowledge. 總法庭檢控主任

Chief Court Prosecutors

40

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

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

分科

一 法

律指

引Su

b-di

visi

on I

Adv

isor

y

他們間中須處理大量在同一時間出庭的案件，

特別是在發生大型公共秩序事件後出現。雖然

籌備案件的時間有限，法庭檢控主任憑藉在檢

控工作方面的廣泛經驗和豐富的法律知識，能

有效履行這些突如其來的法庭職務。

2015 年，76 名法庭檢控主任派駐於全港七個裁

判法院，處理了共 150,714 宗案件，代表警方、

香港海關、強制性公積金計劃管理局及一些其

他政府部門和法定機構出庭檢控。法庭檢控主

任亦有就入境事務處和食物環境衞生署調查的

一些特別案件進行檢控。

法庭檢控主任過去一年處理的案件中，有些備

受關注，為傳媒廣泛報道。下文選載其中一些

案件。

兩名大學生被控作出有違公德行為罪。凌晨時

分，他們在一條街道上性交，事件被錄影並在

互聯網廣泛流傳。他們認罪並承認案件的事實。

法庭在取得各種判刑前的報告後，分別判處他

們接受感化及履行社會服務令。

一名案件被告人危坐中環行人天橋頂並展示一

幅橫額。為安全起見，有關方面在天橋下張開

救生氣墊並實施交通改道，引致交通嚴重擠塞。

被告被控對公眾造成妨擾，他承認控罪後被判

履行 150 小時社會服務令。

一名出生只有四天的男嬰被發現遭遺棄於深圳

灣口岸女洗手間的廁格內。警方調查後，揭發

男嬰的母親身分。該名母親返回港方檢查站時

被截獲，她承認在中國內地發現自己懷孕後前

來香港分娩。嬰兒出生數天後，她與嬰兒離開

醫院，她把嬰兒遺棄在深圳灣口岸一女洗手間

的廁板上。她聲稱希望有人會抱走男嬰並予以

照顧。該名母親被控故意拋棄兒童，其方式相

當可能導致該兒童受到不必要的苦楚或健康損

害。她承認控罪，被判處監禁四個月。

In 2015, there were 76 Court Prosecutors attached to 7 Magistrates’ Courts and they have handled a total of 150,714 cases. They conducted prosecution on behalf of the Police, Customs and Excise Department, Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority and a number of other government departments and statutory bodies. They also prosecuted some special cases investigated by the Immigration Department and the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department.

Among the cases handled by the Court Prosecutors throughout the year, some of them were of public interest and attracted a great deal of publicity. A selection of these cases is set out below.

Two university students were charged with committing an act outraging public decency. In the small hours, they had sexual intercourse in a street. The incident was video recorded and widely circulated on the internet. They pleaded guilty to the charge and admitted to the facts of the case. Having sought various pre-sentencing reports, the Court imposed upon them Probation and Community Service Orders respectively.

A defendant was sitting and displaying a banner on the rooftop of a pedestrian footbridge in Central in a dangerous manner. For safety sake, an air cushion was set up underneath the footbridge and traffic diversion was imposed. It resulted in serious traffic congestion. The defendant was charged with causing public nuisance. He pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to perform Community Service of 150 hours.

A 4-day old baby boy was found in a cubicle of the female toilet in Shenzhen Bay Port. Upon Police’s investigation, the identity of the mother was unveiled. The mother was intercepted when she returned to Hong Kong check point. She admitted that she came to Hong Kong to deliver the baby after she found herself pregnant in Mainland China. A few days after the baby was born, the mother left the hospital with the baby and abandoned him on the seat cover of a female toilet in Shenzhen Bay Port. She claimed that it was her hope that someone would pick up the baby and take care of him. Upon pleading guilty to the charge of wilfully abandoned the child in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to his health, the mother was sentenced to a term of 4 months’ imprisonment.

41

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

一名十多歲的女童從高處墮下死亡，揭發一宗

違反逗留條件案。調查發現女童母親自 1994 年

逗留期限屆滿後，在香港逾期居留。女童父親

窩藏該名母親，並提供一切生活所需。他也沒

有在兩名女兒出生後的 42 天規定期限內，向生

死登記官申報資料。案中母親承認違反逗留條

件控罪，被判處監禁 12 個月。女童父親則被控

協助和教唆別人違反逗留條件，以及沒有為初

生嬰兒辦理出生登記手續等罪行，被判處監禁

共八個月，緩刑兩年。

兩名持雙程證的內地人承認管有第 I 部毒藥、違

反逗留條件，以及未經註冊非法以醫生身分執

業，被裁定罪名成立。兩名被告在香港租用一

個酒店房間，安排在該房間內為其顧客注射肉

毒桿菌。案發當日，其中一名被告曾處理和預

備藥物，另一名被告正準備為一名女顧客注射。

警員突擊搜查該房間，拘捕他們兩人，並檢取

各種醫療用品和設備。兩名被告認罪，各被判

處監禁四個月。

法庭檢控主任一直與執法機關緊密合作。為了

提升裁判法院檢控工作的質素，法庭檢控主任

積極參與為執法機構人員提供的培訓計劃，透

過主持講座和研討會，提供有關裁判法院程序

及常規的最新資訊和知識。講座用實務的方式

進行，以實例使與會者明瞭籌備案件所需的標

準和在法庭審訊作證的正確方式。2015 年，

多位法庭檢控主任透過主持講座和研討會，與

A case of breach of condition of stay was unveiled following the death of a teenage girl falling from height. Investigation revealed that her mother had overstayed in Hong Kong since 1994 after her permitted stay had expired. Further, the father harboured the mother and provided her with all necessities in Hong Kong. The father also failed to give information to the Registrar of Births and Deaths the birth of his two daughters within the prescribed period of 42 days. For the charge of breach of condition of stay, the mother pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. For the charges of aiding and abetting breach of condition of stay and failing to register birth, the father was sentenced to a total term of 8 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 2 years.

Two Mainlanders on a 2-way permit were convicted upon their own plea of possessing Part I Poison, breaching of condition of stay and practising medicine unlawfully without registration. The defendants rented a hotel room in Hong Kong where they arranged for the injection of botox for their clients. On the day in question, one of the defendants had organised and prepared the medicine and the other was about to perform the injection for a female client. Police raided the room and arrested both of them. Various medical products and equipment were seized. Upon their guilty plea, each of them was sentenced to a term of 4 months’ imprisonment.

Court Prosecutors always work closely with the law enforcement agencies. To enhance the quality of prosecution work in the Magistrates’ Court, Court Prosecutors participate actively in the training programmes for members of the law enforcement agencies. Through lectures and seminars, Court Prosecutors provide them with updated information and knowledge on the procedures and practice in the Magistrates’ Courts. The lectures are conducted in a practical approach. Real examples are used to impress upon the audience the required standard for case preparation and the proper manner of giving evidence in Court. In 2015, a number of Court Prosecutors shared their experience with various law enforcement agencies through lectures and seminars. Mr George Man, Senior Court Prosecutor (SCP) I delivered the seminars on “Liaison with Court Prosecutors” and “Preparing Cases in Court” to a group

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

荃灣裁判法院法庭檢控主任Court Prosecutors in the Tsuen Wan Magistrates’ Courts

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

42

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

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

分科

一 法

律指

引Su

b-di

visi

on I

Adv

isor

y

執法機關人員分享經驗。高級一等法庭檢控主

任文頌基先生在警察訓練學院以“與法庭檢控

主任的聯繫”和“籌備法庭案件”為題，為

一眾見習警務督察主持研討會。高級一等法庭

檢控主任吳水清先生和高級二等法庭檢控主任 賴玉雲女士就陳述案情所遇見的問題及證人常

犯的錯誤，與警務督察、警長及其他執法機關

人員等逾 170 名參加者分享經驗。高級二等法

庭檢控主任黃華芬先生和黎莉莉女士亦以“與

法庭檢控主任的聯繫”為題，在警察訓練學院

主持研討會。高級二等法庭檢控主任何寶英女

士和法庭檢控主任蘇健豪先生則以“在法庭舉

証及常見的錯誤”為題，為 160 名參加者主持

講座。所有講座都深受歡迎。

在裁判法院有相當數量的檢控工作是由外判律

師負責。由於案件工作量極大，加上部分法庭

檢控主任行將退休，預計這個趨勢在未來數年

將會持續增長。為確保有關案件得以順利處理，

高級法庭檢控主任會在整個聆訊程序中投放額

外時間和精力向外判律師提供協助。此外，我

們在過去數年與兩大法律專業團體合作，安排

聯合培訓課程，為資歷較淺律師舉辦法庭實習

計劃，此計劃在 2015 年繼續舉辦，共有 67 名

獲認許為大律師或律師不足五年的人士參加。

他們獲派到不同的裁判法院，在高級法庭檢控

主任的督導下進行檢控工作，為期兩星期。

法庭檢控主任的團隊繼續不斷致力提升法律專

業資格。在 76 名法庭檢控主任中，有六人擁有

執業律師資格、三人獲認許為大律師、七人持

有法學專業證書、十人完成法學碩士學位課程，

26 人取得法學士學位或同等學歷。值得注意的

是，法庭檢控主任翁達揚先生獲批無薪假期至

2016 年 4 月，以便他在此期間擔任見習大律師。

法庭檢控主任黃雋文先生則獲批一年全薪假期

以修讀法學專業證書課程，預期在 2016 年 6 月

完成課程。署理高級二等法庭檢控主任張豔女

士亦已開始修讀兼讀制法學專業證書課程，預

期會於 2017 年修畢該項課程。

of probationary Police Inspectors in Police Training College. Mr Stephen Ng, SCP I and Ms Olisa Lai, SCP II shared their experience with over 170 attendees comprising Police Inspectors, Sergeants and officers of other law enforcement agencies in a lecture on problems in presentation of cases and common errors committed by witnesses. Mr William Wong and Ms Lily Lai, both are SCP II, also conducted seminars on “Liaison with Court Prosecutor” in the Police Training College. Ms Lily Ho, SCP II and Mr Philip So, Court Prosecutor (CP) delivered a talk, attended by 160 attendees on “Case presentation in Court and its Common Errors”. All the lectures were very well-received.

A considerable amount of prosecution work in the Magistrates’ Courts is undertaken by lawyers on fiat. This trend is expected to be on the increase in the coming years because of the demanding caseload and the retirement of some Court Prosecutors. To ensure cases concerned are smoothyly conducted, Senior Court Prosecutors would take extra time and efforts to provide assistance to the fiat lawyers throughout the proceedings. Furthermore, the programme of Junior Lawyers’ Court Attachment launched in previous years under the Joint Training Programme for young lawyers jointly organized with the two legal professional bodies continues in 2015. A total of 67 lawyers with less than 5 years’ post-call or post-admission experience joined the Programme and were attached to different Magistrates’ Courts for two weeks to perform prosecution work under the supervision of the Senior Court Prosecutors.

Court Prosecutors continue to advance their legal qualifications. Of the 76 Court Prosecutors, 6 are fully qualified lawyers, 3 have been called to the Bar, 7 possess Postgraduate Certificate in Laws (PCLL) qualification, 10 have attained a Master in Law (LLM) degree and 26 have attained an Undergraduate in Law (LLB) degree or equivalent. It is also worth noting that Mr Eric Yung, CP has been granted no pay leave to undertake his pupillage until April 2016. Mr Geoffrey Wong, CP has been given one-year full pay leave to pursue his PCLL study and is expected to finish the course in June 2016. Ms Diana Cheung, SCP II (Acting) has also commenced her part-time PCLL study and is expected to complete the study in 2017.

分科二 訟辯Sub-division II Advocacy

2015 年，分科二有逾半時間由副刑事檢控專員黃惠沖資深大律師掌管，直至 2015 年

9 月，在他獲委任為法律政策專員後由許紹鼎資深大律師接掌。本分科的律師大都是經

驗豐富的訟辯律師，負責在敏感和重要的刑事案件的審訊和上訴聆訊擔任主控官，並

協助死因裁判官召開死因研訊。除了法庭訟辯工作外，他們還負責根據名為 FAST 的

快速法律指引制度，定期為執法機關提供法律指引。

For the most part of 2015, Sub-division II was headed by Mr Wesley Wong, SC, Deputy

Director of Public Prosecutions until September 2015, when Mr Wong was appointed

the Solicitor General and succeeded by Mr Martin Hui, SC. Counsel in this Sub-division

are mainly experienced advocates who prosecute sensitive and important criminal

cases including trials and appeals as well as assist coroners in holding death inquests.

In addition to their court duties, counsel also regularly provide legal advice to law

enforcement agencies under the speedy advisory system known as “FAST”.

44

本分科另一項重要工作是為新入職的檢控官提

供合適的實務培訓；專為新入職人員開設的刑

事訟辯課程，能讓他們掌握必須的知識和技巧，

以應付本分科富挑戰的檢控工作。新同事首先

要出席一系列不同的刑法與實務專題講座，隨

後會在刑事審訊裏擔任訟辯律師，參與包括為

期兩星期的模擬法庭審訊，繼而派駐裁判法院

實習七星期，在庭上檢控案件。之後，他們會

在本分科工作一段短時間，獨力負責檢控相對

簡單的案件及／或在一些複雜的案件擔任副手，

以累積訟辯經驗，預備他們日後成為獨當一面

的正式檢控官。

以下是一些由分科二的律師處理的一些重大或

矚目案件。

在香港特別行政區 訴 李欽培及另外 11 人 ( 區

院刑事案件 2015 年第 25 號 ) 一案中，一名發

展商及 11 名新界原居民被控在據稱由 22 名原

居民根據小型屋宇政策申請建屋牌照期間，串

謀詐騙地政總署。根據小型屋宇政策，只限在

合資格地方擁有土地的新界原居民，才有資格

申請免費建屋牌照。雖然該批原居民名義上是

申請人，表面上也是有關土地的註冊擁有人，

但他們從未擁有有關土地的任何權益，只是在

發展商遞交建屋牌照申請之前的短時間內，以

據稱的代價轉讓該等土地給他們，而他們從未

繳付或意圖繳付有關代價。這些原居民容許發

展商以他們的名義申請建屋牌照，換取經濟報

酬，而且蓄意向地政總署隱瞞他們與發展商的

秘密交易。各被告經審訊後被裁定罪名成立。

發展商被判處監禁 3 年，各原居民則被判處監

禁 2 年 6 個月至 2 年 10 個月不等。各被告就定

罪及刑罰提出上訴，有關的上訴聆訊日期未定。

Another significant aspect of this Sub-division is that it affords useful, practical training opportunities to newly appointed public prosecutors. The Criminal Advocacy Course is designed for new joiners to equip them with the necessary knowledge and skills required for undertaking challenging prosecution work of this Division. After attending a series of lectures on various topics about criminal law and practice, these new comers will have an opportunity to get a first-hand taste of being an advocate through firstly, a 2-week mock trial and subsequently, a 7-week attachment at the Magistrates’ Courts to conduct prosecution. They would then spend a short stint in the Sub-division to accumulate advocacy experience through prosecuting relatively simple cases on their own and/or being assigned as junior counsel in complicated matters, with a view to gearing them up to be full-fledged prosecutors in their own right.

The following are some of the major or high profile cases conducted by counsel in Sub-division II.

In HKSAR v Li Yam-pui David and 11 Others DCCC 25/2015, a developer and eleven indigenous villagers were charged with the offences of conspiracy to defraud against the Lands Department during the applications for building licences purportedly made by 22 indigenous villagers under the Small House Policy. Under the Small House Policy, only indigenous villagers who own land in qualifying areas are eligible to apply for a free building licence. Whilst the villagers were the applicants in name and apparent registered owners of the land concerned, they never owned any interest in the land concerned; rather, the land was assigned to them by the developer shortly before submitting the application for a purported consideration which they never paid or intended to pay. The villagers received a financial reward for allowing the developer to use their names in the building licence applications. In addition, the villagers purposely concealed from the Lands Department their secret dealings with the developer. All the defendants were convicted after trial. Whilst the developer was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment, the villagers were sentenced to imprisonment for a period ranging from 2 years and

分科

二 訟

辯Su

b-di

visi

on II

Adv

ocac

y

45

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

在香港特別行政區 訴 鄺浩雲 ( 東區裁判法院刑

事案件 2015 年第 167 號 ) 一案中，一名在職警

員在警察總部的女廁內藉詞向因店鋪盜竊而被

捕的持雙程證中國內地女子搜身，從而性侵犯

該女子。他被控一項猥褻侵犯罪和一項公職人

員行為不當罪，經審訊後被裁定兩項控罪罪名

成立。法院就前一項控罪判處被告監禁 14 個月，

而後一項控罪則判處監禁 8 個月，並命令後者

的兩個月刑期在前一項控罪的刑期屆滿後才執

行，即監禁合共 16 個月。他就定罪及刑罰提出

上訴，在 2016 年 9 月 2 日遭駁回。

在香港特別行政區 訴 陳偉業 [2016] 2 HKLRD 718 一案中，被告被裁定明知而參與或繼續參與

未經批准的集結，又或明知而成為或繼續成為

此等集結的成員，違反《公安條例》( 第 245 章 )第 17A(3)(a) 條。他提出上訴，但遭高等法院原

訟法庭駁回。被告在禮賓府東閘叫羣眾進行號

稱“民主自由行”的活動，人羣隨後往下走至

皇后大道中與雪廠街的交界處，阻塞交通。被

告稍後抵達交界處，企圖控制或領導該處的集

結，之後他與羣眾遊行至花園道，再返回中環。

法庭認為，在該交界處的集結及其後的遊行，

構成為共同目的而組織的遊行 ( 即人羣集結並一

起沿着同一路線前往相同目的地 )，而且遊行有

共同目的 ( 即透過“民主自由行”進行“示威”，

向政府表達意見和不滿 )。法庭裁定，即使該集

結原先屬自發，但被告在場企圖控制或領導，

集結的性質起了根本的變化，與經事先召集或

組織而舉行的集會和遊行再無分別。再者，即

使“民主自由行”是未經事先籌備和無指定路

線的遊行，根據《公安條例》第 13 條，有關人

士仍有必要給予當局“合理通知”。被告就定

罪提出上訴，在 2015 年 5 月 26 日上訴遭駁回。

在香港特別行政區 訴 蘇永健 ( 第一被告 ) 及吳

定邦 ( 第二被告 ) ( 東區裁判法院刑事案件 2015年第 302 號 ) 一案，數名警員在 2014 年年底“佔

領中環行動”期間在金鐘港鐵站遇襲。當天早

上三名剛休班警員走進海富中心，一批示威者

辱罵他們，更與其中一名警員對峙，不久，包

括第二被告在內的示威者便襲擊該名警員。當

另外兩名警員上前協助，第二被告及其他施襲

者同樣襲擊二人，甚至在其中一名警員跌倒在

地後，仍對他繼續拳打腳踢。警方增援人員到

場後，有警員認出第一被告是其中一名施襲者。

一名督察嘗試與第一被告對質，但被對方單手

擊中臉部。

第二被告經審訊後被裁定兩項襲擊在正當執行

職務的警務人員罪和一項普通襲擊罪罪名成立，

判處監禁合共 10 個月。第一被告被控襲擊在正

當執行職務的警務人員，但被判無罪。

在香港特別行政區 訴 鄧德鵬 ( 九龍城裁判法院

刑事案件 2014 年第 4179 號 ) 一案中，被告經

6 months to 2 years and 10 months. All the defendants appeal against conviction and sentence and the hearing date is yet to be fixed.

In HKSAR v Kong Ho-wan ESCC 167/2015, a serving police constable was charged with a count of indecent assault and a count of misconduct in public office for sexually abusing a female two-way permit holder from Mainland China, who had been arrested for shop theft, in a female toilet of the Police Headquarters on the pretext of conducting a body search on her. The defendant was convicted after trial of both charges. He was sentenced to 14 months imprisonment on the former charge and 8 months’ imprisonment on the latter charge. Two months of the term on the latter charge was ordered to run consecutively to the term on the former charge. The total sentence was 16 months’ imprisonment. His appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed on 2 September 2016.

In HKASR v Chan Wai-yip Albert [2016] 2 HKLRD 718, the Court of First Instance dismissed the appeal from the defendant who was convicted of knowingly taking or continuing to take part in or forming or continuing to form part of an unauthorised assembly, contrary to section 17A(3)(a) of the Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245). At the east gate of Government House, the defendant told a crowd to carry out the so-called “Marching Freely for Democracy”. The crowd then went downhill to the junction of Queen’s Road Central and Ice House Street and blocked the traffic. The defendant later arrived at the junction and attempted to assume control or leadership of the assembly there. The crowd including the defendant subsequently proceeded to Garden Road, and further went back to Central. The Court found the assembly at the junction and the procession arose subsequently constituted a procession organized for a common purpose: people assembling and going together along the same route to the same destination and that the procession also had a common purpose: to “protest” by “Marching Freely for Democracy” so as to express their views and discontent with the government. It was held that even if the assembly was originally a spontaneous assembly, its nature underwent a fundamental change by the defendant’s attempt to assume control or leadership of it at the scene, and it was no longer different from a meeting and procession which was held following convening or organization; and that even if “Marching Freely for Democracy” was a procession having no prior preparation and no designated route, “reasonable notification” under section 13 of the Public Order Ordinance was still essential. His appeal against conviction was dismissed on 26 May 2015.

In HKSAR v So Wing-kin (D1) and Ng Ting-pong (D2) ESCC 302/2015, a group of police officers was assaulted at the Admiralty MTR Station amidst the Occupy Central Movement in late 2014. When 3 officers, having got off duty in the morning, entered the Admiralty Centre, they were verbally abused and one officer was confronted by a number of protestors. These protestors, including D2, soon started to assault that officer. When the other two officers came for assistance, they were also assaulted by the assailants, including D2. The assailants continued to punch and kick one of the officers even after he had fallen down on the floor. After Police reinforcement had arrived at the scene, D1 was recognized by an officer to be one of the assailants. When an Inspector tried to confront D1, he turned around and used his hand to hit the Inspector’s face once.

46

審訊後被裁定一項在公眾地方作出擾亂秩序的

行為罪罪名成立。警方根據原訟法庭頒發的禁

制令，協助移走在旺角的示威者。數以百計示

威者拒絕離開，並在行人路上逗留，部分人情

緒激動。被告煽動他人無視警方警告，而且更

衝擊警方用以防止示威者重返道路的封鎖線。

裁判官判處被告罰款港幣 3,000 元。

香港特別行政區 訴 許智峯 ( 東區裁判法院刑事

案件 2014 年第 4099 號 ) 一案被告是區議員，

他被控兩項普通襲擊罪，經審訊後裁定罪名不

成立。被告在民政事務總署辦事處靜坐抗議，

他要求進入辦事處範圍但被拒絕，他突然跳上

接待處櫃台，企圖強行闖入辦事處範圍。數名

護衞員上前按着被告雙腳，制止他內進，但被

告以腳踢及伸腿作反抗，擊中護衞員的腹部和

手指。裁判官裁定，雖然被告為侵入者，而護

衞員是使用合理武力阻止被告企圖非法進入，

但不能排除被告與護衞員之間的身體接觸有可

能屬意外。因此，被告獲判無罪。

控方申請覆核原審的無罪裁決，裁判官維持原

判，但接納控方陳詞所指，被告在案發時的行

為確實涉及威脅使用暴力或至少確實令人對使

用暴力有合理疑慮。因此，裁判官命令被告以

港幣 1,000 元簽保，守行為 12 個月。

在香港特別行政區 訴 徐焯榮 ( 荃灣裁判法院刑

事案件 2015 年第 1053 號 ) 一案中，被告在駕

駛汽車時體內酒精濃度超出訂明限度，經審訊

後被裁定罪名成立。裁判官判刑時頒令如下：

(i)120 小時社會服務令；(ii) 罰款港幣 12,000 元；

(iii) 取消駕駛資格 12 個月；以及 (iv) 修習駕駛改

進課程。案發時被告的有關呼氣分析儀器讀數

為每 100 毫升呼氣含 23 微克酒精 ( 每 100 毫升

23 微克 )，較每 100 毫升 22 微克的相關訂明限

度超出 1 微克。辯方質疑呼氣分析儀器讀數的

準確度。控方的專家首次就有關呼氣分析儀器

的可靠性和準確度提供專家證供，獲裁判官接

納，並 ( 可能是香港司法管轄區首次 ) 採納加拿

大最高法院在 R v Moreau [1979] 1 SCR 261 案

中闡明的原則所指，“不能以認可的呼氣分析

儀器有一般性的難以準確測量情況或存在固有

誤差的可能性，而推翻以《道路交通條例》( 第

374 章 ) 第 39C(3)(a) 條訂下的證明書所確立有

關被告體內酒精濃度的表面證據”。

在香港特別行政區 訴 黃曉鵬 ( 東區裁判法院刑

事 案 件 2014 年 第 3200 號 ) 一 案 中，2013 年

11 月 22 日被告在應考海事處舉行的“遊樂船

隻二級操作人合格證明書”考試作弊，他被控

一項串謀詐騙罪。當被告答畢首條試題，一名

監考員揭發他利用複合無線電傳送設備，向同

黨傳送試題影像，並收聽對方的答案。被告與

同黨合謀，企圖誘使海事處在發出相關證明書

After trial, D2 was convicted of two charges of assaulting a police officer in the due execution of his duty and a charge of common assault. He was sentenced to a total term of 10 months’ imprisonment. D1 was acquitted of the charge of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty.

In HKSAR v Tang Tak-pang KCCC 4179/2014, the defendant was convicted after trial of one charge of behaving in a disorderly manner in a public place. Pursuant to an injunction ordered by the Court of First Instance, Police offered assistance in removing the protestors in Mongkok. Hundreds of protestors refused to leave and remained at the pavements. Some acted emotionally. The defendant incited others to ignore the Police warning and to charge the Police cordon line, which was set up to prevent the protestors to return to the roads. The magistrate imposed a fine of HK$3,000 upon the defendant.

In HKSAR v Hui Chi-fung ESCC 4099/2014, the defendant, a District Councillor, was acquitted after trial of two charges of common assault. The defendant staged a sit-in protest at the office of the Home Affairs Department. When his request for access to the office area was refused, the defendant suddenly jumped onto the reception counter table and attempted to force his way into the office area. A few security guards came up to stop the defendant from entering by pressing his legs. The defendant resisted by kicking and stretching his legs, hitting the guards’ stomach and fingers. Although the magistrate found that the defendant was a trespasser and the guards had used reasonable force to resist the attempted unlawful entry, he could not rule out the possibility of accidental bodily contact between the defendant and the guards. Hence, the defendent was aquitted.

On an application for review by the Prosecution of the verdict of acquittal, the magistrate affirmed his decision. He however accepted the Prosecution’s submission that the defendant’s conduct at the material time did involve threat of violence or at least did give rise to reasonable apprehension of such violence. Accordingly, the defendant was ordered to be bound over for 12 months by entering into a recognizance of HK$1,000.

In HKSAR v Chu Cheuk-wing TWCC 1053/2015, the defendant was convicted after trial of one charge of driving a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration exceeding the prescribed limit. In sentencing, the magistrate made the following orders: (i) a Community Service Order for 120 hours; (ii) a fine of HK$12,000; (iii) a disqualification order for 12 months; and (iv) attending driving improvement course. The breathalyzer reading was 23 micrograms of alcohol in 100 milliliters of breath (23ug/100ml) i.e. one microgram exceeding the relevant prescribed limit of 22ug/100ml. Defence challenged the accuracy of the breathalyzer reading. The magistrate accepted the testimony of the prosecution’s expert, who gave expert evidence on the reliability and accuracy of the breathalyzer in question for the first time in Hong Kong. The magistrate also, probably for the first time in this jurisdiction, adopted the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Moreau [1979] 1 SCR 261 that possible uncertainties in general terms or inherent fallibility of approved instrument are not capable of rebutting the prima facie evidence of the defendant’s alcohol concentration established by the

分科

二 訟

辯Su

b-di

visi

on II

Adv

ocac

y

47

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

方面作出有違其公職的作為。控辯雙方均提出

專家證據。辯方的專家證人接受控方盤問時認

同，接收人不必在靜止狀態也可接收傳送器發

出的訊息，而試場裏基本沒有障礙物可以完全

阻擋有關訊號。在審訊中法庭處理了若干問題，

包括辯方指稱控方未能證明實際上是被告作出

“控罪詳情指稱的公開作為”，並以“犯罪行

為不可能發生為抗辯理由”提出不可能作出該

等指稱的公開作為。被告經審訊後被裁定罪名

成立，判處罰款港幣 4,000 元。他就定罪提出

的上訴在 2016 年 10 月 26 日被駁回。

在香港特別行政區 訴 周昀霆 ( 東區裁判法院刑

事案件 2015 年第 2796 號 ) 一案中，被告是職

業治療師，被控普通襲擊罪。2014 年 9 月 27日凌晨 1 時 25 分左右，逾 100 名示威者在立

法會綜合大樓 1 號公眾入口外聚集。部分示威

者以身體壓向警方的人鏈封鎖線，被告則手握

瓶子，把瓶內的水潑向在封鎖線前排執勤的兩

名軍裝警員。審訊的主要爭議點是認人証據和

缺乏犯罪意圖。被告自願作證，經審訊後被裁

定罪名成立，判處有條件釋放，須以港幣 1,000元簽保在 12 個月內行為良好。法院又下令被告

支付訟費港幣 1,000 元。

evidentiary certificate pursuant to section 39C(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap. 374).

In HKSAR v Huang Xiaopeng ESCC 3200/2014, the defendant was charged with one count of conspiracy to defraud for cheating in an examination for “Pleasure Vessels Operator Grade 2 Certificate of Competency Examination” held by the Marine Department on 22 November 2013. He managed to answer the first question of the examination when he was caught by one of the examiners for using composite radio transmission equipment to send visual images of the examination questions to a co-conspirator; and receive audio answers to those questions from the co-conspirator. The agreement between the defendant and the co-conspirator was to induce the Marine Department to act contrary to their public duty in respect of the granting of the relevant certificate. Expert evidence was called by both parties. Under cross-examination by the Prosecution, defence expert witness agreed that it was not necessarily the case that a person had to remain stationary to receive the signals from the transmitter, and that there was nothing in the examination venue which could completely block the signals. Some of the issues raised at trial included the contention that the Prosecution failed to prove that “the overt acts as pleaded in the particulars of the charge” were in fact carried out by the defendant, and those alleged overt acts were also impossible to be carried out under the “defence of impossibility”. The defendant was convicted after trial and sentenced by way of a fine of HK$4,000. His appeal against conviction was dismissed on 26 October 2016.

In HKSAR v Chau Kwan-ting ESCC 2796/2015, the defendant, who was an occupational therapist, was charged with the offence of common assault. At about 1:25 a.m. on 27 September 2014, more than 100 protestors gathered outside Public Entrance No.1 of the Legislative Council Complex. Some protestors were pressing their bodies against the police human chain cordon line. The defendant splashed water from a bottle that he was holding onto two uniformed police officers manning the front row of the cordon line. The main issues at trial were identification and the lack of mens rea to commit the offence. The defendant elected to give evidence. He was found guilty after trial and sentenced by the Court to a conditional discharge upon his entering into a recognizance in a sum of HK$1,000 for 12 months to be of good behaviour. The defendant was also ordered to pay costs of HK$1,000.

分科三 上訴Sub-division III Appeals

上訴權是本港刑事司法制度的重要一環。被告如果不服被定罪，有權就定罪及／或判

刑提出上訴。另一方面，控方如認為某宗案件的判決在考慮公義和公眾利益下而必須

採取補救行動，也可行使上訴權利。上訴的機制旨在糾正錯誤和過失，對香港的刑事

司法制度能妥善運作十分重要。

The right to appeal is a crucial feature of our criminal justice system. A convicted

defendant is entitled to appeal against conviction and/or sentence should he/she feel

aggrieved. On the other hand, the Prosecution may exercise the right to appeal when

justice and the public interest warrant remedial actions to be taken. The appellate process

is about rectifying errors and wrongs and it is integral to the due administration of

criminal justice in Hong Kong.

49

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

上訴分科由副刑事檢控專員譚耀豪資深大律師

掌管，主要負責所有刑事上訴事宜。本分科的

律師定期委派負責法庭訟辯工作，包括在各級

上訴法院負責檢控上訴案件。本分科為律師提

供機會以培養及磨練他們擔任訟辯律師的訟辯

技巧。律師也不時獲分派出庭檢控原審案件，

以擴闊他們的訟辯經驗。

本分科也負責監察法庭案件的判決。假如法庭

的裁決涉及法律上的錯誤，便可能需要開展法

律程序糾正，這可以是以案件呈述方式提出上

訴或申請覆核。倘若認為案件的判刑有原則上

犯錯或刑罰明顯過輕，本組律師往往必須在緊

迫的時限內申請覆核判刑。如涉及的裁決是由

上訴法院作出，更須迅速的考慮是否應該基於

法律論點或以有實質及嚴重的不公平情況為理

由，向終審法院提出上訴。

本分科的工作極富挑戰性。下文概述在 2015 年

本分科三個組別分別履行的職責和職能。

分科三第 1 組 裁判法院上訴

裁判法院上訴組在 2015 年由高級助理刑事檢控

專員單偉琛先生掌管。本組律師主要負責處理

裁判法院的上訴案件，這些上訴是由在裁判法

院被定罪的被告人提出，在原訟法庭進行聆訊。

由於香港大部分刑事案件均在裁判法院審理，

這類上訴案件的數目相對較多。2015 年，裁判

法院上訴案件總數為 784 宗。由沒有律師代表

的上訴人提出上訴的裁判法院上訴案件日益增

加，而這類案件大多以粵語審理。不論上訴人

是否有法律代表，本組律師的職責是協助法庭

公正地審理上訴。

除處理上訴案件之外，本組律師也負責提供法

律指引，就相關案件應否依據《裁判官條例》( 第227 章 ) 對裁判官的決定申請覆核 ( 第 104 條 )或以案件呈述方式提出上訴 ( 第 105 條 )。2015年，本組就 113 宗案件提供了法律指引，其中

61 宗案件提出覆核申請，另有兩宗以案件呈述

方式提出上訴。由控方提出的覆核及上訴案件

的數目相對較少，而控方只會在合乎公義和公

眾利益的情況下，方會提出覆核和上訴。

下述是 2015 年審結的一些重要的裁判法院上訴

案件。

在香港特別行政區 訴 黃洋達 [2016] 4 HKLRD 433 一案中，上訴人就非法集結罪提出上訴。

上訴人辯稱，案件關乎他在立法會綜合大樓內

作出的行為，控方應根據《立法會 ( 權力及特

權 ) 條例》( 第 382 章 ) 而不是《公安條例》( 第

245 章 ) 檢控他。法院裁定，律政司司長是按照

《基本法》第六十三條行使起訴的決定權，而

The Appeals Sub-Division, headed by Mr William Tam, SC, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, is principally in charge of all appeal matters. Counsel in this Sub-division are regularly assigned advocacy duties which include prosecuting appeal cases at different levels of the appellate Courts. This is the Sub-division where counsel are given opportunities to develop and hone their skills as advocates. From time to time, counsel are also assigned trial cases so as to broaden their advocacy experience.

The Sub-division is also responsible for monitoring the outcome of Court cases. Where decisions of the Court involve an error of law, steps may have to be taken to correct them. That could require an appeal by way of case stated or an application for a review. Where sentences imposed are considered to be wrong in principle or manifestly inadequate, our counsel are often tasked to apply for a review of sentence within a very tight time-frame. When the decision involved is that of the appellate court, urgent consideration would have to be given to the question of appealing to the Court of Final Appeal on a point of law or on the substantial and grave injustice limb.

The work of the Sub-division is very challenging and what follows is an outline of the duties and functions discharged by the 3 sections of the Sub-division in 2015.

Section III(1) Magistracy Appeals

The Magistracy Appeals Section was headed by Mr Eddie Sean, Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions in 2015. Counsel in this Section are responsible mainly for prosecuting magistracy appeals, instituted by defendants convicted in the Magistrates’ Courts and are heard in the Court of First Instance. As the vast majority of criminal cases in Hong Kong are dealt with in the Magistrates’ Courts, the number of such appeals is relatively high. In 2015, there were a total of 784 magistracy appeals. There has been a rising number of magistracy appeals conducted by unrepresented appellants, with most of such appeals conducted in Cantonese. It is our counsel’s duty to assist the Court to achieve a just disposal of the appeals irrespective of whether or not the appellants are legally represented.

Apart from prosecuting appeals, counsel in this Section are responsible for advising on whether or not to lodge an application for review or appeal by way of case stated against the decision of a magistrate pursuant to sections 104 and 105 respectively of the Magistrates Ordinance (Cap. 227). In 2015, advice was rendered in a total of 113 such cases, with 61 applications for review and 2 appeals by way of case stated being prosecuted by our counsel. The number of such reviews and appeals by the Prosecution are relatively low and are initiated only in cases where justice and public interest so demand.

Below are some of the significant magistracy appeals that were concluded in 2015:

In HKSAR v Wong Yeung-tat [2016] 4 HKLRD 433, the appellant was convicted of unlawful assembly. On appeal, the appellant contended that as the case concerned his conduct in the Complex of the Legislative

50

律政司司長決定根據《公安條例》檢控上訴人，

並非濫用程序。上訴人又指，警方試圖關閉立

法會西面公眾入口的大門，是對他們示威的權

利施加不合理的限制。法院裁定，示威者是明

知自己無權仍阻塞入口；又儘管部分示威者已

經進入立法會大樓內，但這並不表示其他的示

威者可以隨意進出大樓。上訴人最後辯稱，就

非法集結罪而言，控方必須證明有無辜的第三

方人士合理地擔憂，涉案集結的人會破壞社會

安寧，而記者和警務人員則不應被視為無辜的

第三方。法院裁定，就此罪行而言，上述受過

訓練的人員也可被視為無辜的第三方。

在香港特別行政區 訴 秦月明 ( 高院裁判法院上

訴 2014 年第 537 號 ) 一案中，上訴人在案發時

間是被清盤公司的唯一董事，因違反《公司 ( 清

盤及雜項條文 ) 條例》( 第 32 章 ) 第 274 條指明

的一項罪行而遭票控。該公司並無在清盤前的

兩年內備存妥善的帳簿，而上訴人身為該公司

有失責的高級人員，被裁定罪名成立。她在上

訴時辯稱，自己是誠實行事，而該失責行為是

在公司的業務經營期間發生，應可予以從寬處

理。法院裁定，有關罪行的舉證責任在於上訴

人，而上訴人卻多次沒有回覆清盤人向她的查

詢。雖然她聲稱曾安排取得該等帳簿，但法院

不接納其證供，因此裁定她並無履行舉證責任。

在香港特別行政區 訴 Pham Van Thang ( 高院裁

判法院上訴 2015 年第 244 號 ) 一案中，上訴人

承認一項盜竊罪，涉及八條褲和四件圓領汗衫，

被判處監禁十個月。他就判刑提出上訴，指判刑

明顯過重。法院接納，涉案贓物價值港幣 5,588元，認為店舖盜竊的監禁刑期一般不會超過九

至 12 個月。上訴人在 2014 年有兩次犯同一罪

行的刑事定罪記錄。法院裁定，根據本案案情，

適當的量刑起點為八個月。由於上訴人再次犯

案，法院把監禁刑期上調至 11 個月。此外，上

訴人是一名酷刑聲請人，法院接納進一步加刑

8% 的幅度為恰當，最終判處上訴人監禁刑期為

11 個月零 20 日。

分科三第 1 組 ― 裁判法院上訴Section III (1) - Magistracy Appeals

分科

三 上

訴Su

b-di

visi

on II

I App

eals

Council (LegCo), the Prosecution should have prosecuted him under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382) instead of under the Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245). The Court held that the power to prosecute was exercised by the Secretary for Justice under Article 63 of the Basic Law. The fact that the Secretary for Justice decided to prosecute the appellant under the Public Order Ordinance was not an abuse of process. The appellant further contended that when the Police attempted to close down the door at the west public entrance of the LegCo, that was an unreasonable restriction to their rights to demonstrate. The Court held that demonstrators were obstructing the entrance and they knew that they had no right to do so. The fact that some demonstrators had entered the building already did not mean that other demonstrators had the freedom to enter and exit the LegCo building at will. Finally, it was contended that for the unlawful assembly offence, the Prosecution had to prove that innocent third parties reasonably feared that persons so assembled would commit a breach of peace and that the reporters and police officers should not be regarded as innocent third parties. The Court held that even such trained personnel could be regarded as innocent third parties for this purpose.

In HKSAR v Chun Yuet-ming HCMA 537/2014, during the material time, the appellant was the sole director of the company which had been wound up. She was summoned for an offence under section 274 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32). The company did not keep proper books of account for the two years prior to the winding up and the appellant, being the officer of the company who was at default, was guilty of the offence. On appeal, she argued that she acted honestly and that in the circumstances in which the business of the company was carried out, the default was excusable. The Court held that the offence imposed an evidential burden on the

51

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

分科三第 2 組 上級法院上訴

本組在 2015 年 1 月至 8 月由高級助理刑事檢控

專員李俊文先生掌管，9 月至 12 月則由高級助

理刑事檢控專員黎婉姬女士接掌。本組律師除

了檢控各級法院的上訴案件，也會就一些在區

域法院審理的案件關於是否有理據根據《區域

法院條例》( 第 336 章 ) 第 84 條以案件呈述方

式提出上訴，提供法律指引。此外，本組律師

亦會對根據《刑事訴訟程序條例》( 第 221 章 )第 81A 條提出的覆核刑罰申請，提供法律指引。

年內，本組在 14 宗以案件呈述方式提出上訴和

覆核刑罰的案件提供法律指引。這些案件涉及

各種不同罪行，包括企圖入屋犯法、串謀向代

理人提供利益、危險駕駛、危險駕駛引致他人

死亡、誤殺、強姦、販運危險藥物，以及與管

有槍械、彈藥及爆炸品有關的罪行。當中只有

一宗案件進行覆核刑罰，而沒有以案件呈述方

式提出上訴。

2015 年，上訴法庭審理了三宗本組申請覆核刑

罰的案件，法庭裁定全部申請得直，並改判較

重刑罰。至於由上訴法庭或原訟法庭審理的四

宗以案件呈述方式提出的上訴，則三宗獲判得

直，一宗被駁回。

下文為本組人員在年內處理的一些值得注意的

上訴案件。

在香港特別行政區 訴 Gammon Construction Limited (2015) 18 HKCFAR 110 一案，終審法院

考慮《工廠及工業經營條例》( 第 59 章 ) 第 6A及 18 條的含義和效力，特別是條例對經營東主

就僱員安全所施加的法律責任的性質。本案中，

上訴人的一名僱員在起卸作業期間被轉動中的

吊機擊中不治。法院裁定上訴人違反《工廠及

工業經營條例》第 6A 條所訂須確保員工健康及

安全的法定責任罪，罪名成立。終審法院駁回

上訴，裁定確保安全的責任，在合理切實可行

範圍內要擴大至能保障沒有採取合理謹慎措施

照顧自身安全的員工。安全系統不一定要消除

所有可以想像到的風險，但東主必須證明已竭

盡所能防止風險。

在香港特別行政區 訴 謝俊灝 ( 刑事上訴 2014年第 348 號 ) 一案，16 歲的上訴人與另外三名

被告設下騙局騙取受害人的流動電話。上訴人

承認盜竊罪，被法庭命令羈留在勞教中心。他

被羈留 43 天後，獲准保釋等候他針對刑罰提出

的上訴聆訊。上訴法庭考慮有新證據顯示上訴

人在保釋期間的學業成績和課外活動表現均獲

得正面評價，於是把原來刑罰改為有條件釋放，

以免影響上訴人改過自新。

appellant and on different occasions, she failed to reply to the liquidator who made enquiries of her. Although she claimed that she had made arrangement to obtain such books of account, the Court did not accept her evidence. Accordingly, she had failed to discharge the evidential burden.

In HKSAR v Pham Van Thang HCMA 244/2015, the appellant, who pleaded guilty to a theft charge involving 8 pairs of trousers and 4 T-shirts, was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment. On his appeal against sentence, he contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court accepted that the value involved was HK$5,588 and noted that for shop theft, the sentence usually would not exceed 9 to 12 months’ imprisonment. The appellant has 2 criminal convictions of the same offence in 2014. The Court decided that on the present factual matrix, a starting point of 8 months was appropriate. As the appellant was a repeat offender, the Court enhanced the sentence to 11 months’ imprisonment. Further, as the appellant was a torture claimant, the Court accepted that an enhancement of a further 8% was appropriate and imposed an ultimate imprisonment term of 11 months and 20 days.

Section III(2) Higher Court Appeals

The Section was headed by Mr Edmond Lee, Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions (SADPP) from January to August 2015 and by Miss Anna Lai, SADPP, from September to December 2015. Apart from prosecuting appeals at different levels of court, counsel in the Section also gave advice on the merit of appeals by way of case stated in relation to District Court cases under section 84 of the District Court Ordinance (Cap. 336) as well as reviews of sentence under section 81A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 221).

During the year, the Section advised on a total of 14 cases of appeal by way of case stated and review of sentence. These involved a variety of offences including attempted burglary, conspiracy to offer an advantage to an agent, dangerous driving, dangerous driving causing death, manslaughter, rape, trafficking in dangerous drugs and offences relating to possession of arms, ammunition and explosive substance. Eventually one application for review of sentence was proceeded with, and no appeal by way of case stated was initiated.

In 2015, 3 applications for review of sentence were heard in the Court of Appeal. All of those applications were allowed and substituted with heavier sentences. Out of the 4 appeals by way of case stated heard in the Court of Appeal or the Court of First Instance, 3 were allowed and one was dismissed.

Below are some interesting appeals conducted by members of Section III(2) in the year.

In HKSAR v Gammon Construction Limited (2015) 18 HKCFAR 110, the Court of Final Appeal considered the meaning and effect of sections 6A and 18 of the Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance (Cap. 59) and, in particular, the nature of the duty imposed on the proprietor of an undertaking in respect of the safety of employees. One of the appellant’s employees was crushed by a swiveling crane and killed in the

52

分科三第 2 組 ― 上級法院上訴Section III (2) - Higher Court Appeals

分科

三 上

訴Su

b-di

visi

on II

I App

eals

在香 港 特 別 行 政 區 訴 Ngoma Juma Shabani [2015] 5 HKLRD 57 一案，上訴人就一項針對

其管有的 4,500 美元現金的沒收令提出上訴。

該命令是他被裁定非法販運危險藥物罪名成立

後發出的。上訴法庭在判決中裁定原審法官是

無須特別指明《危險藥物條例》( 第 134 章 ) 第

56(1) 條之下哪一款條文是適用，也可將有關現

金沒收。

在香港特別行政區 訴 劉松添 ( 刑事上訴 2014年第 258 號 ) 一案，申請人承認意圖造成身體

嚴重傷害而淋潑腐蝕性液體罪，被判監禁十年。

受害人是申請人的妻子 ( 她早前已入稟提出離

婚 ) 及他們的長子。申請人把一瓶硫酸濃度達

87% 的腐蝕性液體帶回婚姻居所，把瓶內液體

倒在妻子身上，液體濺及兒子。申請人向妻子

淋潑腐蝕性液體前曾用刀指向她，其後又以菜

刀阻嚇她和長子，使他們未能即時清洗身上的

硫酸。他的妻子身體有 38% 面積受化學灼傷，

令左肩和頸部的活動能力受損；兒子則有 26%身體面積被灼傷。兩人身體都有明顯疤痕和由

灼傷造成的傷殘。上訴法庭認為刑罰雖然是嚴

厲，但以本案案情屬完全恰當，因而拒絕針對

刑罰的上訴許可。

香港特別行政區 訴 羅逸庭 (2015) 18 HKCFAR 420 是一宗無爭議的上訴案件，涉及《道路交通

條例》( 第 374 章 ) 第 49 條中“干預”一詞的

涵義。案情指上訴人在沒有合法權限或合理辯

解下，把一輛停泊在路上的輕型貨車的門關上，

因而干預該敞開的車門，被裁定觸犯干預汽車

course of a lifting operation. The appellant was convicted for breaching its statutory duties to ensure the health and safety of its workers under section 6A of the Ordinance. The Court of Final Appeal dismissed the appeal and held that the duty to ensure safety, so far as is reasonably practicable, extends to protecting workers who fail to take reasonable care of their own safety. A safe system does not require the elimination of every conceivable risk but the proprietor is required to show that he could not have done more to prevent the risks he created.

In HKSAR v Tse Chun-ho CACC 348/2014, the 16-year-old appellant and 3 other defendants set up a scam to deceive the victim of his mobile phone. The appellant pleaded guilty to theft and was ordered to be detained in a Detention Centre. He had been detained for 43 days before being released on bail to await the hearing of his appeal against sentence. The Court of Appeal considered fresh evidence showing positive comments about the appellant’s academic results and performance in extra-curricular activities during the bail period. The Court substituted the original sentence with a conditional discharge so as not to cause any disruption to the appellant’s rehabilitation.

In HKSAR v Ngoma Juma Shabani [2015] 5 HKLRD 57, the appellant appealed against an order of forfeiture in respect of cash of US$4,500 in his possession. The order was imposed after he was convicted of unlawfully trafficking in a dangerous drug. In its judgment, the Court of Appeal ruled that the cash was liable to forfeiture without requiring the sentencing judge to specify which sub-section of section 56(1) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Cap. 134) was applicable.

In HKSAR v Lau Chung-tim CACC 258/2014, the applicant was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to an offence of throwing corrosive fluid with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The victims of the offence were the applicant’s wife, who had earlier filed for divorce, and their eldest son. The applicant brought a bottle of corrosive fluid with an 87% concentration of sulphuric acid to the matrimonial home. He poured the contents onto his wife and the liquid splashed his son. He also pointed a knife at the wife before the corrosive fluid was thrown, and used a chopper afterwards to distract the victims from the urgent need to wash off the sulphuric acid. The wife suffered 38% chemical burns with reduced movement to her left shoulder and neck. The son suffered 26% total body surface area burns. Both had obvious scarring and associated physical disabilities. The Court of Appeal considered that the sentence, while severe, was entirely appropriate in the circumstances of the case and refused leave to appeal against sentence.

The case of HKSAR v Law Yat-ting (2015) 18 HKCFAR 420 was an uncontested appeal relating to the meaning of the word “tampers” in section 49 of the Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap. 374). It was alleged that the appellant, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, tampered with an open door of a light goods vehicle parked on a road by closing it. His conviction for the offence of tampering with a motor vehicle was overturned. The Court of Final Appeal concluded that tampering means an act constituting either interference or meddling with part of a vehicle so as to cause alteration or harm to it, or the making of an unauthorized change to it. The mere act of touching the vehicle did not result in any alteration or harm to it or change in it.

53

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

罪。終審法院推翻有關定罪，並在總結時指出，

干預在這罪行是指某項作為構成干擾或搞弄車

輛的某部分，以致對該車輛造成更改或損害，

或對該車輛作出未經授權的變更。單單觸碰車

輛的作為不會對該車輛造成任何更改、損害或

變更。

在香港特別行政區 訴 陳振聰 ( 刑事上訴 2013年第 233 號 ) 一案，申請人經審訊後被陪審團

裁定偽造及使用虛假文書罪罪名成立，判處監

禁 12 年。申請人偽造一份文件，假稱文件為已

故龔如心女士的最後遺囑，當中訂明龔女士把

全部財產遺留給他，並在一宗有抗辯的民事法

律程序中使用該文件。上訴法庭審視申請人在

較早前的民事法律程序中的陳述和證供是否可

予接納。法庭在總結時指出，有關材料明顯地

與控罪中指稱的虛假及使用文件有關，控方有

權依據有關陳述屬於謊言來支持控方案情。申

請人就不服定罪提出的上訴被駁回，而就刑罰

提出的上訴許可申請也被拒絕，法庭並判申請

人須付控方上訴的訟費。申請人繼而向終審法

院申請上訴許可，直至本報告出版時，聆訊日

期仍有待編定。

分科三第 3 組 人權

本組在 2015 年 1 月至 9 月由時任高級助理刑事

檢控專員許紹鼎先生掌管，同年 9 月至 12 月由

高級助理刑事檢控專員李俊文先生接掌，組內

另有高級檢控官及檢控官各一名。除負責各級

法院上訴案件的檢控工作外，本組專責處理涉

及《基本法》和人權問題的刑事案件，也負責

處理由刑事案件引發的司法覆核，以及就此類

案件向本科律師和外判律師提供協助。

下文載述 2015 年數宗涉及人權或憲法問題的重

要上訴案件：

在香港特別行政區 訴 陳偉業 [2016] 2 HKLRD 718 一案中，上訴人被裁定明知而參與或繼續參

與一個未經批准的集結，或明知而成為該集結

的成員罪罪名成立。法院不接納上訴人指有關

集結屬於自發性質，並裁定公眾遊行即使事前

無準備和無指定路線，同樣都受法定通知機制

所規管。終審法院早在梁國雄及其他人 訴 香港

特別行政區 (2005) 8 HKCFAR 229 一案中，已

裁定該通知機制合憲。

在香港特別行政區 訴 黃宗成 ( 高院裁判法院上

訴 2015 年第 92 號 ) 一案中，上訴人被裁定違

反《簡易程序治罪條例》( 第 228 章 ) 第 4(15) 條，

沒有警務處處長發出的許可證並在沒有合法權

限或辯解的情況下在公眾街道奏玩樂器罪罪名

成立。法院裁定，第 4(15) 條須取得許可證的規

定，與防止擾亂秩序和保護公眾安全的合理目

In HKSAR v Chan Chun-chuen CACC 233/2013, the applicant was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment on conviction of forgery and using a false instrument following a trial by jury. The applicant forged a document purporting to be the last will of the late Nina Wang by which her entire fortune was to be left to him, and used that document in contested civil proceedings. The Court of Appeal examined the admissibility of the applicant’s statements and testimony in the earlier civil proceedings. The Court concluded that the materials were clearly relevant to the alleged falsity and use of the document and that the Prosecution were entitled to rely on the statements as lies capable of supporting the prosecution case. The applicant’s appeal against conviction was dismissed and his application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused with costs of the appeal awarded to the Prosecution. The applicant has further made an application for leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal. A date for hearing has yet to be fixed at the time of publication of this report.

Section III(3) Human Rights

This Section was headed by Mr Martin Hui, SC, then Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions (SADPP) from January to September 2015 and by Mr Edmond Lee, SADPP, from September to December 2015. There was also one Senior Public Prosecutor and one Public Prosecutor in the Section. Apart from prosecuting appeals at different levels of the Courts, this specialist section handles criminal cases involving Basic Law and human rights issues and is also responsible for the conduct of or providing assistance to counsel, both in-house and fiat, for judicial reviews arising from criminal matters.

In 2015, there were several significant appeal cases concerning human rights or constitutional issues. They are as follows:

In HKSAR v Chan Wai-yip Albert [2016] 2 HKLRD 718, the appellant was convicted of knowingly taking or continuing to take part in or forming an unauthorized assembly. The Court rejected the appellant’s claim that the relevant assembly was a spontaneous one, and ruled that a public procession, having no prior preparation and with no designated route, was still regulated by the statutory notification scheme which had been

分科三第 3 組 ― 人權Section III (3) - Human Rights

54

的相稱。然而，法院採用楊美雲 訴 香港特別行

政區 (2005) 8 HKCFAR 137 一案的原則，裁定

控方有責任證明上訴人沒有合法權限及辯解，

惟裁判官反把舉證責任加諸上訴人身上，也未

有充分考慮《基本法》第三十四條保障的進行

文化活動的自由，是犯了錯誤，因此法院裁定

上訴得直。

年內，本組處理多宗由刑事案件引發的重要司

法覆核案件，以及其他涉及人權問題的案件，

詳情如下︰

在曾健超 訴 警務處處長 [2015] 4 HKLRD 71 一

案中，申請人指稱他在參與示威時被多名警務

人員襲擊。他申請許可提出司法覆核，尋求法

院聲明他曾遭受酷刑、襲擊和非法禁錮，並就

上述指控的行為申索賠償，以及要求法院作出

命令，飭令警務處處長披露相關人員的身分。

法院裁定，就申索賠償應以令狀提出訴訟較為

合適，因此只批准披露事宜的許可申請。

在 Interush Limited 及另一人 訴 警務處處長及

其他人 [2015] 4 HKLRD 706 一案中，申請人一

併就《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》( 第 455 章 ) 第

25(1) 條 ( 將洗錢訂為罪行 ) 及第 25A(2)(a) 條 ( 訂

立有關處理可疑財產的“不同意處理”制度 ) 提

出憲法質疑，辯稱有關條文違反《基本法》第

六條及第一百零五條 ( 有關財產的權利 )。法院

駁回有關的司法覆核申請，裁定所述的《基本

法》條文與本案無關，而現時已有足夠的保障

措施，確保“不同意處理”制度設有合理的時

限。至於因偵查而受損的人，則可循不同途徑

申索賠償。

在香港特別行政區 訴 俞裕金 ( 觀塘裁判法院刑

事案件 2015 年第 3390 號 ) 一案中，被告被控

《刑事罪行條例》( 第 200 章 ) 第 139 條的一項

管理賣淫場所罪。辯方辯稱，第 139 條若與第

117(3) 條所指的賣淫場所一併理解，即屬違憲，

理由是禁止一樓一鳳以外任何形式的妓院經營，

形同侵犯娼妓的人身安全權利。辯方辯稱，娼

妓不得在同一處所內同時營業，會增加娼妓的

安全風險。裁判官不接納這個論點，並認同控

方的說法，裁定被告是因為身為賣淫場所的管

理人而被控，因此他的權利與本案無關。

held constitutional by the Court of Final Appeal in as early as Leung Kwok-hung and Others v HKSAR (2005) 8 HKCFAR 229.

In HKSAR v Wong Chung-shing HCMA 92/2015, the appellant was convicted of playing a musical instrument in a public street without a permit issued by the Commissioner of Police and without lawful authority or excuse, contrary to section 4(15) of the Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap. 228). The Court held that the requirement of obtaining a permit under section 4(15) was proportionate to the legitimate aims of prevention of disorder and protection of public safety. However, applying the principles set out in Yeung May Wan v HKSAR (2005) 8 HKCFAR 137, the Court ruled that it was for the Prosecution to prove the absence of lawful authority and excuse, and that the magistrate erred in reversing the burden of proof in this respect and failing to give due consideration to the freedom to engage in cultural activities protected by Article 34 of the Basic Law. The appeal was allowed.

During the year, there were also some significant judicial reviews arising from criminal matters, as well as other cases involving human rights issues. They are as follows:

In Tsang Kin Chiu v Commissioner of Police [2015] 4 HKLRD 71, the applicant alleged that he was assaulted by police officers when participating in a protest. He applied for leave to apply for judicial review, seeking declarations that he had been subjected to torture, assault and unlawful detention. He also sought damages for such alleged conduct, as well as an order compelling the Commissioner of Police to disclose the identity of the relevant officers. The Court held that a writ action was more appropriate to deal with the claim for damages, and leave was only granted on the disclosure issue.

In Interush Limited and Anor v Commissioner of Police and Others [2015] 4 HKLRD 706, constitutional challenge was raised against section 25(1) (which creates the offence of money laundering) in conjunction with section 25A(2)(a) (which imposes a “no consent” regime on the dealing of suspicious property) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 455). It was argued that the provisions infringed Articles 6 and 105 of the Basic Law (the right to property). The Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the said Articles of the Basic Law were not engaged, that there were sufficient safeguards to ensure a reasonable time limit in the “no consent” regime, and that avenues for compensation were open to persons aggrieved by the investigation.

In HKSAR v Yu Yu-kam KTCC 3390/2015, the defendant faced a charge of managing a vice establishment under section 139 of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200). Defence argued that section 139, read in conjunction with the meaning of vice establishment in section 117(3), is unconstitutional as it purportedly has the effect of infringing prostitutes’ rights to security of person, by prohibiting brothels in all forms, apart from the one-person brothel. Defence argued that since prostitutes cannot work together under one roof, it heightens their security risks. In rejecting the argument, the magistrate agreed with the Prosecution and found, inter alia, that as the defendant was charged as the manager of the vice establishment, his right was not engaged.

分科

三 上

訴Su

b-di

visi

on II

I App

eals

分科四 商業罪案Sub-division IV Commercial Crime

分科四的主要工作是透過有效檢控詐騙、市場

失當行為、洗錢、貪污、版權及走私等罪行，

以確保香港能維持作為國際金融中心和廉潔社

會的地位及聲譽。2015年，本分科的主管為沈仲平博士。沈博士是國際公認的反貪專家，有

29年檢控經驗。分科轄下設有五組，各組由經驗豐富的首長級人員掌管，負責監督所屬範疇

案件的法律指引及檢控工作，即：(i)嚴重詐騙案件、(ii)證券、稅務及詐騙案件、(iii)廉政公署(公營機構 )案件、(iv)廉政公署 (私營機構 )案件，以及 (v)海關案件。分科內各組人員與本港的相關執法機關緊密合作，我們的主要職責是

就這些執法機關轉介的複雜及高度專門案件，

提供法律意見。本分科也致力與內地及世界各

地的相關機構保持緊密聯繫，從而了解各不同

地區在法律和判例方面的最新發展。下文是本

分科各組的工作簡介，以及分科律師在 2015年處理的值得注意的一些案件。

The main task of Sub-division IV is to maintain the status and reputation of Hong Kong as an international financial center and a corruption-free community through the effective prosecution of fraud, market misconduct, money laundering, corruption, copyright and smuggling offences. In 2015, the Sub-division was headed by Dr Alain Sham, an internationally recognized anti-corruption expert with 29 years’ prosecutorial experience. It comprises 5 sections, each headed by an experienced directorate officer overseeing the advice and prosecution of different areas of cases, namely: (i) Major Fraud; (ii) Securities, Revenue and Fraud; (iii) Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) (Public Sector); (iv) ICAC (Private Sector); and (v) Customs and Excise. Members of each section in the Sub-division work very closely with the respective law enforcement agencies in Hong Kong and our main duty is to provide legal advice on complex and highly specialized cases referred to by those agencies. We also maintain close liaison with the relevant authorities both in Mainland China and at the international level so as to keep ourselves abreast of the updated legal and jurisprudential developments. A description of the work of each section and a highlight of some notable cases handled by counsel of the Sub-division during 2015 are set out below.

56

分科四第 1 組 嚴重詐騙案件

本組由高級助理刑事檢控專員楊美琪女士掌管，

組員有五名檢控官，負責就嚴重詐騙案件向執

法機關提供適時和準確的法律指引，及在各級

法院檢控該等案件的審訊和上訴。

本組律師處理各種白領罪行，當中包括投資詐

騙、電郵詐騙、銀行詐騙、信用卡詐騙、盜用

公款、涉及國際層面的洗錢、虛擬貨幣和偽製

紙幣／外幣的詐騙。

本組在 2015 年於多宗重要案件提供法律指引，

詳情如下：

在香港特別行政區 訴 Annells Deborah ( 區院刑

事案件 2015 年第 148 號 ) 一案中，被告是香港

註冊的受託人公司的董事兼負責人，她在法院

使用一份虛假商業文件，作為支持她申請更改在

另一盜竊案中的保釋條件，她在該盜竊案被指

挪用了四名客戶共港幣 3,100 萬元的信託基金

( 高院刑事案件 2015 年第 80 號 )。被告也以同

一份虛假文件作洽商租約。她被控 (i) 作出導致

及意圖妨礙司法公正的作為罪；(ii) 企圖欺詐罪；

以及 (iii) 管有虛假文書罪。被告經審訊後被裁定

全部控罪罪名成立，判處監禁四年。另一方面，

在高院刑事案件 2015 年第 80 號中，被告承認 (i) 45 項盜竊；(ii) 管有虛假文書；以及 (iii) 詐騙

的控罪，被裁定罪名成立，判處監禁共九年及

取消擔任公司董事或相近職務的資格 15 年。

在香港特別行政區 訴 章露峯及另五人 ( 區院刑

事案件 2015 年第 333 及 335 號 )( 合併 ) 一案中，

一個由台灣人和持雙程證內地人組成的犯罪集

團被控操控香港的替身戶口持有人，處理以電

Section IV(1) Major Fraud

The Section is headed by Ms Maggie Yang, Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions with the strength of 5 other prosecutors, who provide timely and accurate legal advice to law enforcement agencies on major fraud cases. They also conduct related trials and appeals at all levels of the Courts.

Counsel in the Section handle a wide range of white-collar crimes which include, amongst others, investment fraud, email fraud, bank fraud, credit card fraud, embezzlement of funds, money laundering with international dimension, fraud with virtual currencies and counterfeit notes/currencies.

The Section advised on a number of significant cases in 2015 with details as follows:

In HKSAR v Annells Deborah DCCC 148/2015, the defendant, being the director and person in charge of a Hong Kong registered trustee company, used a false business document in Court in support of her application to vary her bail conditions in another theft case which alleged that she had misappropriated the trust funds of 4 clients totaling HK$31 million (HCCC 80/2015). The same false document had been used by the defendant to negotiate for a tenancy agreement. She was charged of (i) doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice; (ii) attempted fraud; and (iii) possessing a false instrument. After trial, the defendant was convicted of all charges. A 4 years’ imprisonment term was imposed on her. On the other hand, in HCCC 80/2015, the defendant was convicted upon her own plea of (i) 45 counts of theft; (ii) possessing a false instrument; and (iii) fraud. She was sentenced to a total term of 9 years’ imprisonment and was disqualified from acting as a director or in a similar capacity for 15 years.

In HKSAR v Chang Lufeng and 5 Others DCCC 333 and 335/2015 (consolidated), a syndicate of Taiwanese and Mainland two-way permit holders were charged with controlling stooge account holders in Hong 話騙取多名居於台灣的受害人金錢的犯罪得益。

分科四第 1 組 ― 嚴重詐騙案件Section IV(1) – Major Fraud

分科

四 商

業罪

案Su

b-di

visi

on IV

Com

mer

cial

Crim

e

57

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

其中一名被告從多家銀行提取大額港幣，把現

金放進紙袋，然後在餐廳交給另一名被告。整

個過程被警方監視，而鈔票也預先塗上化學劑

以便追蹤辨認。警方在其中一名被告到找換店

匯出犯罪得益的現金時展開拘捕行動。各被告

分別被控洗錢罪，涉及金額共約港幣 250 萬元。

基於案件牽涉國際層面，法院表示各被告均擔

當重要角色，其行為令當局難以找出騙案主謀。

法院考慮到各被告認罪，判處他們監禁 16 至

24 個月不等。

在 香 港 特 別 行 政 區 訴 Shamsudeen SyedAhmed ( 區院刑事案件 2013 年第 947 號 ) 一案

中，被告被控清洗存入他兩個商業銀行帳戶內

的 500,000 美元，有關款項是海外投資詐騙的

犯罪得益，法院裁定他罪名成立。被告在抗辯

時聲稱，該 500,000 美元是他出售父親送給他

作為結婚禮物的兩顆八卡鑽石的收益。2011年，

他生意上出現現金周轉不靈，經馬來西亞一名

“中間人”安排，他把該兩顆鑽石賣給一名身

分不詳的澳洲買家。為了支持這說法，他傳召

了六名證人，包括案中居於吉隆坡的馬來西亞

“中間人”，但該人拒絕到香港作供。為向該

人取證，被告申請發出請求書。吉隆坡的馬來

西亞高等法院按照請求，在 2015 年 3 月進行聆

訊，訊問該名“中間人”。香港的控辯雙方律

師也出席上述海外聆訊，但礙於香港的訟辯人

在馬來西亞法院並無出庭發言權，雙方在該聆

訊中均由各自的馬來西亞律師代表。這是首宗

辯方藉請求書取得證據的案件。法院在審訊後

裁定被告全部控罪罪名成立，判處監禁共 41 個

月。法院也命令被告要向控方支付在馬來西亞

進行聆訊所招致的港幣 50,000 元額外費用。

在香港特別行政區 訴 尹漢雄及另三人 ( 區院刑

事案件 2013 年第 722 號 ) 一案中，各被告是已

故尹先生的家人。在尹先生因突發性心臟停頓

死後數小時，各被告利用電話理財服務轉移尹

先生銀行帳戶內的結餘額港幣 1,600 萬元，然

後開出九張支票，抬頭人大多為各被告，從中

取走整筆款項。各被告在抗辯時否認有不誠實

意圖盜取遺產，被告等聲稱死者篤信“風水”，

他們只是按其遺願和安排行事。被告說已故的

尹先生預見自己大限將至，他的遺願是各被告

在他死後處理好他所有銀行存款，並指明要分

九張支票處理。法院不接納此說法，在審訊後

裁定各被告串謀偷竊罪罪名成立，判處監禁 26個月。

在香港特別行政區 訴 彭思慧 ( 刑事上訴 2014年第 329 號 ) 一案中，被告為尋找投資機會，

向財務代理人展示多份虛假銀行文件，包括資

金證明書及結餘證明書，目的是顯示自己在香

港的銀行帳戶存有共 518 億美元。調查後發現，

被告管有另外 13 份類似的虛假文書。經審訊後，

被告被裁定企圖使用虛假文書及管有虛假文書

Kong to deal with crime proceeds derived from telephone deception practised on various victim residents in Taiwan. One of the defendants withdrew large amounts of Hong Kong dollars from banks, stored the cash in a paper bag and handed it to another defendant in a restaurant. Whilst the process was under police surveillance, the cash was also marked in advance with chemicals for tracing and identification. The arrest took place when one of the defendants attended a money exchanger to remit the crime proceeds. The defendants were charged with separate counts of money laundering for a total sum of around HK$2.5 million. Considering the international dimension of the case, the Court stated that the defendants’ roles were significant and their

acts made it difficult for the masterminds of the scam to be found. The defendants were sentenced to imprisonment ranging from 16 to 24 months after the Court took into account their guilty pleas.

In HKSAR v Shamsudeen Syed Ahmed DCCC 947/2013, the defendant was charged with and convicted of laundering US$500,000, being the proceeds of overseas investment fraud, that were deposited into two of his business bank accounts. In his defence, the defendant claimed that the said US$500,000 were the sale proceeds of two 8-carat diamonds that were given to him by his father as wedding gifts. In 2011, he sold both diamonds to an unknown Australian buyer through the arrangement of a “middleman” in Malaysia when his business encountered a cash-flow problem. To support his claim, he called 6 defence witnesses, including the Malaysian “middleman” who resided in Kuala Lumpur but had refused to testify in Hong Kong. In order to obtain his evidence, the defendant applied for a Letter of Request. In pursuance of which, a hearing was held in March 2015 before the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur for the said “middleman” to be examined. Prosecuting counsel and defence lawyers from Hong Kong attended the said overseas hearing but as Hong Kong advocates have no right of audience before the Malaysian Court, both sides were represented by their respective Malaysian lawyers at the said hearing. This was the first case in which defence evidence was obtained on the strength of a Letter of Request. The defendant was convicted of all charges after trial and sentenced to a total of 41 months’ imprisonment. He was also ordered to pay HK$50,000 to the Prosecution, being additional costs incurred for the hearing held in Malaysia.

In HKSAR v Wan Hon-hung, Johnny and 3 Others DCCC 722/2013, the defendants were family members of the late Mr Wan who died from sudden cardiac arrest. Within hours of Mr Wan’s death, the defendants transferred the remaining balance of HK$16 million in Mr Wan’s bank account via phone-banking, and thereafter dissipated the entire sum under 9 cheques mostly issued to themselves. In their defence, the defendants denied any dishonest intent to steal the estate, claiming that they had done so according to the late wish cum arrangement of Mr Wan who used to be a keen believer in Chinese “Fung Shui”. It was said that as the late Mr Wan had foreseen his death, it was his will that the defendants should take care of all his bank savings upon his death and have the same disposed of under 9 cheques in specific. Such assertions were rejected and the defendants were convicted of conspiracy to steal after trial and sentenced to 26 months’ imprisonment.

In HKSAR v Pang Sze-wai, Teresa CACC 329/2014, for the purposes of exploring investment opportunities, the defendant presented to a

58

罪罪名成立，判處監禁三年。被告就定罪申請

上訴許可，其後遭上訴法庭駁回。

本組律師不時為警方舉辦研討會、工作坊和經

驗分享會，協助執法機關掌握現時商業罪案法

律的最新發展。

分科四第 2 組 證券、稅務及詐騙案件

分科四第 2 組負責就涉及市場失當行為及稅務

罪案的案件，分別向證券及期貨事務監察委員會

(“證監會”) 和稅務局提供法律指引，並聯同分

科四第 1 組就商業詐騙和洗錢案件向香港警務

處商業罪案調查科提供法律指引，又在可行情

況下就相關案件的審訊和上訴出庭檢控。此外，

本組也就建議法例修訂和新法例的刑事事項，

向財經事務及庫務局提供法律指引。2015 年，

這個範疇的工作涉及證券法和《稅務條例》。

與本科其他組別一樣，分科四第 2 組的檢控官

會在本科稱為 FAST 的快速法律指引制度下提供

法律指引。

2015 年，本組由高級助理刑事檢控專員林穎茜

女士掌管，共有六名檢控官。下文闡述本組在

2015 年處理的一些案件。

2015 年，本組在區域法院提出首宗檢控有關

《證券及期貨條例》( 第 571 章 ) 第 114 條所

訂的罪行。在香港特別行政區 訴 IPFUND Asset Management Limited ( 第一被告 ) 及冼仲彥 ( 第

二被告 ) ( 區院刑事案件 2015 年第 23 號 ) 一案

中，兩名被告各被控在未獲發牌照的情況下經

營某類受規管活動的業務，即證券交易；以及

被控顯示經營某類受規管活動的業務的交替控

罪。根據該條例，“證券”包括在集體投資計

劃中的權益，但不包括私人公司的股份 ( 私人公

司股份的豁除 )。案情指兩名被告在從未獲證監

會發牌的情況下，在 2011 年 2 月至 12 月期間，

向投資者提出要約和處置 16 項集體投資計劃中

的權益。這些計劃涉及把從投資者匯集所得的

資金用作購買香港的商用物業，並由純粹為購

入該等物業而成立的私人公司持有。在出售有

關物業後，部分所得利潤會按各投資者的資金

佔物業購入價的比例分發給他們。各被告負責

管理和操控有關計劃。第一被告按利潤收取顧

問費，而第二被告在所有關鍵時間都是第一被

告的唯一董事兼股東。鑑於案情複雜、所涉證

人眾多，以及預計審訊時間較長，案件在區域

法院審理。各被告否認全部控罪，審訊在 2015年 11 月展開，歷時 20 日。法院最終裁定，該

等計劃實際上是一項集體投資計劃，而各被告

在其中的角色確實等同經營業務。不過，法院

裁定，由於各投資者所購買的都是擁有相關物

業的私人公司的股份，該等計劃屬於私人公司

financial agent various false bank documents, including the Proof of Funds and Certificate of Balance, purported to show that the defendant had a total of US$51.8 billion in her bank account in Hong Kong. Upon investigation, it was found that the defendant was in possession of another 13 similar false instruments. After trial, the defendant was convicted of attempting to use false instruments and possession of false instruments and was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment. The defendant’s application for leave to appeal against conviction was subsequently dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

In keeping the law enforcement agencies abreast of the current development of the law on commercial crime, Counsel of the Section conduct seminars, workshops and experience sharing with the Police from time to time.

Section IV(2) Securities, Revenue and Fraud

Section IV(2) advises the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) on market misconduct cases, the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) on revenue crimes, and together with Section IV(1), the Commercial Crime Bureau of the Hong Kong Police (CCB) on commercial fraud and money laundering cases. It also prosecutes, where appropriate, the related trials and appeals. The Section also advises the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau on criminal matters in its proposed legislative amendments and proposed new legislation. In 2015, this area of work concerned the securities law and the Inland Revenue Ordinance. As with the rest of the Division, Section IV(2) also provides legal advice under the Division’s FAST system.

In 2015, the Section comprised 6 prosecutors and was led by Ms Vinci Lam, Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions. Below are some of the cases the Section handled in 2015.

In 2015, the Section instituted the first prosecution for an offence under section 114 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571) in the District Court. In HKSAR v IPFUND Asset Management Limited (D1) and Sin Chung Yin, Ronald (D2) DCCC 23/2015, each of the defendants was charged with carrying on a business in a regulated activity, namely dealing in securities, without a licence and with the alternative charge of holding out as such. Under the said Ordinance, “securities” includes interests in any collective investment scheme but does not include shares of a company that is a private company (private company shares exclusion). It was alleged that between February and December 2011, the defendants, who had never been licensed by the SFC, offered and disposed of interests in 16 collective investment schemes to investors. The schemes involved the investors’ funds being pooled for use in purchasing commercial properties in Hong Kong which were held by private companies set up solely for that purpose. Upon the sale of those properties, part of the profits earned would be distributed among the investors in proportion to their contributions towards the purchase price. The defendants managed and controlled the schemes. D1 received consultancy fees based on the profits and D2 was at all material times the sole director and shareholder of D1. The case was tried in the District Court in light of its complexity, the number of witnesses involved

分科

四 商

業罪

案Su

b-di

visi

on IV

Com

mer

cial

Crim

e

59

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

股份的豁除範圍，故此並非本條例所指的證券。

因此，法院裁定各被告全部罪名不成立。控方

質疑私人公司股份的豁除是否適用於集體投資

計劃，現正以案件呈述方式提出上訴。

《稅務條例》( 第 112 章 ) 訂出規管性罪行及逃

稅罪行。逃稅罪行較為嚴重，通常由組內人員

出庭檢控。這些罪行的一般刑罰是即時監禁，

而除了判處罰款外，該條例也容許另加可高達

未徵稅款三倍的罰款。2015 年，本組繼續處理

逃稅案件，包括涉及被告在報稅表中申請從應

評稅款中作出有關扣除的虛假陳述，以蓄意及

意圖逃稅的案件。

在香港特別行政區 訴 許靜敏 ( 觀塘裁判法院傳

票案件 2015 年第 8768 至 8774 號 ) 和香港特

別行政區 訴 洪浩泰 ( 觀塘裁判法院傳票案件

2015 年第 8775 至 8783 號 ) 兩案中，涉案夫婦

分別在七個和九個課稅年度，在報稅表上虛報

個人進修開支，藉此逃稅。許靜敏聲稱支付了

共港幣 251,600 元的個人進修開支，由此減少

應徵稅款港幣 42,456 元；洪浩泰則聲稱支付了

共港幣 440,000 元，減少應徵稅款港幣 78,407元。在洪浩泰的案中，他在全部九個課稅年度

申請扣除的金額，都是納稅人根據法例可申請

扣除的最高金額。二人均未能按稅務局要求提

供任何證據以證明有關開支屬實。因此，稅務

局局長進行補加評稅，他們須支付少徵的稅款。

然而，在許靜敏案中少徵的其中港幣 6,800 元

稅款，則因法律理由而未能藉補加評稅追討。

其後，本組決定分別向二人發出七張和九張傳

票，控告他們就申請扣除個人進修開支方面作

出虛假陳述，以蓄意及意圖逃稅。他們承認控

罪，各就所控傳票被判處監禁兩個月，緩刑三

年，並就每張傳票判處罰款港幣 10,000 元。此

外，許靜敏被着令支付未能藉補加評稅追討的

少徵稅款港幣 6,800 元。

控方認為判處緩刑是原則上犯錯，刑罰也明顯

過輕，兩名被告理應判處即時監禁、罰款及另

加罰款，因而以此論據申請覆核刑罰，獲法庭

批准。法庭修訂洪浩泰的刑罰，就所有傳票判處

and the estimated length of trial. The defendants pleaded not guilty to all charges and the trial commenced in November 2015. After a 20-day trial, the Court ruled that the schemes were indeed collective investment schemes and that the defendants’ roles therein did amount to carrying on a business. However, the Court ruled that since what the investors purchased were the shares of private companies that owned the properties, the schemes fell within the private company shares exclusion and hence not securities for the purposes of the Ordinance. As a result, the Court acquitted the defendants of all charges. An appeal by way of case stated which challenges the application of the private company shares exclusion in the context of collective investment schemes is underway.

There are regulatory and tax evasion offences under the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112). Tax evasion offences are more serious and are usually prosecuted in-house by members of the Section. These offences should normally attract immediate custodial sentence, and in addition to a fine, the Ordinance allows the imposition of a further fine of up to treble the amount of tax which has been undercharged. In 2015, the Section continued to handle cases of tax evasion, including those where the defendant wilfully with intent to evade tax made a false statement in tax return in connection with claim for deduction.

In HKSAR v Koh Chin-meng KTS 8768-8774/2015 and HKSAR v Hung Ho-tai Andrew KTS 8775-8783/2015, the married couple evaded tax by making false claims of self-education expenses in their tax returns for respectively 7 and 9 years of assessment. Koh claimed that she had spent a total of HK$251,600 for self-education which resulted in HK$42,456 of tax being undercharged. For Hung, he claimed to have spent a total of HK$440,000 and the amount of tax undercharged was HK$78,407. In Hung’s case, the amount he claimed for each of all 9 years was the maximum amount that a taxpayer could claim under the law. Upon request by the IRD, neither of them could provide any justified proof of such expenses. As a result, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue made an additional assessment and they had to pay the amounts of tax undercharged. However, HK$6,800 of the tax undercharged in Koh’s case could not be so demanded for legal reasons. Subsequently, the Section advised to prosecute them for 7 and 9 summonses respectively for wilfully with intent to evade tax, making false statement in connection with a claim for deduction of self-education expenses. They pleaded guilty and were each sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment suspended for 3 years for all summonses and fined HK$10,000 for each summons. In addition, Koh was ordered to pay the HK$6,800 of tax undercharged which could not be demanded through additional assessment.

Arguing that the suspended sentences were wrong in principle and manifestly inadequate and that a term of immediate custodial sentence, a fine and a further fine should be imposed for both defendants instead, the Prosecution applied to review the sentences. The Court granted the application. Hung’s sentence was revised to 2 months’ immediate custodial sentence for all summonses, the fine of HK$10,000 per summons remained but a further fine of HK$78,407 equivalent to the amount of tax undercharged in his case was additionally imposed. Koh’s sentence was increased to 4 months’ imprisonment suspended for 3 years for all summonses, a fine of HK$10,000 per summons and a

60

分科四第 2 組 ― 證券、稅務及詐騙案件Section IV(2) – Securities, Revenue and Fraud

分科四第 3 組 ― 廉政公署 ( 公營機構 ) 案件Section IV(3) – ICAC (Public Sector)

分科

四 商

業罪

案Su

b-di

visi

on IV

Com

mer

cial

Crim

e

他即時監禁兩個月，每張傳票罰款港幣 10,000元則維持不變，但另加罰款港幣 78,407 元，相

等於案中少徵稅款的金額。許靜敏的刑罰也增

加至就所有傳票監禁四個月，緩刑三年，每張

傳票罰款港幣 10,000 元，以及另加罰款港幣

49,256 元。鑑於夫婦二人若同時被判處即時入

獄，家中女兒便會乏人照顧，因此許靜敏獲判

緩刑。洪浩泰其後就判刑提出的上訴遭法庭駁

回。

2015 年，本組亦就詐騙和洗錢案件向商業罪案

調查科提供法律指引。香港特別行政區 訴 李美

卿及另一人 ( 區院刑事案件 2015 年第 584 號 )一案，是首宗開立證券戶口 ( 而非銀行戶口 ) 借

給他人洗錢的案件。兩名被告同意向同案串謀

人李承惠 (“李氏”) 提供預先簽署的空白支票，

讓他利用以兩名被告名字開立但實際由自己操

控的證券戶口買入股票。兩名被告完全知悉那

些支票會因存款不足而不能兌現。支票存入證

券戶口後，即使戶口的資金尚未可用，也會發

出並執行買盤指令。支票遭退票時，任何買入

的股票會出售。如有利潤 ( 顯然是無本生利 )，便會提取；如有虧損，則無法找到被告。本組

決定作出檢控，兩名被告分別被控與李氏串謀

處理已知道或相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益

的財產，即被告作為證券戶口持有人的股票和

被拖欠的債項。兩名被告經審訊後被裁定罪名

成立，分別被判處監禁 33 個月和 32 個月。

2015 年，本組繼續與相關機構分享打擊商業罪

案和市場失當行為罪行的經驗。在六月，高級

檢控官蕭啓業先生在警務處舉辦的偵緝訓練課

程中主持模擬法庭審訊。他在九月接待到訪的

中國證券監督管理委員會人員，向他們講解香

港法律制度和市場失當行為罪行的檢控工作。

同年十一月，他在商業罪案調查課程中向商業

罪案調查科人員講課，課題為“香港警務處與

律政司在檢控詐騙罪行方面的合作”。

further fine of HK$49,256. Koh’s term of imprisonment was suspended due to the consideration that the couple’s daughters would be left without parental care if both Koh and Hung had to serve an immediate custodial sentence. Subsequently, Hung’s appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

The Section also advised the CCB on fraud and money laundering cases in 2015. HKSAR v Lee Mei-hing Randa and Anor DCCC 584/2015 was the first case of money laundering in which securities accounts (as opposed to bank accounts) were opened and lent to others. Both defendants agreed to provide a named co-conspirator, Stephen Lee (“Lee”), with pre-signed blank cheques for Lee to purchase stock using securities accounts opened in the defendants’ names but were under Lee’s control. The defendants had full knowledge that the cheques would be dishonored due to insufficient funds. When the cheques were deposited into the securities accounts, buy orders would be placed and executed notwithstanding that the fund was not yet available. When the cheques became dishonored, the shares purchased, if any, would be sold. Where a profit was made, obviously at no cost at all, it would be withdrawn. Where a loss was occasioned, the defendants could not be reached. Upon advice, the defendants were each charged with conspiring with Lee to deal with property, namely the shares and debts owed to the defendants as the securities account holders, known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence. Both defendants were convicted after trial and were sentenced to 33 and 32 months’ imprisonment respectively.

In 2015, the Section continued to share its experience in the combat of commercial crime and market misconduct offences. In June, Mr William Siu, Senior Public Prosecutor, presided over the mock trial in the Police’s Criminal Investigation Course. In September, he gave a briefing to visiting officials of the China Securities Regulatory Commission on Hong Kong’s legal system and the prosecution of market misconduct offences. In November, he gave a seminar on “Cooperation between the Hong Kong Police Force and the Department of Justice in Fraud Prosecution” to CCB officers in the Commercial Crime Investigation Course.

61

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

分科四第 3 組 廉政公署 ( 公營機構 ) 案件

廉政公署 ( 公營機構 ) 案件組是一個專責組別，

負責就涉及政府部門和公營機構的貪污案件，

以及投訴選舉期間的舞弊和非法行為的選舉案

件，向廉政公署提供法律指引。自 2015 年 2 月，

本組由高級助理刑事檢控專員李鏡鏞先生掌管，

成員不多，只有三名高級檢控官和一名檢控官。

年內，本組律師努力不懈，就廉政公署轉介的

152 宗貪污案件和 68 宗選舉案件提供法律指

引。這些指引涵蓋多類法律範疇︰包括相關案

件是否適合援引《防止賄賂條例》( 第 201 章 )第 III 部訂明的特別調查權力、就可能放有受保

密權涵蓋的材料的處所向法院申請搜查令、案

中證據是否充分及案件在那一級別的法庭審訊。

儘管提供法律指引的工作量非常繁重，組內律

師也盡可能在一些由他們提供法律指引的較複

雜和敏感案件，在審訊和上訴聆訊中出庭檢控。

年內，本組採用了新工作措施處理選舉案件。

法律政策科轄下政制發展及選舉組律師負責從

政制及法律政策的角度，就選舉事務提供意見。

我們借助他們的專門知識，並聯同他們、和廉

政公署首長級人員及相關組的專門調查主任舉

行會議，研究在執行《選舉 ( 舞弊及非法行為 )條例》( 第 554 章 )(《選舉條例》) 牽涉的種種

法律問題。其中一次會議更邀得選舉事務處及

廉政公署社區關係處人員出席，共同探討有關

法律問題。在會上大家就《選舉條例》中若干

條文的不同詮釋發表意見和討論，而調查人員

則根據執行有關法例的工作經驗，提供寶貴意

見。

這些會議為相關持份者提供一個有用的平台，

令各持份者能一同商討在執行《選舉 ( 舞弊及非

法行為 ) 條例》的法律問題並且制訂策略，以確

保香港的公共選舉能以公平公正的方式進行。

2015 年 10 月 23 日，李鏡鏞先生與法律政策科

署理副首席政府律師鄭大雅女士按會議達成的

結論，就《選舉 ( 舞弊及非法行為 ) 條例》不同

條文涉及的法律問題，為廉政公署人員開辦聯

合培訓研討會。

另一項新措施是本組的法律指引職責範圍擴大

至接收經警方處理的所有輕微選舉罪行案件。

這些案件以往由裁判法院法律指引 ( 一般檢控 )組負責提供法律指引。由於有些案件涉及違反

不同選舉法例中與選舉有關的罪行條文，而由

於廉政公署和警方分別負責執行《選舉 ( 舞弊及

非法行為 ) 條例》( 第 554 章 ) 及其他選舉法例，

新措施有助律師就是否提出檢控或以其他措施

( 如發出警告 ) 代替檢控，為廉政公署和警方提

供一致和統一的指引。

Section IV(3) ICAC (Public Sector)

The ICAC (Public Sector) Section is a specialized section responsible for providing legal advice to the ICAC on corruption cases relating to government departments and public bodies, as well as election cases involving complaints on corrupt and illegal conduct at elections. Starting from February 2015, the Section was headed by Mr Robert Lee, Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions with a small workforce comprising 3 Senior Public Prosecutors and 1 Public Prosecutor. Throughout the year, counsel in the Section worked tirelessly and rendered advice to a total of 152 corruption cases and 68 election cases referred to by the ICAC. The advice covered a diverse range of legal issues, from appropriateness to invoke special powers of investigation provided under Part III of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap. 201), intended applications for search warrants against premises where privileged materials may be present, strength of evidence and venue of trial. Despite a taxing advisory caseload, counsel in the Section endeavored to prosecute some of the more complex and sensitive cases advised by them, both at trial and appeal.

The year saw new work initiatives adopted by the Section to tackle election cases. We tapped on the expertise of counsel of the Constitutional Development & Elections Unit in the Legal Policy Division, who are tasked to advise on election matters from a constitutional and legal policy perspective, and joined forces with them to hold meetings with directorate officers and specialist Investigators of the relevant team of the ICAC on a wide range of legal issues relating to enforcement of the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance (Cap. 554) (ECICO). On one occasion, officers of the Registration and Electoral Office, as well as the Community Relations Department of the ICAC, were invited to the meeting to discuss the issues. Opinions on different approaches to interpretation of certain provisions in the Ordinance were raised and discussed, with valuable input provided by the investigators as to their working experience in enforcement.

The meetings served as a useful platform for relevant stakeholders to discuss legal issues in enforcing the ECICO, with strategy mapped out to ensure that public elections in Hong Kong are conducted in a fair and honest manner. On 23 October 2015, drawing on the conclusions reached in the meetings, Mr Robert Lee and Ms Dorothy Cheng, Acting Deputy Principal Government Counsel of the Legal Policy Division, provided a joint training seminar to the officers of the ICAC on the legal issues in respect of various provisions under the ECICO.

Another initiative was the expansion of our advisory portfolio to take over all police cases on minor election offences from the Magistrates’ Court Advisory (General Prosecutions) Section, which had previously been tasked to provide legal advice to these cases. The new initiative enables counsel to adopt a consistent and uniform approach in advising both the ICAC and the police as to whether to institute prosecution, or adopt other measures in lieu of prosecution such as issue a warning, for cases involving contraventions of the election-related offence provisions contained in different electoral legislation which the 2 law enforcement agencies are separately tasked to enforce, namely the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance (Cap. 554) by the ICAC, and other legislation by the Police.

62

下文載述年內由本組律師提供法律指引和檢控

的一些較為重要案件：

(i) 在香港特別行政區 訴 羅舜泉 ( 粉嶺裁判法

院刑事案件 2014 年第 4991 號 ) 一案中，

被告是大埔區區議員，他涉嫌向大埔區議會

申請津貼時，作出虛假聲稱，被控四項欺詐

罪。有關申請發還的款項，是用以支付被告

聲稱過去四年間向四名助理所支付的薪金合

共港幣 500,000 元。四名助理應他要求在

沒有收取款項的情況下，簽署記錄表示收取

了款項。被告向大埔區議會提交該等記錄作

申請發還款項，從而取得港幣 500,000 元。

他經審訊後被裁定所有罪名成立，判監五個

月。被告其後就定罪提出上訴，但遭駁回。

(ii) 在香港特別行政區 訴 黃冠豪 ( 東區裁判法

院刑事案件 2012 年第 2192 號 ) 一案中，

被告是一名警司暨灣仔分區指揮官。他在擔

任指揮官的警區內一家食肆享用豐盛晚餐

時，接受店主提供大幅折扣，被控屬普通法

的公職人員行為不當罪。被告負責處理灣仔

區內食肆東主遞交的酒牌申請，並就有關申

請向警方的相關批核當局提供建議。被告明

知案中店主當時正申請酒牌，而在未獲發牌

下在店內售賣酒類 ( 酒精 ) 飲料是會觸犯無

牌賣酒罪，但被告仍接受有關折扣。他既無

採取執法行動，也沒有就有關飲食享有折扣

和他當時正處理該店主遞交的酒牌申請，向

管理層作出申報有牽涉利益衝突。他經審訊

後被裁定罪名成立，判監一年。被告就定罪

提出的上訴遭駁回，但監禁刑期在上訴後減

至六個月。

(iii) 在香港特別行政區 訴 李欽培 ( 第一被告 )及其他 11 人 ( 區院刑事案件 2015 年第 25號 ) 一案中，12 名被告被控 22 項串謀欺詐

罪，經審訊後被裁定罪名成立。案情指涉案

新界男性原居村民依據俗稱“丁”權申請建

屋牌照藉以在新界興建小型屋宇時，向地政

總署作出欺詐。第一被告是地產發展商，在

沙田大輋村擁有數幅土地，其餘 11 名被告

是男性原居村民。第一被告與其餘 11 名被

告各人和其他男性原居村民串謀，後者同意

接受第一被告約港幣 200,000 元的報酬，

作為他們申請建屋牌照興建聲稱屬他們自用

丁屋的代價。但事實上，所有村民並無土地

或財政資源興建丁屋，而他們各人都與第一

被告訂立一份同意放棄丁屋業權的協議，並

向地政總署隱瞞有關協議。第一被告被判處

監禁三年，而 11 名村民被告則被判處監禁

30 至 34 個月不等。

Some of the more significant cases advised and prosecuted by counsel during the year include the following:

(i) In HKSAR v Lo Sou-chour FLCC 4991/2014, the defendant was a District Councilor in Tai Po District. He was charged with 4 counts of fraud for having made false claims of allowance from the Tai Po District Council (TPDC). The claims were for reimbursement of payments of salary he had allegedly paid to 4 assistants over a period of 4 years in the total sum of HK$500,000. The assistants were asked to sign records to acknowledge receipt of the payments, which they did not receive, and the defendant submitted the records to the TPDC for reimbursement and thereby obtained the sum of HK$500,000. He was convicted after trial of all 4 charges and sentenced to 5 months’ imprisonment. He later appealed against the convictions and his appeal was dismissed.

(ii) In HKSAR v Wong Koon-ho Titus ESCC 2192/2012, the defendant was a Superintendent of Police cum Commander of the Wanchai Division. He was charged with the common law offence of misconduct in public office for having accepted substantial discounts on a lavish meal by the proprietor of a restaurant situated in the district under his command. He was responsible for processing liquor licence applications by owners of restaurants in Wanchai and submitting his recommendations on the applications to the relevant approving authority in the Police. He accepted the discounted meal knowing that the proprietor of the restaurant was at the time applying for a liquor licence, and given the licence had not yet been granted, was liable for the offence of selling liquor (alcohol) without licence at the restaurant. He took no enforcement action, nor declared a conflict of interest to the management in respect of the discounted meal and his concurrent processing of the relevant liquor licence application by the proprietor. He was convicted after trial and sentenced to imprisonment for 1 year. His appeal against conviction was dismissed whilst the sentence was reduced, on appeal, to 6 months’ imprisonment.

(iii) In HKSAR v Li Yam-pui (D1) and 11 Others DCCC 25/2015, the 12 defendants were convicted after trial of 22 counts of conspiracy to defraud. The case related to fraudulent applications by male indigenous villagers in the New Territories (NT) to the Lands Department for the issue of building licences to build small houses in the NT, pursuant to what is commonly known as a “Ding” right. D1 was a real estate developer and owned several pieces of land in Tai Che Village in Shatin whereas the other 11 defendants were male indigenous villagers. D1 conspired with each of the remaining 11 defendants, as well as other male indigenous villagers, whereby the latter agreed to accept a remuneration of around HK$200,000 from D1 as consideration for them to apply for building licences to build small houses allegedly for their exclusive occupation. All the villagers had in fact no land or financial means to build small houses, and each of them executed an agreement with D1 to relinquish their ownership of the houses, which agreement they concealed from the Lands Department. D1 was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment whereas the 11 defendant villagers to a term of imprisonment between 30 and 34 months.

分科

四 商

業罪

案Su

b-di

visi

on IV

Com

mer

cial

Crim

e

63

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

分科四第 4 組 ― 廉政公署 ( 私營機構 ) 案件Section IV(4) – ICAC (Private Sector)

分科四第 4 組 廉政公署 ( 私營機構 ) 案件

商界的貪污手法五花八門，包括受賄、敲詐和

賄賂。貪污擾亂巿場秩序，使公眾對公平營商

和競爭失去信心。對於杜絕這些貪污活動，香

港刑事司法制度擔當至關重要的角色，而廉政

公署 ( 私營機構 ) 案件組力求達到這杜絕貪污的

目標，組內檢控官均嚴格根據香港的反貪法例

行事。

本組在 2015 年由高級助理刑事檢控專員陳淑文

女士掌管，另有六名律師，負責檢控有關公司

和銀行詐騙，以及涉及代理人的貪污活動。他

們向廉政公署提供了 221 項法律指引，檢控了

共 82 宗案件，當中 57 宗在裁判法院審理，23宗在區域法院審理，另有兩宗在原訟法庭審理。

相比之下，在 2014 年檢控的案件則有 86 宗，

當中 71 宗在裁判法院審理，14 宗在區域法院

審理，另有一宗在原訟法庭審理。

此外，本組的檢控官為廉政公署人員舉辦培訓

課程，以提高他們在有關範疇的法律知識。檢

控官也出席在本港及海外舉行的會議和研討會，

就檢控貪污案件工作分享專業知識和經驗。

本組在 2015 年處理了多宗備受關注的重要案

件，包括下列案件：

(i) 在香港特別行政區 訴 劉夢熊 ( 第一被告 )及另二人 ( 第二及第三被告 ) ( 高院刑事案

件 2013 年第 561 號 ) 一案中，三名被告被

控兩項串謀詐騙罪。他們與一家上市公司的

主席串謀詐騙該公司的股東及香港聯合交易

所有限公司，在該上市公司有關收購若干美

國油田的公告及通函中作出虛假陳述，致使

前者贊同收購，而後者則准許刊登有關公告

及通函。文件內有多項虛假陳述，包括指其

中一間賣方公司及其實益擁有人為獨立於該

Section IV(4) ICAC (Private Sector)

Corruption in the business community takes various forms including graft, extortion and bribery. It disrupts the markets and causes the public to lose confidence in fair trade and competition. The criminal justice system in Hong Kong plays a pivotal role in eradicating corruption in this regard, and prosecutors in the ICAC (Private Sector) Section work towards this goal by rigorously applying Hong Kong’s anti-corruption laws.

In 2015, the Section, comprised 6 counsel and was headed by Ms Alice Chan, Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, handled the prosecution of corrupt activities relating to corporate and banking fraud, and corrupt activities involving agents. They provided 221 advice to the ICAC. A total of 82 cases were prosecuted, 57 of which in the Magistrates’ Courts, 23 in the District Court and 2 in the Court of First Instance. Compared with 2014, 86 cases were prosecuted, with 71 cases in the Magistrates’ Courts, 14 cases in the District Court and 1 case in the Court of First Instance.

In addition, prosecutors in the Section provide training sessions to ICAC officers with a view to enhancing their legal knowledge in the area. They also shared expertise and experience on the prosecution of corruption cases in conferences and seminars held both locally and overseas.

Cases of interest and significance handled by the Section in 2015 include the following:

(i) In HKSAR v Lew Mon-hung (D1) and 2 Others (D2 and D3) HCCC 561/2013, the defendants were charged with two counts of conspiracy to defraud for conspiring together with the Chairman of a listed company to defraud the shareholders of the listed company and the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited, by making false representations in the listed company’s announcement and circular in respect of the acquisition of certain US oil fields, causing the former to approve the acquisition and the latter to allow the publication of the announcement and the circular. It was falsely represented in those documents, inter alia, that one of the vendor

64

上市公司的第三方，但該賣方公司的實益擁

有人實際上是該上市公司的主席。此外，三

名被告因處理該上市公司為收購而支付的金

錢和股份，各分別被加控一項、三項和一項

洗錢罪。經審訊後，第一被告被裁定全部控

罪罪名不成立，第二及第三被告則分別被裁

定全部及三項中的兩項罪名成立。第二被

告被判處監禁七年，第三被告被判處監禁五

年，法庭同時取消他們擔任公司董事資格

10 年。該兩名被告已就定罪及判刑申請上

訴許可。

(ii) 在香港特別行政區 訴 余力維 ( 第一被告 )及另一人 ( 第二被告 ) ( 區院刑事案件 2014年第 325 號 ) 一案中，第一被告具備豐富的

酒店管理經驗，一名商人把某酒店的餐廳交

託給他經營。第一被告委託第二被告協助他

物色飲食承辦商經營該餐廳，並在該名商人

不知情的情況下向有興趣的各方索取賄賂。

廉政公署接獲線報後採取臥底行動。臥底人

員與第一及第二被告商討該經營計劃。在會

面中，第一及第二被告向臥底人員索取港幣

98 萬元，臥底人員其後將港幣 25 萬元交給

第一及第二被告，作為部分繳款。此外，第

一及第二被告又藉詞收取該餐廳的開設成

本，企圖誘使臥底人員再向他們二人支付港

幣 160 萬元。第一及第二被告共同被控串

謀使代理人索取利益罪 ( 控罪一 )、處理已

知道或相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財

產罪 ( 控罪二 )，以及企圖欺詐罪 ( 控罪三 )。經審訊後，第一及第二被告被裁定控罪一及

二罪名成立，而控罪三則罪名不成立。二人

分別被判處監禁 30 個月及 27 個月。法院

已駁回針對定罪判決的上訴許可申請 ( 刑事

上訴 2015 年第 237 號 )。

(iii) 香港特別行政區 訴 陳家松 ( 區院刑事案件

2015 年第 319 號 ) 一案涉及一宗內地礦業

公司股份的收購。被告是一家上巿公司的主

席，他以欺詐方式進行收購，向董事局隱瞞

該礦業公司在收購期間已另行簽立的協議。

此外，被告接受礦業公司其中一名東主的港

幣 100 萬元，作為收購的報酬。被告被控

欺詐罪 ( 控罪一 ) 和代理人接受利益罪 ( 控

罪二 )。經審訊後，法官裁定被告無須就控

罪一答辯，但控罪二則罪名成立，判處監禁

三年，同時取消他擔任公司董事資格五年。

被告就定罪及判刑申請上訴許可，但遭法院

駁回。

(iv) 在香港特別行政區 訴 MUS Sasa ( 東區裁判

法院刑事案件 2014 年第 2394 號 ) 一案中，

被告被控串謀詐騙罪。他是本港一支著名足

球隊的職業球員。在 2013 年 8 月至 2014年 5 月的球季中，該隊是 12 支參加香港足

球總會 (“足總”) 甲組足球聯賽的球隊之

companies and its beneficial owners were third parties independent of the listed company, while in fact that vendor company was beneficially owned by the Chairman of the listed company. In addition, each of the defendants was further charged with one, three and one count(s) of money laundering respectively for their acts of dealing with payments in money and shares made by the listed company for the acquisition. After trial, D1 was acquitted of all counts, while D2 and D3 were respectively convicted of all and two of the three counts they were charged with. D2 was sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment and D3 was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment and they were both disqualified from becoming company directors for a period of 10 years. Both of them have applied for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.

(ii) In HKSAR v Yu Lik-wai (D1) and Anor (D2) DCCC 325/2014, D1, experienced in hotel management, was entrusted by a businessman to operate the restaurant of a hotel. D1 engaged D2 to help him look for a caterer to operate the restaurant, and, unbeknown to the businessman, solicited bribes from interested parties. The ICAC, having received information about it, engaged in an undercover operation. Undercover officers discussed with D1 and D2 about the project, and during the meetings, D1 and D2 solicited HK$980,000 from the officers, and subsequently, undercover officers passed HK$250,000 to D1 and D2 as part payment. Also, D1 and D2 attempted to induce undercover officers to pay a further HK$1.6 million to them on the pretext of set-up cost for the restaurant. D1 and D2 were jointly charged with conspiracy for an agent to solicit an advantage (Charge 1), dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence (Charge 2), and attempted fraud (Charge 3). After trial, D1 and D2 were convicted of Charges 1 and 2 but were acquitted of Charge 3. They were sentenced to 30 and 27 months’ imprisonment respectively. Leave to appeal against conviction has been refused in CACC 237/2015.

(iii) HKSAR v Chen Jiasong DCCC 319/2015 was a case involving an acquisition of the shares of a mining company in China. The defendant, the Chairman of a listed company, concealed from the Board of Directors the agreements which had been executed by that mining company during the acquisition and fraudulently procured the acquisition. The defendant also accepted HK$1 million from one of the owners of the mining company as a reward for procuring the acquisition. The defendant was charged with fraud (Charge 1) and agent accepting an advantage (Charge 2). After trial, the Judge ruled that there was no case to answer on Charge 1 but convicted the defendant of Charge 2. The defendant was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment and was disqualified from being a company director for 5 years. His application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence was refused.

(iv) In HKSAR v Mus Sasa ESCC 2394/2014, the defendant was charged with the offence of conspiracy to defraud. He was a professional player of a local prominent football team (the Team). The Team was amongst 12 teams competing in the Hong Kong First Division League (FDL) organized by the Hong Kong Football Association (HKFA) in the football season which began in August 2013 and ended in May 2014. In one football match between the Team and 分

科四

商業

罪案

Sub-

divi

sion

IV C

omm

erci

al C

rime

65

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

一。在該隊對另一支聯賽球隊的賽事中，該

隊的行政主任在中場期間接觸被告，指示他

下半場不要盡力作賽。被告依從指示，球隊

也在賽事中落敗。賽後，球隊贊助人接觸被

告，有意給他港幣約 20,000 元，但被告拒

絕接受。球隊的要員和足總證實，操控賽事

的勾當會損害各會的經濟利益。被告經審訊

後被裁定罪名成立，被判監 12 個月。

分科四第 5 組 海關案件

香港海關負責根據有關反走私、保護知識產權、

保障政府收入、保障消費者和打擊洗錢的法律，

調查涉嫌罪行，而本組專責就有關罪行向香港

海關提供法律指引。訂明這些罪行的法例主要

有《進出口條例》( 第 60 章 )、《版權條例》( 第

528 章 )、《防止盜用版權條例》( 第 544 章 )、《商品說明條例》( 第 362 章 )、《應課稅品條

例》( 第 109 章 )、《消費品安全條例》( 第 456章 )、《玩具及兒童產品安全條例》( 第 424 章 )、《打擊洗錢及恐怖分子資金籌集 ( 金融機構 ) 條

例》( 第 615 章 ) 和《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》( 第455 章 )。

2015 年，本組提供書面法律指引共 743 項，

2014 年則為 563 項。提供的法律指引數目顯著

急升，原因之一是 2013 年 7 月實施了《2012年商品說明 ( 不良營商手法 )( 修訂 ) 條例》。新

條文加強保障消費者，打擊誤導性遺漏、具威

嚇性的營業行為、餌誘式廣告宣傳、先餌誘後

銷售行為，以及不當地接受付款等不良營商手

法。由於社會自此逐漸認識有關的保障制度，

由消費者委員會轉介過來的案件日增 ( 該會是市

民向來提出投訴的第一站 )，而香港海關主動查

獲的案件也有增加。

another team in FDL, the Executive Officer of the Team approached the defendant at half-time and instructed him not to perform to his best ability in the second half of the match. The defendant complied and the Team lost the match. After the match, the sponsor of the Team approached the defendant and wanted to give him about HK$20,000. The defendant refused to accept the money. Officers of the Team and HKFA confirmed that match-fixing activities put the financial interests of the respective associations at risk. The defendant was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment upon conviction after trial.

Section IV(5) Customs and Excise

The Customs and Excise Department investigates suspected offences under the law on anti-smuggling, intellectual property rights protection, revenue protection, consumer protection and anti-money laundering. This Section specializes in advising the Customs and Excise Department on these offences which come mainly under the Import and Export Ordinance (Cap. 60), the Copyright Ordinance (Cap. 528), the Prevention of Copyright Piracy Ordinance (Cap. 544), the Trade Descriptions Ordinance (Cap. 362), the Dutiable Commodities Ordinance (Cap. 109), Consumer Goods Safety Ordinance (Cap. 456), Toys and Children’s Products Safety Ordinance (Cap. 424), Anti-money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing (Financial Institutions) Ordinance (Cap. 615) and the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 455).

In 2015, the Section gave a total of 743 written legal advice, compared to 563 in 2014. The marked upsurge in the number of advice is partly accounted for by the coming into force in July 2013 of the Trade Descriptions (Unfair Trade Practices)(Amendment) Ordinance 2012. The new provisions enhanced protection of consumers against unfair trade practices, such as misleading omissions, aggressive commercial practices, bait advertising, bait-and-switch and wrongful acceptance of payment. Since then, there has been new public awareness of the protection regime, more referrals from the Consumer Council which is the customary first port of public complaints, and an increase in the number of cases that are detected by pro-active investigations conducted by the Customs and Excise Department.

One other reason for the increasing number was the fluxing of intellectual property cases, the commission of which had been rendered easier and speedier by exploitation of the internet.

Apart from giving legal advice, the Section is also responsible for monitoring and/or conducting prosecution that are initiated by the Customs and Excise Department including large scale cross-border smuggling and transnational money laundering cases.

Below is a summary of the significant cases that have been adjudged in 2015.

(i) In HKSAR v Li Shaojun DCCC 459/2015, an outgoing 7-seater private car driven by the defendant was intercepted at Lok Ma Chau Control Point. When asked if he had anything to declare, the defendant replied in the negative. The car was then searched. 12

66

這些案件數目趨升的另一原因是，罪犯利用互

聯網侵犯知識產權更為容易和便捷，以致知識

產權案件湧現。

除了提供法律指引外，本組也就香港海關起訴

的案件負責監督及／或檢控，包括大規模的跨

境走私及跨國洗錢案件。

下文概述 2015 年重要的已判決案件：

(i) 在香港特別行政區 訴 利紹君 ( 區院刑事案

件 2015 年第 459 號 ) 一案中，海關人員在

落馬洲管制站截停一輛出境的七座位私家

車，並查問當時駕駛車輛的被告有否任何物

品申報，他答稱沒有。海關人員遂搜查車

輛，發現中排的乘客座位下藏有 12 塊鈀板，

前排的地氈底則藏有 62 塊金屬板。被告在

警誡下承認替一名男子運送有關板塊，報酬

為港幣 10,000 元。根據隨後的估算，該等

檢獲物品的公平市值為港幣 2,000 萬元。被

告承認一項企圖輸出未列艙單貨物罪，被判

處監禁 22 個月。

(ii) 在香港特別行政區 訴 黃馮益 ( 東區裁判法

院刑事案件 2014 年第 3747 號 ) 一案中，

一名內地遊客到銅鑼灣一間由被告打理的藥

行購買花膠，看見店內一排木飾櫃內放置

各標價 580 元的花膠塊，遂問被告花膠標

價 580 元是否以每斤計，被告答“580”。

該遊客再問一斤有多少塊花膠，並在被告答

“約六七塊”後要了兩斤。被告秤了若干數

量的花膠後切成小塊。該遊客以信用卡付

款，但因看見簽帳單銀碼為港幣 10,000 元

而沒有簽署，並且要求被告解釋。被告說花

膠每両港幣 580 元，兩斤便要港幣 18,000多元。被告在對方追問下聲稱已如價錢牌所

示說，每両港幣 580 元。該價錢牌放在及

膝的不當眼位置，令人難以閱讀上面的內

容，而且“每両計”三字的字形遠比數目字

“$580”細小。該遊客要求取消交易，卻

遭被告以花膠已切碎為由拒絕。約四個月

後，該遊客再到同一藥行，看見花膠和價錢

牌仍以同一方式擺放。這次她錄下與被告的

對話。據錄音所述，她問被告價錢是否每斤

港幣 580 元，被告刻意以“一斤有 16 両”

等回應來誤導她。被告最終被控兩項作出屬

誤導性遺漏的營業行為罪，經審訊後裁定罪

名成立，分別判監六星期和四星期，刑罰分

期執行。法院也命令被告向該遊客賠償港幣

10,000 元。被告針對定罪提出上訴，但遭

法院駁回。

(iii) 在香港特別行政區 訴 鄭慧蓉 ( 第一被告 )及另二人 ( 第二和第三被告 ) ( 九龍城裁判

法院刑事案件 2014 年第 3903 號 ) 一案中，

受害人前往尖沙咀的美容院接受面部護理，

分科四第 5 組 ― 海關案件Section IV(5) – Customs and Excise

分科

四 商

業罪

案Su

b-di

visi

on IV

Com

mer

cial

Crim

e

palladium plates were found to have been concealed under the middle row of the passenger seat and 62 metal plates, under the carpet at the front row. Under caution, the defendant admitted that he delivered the plates for a man for a reward of HK$10,000. The fair market value of the seizure was later appraised to be HK$20 million. The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of attempting to export unmanifested cargo and was sentenced to 22 months’ imprisonment.

(ii) In HKSAR v Wong Fung-yik ESCC 3747/2014, a Mainland tourist entered a Chinese medicine shop, manned by the defendant, in Causeway Bay to purchase some dried fish maw. The tourist saw on a row of wooden display cabinet containing fish maw, each with a price label displayed “$580” and asked the defendant whether the fish maw was priced $580 for one catty. The defendant replied “580”. He further asked how many pieces of fish maw in one catty, to which the defendant answered “about 6 to 7 pieces”. The tourist then requested two catties of the fish maw. The defendant weighed a quantity of fish maw and then cut them into small pieces. The tourist then made payment by credit card but stopped signing the credit slip when she saw the amount was HK$10,000. When she asked the defendant why, the defendant said each tael of the fish maw was HK$580 and so two catties amounted to over HK$18,000. When further queried, the defendant claimed he had said the price was HK$580 for one tael as shown by the price label. The price label was positioned at an awkward knee-height position, making the price label difficult to read, and that the characters for “per tael” were in much smaller prints than the numerals “$580”. When the tourist demanded to cancel the transaction, the defendant refused on the ground that the fish maw had already been cut. About 4 months later, the tourist went to the same shop and saw the same set-up of the fish maw and price labels. This time she recorded the dialogue between her and the defendant. The recording showed that when she asked the defendant whether the price was HK$580 per catty, the defendant deliberately gave misleading responses like “one catty has 16 taels”. The defendant

67

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

她被帶到護理室由第一被告為她護理面部。

當受害人接受護理，第二被告入房向受害人

聲稱營運經理 ( 即第三被告 ) 在店內，可向

她提供意見和贈品。第三被告入房後，要求

檢查受害人的淋巴系統，在受害人拒絕下，

她仍然進行所謂的胸部、腋窩和小腿檢查，

之後表示受害人的胸部和腋窩下有腫塊，而

且其中一邊比另一邊更為明顯和嚴重。第三

被告又指示第二被告檢查受害人的胸部和腋

窩。第二被告在所謂檢查過受害人後，表示

同意第三被告的“結論”。第三被告向受害

人表示，她必須馬上開始身體淋巴護理，又

說腫塊如不即時處理，將會突變成乳癌。其

後，各被告繼續力勸及要脅受害人購買護理

服務套餐，否則可能會患乳癌。受害人最終

在受到勸誘下以港幣 140,000 元購買身體

護理服務並交出她的信用卡，第二被告在該

信用卡戶口記賬港幣 70,000 元，並要求她

下次到美容院時繳付餘額。第一至第三被告

共同被控一項作出具威嚇性的營業行為罪，

經審訊後裁定罪名成立。第二及第三被告在

判刑前已向受害人歸還合共港幣 70,000 元

( 即受害人所付的金額 )。第二及第三被告

被判處監禁三個月，第一被告則被判處履行

200 小時社會服務。

(iv) 在香港特別行政區 訴 林文如 ( 屯門裁判法

院刑事案件 2015 年第 273 號 ) 一案中，海

關人員連同版權擁有人的代表突擊搜查元

朗一家補習社，在兩個課室內分別發現有

2,626 套和 833 套侵犯一本教科書版權的複

製品。補習社負責人 ( 被告 ) 及兩名導師被

捕。被告在警誡下承認為教學用途而使用侵

犯版權的複製品，並聲稱他將侵犯版權的複

製品掃描後存入硬碟，以作備用教材。被告

被控兩項罪名，即管有作品的侵犯版權複製

品，以期令某人可為任何貿易或業務的目的

或在任何該等貿易或業務的過程中，分發該

侵犯版權複製品。被告承認兩項控罪，各被

判處履行 80 小時社會服務，同期執行。

was eventually charged and convicted after trial of 2 counts of engaging in a commercial practice that is a misleading omission, and was sentenced to consecutive sentences of 6 weeks and 4 weeks. He was also ordered to pay a compensation of HK$10,000 to the tourist. The defendant lodged an appeal against conviction but was dismissed.

(iii) In HKSAR v Cheng Wai-yung (D1) and 2 Others (D2-D3) KCCC 3903/2014, the victim went to a beauty parlour in Tsim Sha Tsui for facial treatment. She was led to a treatment room where Dl provided facial treatment for her. While the victim was receiving treatment, D2 entered the room and claimed to the victim that the operation manager, namely D3 was at the shop and she could provide advice to her and give her free gifts. D3 entered the room and asked to conduct a check on victim’s lymphatic system. The victim refused, but a purported check of her breasts, armpits and calves was nonetheless conducted, after which it was said that there were lumps in the victim’s breasts and under her armpits. It was also said that the lumps were more prominent and serious on one side than the other. D3 further asked D2 to examine the victim’s breasts and armpits. D2 purportedly examined the victim and expressed agreement with D3’s “findings”. D3 told the victim that she must start a lymphatic body treatment right away, adding that if one did not deal with the lumps immediately, the lumps would mutate into breast cancer. Thereafter the defendants kept urging and threatening the victim to agree to buying the treatment package or else she might have breast cancer. Eventually the victim was coaxed to purchase the body treatment package at HK$140,000. When the victim handed over her credit card, D2 charged HK$70,000 to her credit card account. The victim was further required to pay the outstanding balance when she next visited the beauty salon. D1 - D3 were jointly charged and convicted after trial of a count of engaging in a commercial practice that was aggressive. D2 and D3 repaid a total HK$70,000 (the amount paid by the victim) to the victim before sentencing. D2 and D3 were sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment whereas D1 was sentenced to perform Community Service of 200 hours.

(iv) In HKSAR v Lam Man-yu TMCC 273/2015, Customs officers, together with a representative of the copyright owner, raided a tuition centre in Yuen Long. Upon premises search, 2,626 and 833 sets of infringing copy of a textbook were found in two tuition rooms respectively. The owner of the tuition centre (the defendant) and 2 tutors were arrested. Under caution, the defendant admitted that he used the infringing copies for teaching purposes and alleged he prepared the infringing copies for use as teaching materials by scanning and saving them in a hard disk. The defendant was charged with two counts of possession of infringing copy of the work with a view to its being distributed by any person for the purpose of or in the course of any trade or business. The defendant pleaded guilty to both charges and was sentenced to perform Community Service of 80 hours for each charge, both to run concurrently.

行政及支援Administration and Support

刑事檢控科律師有一支盡忠職守的法律輔助人員及行政人員團隊協助工作。這團隊在

幕後默默耕耘，工作非常繁重又時常要爭分奪秒，為本科律師提供重要支援。

The work of counsel is supported by a team of dedicated paralegal and administrative

staff. Working hard behind the scenes and often under time pressure, the team provides

essential support to professional staff of the Prosecutions Division.

69

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

行政組

本科的行政和後勤支援工作由行政組負責。行

政組由刑事檢控科總行政主任周群英女士掌管，

專責協助刑事檢控專員管理本科的財務和人力

資源。本科有超過 480 名職員，財政預算逾港

幣 2.26 億元；因此行政組的其中一項管理職責，

是確保公帑和資源得以善用。

在本科各項開支中，佔較大比重的一項是聘用

私人執業律師擔任外判律師代表香港特區檢控

刑事案件。如有必要，我們也會在個別案件中

聘請獨立專家例如法證會計師協助舉證。2015年，本科在這方面的支出共港幣 1.254 億元。

行政組在過去一年也處理了共 1,847 宗以標準

付款額聘用外間專業人士的撥款申請，另有 45宗撥款申請是以非標準付款額聘用外間專業人

士，而決定是否批核這些撥款申請往往要在短

時間內作出。

此外，行政組負責安排外賓到訪本科及本科人

員外訪的活動。2015 年，行政組處理了八次外

賓到訪本科，並安排了共 16 次本科檢控人員參

加海外會議和與案件有關的離港公幹。此外，

行政組也監督投訴組的工作。該組備存一個登

記冊，記錄公眾就刑事檢控事宜提出的口頭和

書面查詢，2015 年的有關查詢有 536 項。本組

也兼顧其他行政工作，包括協助編配本科人員

的辦公地方和添置辦公室設備，以及為重要的

會議提供秘書服務。

法律輔助人員及行政支援人員

法律輔助人員為本科檢控人員在法律、行政及

文書方面提供重要的支援服務，協助他們專業

地履行職務。2015 年，本科的法律輔助人員團

隊由六名法律翻譯主任、26 名律政書記及 59名支援人員組成。

法律翻譯主任

雙語法庭文件組是一支專責翻譯隊伍，負責協

助本科律師擬備在刑事法律程序中的雙語法庭

文件。組內有五名法律翻譯主任和多名文書人

員，由高級法律翻譯主任督導。法律翻譯主任

的翻譯工作包括漢英和英漢翻譯，因應情況而

定，所翻譯的法庭文件包括公訴書、控罪書、

同意提出檢控書、免予起訴書、案情撮要、法

律陳詞和判案書。法律翻譯主任的工作絕不簡

單，他們並不是機械式地把文字、句子和想法

由一種語言轉換為另一種語言。雙語法庭文件

組的翻譯隊伍憑着他們的造詣、知識及經驗，

用盡心思解決語言上和法律上的複雜問題。為

促進雙語並用及方便檢索雙語資料，該隊伍也

Administration Unit

The Administration Unit provides administrative and logistical support to the Division. The Unit, headed by Ms Maria Chow, Chief Executive Officer (Prosecutions Division), assists the Director of Public Prosecutions in managing financial and human resources, handling a staff of over 480 in number and a divisional budget of over HK$226 million. Part of its management role is to ensure that public revenue is wisely spent and resources efficiently deployed.

A large proportion of the Division’s expenses goes to the engagement of lawyers in the private sector to prosecute criminal cases on behalf of the HKSAR on fiat. Where necessary, the Division also engages the services of independent experts, such as forensic accountants, to assist in the prosecution of cases. In 2015, HK$125.4 million was spent on those engagements. The Unit processed 45 requests for funds to engage outside professionals on non-standard terms, often at short notice, in addition to 1,847 engagements on standard terms.

In addition, the Unit organizes visits to the Division as well as outbound visits for officers from the Division. In 2015, it processed 8 incoming visits and arranged prosecutors to participate in 16 overseas conferences and case-related duty trips. The Unit also oversees the work of the Complaints Registry. It maintains a register which recorded 536 verbal and written enquiries from the public in relation to criminal prosecution matters in 2015. Amongst other administrative tasks, the Unit helps acquire office accommodation and equipment and provide secretarial support for major meetings.

行政主任Executive Officers

提供以下語文方面的支援：(i) 為《刑事上訴案

判例簡訊》翻譯具參考價值的批註及案件摘要，

以供發布；(ii) 就律師及法律輔助人員同事的查

詢提供語文方面的意見；(iii) 定期更新載有雙語

罪行詳情範本及判案書摘錄的電子資料庫，以

便內部參考；以及 (iv) 定期為檢控人員舉辦有關

使用中文草擬法庭文件的實用講座。2015 年，

雙語法庭文件組為本科製備了共 4,772 頁的中

譯本和 986 頁的英譯本。統計數字顯示，本科

對翻譯服務的需求持續上升。面對日後各種挑

戰，雙語法庭文件組都會一如既往，致力為本

科提供高水平的專業翻譯服務。

70

Paralegal and Administrative Support Staff

Paralegal staff provide prosecutors with legal, administrative and clerical services essential to the professional discharge of prosecutors’ duties. In 2015, the paralegal team of the Division comprised 6 Law Translation officers, 26 Law Clerks and 59 supporting staff members.

Law Translation Officers

The Bilingual Court Documents Unit (BCDU) is a team of specialized translators who assist counsel in preparing bilingual Court documents in criminal proceedings. There are 5 Law Translation Officers and a group of clerical staff working under the supervision of the Senior Law Translation Officer. Translation may be from Chinese to English or vice versa, depending upon the needs of individual cases. The Court documents they translated include indictments, charge sheets, consents to prosecution, immunities from prosecution, summary of facts, legal submissions and judgments. Their task is never an easy or a mechanical transfer of words, sentences and ideas from one language to another. With special skills, knowledge and experience, the translation team in BCDU grapples with both linguistic and legal complexities. To facilitate bilingualism and easy retrieval of bilingual materials, the team also provides the following linguistic support: (i) translating headnotes and case digests of reference value for the publication of Criminal Appeals Bulletin; (ii) giving linguistic advice to counsel and paralegal colleagues when opinions are sought; (iii) regularly updating electronic databases containing bilingual specimen charges and judgment extracts for internal easy reference; and (iv) conducting useful seminars periodically for prosecutors in relation to the use of Chinese in drafting Court documents. In 2015, BCDU produced a total of 4,772 pages of Chinese target texts and 986 pages of English target texts. As shown by the statistics, the demand for translation services is on the rise. Whatever challenges that lie ahead, BCDU remains committed to providing the Division with quality translation services.

Adm

inis

trat

ion

and

Supp

ort

行政

及支

援

打字組支援同事Supporting Staff at Typing Pools

71

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

高級律政書記Senior Law Clerks

律政書記

律政書記在本科內提供全面的法律支援服務。

他們隸屬刑事檢控總務室和案件外判及法庭職

務組，負責草擬法律文件、評核訟費申索、編

製案件文件冊、聘請外判律師、審閱法律文件、

安排聆訊日期和出席處理定額罰款的聆訊。

刑事檢控總務室

刑事檢控總務室負責協助本科律師在管理及履

行行政和專業職務方面的工作，亦協助和提供

統計數字予刑事檢控專員辦公室及行政組，以

處理公眾查詢及立法會的提問。總務室由高級

一等律政書記鄧綺雲女士領導，下設七個組別，

各由一名高級二等律政書記或律政書記掌管，

詳情如下：

上訴事務小組 — 本小組負責協助本科律師處

理在高等法院及終審法院聆訊的刑事上訴案件，

以及在高等法院聆訊的保釋申請。2015 年小組

在 1,475 宗上訴案件和約 1,100 宗保釋申請，

為本科律師提供支援服務。

雙語法庭文件組 — 本小組為本科提供法庭文

件的雙語翻譯服務。組內律政書記及支援人員

負責協助法律翻譯主任為檢控人員在刑事法律

程序中提供翻譯及審稿服務。

原訟法庭小組 — 本小組協助分科一第 1 組 ( 原訟法庭法律指引 ) 的律師籌備交付原訟法庭

的案件，以及處理在原訟法庭有陪審團審訊的

案件。2015 年，小組就 503 宗交付原訟法庭審

判的案件和 95 宗在原訟法庭有陪審團審訊的案

件提供支援服務。

Law Clerks

Law Clerks provide legal support across the board within the Division. They draft legal documents, assess costs claims, compile case bundles, brief fiat counsel, vet legal documents, arrange hearing dates and conduct fixed penalty proceedings. They operate in the Prosecutions Registry and the Briefing Out and Court Duties Section.

Prosecutions Registry

The Prosecutions Registry assists counsel in their management and discharge of administrative and professional duties. It also assists and provides statistics to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) and the Administration Unit in their handling of public enquiries and questions from the Legislative Council. The Registry, headed by Ms Teresa Tang, Senior Law Clerk I, comprises 7 units, each led by either a Senior Law Clerk II or Law Clerk. The units are:

Appeals Unit – This Unit supports counsel in their handling of criminal appeals heard in the High Court and the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal as well as bail applications heard in the High Court. In 2015, the Unit provided support services to counsel in 1,475 appeals and around 1,100 High Court bail applications.

Bilingual Court Documents Unit – This Unit provides bilingual translation of Court documents for the Division. Its Law Clerks and support staff assist Law Translation Officers in the provision of translation and vetting services to prosecutors conducting criminal proceedings.

Court of First Instance Unit – This Unit supports counsel in Section I(1) (Court of First Instance Advisory) in their preparation of cases for committal to the Court of First Instance and their handling of Court of First Instance cases for trial by jury. In 2015, the Unit provided support services in 503 committal cases and 95 jury trials.

72

商業罪案及貪污案件小組 — 本小組為分科四 ( 商業罪案 ) 的律師提供支援，協助籌備和處

理主要來自香港警務處商業罪案調查科、廉政

公署、香港海關、稅務局和證券及期貨事務監

察委員會的案件，及處理追討本地資產案件。

2015 年，小組處理逾 1,700 宗要求法律指引個

案，並在 244 宗在各級法院的審訊和 51 宗追討

資產案件提供支援服務。

區域法院事務小組 — 本小組協助分科一第 2組 ( 區域法院法律指引 ) 的律師草擬由裁判法

院移交區域法院審理案件所涉及的法律文件，

以及籌備相關案件在區域法院審理。2015 年，

由小組籌備文件以移交區域法院審理的案件有

1,115 宗，小組並在 308 宗區域法院審理的案

件向檢控人員提供支援服務。

管理支援及裁判法院事務小組 —本小組協助

刑事檢控專員辦公室管理本科，並編配案件予

律師以提供法律指引及出庭檢控。小組也負責

向處理裁判法院案件及在死因裁判官召開死因

研訊的律師提供支援，並在稱為 FAST 的特快法

律指引制度下提供支援服務。2015 年，小組在

628 宗裁判法院案件、18 宗死因研訊，以及超

過 1,700 宗透過 FAST 給予法律指引的個案提供

支援服務。

收發小組 — 本小組確保本科的檔案和信件有

效發送及妥善處理。小組也檢閱接收的檔案並予

以分類，並確保本科提供的法律指引能盡快發

還有關的執法機關。2015 年小組共處理 10,298宗由律師提供的書面法律指引。

Adm

inis

trat

ion

and

Supp

ort

行政

及支

援

Commercial Crime and Corruption Unit – This Unit provides support to counsel in Sub-division IV (Commercial Crime) who prepare and conduct cases submitted mainly by the Commercial Crime Bureau of the Hong Kong Police Force, the Independent Commission Against Corruption, the Customs and Excise Department, the Inland Revenue Department and the Securities and Futures Commission. It also processes domestic asset recovery cases. In 2015, the Unit handled over 1,700 requests for legal advice and provided support services to 244 trials at all levels of courts and 51 asset recovery cases.

District Court Unit – This Unit assists counsel in Section I(2) (District Court Advisory) in the preparation of legal documents for transferring cases from the Magistrates’ Courts to the District Court and the preparation of cases for trial in the District Court. In 2015, the Unit processed 1,115 transfer applications to the District Court and provided support services to prosecutors in 308 District Court trials.

Management Support and Magistracy Unit – This Unit assists the ODPP in the management of the Division and the allocation of cases to counsel for providing legal advice and prosecuting cases in Courts. It also provides support to counsel conducting magistracy trials and death inquests held by Coroners. In addition, it provides support for the speedy advisory system which is more affectionately known as “FAST”. In 2015, the Unit provided support in 628 magistracy trials, 18 death inquests and over 1,700 legal advice under FAST.

Receipt and Despatch Unit – This Unit ensures that files and correspondence are efficiently and securely delivered and processed. It vets and classifies incoming cases, and ensures timely return of completed legal advice to law enforcement agencies. In 2015, the Unit handled a total of 10,298 written legal advice provided by counsel.

律政書記Law Clerks

73

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

案件外判及法庭職務組

案件外判及法庭職務組分設案件外判及工作管

理小組、訟費小組和定額罰款小組。

案件外判及工作管理小組 — 本小組負責標準

及非標準外判案件機制的日常運作、編製和更

新外判律師名單、處理列入外判律師名單的申

請及把個別外判律師從名單暫時或永久除名，

並擬備外判律師的委聘書和核對收費單。此外，

小組也負責整理外判工作的統計數字，並協助

刑事檢控科遴選委員會履行監督非標準外判案

件相關事宜的職責。小組也負責推行本科的外

判政策和不時檢討與外判相關事宜。

本科的案件外判電腦系統屬工作管理系統下的

子系統，用於有關案件外判的工作。這系統的

檢討在 2014 年進行，而所有使用者在 2015 年

參與新案件外判系統相關測試。新系統在 11 月

開始運作。

訟費小組 — 本小組協助律師處理各級法院刑

事案件及相關法律程序的訟費申索。小組人員

協助評估各類刑事案件中不同法律程序的訟費

申索和訟費單、出席法庭聆訊、在訟費評定聆

訊為律師提供協助、擬備反對通知書，以及與

事務律師、訴訟人或訟費單草擬人員商議訟費

事宜。小組人員也負責就法院判令控方獲發訟

費的案件草擬訟費單。2015 年，小組接獲 427項訟費申索命令。

定額罰款小組 — 本小組負責處理因違反《定

額罰款 ( 交通違例事項 ) 條例》( 第 237 章 ) 泊

車而產生的定額罰款案件。這些案件由司法機

構和香港警務處中央交通違例檢控組轉交本科。

小組人員負責在裁判法院處理定額罰款程序、

提出財物扣押令及相關法庭命令作出申請、進

行覆核申請、指示警方和法庭檢控主任採取適

當行動，以及處理有關定額罰款案件的查詢和

投訴。2015 年，小組處理的新定額罰款案件共

7,186 宗。

Briefing Out and Court Duties Section

The Briefing Out and Court Duties Section comprises the Briefing Out and Work Management Unit, Costs Unit and Fixed Penalty Unit.

Briefing Out and Work Management Unit – This Unit handles the daily operation of the briefing out system for both standard briefs and non-standard briefs. It maintains lists of fiat counsel; processes applications for inclusion on the lists as well as suspension or removal of fiat counsel from the Briefing Out lists; prepares briefs to counsel and checks fiat counsel’s fee notes. It also compiles statistics for briefing out work and assists in the work of the Prosecutions Division Selection Board which oversees matters concerning non-standard briefs. The Unit is also responsible for implementing briefing out policy of the Division and reviewing the briefing out matters from time to time.

The Redevelopment Project of the Briefing Out System (BOS), which is a sub-system of the Work Management System for handling briefing out cases for the Division, was reviewed in 2014. In 2015, all users were engaged in completing the relevant tests of the new BOS and it was launched in November.

Costs Unit – This Unit assists counsel to process claims for costs in criminal cases and its related proceedings at all Court levels. Its staff assist in the assessment of claims for costs and bills of costs of various proceedings in criminal cases; attend call-over hearings; assist counsel in taxation hearings; prepare notices of objections; and negotiate with solicitors, litigants or law costs draftsmen for settlement. They are also responsible for drafting bills of costs for cases where orders for costs are awarded to the Prosecution. The Unit received 427 orders for costs in 2015.

Fixed Penalty Unit – This Unit deals with fixed penalty cases concerning parking contraventions under the Fixed Penalty (Traffic Contraventions) Ordinance (Cap. 237) referred by the Judiciary and by the Central Traffic Prosecutions Division of the Hong Kong Police Force. Its staff conduct fixed penalty proceedings in the Magistrates’ Courts; apply for distress warrants and court orders; conduct review applications; give instructions to the Police and Court Prosecutors for appropriate actions; and handle enquiries and complaints arising from fixed penalty cases. In 2015, the Unit handled a total of 7,186 new fixed penalty cases.

特稿Feature Articles

黄惠沖資深大律師專訪Interview with Wesley Wong SC

沈仲平博士專訪Interview with Dr Alain Sham

75

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事

黃惠沖資深大律師專訪Interview with Wesley Wong SC

2015 年 9 月 3 日，黃惠沖資深大律師出任法律政策專員，掌管法律政策科。他是首批由

本司培訓的見習律政人員，在 1994 年 8 月 2 日成為檢察官時被選派至刑事檢控科工作，

其後他也在司內其他科別服務。黃先生在 2011 年出任副刑事檢控專員，並由 2012 年 8

月 2 日起擔任刑事檢控專員辦公室人事主管，此時距離他首次加入刑事檢控科剛好 18 年。

這位律政專員談及過往的工作和經驗如何造就他，讓他有今日的信心履行現時範圍如此廣

泛的職責。

Mr Wesley Wong Wai-chung SC assumed the post of Solicitor General on 3 September 2015 to head the Legal Policy Division. From the Department’s first crop of home-grown Legal Trainees, he was first posted to the Prosecutions Division on 2 August 1994, and thereafter served elsewhere in the Department. He had been a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions since 2011 and started discharging the role of Chief of Staff of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions from 2 August 2012, exactly 18 years after he first joined the Division. The Solicitor General talks about how his previous work and experience has benefited and allowed him to discharge his present role with such a broad span of responsibility with the confidence which he otherwise would not be able to command.

由見習律政人員 ( 大律師 ) 到法律政策專員， 黃先生過去 22 年經歷的升遷之路，都甚具啓

發意義。他曾三度 (1994 至 1996 年、1998 至

1999 年和 2010 至 2015 年 ) 在本科工作。本司

歷來曾任職檢控官而獲委任為法律政策專員者，

除了司徒敬法官 1 和高等法院榮休法官杜輝 2 外，

就只有黃先生一人了。

黃先生說：“我覺得非常幸運，並因能夠與刑

事檢控科結緣而感到自豪。法治是香港賴以成

為國際金融中心的基石。我當上法律政策專員，

定當有責任維護並推廣法治。與刑事檢控科的

聯繫好讓我掌握到第一手資訊，告訴海內外社

會，香港確實是一片福地：在我們的法律制度

下，香港享有司法獨立，質素之高享譽國際；

而受《基本法》第六十三條保障的獨立檢控權，

正正能讓這支提供卓越檢控服務的專業團隊作

為秉行公義的檢控人員在履行職責時，能保持

獨立公正無私。”

才華初展

這位年輕的法律系畢業生，早在本地一所教會

學校求學時已酷愛辯論活動，畢業後自然希望

From Legal Trainee (Barrister) to Solicitor General, Mr Wesley Wong SC’s acceleration through the ranks in the past 22 years is nothing short of inspiring. Having had three spells (1994 to 1996, 1998 to 1999 and 2010 to 2015) in the Division, he is the only other former prosecutor (apart from the Honourable Mr Justice Stock GBS1 and retired High Court Judge Mr Justice Duffy2) in this Department’s history to be appointed Solicitor General.

“I feel very lucky and, indeed, proud to be associated with the Prosecutions Division in this way. In playing my current role as Solicitor General in the maintenance and promotion of the rule of law which is the bedrock of Hong Kong’s success as an international financial centre, I can tell both the local and international communities, with firsthand knowledge, how blessed Hong Kong is with a first-class prosecution service which is as independent as it is impartial when its counsel discharge their role as ministers of justice,” Mr Wong said. “And, this happens when prosecutorial independence is entrenched under article 63 of the Basic Law in a legal system where the quality and independence of the judiciary is well recognised internationally.”

The Young Lawyer

Nature appeared to be taking its course when the young law graduate, who had developed a keen interest in debating since his days at a local

1 現時為終審法院非常任法官。他在 1987 年 9 月 16 日至 1992 年 5 月 20 日期間出任律政專員。Currently Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal. He was Solicitor General from 16 September 1987 to 20 May 1992.

檢控

2 他在 1986 年 10 月 27 日至 1987 年 9 月 15 日期間出任律政專員。He was Solicitor General from 27 October 1986 to 15 September 1987.

76

成為訟辯律師，在法庭上一展所長。適逢在

1993 年當時的律政署推出見習律政人員計劃。

這項計劃對這位欲展抱負、服務社群的青年來

說，能夠受薪見習 ( 當時大律師公會獎學金或類

似的計劃仍未設立 )，當然是不二之選。

missionary school, wanted to pursue a career as an advocate before the courts. As it happened, the then Legal Department was launching its Legal Trainee Scheme in 1993. The prospect of serving salaried pupillage (before the times when the Bar scholarship or the like was available) was the obvious choice for the aspiring lawyer, especially when it married his desire to serve the public.

1993 在香港取得大律師資格參與當時律政署的見習律政人員計劃，當見習大律師

Called to the Hong Kong BarServed pupillage under the Legal Trainee Scheme (at the then Legal Department)

1994 獲委任為檢察官

Appointed Crown Counsel

1995 晉升為高級檢察官

Promoted to Senior Crown Counsel

2004 晉升為副首席政府律師

Promoted to Deputy Principal Government Counsel

2011 晉升為首席政府律師

Promoted to Principal Government Counsel

2012 出任副刑事檢控專員期間同時擔任人事主管

Served also as Chief of Staff in his capacity as Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions

2013 獲委任為資深大律師

Appointed Senior Counsel

2015 出任法律政策專員

Assumed position of Solicitor General

這位年輕檢察官，在完成為期一年的實習後第

二個月即須在杜輝法官席前處理人生首宗裁判

法院上訴案。杜輝法官在退休時承認，在他席

前應訊，較深入虎穴還凶險 ( 因為“至少老虎

只在饑餓時才撲食！”)。黃先生得以“虎口餘

生”，並在 24 歲時首次負責在陪審團前提控。

1995 年 12 月，即黃先生在出任檢察官僅一年

零四個月，便獲擢升為高級檢察官。他憶述當

時的心情：“我晉升為｀高級檢察官´，實在

出乎意料之外，因當時我最多還只是期望能在

1997 年以後才晉升為一名當時職銜尚未敲定的

｀高級政府律師 。́” 接下來的，正如大家所說，

就是人所皆知的事了。

點滴相連

“你無法預見人生的點點滴滴如何串聯起來，

只有在回顧過去時，才能看到點滴之間互有關

連。因此你要相信，這些點滴會在你未來的日

子裡以某種方式連繫起來。你得信任一些東西，

Within the second month after completion of his year-long apprenticeship, the young Crown Counsel was catapulted to conduct his first magistracy appeal before Mr Justice Duffy. Having survived appearing before a judge who upon retirement confessed that it would be worse appearing before his lordship than going into the lion’s den (because “at least the lion was not always hungry”), Mr Wong went on to conduct his first jury trial at the age of 24. In December 1995 - only a year and four months as Crown Counsel - Mr Wong was promoted to Senior Crown Counsel. “I was actually quite surprised to be promoted to Senior Crown Counsel, as at the time, I was still expecting to be promoted after 1997 to ‘Senior something else’,” Mr Wong recalls. The rest, as they say, is history.

Connecting the Dots

“You can’t connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backward. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something – your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down and it has made all the difference in my life.”3

3 The late Mr Jobs was referring to time where after he dropped out of Reed College, he sat in on a calligraphy class on campus where he learned about serif and san serif typefaces, about varying the amount of space between different letter combinations. “None of this had even a hope of any practical application in my life. But 10 years later, when we were designing the first Macintosh computer, it all came back to me… If I had never dropped in on that single course in college, the Mac would have never had multiple typefaces or proportionally spaced fonts.”(See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1R-jKKp3NA).

Feat

ure

Art

icle

s特

稿

77

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香港刑事檢控

黄先生 2014年參加哈佛大學甘迺迪學院高級行政人員進修課程時的研習小組Wesley’s study group when attending the Senior Executive Fellows programme at Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University in 2014

直覺也好、命運命數也好、因果什麼也好。這

信念從沒讓我失望，我的人生也大有不同。”3

上文節錄自已故資訊科技教主喬布斯 2005年於史丹福大學畢業禮上的演講。當喬布斯六年後

去世時，黃先生才偶然接觸到該文，並且對內

容產生共鳴。他從不逃避困難，一直篤信應勇

於迎接挑戰，從中充實自己。“念中學時家父

曾這樣訓勉我：｀自己學到的東西誰也無法奪

走，即使在學校選科時未必能隨心所欲，但所

得的知識依然是屬於你的。´”黃先生自早年

起，不論在學業還是工作上，都全心全意把每

個事項做好。“我的上司無責任迎合我的個人

興趣。每次獲指派任務我都全力以赴，實在亦

為將來打好基礎。”

黃先生解釋在他人生中，從喬布斯眼中的“點

點滴滴”來看，如何鋪陳出他晉升為律政專員

之途。他在香港特別行政區 訴 梅國強 (刑事上訴 2013 年第 133號 )案中作為答辯人的領訟大律師，負責處理針對定罪和刑罰提出的上訴。

該案是首宗指控執業大律師的包攬訴訟案，當

中法庭維持原判 4。黃先生處理該案時，深明他

在民事法律科所取得的經驗，對他的工作有重

大意義。“我是檢控人員出身，其後調派往最

後一任律政司及首任律政司司長的私人辦公室

工作，這項安排讓我接觸到制定政策及立法的

工作。其後我重返刑事檢控科 12個月，在該科專責處理有關憲法和人權法等案件的組別當副

Mr Wong came across this part of the late Steve Jobs’ commencement address in 2005 at Stanford University only after the information technology guru’s death six years later. The message, however, resonated with him as the Solicitor General has never shied away from hard work, always holding the firm belief that challenges – an enriching process – should be met full on. “When I was in secondary school, my father had told me this: ‘Whatever you learn cannot be taken away by others. Even though at school you might not have a choice over what is taught, the knowledge acquired is still yours’.” Since those early years, Mr Wong had embraced every task thrown his way wholeheartedly, be it in his studies or at work. “My bosses were not paid to entertain my personal interests. Rising to the occasion each time when I was called upon actually paved the way for what was to come.”

The Solicitor General explained how his path to Law Officer turned out to be an example of “connecting the dots” over time. When he took on the appeal against conviction and sentence as leading counsel for the respondent in HKSAR v Mui Kwok-keung CACC 133/2013, the first champerty case brought against a practising barrister whose convictions were upheld4, it became apparent to the Senior Counsel what the experience he gained whilst at the Civil Division meant to him. “I started off as a prosecutor before being tasked to serve the last Attorney General and the first Secretary for Justice in their private office, which allowed me some exposure to the work of policy formulation and law-making. Then I went to the Civil Litigation Unit in 1999, after a 12-month spell back at the Prosecutions Division as the second-in-charge of the section which handled, inter alia, constitutional and human rights cases, for some judicial review work because my passion was in public law.” As it turned out, his work portfolio eventually widened to include

3 已故喬布斯先生所指的是，他從里德學院 (Reed College)退學後，曾在校園的書法課旁聽，得知有襯線 (serif)及無襯線 (sans serif)字體，以及可更改不同字母組合的間距。“我沒想過這些東西會對我的生活有任何實際用途。但是十年後，當我們設計首台麥金塔 (Macintosh)電腦時，我記起了這一切……如我從未在學院旁聽那一堂課，蘋果電腦就不會有各式各樣的字體或比例間距字型了。”(見 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1R-jKKp3NA)

4 被告向終審法院申請上訴許可，但申請在 2014年 10月 22日遭拒絕。The defendant’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused on 22 October 2014.

78

主管。在 1999 年，因為我熱愛公法的工作，所

以我調往民事訴訟組，處理司法覆核案件。”

結果，他的職責範圍最終擴闊至包括紀律處分、

人身傷害、僱員補償及訟費。“在處理該宗包

攬訴訟案中，我得運用我在那些範疇中學到的

所有知識。”

黃先生調任民事法律科期間，市場失當行為還

未刑事化，但他為內幕交易審裁處的研訊擔當

提控官的角色。為此，他多晚深宵細閱帳簿和

繪製資金流向圖表，這些技能在他 2010 年離開

工作了 11 年的民事範疇回歸刑事檢控科時，也

大派用場。也許正因如此，黃先生後來在 2011年晉升為副刑事檢控專員時，獲委掌管商業罪

案分科，其間他不愁沒有在處理大量涉及上市

證券、偽造帳目、貪污和洗錢的案件時一展所

長的機會。

黃先生認為尋求司法公正十分重要。在擔任高

級助理民事法律專員期間，他有份參與推動香

港民事司法制度改革，該項改革終在 2009 年開

始實施。他現時作為法律政策專員，則負責落

實法律改革委員會近日就第三方資助仲裁所發

表的最新報告書中的建議。黃先生認為，他多

年來在司內不同科別不同崗位累積豐富經驗，

令他對不少範疇的法律都有所涉獵，若能充份

掌握和應用這些知識，實有助他履行提升香港

作為國際法律和解決爭議服務中心的職責。

隨心而行

“我們大可依自己的喜好，隨心而行，無須過

份盤算。”專員憶述自己在香港大學法律學院

念本科時，《基本法》才剛頒布，校方隨即在

1991年首次開辦有關這份憲制文件的課程。“當

時不少同學對選修這門簇新的科目存疑。”然

而，對這位年僅 21 歲的小伙子來說，決定選修

這科目，純粹是本着他對歷史的熱忱。事因他

在小學交換聖誕禮物時，有幸得到人生中首套

塑膠士兵模型玩具，裝砌這套模型，啓發了他

對歷史的興趣。“憲制法律可說是歷史與政治

的產物，代表大學出戰議會式辯論比賽時，也

須蒐集很多在這兩方面的材料，相關的訓練也

為我日後從事公務奠下良好的基礎。”

凡認識黃先生的人必會發現，他除了求知若渴

外，也見多識廣，事無大小通曉。這位法律政

策專員認為，與不同層面的人接觸，不論他們

的背景和特長，只要細心聆聽他們對大小事情

的看法，都必有所得。“人不可能無所不知，

但是當你有所不知時，至少也知道可以向誰 討教。”

Feat

ure

Art

icle

s特

稿

disciplinary actions, personal injuries, employees’ compensation and costs. “The champerty case drew together all I knew in those areas.”

During the course of his posting to the Civil Division, Mr Wong acted as counsel to the tribunal inquiring into acts of insider dealing before market misconduct was criminalised. It was in that context that he had to spend many late evenings industriously studying books of accounts and drawing up fund-flow charts, skills which he put into good use upon his return to the Prosecutions Division in 2010, after 11 years doing civil work. It was also probably for this reason that Mr Wong was later put in charge of the Commercial Crime Unit upon his promotion in 2011 to Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, when he was to spend even more time doing the same on cases involving listed securities, false accounting, corruption and money laundering.

Whilst access to justice was dear to his heart when Mr Wong, as Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law), was promoting Hong Kong’s Civil Justice Reform which was finally implemented in 2009, his current role as Solicitor General requires him to take forward the Law Reform Commission’s latest report recommending reforms on third party funding for arbitration. Mr Wong now sees his years of experience garnered in different divisions and different roles within the Department culminating in the wide ranging knowledge he has in many facets of the law which he now has to master in enhancing Hong Kong’s status as an international legal and dispute resolution centre.

Follow Your Passion

“Yes, your interest is important. By all means, let your heart rule your head.” The Solicitor General recalls his time as an undergraduate at law school when the Basic Law course was offered by the University of Hong Kong for the first time in 1991, immediately after the constitutional instrument’s promulgation. “Many of my classmates at the time were sceptical about choosing an elective on something so new.” To the 21-year-old, however, it was merely an extension of his passion in history, developed from assembling his first plastic model kit of toy soldiers which he had the fortune of receiving at a Christmas exchange of presents at primary school. “In a sense, constitutional law is a product of history and politics, and on both subjects I had to read a lot as a parliamentary debater for the varsity team. It also prepared me well in pursuing a career in public service.”

Apart from his appetite for learning everything and anything – and those who know Mr Wong personally will surely have noticed his wealth of knowledge on any subject big or trivial – the Solicitor General believes that meeting people, from farmers to pharmacists, and listening to them is also essential. “One can’t know everything. But when there is something you don’t know, at least you know whom you may ask.”

79

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

沈仲平博士專訪Interview with Dr Alain Sham

2016 年初，副刑事檢控專員沈仲平博士榮休，告別工作逾三十載的公務員隊伍。本文是

這位檢控貪污和有組織罪行的專家，與讀者分享他的一些看法及對未來的展望。

Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, Dr Alain Sham Chung Ping, retired in early 2016, after

a career in public service spanning more than three decades. The specialist in the prosecution

of corruption and organised crime shared some of his views and the vision for the future.

刑 事 檢 控 專 員 在 2016 年 4 月 於 律 政 司 職 員 會 所 為 沈仲平博士舉行歡送會Farewell gathering hosted by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Dr Alain Sham at the Department of Justice’s Mess in April 2016

沈仲平博士有對細節和數字過目不忘的能力，

從他能不假細想便道出投身律政司後三十多年

間所擔任的多個職位，可見一斑。“1986 年 4月 4 日，我加入當時的律政署，任職助理檢察

官，同年 10 月 4 日晉升為檢察官。當年助理檢

察官入職月薪是港幣 10,595 元，而 1986 年 10月 4 日檢察官的 [ 每月 ] 薪金為港幣 13,600 元。”

1989 年 6 月，年輕的沈先生獲擢升為高級檢察

官。在 1993 年沈先生被短暫派駐布政司署，出

任助理工商司，其後在 1994 年調到民事法律科

轄下的民事訴訟組工作六個月。當時，他擔任

署理助理首席檢察官，主要負責督導該組的司

法覆核工作。

沈先生在 1994 年 11 月重返刑事檢控科，翌年

3 月即晉升副首席檢察官，出任掌管高等法院案

情籌備及禁毒組，同時負責處理牽涉三合會及

有組織罪行、私營機構貪污及反恐的案件。沈

先生處理私營機構貪污案件累積的經驗，為他

Dr Alain Sham has a knack for remembering details and figures, as demonstrated by the ease with which he recollects his initial appointment to this Department and his different postings over the next three decades. “I was appointed as Assistant Crown Counsel on 4 April 1986 in the then Attorney General’s Chambers and was promoted to Crown Counsel on 4 October 1986. At the time, the starting pay for Assistant Crown Counsel was HK$10,595 a month and the salary for Crown Counsel as at 4 October 1986 was HK$13,600 [a month].”

The young Mr Sham was promoted to Senior Crown Counsel in June 1989 and in 1993, he was attached to the Government Secretariat as Assistant Secretary for Trade and Industry. This was followed by a six-month stint, in 1994, in the Civil Division’s Civil Litigation Unit. There he served as Acting Assistant Principal Crown Counsel, mainly overseeing the unit’s judicial review portfolio.

In November 1994, Mr Sham returned to the Prosecutions Division which soon saw him appointed as Deputy Principal Crown Counsel in March 1995 to head the Trial Preparation Unit (High Court) & Narcotics. During this time, he was also tasked to deal with cases involving triad and organised crime, corruption in the private sector and anti-terrorism elements. His experience in private corruption cases was a prelude to his further specialising in cases of corruption in the public sector. The corruption law specialist was subsequently appointed as Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions overseeing the work of the ICAC (Public Sector) Section from 2007 to 2010. In January 2011, Dr Sham was further promoted to the rank of Principal Government Counsel and in December 2012, headed the Prosecutions Division’s sub-division dedicated to Commercial Crime (which then included four sections: Major Fraud; Securities, Revenue and Fraud; ICAC (Private Sector); and ICAC (Public Sector)).1

As he progressed through the ranks in his legal career, his personal accolades continued to accumulate. Mr Sham received his doctorate degree in 1995 and in 1999, he became the first prosecutor in Hong Kong to be appointed as Visiting Professor to the National Prosecutors College of the People’s Republic of China ( 中國國家檢察官學院客座

教授 ). “I was surprised. At the time, China was just opening up and this was a state level organisation.” That was the beginning of various

1 A new “Cybercrime” section was formed on 1 August 2012, which has since merged with the section on Public Order Events (POE), to become the POE and Cybercrime Section, now under the purview of Sub-division I.

80

往後拓展公營機構貪污案件的專業領域奠下基

礎。在 2007 至 2010 年，這位反貪法律專家獲

委任高級助理刑事檢控專員，負責監督廉政公

署案件 ( 公營機構 ) 組。2011 年 1 月，沈博士

的事業更上層樓，獲晉升為首席政府律師，並

在 2012 年 12 月，掌管刑事檢控科轄下專責處

理商業罪案的分科。當時該分科下設四組，即

嚴重詐騙案件組；證券、稅務及詐騙案件組；

廉政公署案件 ( 私營機構 ) 組；以及廉政公署案

件 ( 公營機構 ) 組。1

沈先生在律政司的仕途平步青雲，他的個人榮

譽亦同時繼續累積。1995 年，沈先生取得博士

學位，四年後中國國家檢察官學院邀請他擔任

客座教授，成為香港首位榮膺此銜的檢察人員。

“我感到意外，因為當時中國剛逐步開放，而

這又是國家級機構。”之後，內地的大學陸續

委任沈博士為客座教授，包括 2003 年他接獲重

慶市西南政法大學的委任邀請，同年濟南山東

大學刑法研究所也委任他為特約研究員。

沈博士有一則鮮為人知的軼事，就是聯合國內

部監督事務廳在 2000 年邀請他出任高職，負責

督導聯合國在內羅畢、土耳其、倫敦及維也納

的工作。然而，他眼見當時香港的樓價正在下

跌，加上各種個人因素，遂推辭聯合國的邀請，

繼續留港工作，而到今天沈博士亦安於此決定。

沈博士在公務員隊伍任職多年，經歴他所稱的

“五朝八代”。他曾服務的五位部門首長—兩

位前律政司 ( 唐明治御用大律師及馬富善先生 )和三位律政司司長 ( 梁愛詩女士、黃仁龍資深

大律師及袁國強資深大律師 )。而他所指的“八

代”，則是眾位刑事檢控專員—杜輝御用大律

師、范達理御用大律師、胡俊康先生、阮雲道

御用大律師、江樂士資深大律師、麥偉德資深

大律師 ( 現為上訴法庭法官 )、薛偉成資深大律

師 ( 現為原訟法庭法官 ) 和現任的楊家雄資深大

律師。“如果盧嘉士先生也計算在內則有九代，

但那只有六個月而已。” 1986 年，沈博士才初

出茅廬，當時時任刑事檢控專員的盧嘉士先生

不久便返回澳洲，其後因病未有再返港。

對於喜歡哪個“朝”或“代”，沈博士守口如瓶，

但說到檢控工作，他肯定地指出，自己向來是

獨立自主作出檢控決定，不受干涉，包括決定

檢控兩位香港特區最高層官員 ( 即前政務司司長

許仕仁和前任行政長官曾蔭權 )。這兩宗案件由

決定檢控時機以至控罪方面，都有不少社會人

士熱議。“我很高興可以昂首地說，在從事檢

控工作 30 年，我一直可以本着專業原則獨立自

主行事。無論律政司司長或刑事檢控專員，都

從未就任何案件指示我或我的律師同事作出任

何決定。政治檢控絕無其事，我們的決定是以

證據及公眾利益為依歸，並不牽涉政治因素。”

appointments as Visiting Professor to Mainland universities, including the Southwest University of Political Science and Law, Chongqing in 2003. He was also appointed Research Fellow of the Research Institute for Criminal Law, Shandong University, in Jinan in 2003.

Less known may be the fact that in 2000 Dr Sham had turned down a senior position with the United Nation’s Office of Internal Oversight Services responsible for overseeing the UN’s work in Nairobi, Turkey, London and Vienna. He cites a drop in property prices in Hong Kong at the time and various personal reasons for his decision to stay in Hong Kong – a decision which he is content with.

Dr Sham’s career in the public service has spanned what he terms fondly the “five dynasties and eight generations”. He has served under five department heads: two former Attorneys General (Mr Michael Thomas, QC and Mr Jeremy Mathews) and three Secretaries for Justice (Ms Elsie Leung, Mr Wong Yan Lung, SC and Mr Rimsky Yuen, SC). By generations, Dr Sham means the different Directors of Public Prosecution: Mr Joseph Duffy, QC, Mr James Findley, QC, Mr John Wood, Mr Peter Nguyen, QC, Mr Grenville Cross, SC, Mr Ian McWalters, SC (now Justice of Appeal), Mr Kevin Zervos, SC (now a Judge in the Court of First Instance) and the present DPP Mr Keith Yeung, SC. “If you were to count Mr Max Lucas, then that would be nine generations. But that was only for six months.” The former DPP Mr Lucas had returned to Australia in 1986 shortly into the then young prosecutor’s fledgling career in the Department and had not returned due to illness.

Dr Sham was tight-lipped about which “dynasty” or “generation” he preferred but was adamant that he was always left a free hand to make independent prosecutorial decisions, including the prosecution of the HKSAR’s two most senior officials - the former Chief Secretary for Administration Rafael Hui Si-yan and the former Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen - which had attracted much comment from the community ranging from the timing of the prosecution, to the choice of charges brought against them. “During my 30 years as a public prosecutor, I am glad that I can say with confidence that I had acted, and was allowed to act, professionally and independently. There has never been any occasion or any case where the Secretary for Justice or the Director of Public Prosecutions has directed me or my counsel as to what is to be decided in a case. There has been no political prosecution. We decide on the evidence and the public interest, not political considerations.”

The career prosecutor has seen how the nature of crime has changed over the years. “In the 1980s to 1990s, there were a lot of violent crimes and armed robberies. But this has decreased because the risk is high with a relatively low return. The trend has turned to commercial and economic crime.” Whilst anti-corruption seemed to be the predominant focus for those in law enforcement up until the end of 1990, the focus has further shifted to fighting money-laundering and cybercrime, Dr Sham added.

On the subject of cybercrime, Dr Sham believes that existing laws available to tackle cybercrime are woefully behind the times. “Our laws regulating cybercrime are outdated, it is even behind countries

1 2012 年 8 月 1 日新設“電腦網絡罪行”組，其後與處理公眾秩序活動的組別合併為公眾秩序活動及電腦網絡罪行組。該組現隸屬分科一。

Feat

ure

Art

icle

s特

稿

81

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

在他多年的檢控歲月，沈博士見證罪案性質不

斷改變。“上世紀八九十年代，不時發生暴力

案件及持械行劫案。由於干犯這些罪案風險高

但回報低，此消彼長下，案件性質已轉而以商

業和金融罪案居多。”沈博士補充說，執法部

門似乎直至 1990 年底都是主力反貪，但後來再

度轉移重心，致力打擊洗錢及電腦網絡罪行。

談到電腦網絡罪行，沈博士認為現行的相關法

例與時代嚴重脫節。“香港規管電腦網絡罪行

的法例已過時，甚至落後於菲律賓等國家。”

他引公眾地方偷拍女士裙底為例說明：“雖然

現在這些罪行已變得常見，但香港依然沒有一

條法例直接處理這些情況。”他解釋，現時只

能因應個別案情，以遊蕩、作出有違公德行為

或在公共地方行為不檢檢控被告。

沈博士也以香港特別行政院區 訴 陳宥羲 (2014) 17 HKCFAR 110 一 案 為 例 指 出， 該 案 件 恰 好

說明在新模式電腦網絡罪行的年代，現行法例

有不足之處。案中的上訴人在互聯網討論區用

中文發布訊息：“我哋要學猶太人炸咗中聯辦

#fire#”。控方對上訴人控以有數百年歷史的作

出有違公德行為罪。但終審法院一致裁定被告

上訴得直，並指出有關行為必須在實質、有形

的地方作出，才構成該罪行的公眾元素，而互

聯網並不構成任何實質或有形的地方。終審法

院認為，就該罪行而論，互聯網是一個媒介而

非地方，不足以構成該罪行的公眾元素。終審

法院首席法官強調：“作出有違公德行為是一

項有不短於 350 年歷史的普通法罪行，這罪行

並不容易切合現今的互聯網時代。案中的刑事

法律責任應該藉立法釐定。”2

同樣，沈博士認為必須馬上改革與電腦網絡罪

行有關的法律，尤其是關乎程序的事宜，以及

就如何蒐證及提出證據等。“這是個大課題。

現時罪犯傾向使用更精密的手法和技術。我們

要窮追罪犯，但卻欠缺這方面的專門知識。”

中國內地和香港之間的合作日益頻繁，沈博士

也一直思考香港、澳門、內地和台灣“兩岸四

地”合力肅貪和打擊洗錢的深度和機制。“問

題不是欠缺法律或機制。香港和澳門都有相關

法律，但仍發生許仕仁和歐文龍的案件 3。” 沈博士認為，市民的質素和修養至為關鍵。 “一個廉潔的社會不會滋生一個貪腐的政府。” 他承認單靠法律和機制不能杜絕貪污，但卻是

一個起步點。

沈博士從檢控官的位置退下來後，對執法機關

有何寄望？他說：“儘管不能達至完美，也要

不斷追求進步。”

such as the Philippines.” He gives the example of individuals snapping upskirt photos of women in public places. “Such offences are more frequent now but we still do not have a law that directly deals with such situations.” He explains that presently, depending on the circumstances of each case, charges may have to be brought against an accused for loitering, outraging public decency or disorderly conduct in a public place.

Dr Sham also cites the case of HKSAR v Chan Yau-hei (2014) 17 HKCFAR 110, which he feels demonstrates squarely the dissatisfactory state of legislation in the face of new modes of committing cybercrime. In that case, the appellant had posted a message in Chinese on an internet discussion forum which read: “We have to learn from the Jewish people and bomb the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government # fire #” (〝我哋要學猶太人炸咗中聯辦 #fire#〞”). The appellant was originally charged with the centuries old offence of outraging public decency. The Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”), however, unanimously allowed the appeal, holding that the public element of the offence required the act to be committed in a physical, tangible place and the internet was not a place in any physical or actual sense. The CFA was of the opinion that the internet was a medium, not a place, for the purposes of the offence and thus the public element of the offence was not satisfied. The Chief Justice had emphasized that, “The common law offence of outraging public decency, which has a history going back at least 350 years, is not one that comfortably fits into the modern internet age. Criminal liability in the context of the present case is one that should be determined by legislation.”2

Likewise, Dr Sham believes immediate reform on laws relating to cybercrime is needed, especially on matters of procedure, how evidence is gathered and presented. “It is a big problem. Criminals now tend to use more sophisticated modes and technologies. We are chasing after the criminals but we don’t have the expertise.”

With increasing co-operation between Mainland China and Hong Kong, Dr Sham has also been pondering the level and the mechanisms of co-operation between the “two shores and four lands” ( 兩岸四地 ) – Hong Kong, Macau, Mainland China and Taiwan – in fighting corruption and money-laundering. “The problem is not a lack of laws or mechanism. We have laws in Hong Kong and Macau. But we still get cases such as Rafael Hui and Ao Man Lung 3 .” Dr Sham believes much depends on the quality and sophistication of the community. “You cannot have a corrupt government with a clean society.” Whilst he acknowledges laws and mechanisms cannot stop corruption, it is nonetheless a starting point.

The retiring prosecutor’s vision and hope for law enforcement agencies? “While you can’t achieve perfection, you have to keep improving yourself.”

2 見終審法院首席法官馬道立在香港特別行政院區 訴 陳宥羲 (2014) 17 HKCFAR 110 案的判案書首段。Chief Justice Ma in the opening paragraph of the judgment in HKSAR v Chan Yau-hei (2014) 17 HKCFAR 110.

3 歐文龍是澳門特別行政區首任運輸工務司司長，2008 年被控 40 項受賄罪成，判處監禁 27 年；2012 年因受賄逾澳門幣 3,190 萬元 ( 約港幣 3,090萬元 )，再判處監禁 29 年。Ao Man Long was the first Secretary for Transport and Public Works of the Macau Special Administrative Region. In 2008, he was found guilty of 40 counts of taking bribes and sentenced to 27 years’ imprisonment. In 2012, he was sentenced to a further 29 years’ imprisonment for taking bribes of more than 31.9 million patacas (about HK$30.9 million).

外展及培訓Outreach and Training

2015 年刑事法律研討會

由於 2012及 2013年舉辦的刑事法律研討會成效理想，得到法律界人士廣泛參與，刑事檢控

科在 2015年 10月 24日與香港大律師公會及香港律師會聯合舉辦 2015年刑事法律研討會。這次研討會在律政中心多功能廳舉行，有約 120多名包括司法人員、檢控官、刑事法律執業者

和學者參加，會上探討有關香港的刑事法律最

新發展和刑事司法日常工作的焦點議題。

2015 Criminal Law Conference

Riding on the success of the two conferences on criminal law issues held in 2012 and 2013 with the participation of members from different sectors of the legal community, the Prosecutions Division, in partnership with the Hong Kong Bar Association and the Law Society of Hong Kong held the 2015 Criminal Law Conference on 24 October 2015 at the Function Hall of Justice Place. About 120 participants including members of the Judiciary, public prosecutors, criminal law practitioners and academics participated in the Conference to discuss topical issues relating to the latest development in criminal law and the day-to-day administration of criminal justice in Hong Kong.

研討會由律政司司長袁國強資深大律師主持開

幕儀式，他在致歡迎辭說：“我們的刑事司法

制度遠遠超越一個只就刑事訴訟程序應如何進

行而列出規則的簡單制度。它提供了必須的框

架，確保面對刑事檢控的被告會得到公平審訊。

它亦提供了框架，規管人們可如何在法律容許

的最大範圍內，行使他們的權利和享受他們的

自由，同時確保其他人的同等權利獲得保障。”

研討會涵蓋四大議題，分別為就刑事法律程序

傳聞證據規則之運作和改革的人權考慮、加強

刑事司法制度的自新性、“有合理機會達致定

罪”的驗證準則，以及清洗黑錢。

英 格 蘭 及 威 爾 斯 高 等 司 法 院 法 官 Maura McGowan 就刑事法律程序的傳聞證據規則發表

演說，並與澳洲維多利亞省最高法院上訴法庭

法官 Mark Weinberg 擔任上述議題辯論的裁判

及主持討論。

刑事檢控專員楊家雄資深大律師為研討會致閉

幕辭，他表示：“研討會為檢控人員提供了寶

貴機會，讓我們就研討會上討論的多項議題的不

同觀點的最新發展，保持敏銳觸覺。我們必須

這樣做，方能更好地擔當秉行公義者的角色。”

於此研討會圓滿結束。

Officiating at the Conference, the Secretary for Justice, Mr Rimsky Yuen, SC said in his welcome address: “Our criminal justice system goes well beyond a system simply setting out rules on how criminal proceedings are to be conducted. It provides for the essential framework which ensures that defendants facing criminal charges will have a fair trial, and also a framework which ultimately governs how people may exercise their rights and enjoy their freedom to the fullest extent permitted by the law whilst at the same time ensures that the rights of others are duly respected.”

The Conference covered four major topics, namely, Human rights consideration in the operation and reform of the hearsay rule in criminal proceedings, Enhancing the rehabilitative nature of the criminal justice system, Test of “reasonable prospect of conviction” and Money laundering.

The Honourable Mrs Justice Maura McGowan of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales delivered a speech on hearsay rule in criminal proceedings. In addition, Her Ladyship together with the Honourable Justice Mark Weinberg of the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia acted as moderators for the debates and discussions on the abovementioned topics.

The 2015 Criminal Law Conference was brought to a satisfactory close by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Keith Yeung, SC, who in his closing address, remarked that “this conference has provided an invaluable opportunity for us prosecutors to stay attuned to the latest development of different views on the various issues discussed at the conference. We need to do that in order to perform better our roles as ministers of justice.”

83

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

48

Out

reac

h an

d Tr

aini

ng外

展及

培訓

檢控週 2015

檢控週自 2012 年起舉辦，至今已成為刑事檢控

科一年一度與公眾接觸的重點活動，讓市民加

深了解本科和刑事司法制度的運作，因此本科

在 2015 年 6 月 23 至 30 日連續第四年舉辦檢

控週。

檢控週 2015 的主題是“公義路上，專業獨立”，

凸顯檢控官在追求彰顯刑事司法公義所恪守的

兩項基本原則。專業素質要求我們堅持守護公

義者角色，並在履行職責時力求達到最高的專

業水平。保持獨立是重要的保障，確保任何人

或組織不得也不可以影響檢控程序，以及讓本

科得以繼續服務香港市民，無懼無私地伸張 公義。

檢控週在 2015 年 6 月 23 日展開，由律政司司

長袁國強資深大律師及刑事檢控專員楊家雄資

深大律師主持開幕儀式，並分別致辭。出席儀

式的人士亦有大律師公會主席譚允芝資深大律

師、香港律師會會長熊運信先生和其他嘉賓，

包括立法會法律界代表郭榮鏗議員，以及多個

政府部門和執法機關的代表。

我們很高興見到檢控週 2015 獲社會大眾踴躍支

持，反應熱烈。今年報名參加檢控週活動的中

學超過 30 間，是歷年之冠，令人鼓舞。為學生

而設的活動旨在以生動的方式向學生介紹我們

的工作，以及刑事司法制度的法治精神。當中

的重頭戲包括由檢控官主持的研討會、由專人

帶領學生參觀法庭和藥物資訊天地，以及模擬

法庭體驗。參與的同學和其他市民除獲發內容

Prosecution Week 2015

Since its inception in 2012, Prosecution Week has become an important annual event to reach out to the society and to enhance community’s understanding of the operation of the Division and the criminal justice system. In 2015, Prosecution Week was held for the fourth consecutive year from 23 to 30 June.

The theme of Prosecution Week 2015 was “Uphold Justice with Professionalism and Independence”, which highlights two fundamental principles that public prosecutors hold dear in the pursuit of criminal justice. Professionalism requires prosecutors to adhere to our role as ministers of justice and perform our duties to the highest standards attainable. Independence is an important safeguard to ensure that no individual or organization may, or can, influence the prosecutorial process and that the Division will continue to serve the community of Hong Kong and pursue public justice without fear or favour.

The event commenced on 23 June 2015 with Mr Rimsky Yuen, SC, Secretary for Justice, and Mr Keith Yeung, SC, Director of Public Prosecutions, officiating the opening ceremony and each delivering a speech. Also attended the ceremony were Ms Winnie Tam, SC, Chairlady of the Hong Kong Bar Association, Mr Stephen Hung, President of the Law Society of Hong Kong, and other distinguished guests including the Honourable Dennis Kwok, the Legislative Councilor of the Legal Functional Constituency and representatives from various government departments and law enforcement agencies.

To our delight, the community showed great enthusiasm and support for Prosecution Week 2015. This year, encouragingly, we had an unprecedented response from over 30 secondary schools for participation. The programme for students is designed to give them a lively introduction to our work as well as the rule of law in the criminal

豐富的中英文宣傳小冊子外，還獲贈特別為檢

控週而設計的紀念品。此外，我們的標語創作

比賽更收到多達 364 份中學生參賽作品。四名

比賽得獎者在開幕儀式上獲律政司司長及刑事

檢控專員頒發獎座和獎狀。

檢控週是本科的年度重要活動，有助拉近本科

與市民之間的距離。檢控週提供一個理想的平

台，讓本科與市民直接聯繫，以推廣我們的工

作並介紹刑事司法制度的不同範疇。同樣重要

的活動還包括在法庭旁聽真實審訊，而更刺激

的是在檢控官的指導下進行模擬審訊 ( 同學能夠

戴上大律師的假髮 )，這些活動都讓參與其中的

數百名學生親身體驗當檢控官的感覺。我們希

望透過這項活動，能加深公眾對於檢控工作的

認識，亦同時加強市民對於刑事檢控科和刑事

司法制度的信任。

持續法律進修課程

本科在 2015 年推出新一系列的研討會及交流

會，涵蓋廣泛的課題，並提供機會與多名專家

及富經驗的律師交流討論，本科的律師獲益良

多。在 2015 年舉行的研討會及交流會包括：

• 副個人資料私隱專員黃錦卿女士、首席個人

資料主任梁展華先生及首席個人資料主任胡

美麗女士主講的資料保障研討會

• 政府化驗所專家主講的認識脫氧核糖核酸

(DNA) 及接觸證據研討會

• 香港警務處網絡安全及科技罪案調查科督察

主講的調查及檢控網絡罪行 ( 包括比特幣案

件 ) 研討會

• Mekong Club 行政總裁 Matthew Friedman先生主講的認識販運人口研討會

• 香港警務處的賭博專家及督察主講的檢控賭

博罪行 ( 包括網上賭博平台 ) 研討會

• 懲教署高級監督 ( 懲教行政 ) 梁慧莊女士主

講的認識各種涉及監禁的刑罰及四大經典判

刑原則的實際運用研討會

justice system. Highlights included seminars led by public prosecutors, guided visits to the Courts and the Drug Information Centre, as well as mock court experience. Apart from the informative bilingual pamphlets, souvenirs specifically designed for the occasion were also distributed to the participants and other members of the public. In addition, we received a staggering 364 entries from secondary school students for our slogan competition. Each of the 4 winners was presented with a trophy and a certificate by the Secretary for Justice and the Director of Public Prosecutions at the Opening Ceremony.

Prosecution Week is a key annual event to bring the Division and the general public closer together. It provides a good platform for the Division to interact with members of the public directly to advocate the work of the Division and introduce different aspects of the criminal justice system. Last but not least, the experience of observing real trials in Courts and, more excitingly, conducting mock trials (with real barrister wigs) under the guidance of public prosecutors has also given hundreds of student participants a first-hand taste of what it is like to be a public prosecutor. We hope that this initiative will not only enhance better understanding of what prosecutors do but also promote public confidence in the Division and the criminal justice system.

Continuing Legal Education

A new series of seminars and sharing sessions were introduced in 2015. Our fellow counsel had benefited immensely from the extensive and wide-ranging topics covered and the first hand sharing and discussion with various experts and experienced counsel. The seminars and sharing sessions conducted in 2015 were:

85

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

86

• 副刑事檢控專員譚耀豪資深大律師、副刑事

檢控專員許紹鼎資深大律師、高級助理刑事

檢控專員李俊文先生及高級檢控官鄭凱聰先

生主講的有效處理上訴研討會

• 政府化驗所物理組及受管制藥物組的專家主

講的認識香港受管制藥物及交通意外重組研

討會

• 高級助理刑事檢控專員楊美琪女士主講的白

領罪行研討會

• 國際法律科副首席政府律師林美秀女士主講

的根據《證據條例》發出請求書以取得刑事

案件中的海外證據研討會

• 高級助理刑事檢控專員黎婉姬女士主講的進

行有陪審團的審訊及流動審訊表研討會

• 衞生署法醫科醫生主講的認識醫學及屍體剖

驗報告和傷口動力學研討會

• 副刑事檢控專員黃惠沖資深大律師主持的香

港特別行政區 訴 金門建築有限公司 ( 終院

刑事上訴 2014 年第 10 號 ) 案件交流會：

就工業安全提出票控

• 高級助理刑事檢控專員楊美琪女士主持的

香港特別行政區 訴 彭洪輝 ( 終院刑事上訴

2013 年第 8 號 ) 案件交流會：檢控洗錢罪

行

• 副刑事檢控專員許紹鼎資深大律師主持的

香港特別行政區 訴 黃得強 ( 終院刑事上訴

2014 年第 8 號 ) 案件交流會：刑事司法管

轄權和域外法權

• 副刑事檢控專員譚耀豪資深大律師及高級檢

控官關百安先生主持的香港特別行政區 訴 Tsuchiya Koji ( 刑事上訴 2014 年第 121 號 )案件交流會：檢控無法律代表的被告和披露

責任的範圍

這新一系列的研討會及交流會好評如潮，參與

的律師均獲益良多。

• SeminaronDataProtectiondeliveredbyMsFannyWong,DeputyPrivacy Commissioner for Personal Data, Mr Daniel Leung, Chief Data Protection Officer and Ms Vanessa Wu, Chief Data Protection Officer

• SeminaronUnderstandingDNAandContactEvidencedeliveredbyexperts from the Government Laboratory

• SeminaronInvestigatingandProsecutionofCyberCrime(includingBit Coin cases) delivered by Inspectors from the Cyber Security and Technology Crime Bureau of the Hong Kong Police Force

• Seminar on Understanding Human Trafficking delivered by Mr Matthew Friedman, Chief Executive Officer of the Mekong Club

• SeminaronProsecutionofGamblingOffences (includingOnlineGambling Platform) delivered by gambling experts and Inspectors from the Hong Kong Police Force

• SeminaronUnderstandingDifferentFormsofCustodialSentencesand How the Four Classical Sentencing Principles Work in Reality delivered by Ms Virginia Leung, Senior Superintendent (Penal Administration) from the Correctional Services Department

• SeminaronEffectiveConductofAppealsdeliveredbyMrWilliamTam, SC, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DDPP), Mr Martin Hui, SC, DDPP, Mr Edmond Lee, Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions (SADPP) and Mr Raymond Cheng, Senior Public Prosecutor (SPP)

• SeminaronUnderstandingControlledDrugs inHongKongandTraffic Accident Reconstruction delivered by experts from the Physical Sciences Section and Controlled Drugs Section of the Government Laboratory

• SeminaronWhiteCollarCrimedeliveredbyMsMaggieYang,SADPP

• SeminaronObtainingEvidenceAbroad forCriminalCasesbyLetters of Request issued under the Evidence Ordinance delivered by Ms Linda Lam, Deputy Principal Government Counsel of the International Law Division

• SeminaronConducting JuryTrialsandRunningListdeliveredby Ms Anna Lai, SADPP

• SeminaronUnderstandingMedicalandAutopsyReportand theDynamics of Wounds delivered by Forensic Pathologists from the Department of Health

• CasesharingofHKSAR v Gammon Construction Ltd FACC 10/2014: Prosecution of Industrial Summonses conducted by Mr Wesley Wong, SC, DDPP

Out

reac

h an

d Tr

aini

ng外

展及

培訓

87

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

“與公眾會面” 計劃

我們在 2014 年首次推行“與公眾會面”計劃，

目的是令市民對刑事司法制度、他們在制度中

的角色，以及法治的重要有更深入的認識。

在這項計劃下，檢控人員到訪學校及其他有興

趣的社區機構，就不同議題進行講座，內容圍

繞檢控人員執行職務的具體情況，包括檢控人

員的角色、作出檢控決定的依據等一般事宜，

以及怎樣處理特別類別的罪行。計劃的重點是

檢控人員定期到中學及社區團體接觸公眾。

這計劃的第一輪講座舉辦共 55 場，由 2014 年

4 月至 2015 年 8 月，涵蓋各類議題。至於第二

輪講座，共有 51 間中學應我們在 2015 年 9 月

發出的邀請表示有興趣參加，而截至 2015 年年

底，我們已經舉辦了十場講座。此外，我們也

在 2015 年到訪兩間為年輕人而設的住院式康復

中心進行兩場講座，講題為濫藥的法律責任。

聯合培訓計劃

2015 年，刑事檢控科與香港大律師公會及香港

律師會繼續加強合作，為新近取得執業資格並

有意從事檢控工作的律師舉辦培訓計劃。這項

聯合培訓計劃在 2011 年 2 月首次推行，自此每

年舉辦兩次。

這項計劃的目的是為年資不足五年的律師提供

培訓，包括為期一天的講座暨工作坊，隨後在

裁判法院作為期兩星期的實習，期間受訓律師

會獲發定額酬金。在兩星期的實習期間，參加

• CasesharingofHKSAR v Pang Hung-fai FACC 8/2013: Prosecution of Money Laundering conducted by Ms Maggie Yang, SADPP

• CasesharingofHKSAR v Wong Tak-keung FACC 8/2014: Criminal Jurisdiction and Extra Territoriality conducted by Mr Martin Hui, SC, DDPP

• CasesharingofHKSAR v Tsuchiya Koji CACC 121/2014: Prosecuting an unrepresented defendant and the extent of Duty of Disclosure conducted by Mr William Tam, SC, DDPP and Mr Franco Kuan, SPP

The new series of seminars and sharing sessions were proven to be beneficial to counsel taking part and were well received.

“Meet the Community” Programme

The “Meet the Community” Programme was first implemented in 2014 to enhance the public’s understanding of the criminal justice system and their role in the system as well as the importance of the rule of law.

Under the Programme, prosecutors visit different schools and other interested community institutions to give talks on diversified topics. The topics covered are those related to how prosecutors carry out their duties, including general issues like their role and the basis of their prosecutorial decisions, as well as how they tackle specific types of offences. The Programme focuses on outreaching secondary schools and community organizations on a regular basis.

In the first round of the Programme running from April 2014 to August 2015, a total of 55 talks covering various topics were conducted. In response to our invitation issued in September 2015, 51 secondary schools indicated interest in participating in the second round of the Programme and by the end of 2015, 10 talks had been conducted. Moreover, two talks on the legal liability of abuse of drugs were also conducted in 2015 for two residential rehabilitation centres for young persons.

Joint Training Programme

In 2015, the Prosecutions Division, together with the Hong Kong Bar Association and the Law Society of Hong Kong, continued our concerted efforts in organizing a training programme for newly qualified lawyers who wished to conduct prosecutorial work. This Joint Training Programme was first introduced in February 2011 and, since then, has been held biannually.

88

者會接受評核，以決定他們是否適合列入刑事

檢控科的裁判法院外判律師名單內。

就 2015 年舉辦的培訓計劃，由刑事檢控專員楊

家雄資深大律師、代表香港大律師公會的余承

章資深大律師和謝華淵資深大律師，以及代表

香港律師會的黎得基先生為參加者主持講座，

而本科多名經驗豐富的律師則負責主持工作坊。

他們向參加者分享其經驗和心得，對培訓計劃

取得成功有莫力幫助。

見習計劃

這項計劃在 2012 年推行。在計劃下，獲委檢

控複雜或敏感案件的外判資深大律師或資歷較

深的大律師，可提名一名經驗不足十年的大律

師參與見習計劃，以一個每日定額酬金，在刑

事法律程序中擔任副手。這項計劃為資歷較淺

的大律師提供寶貴的學習機會，讓他們有機會

汲取檢控較為複雜和敏感案件的經驗和技巧。

2015 年，共有 11 名資歷較淺的私人執業大律

師參與這項計劃。

與新加坡的實習計劃

2015 年，新加坡總檢察署兩名高級法律行政人

員房程輝先生和張聰南先生在本科不同組別實

習。他們在 2015 年 11 月 13 日到沙田裁判法

院高級法庭檢控主任辦公室及定額罰款小組總

務室觀摩，以了解律政書記如何在法庭處理定

額罰款案件。房先生和張先生表示，是次到本

科實習，加深了他們對多樣法律工作程序的認

識，獲益良多。

接待到訪人員

在 2015 年，刑事檢控科多次接待到訪本科的不

同司法管轄區代表，向他們講解本科的工作及

香港刑事司法制度的發展。到訪的人員包括：

Out

reac

h an

d Tr

aini

ng外

展及

培訓

The Programme, aiming to provide training to lawyers with less than 5 years’ experience, comprises a 1-day lecture-cum-workshops, followed by a continuous 2-week attachment at the Magistrates’ Courts for which a fixed remuneration is paid. During the 2-week attachment, participants are assessed on their suitability for inclusion in the Prosecutions Division Magistrates’ Courts fiat counsel list.

For the Programme in 2015, Mr Keith Yeung, SC, Director of Public Prosecutions for the Division, Mr Selwyn Yu, SC and Mr Joseph Tse, SC for the Hong Kong Bar Association, and Mr Christopher Knight for the Law Society of Hong Kong gave lectures to the participants, while various experienced counsel from the Division chaired the workshops. By sharing their experience and insights, they made significant contribution to the success of the Programme.

Understudy Programme

This Programme was introduced in 2012. Under this arrangement, Senior Counsel or senior junior counsel briefed to prosecute complex and sensitive cases can nominate a counsel with less than 10 years’ experience to act as an understudy and to participate in the criminal proceedings as his or her junior at a fixed daily rate. This has provided valuable learning opportunities to junior counsel for gaining experience and skills in prosecuting cases of some complexity and sensitivity. In 2015, 11 junior counsel in private practice participated in the Programme.

Attachment Programme with Singapore

In 2015, two senior legal executives, Mr Pang Seng Hwee and Mr Melvin Teo from the Attorney-General’s Chambers of Singapore were attached to different units within the Division. In order to gain knowledge of how

• 新加坡人力部法律服務司代表團

• 菲律賓司法部代表團

• 英國嚴重詐騙調查辦公室專員 David Green御用大律師，CB 和英國駐港總領事館政治

及傳訊部主管 Sarah Docherty 女士

• 中國證券監督管理委員會代表團

• 北京市人民檢察院代表團

• 中國國家質量監督檢驗檢疫總局動植物檢疫

監管司司長李建偉先生

• 美國總領事館領事事務部主管 Robert Settje先生和美國公民服務部主管 Patrick Tanimura先生

• 新加坡管理大學法學院副教授 Kelvin Low 先

生及法學院學生

國際會議

在 2015 年，本科繼續加強與其他司法管轄區檢

控人員的聯繫。我們參與多項國際論壇和活動

並發表論文，從中掌握刑事法律和檢控方面的

最新發展，同時也與其他司法管轄區的同業交

流意見。這些國際活動包括：

第十九屆英聯邦法律會議19th Commonwealth Law Conference

第二十屆國際檢察官聯合會年會暨會員代表大會20th International Association of Prosecutors Annual Conference and General Meeting

the Law Clerk conducted fixed penalty cases in Court, they attended the Shatin Magistrates’ Courts, Senior Court Prosecutor’s office and the Registry of the Fixed Penalty Unit on 13 November 2015. They expressed that the attachment in the Division give them useful insights into the various work processes.

Briefing Visitors

In 2015, we briefed visitors from various jurisdictions on the Division’s work and the development of the criminal justice system in Hong Kong. The visitors included:

• AdelegationfromtheLegalServiceDivision,MinistryofManpower,Singapore

• AdelegationfromtheDepartmentofJusticeofthePhilippines

• MrDavidGreen,QC,CB,Directorof theSeriousFraudOfficeofthe United Kingdom and Mrs Sarah Docherty, Head of Political and Communications Section of the British Consulate-General in Hong Kong

• AdelegationfromtheChinaSecuritiesRegulatoryCommission

• AdelegationfromthePeople’sProcuratorateofBeijing

• MrLi Jianwei,Director-General,DepartmentofAnimalandPlantQuarantine, General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine

• MrRobertSettje,ConsularSectionChief,USConsulateGeneralandMr Patrick Tanimura, American Citizen Service Chief

• MrKelvinLow,AssociateProfessorof theSchoolofLawof theSingapore Management University and the students

亞洲／太平洋反洗黑錢組織第十八屆周年大會暨技術援助及培訓周年論壇18th Annual Meeting of the Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering and Annual Forum on Technical Assistance and Training

89

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

International Conferences

In 2015, we continued to foster links with counterparts in other jurisdictions. We participated in various international fora and events, where we presented papers, kept abreast of the latest developments in criminal law and prosecutions as well as exchanged ideas with our counterparts. The international events included:

第三十三屆劍橋國際經濟罪行研討會33rd Cambridge International Symposium on Economic Crime

第九屆中國﹣東盟成員國總檢察長會議9th China-ASEAN Prosecutors General Conference

90

• 追討野生生物及木材罪行得益工作坊 ( 泰國

曼谷 )

• 財務行動特別組織在 2014-15 年度對瓦努阿

圖進行的相互評核 ( 瓦努阿圖維拉港 )

• 第十九屆英聯邦法律會議 ( 蘇格蘭格拉斯哥 )

• 2015 年第十三屆檢察機關首長會議 ( 毛里求

斯 )

• 2015 年財務行動特別組織全體及工作小組

會議 ( 澳洲布里斯本 )

• 2015 年澳洲檢察官聯會周年大會 ( 澳洲墨爾

本 )

• 中華司法研究會成立大會及高峰論壇 ( 中國

北京 )

外展

及培

訓O

utre

ach

and

Trai

ning

• WorkshoponRecoveringtheProceedsofCrimefromWildlifeandTimber Crime (Bangkok, Thailand)

• FinancialActionTaskForceMutualEvaluationofVanuatu2014-15(Port Vila, Vanuatu)

• 19th Commonwealth Law Conference (Glasgow, Scotland)

• 13th Heads of Prosecuting Agencies Conference 2015 (Mauritius)

• 2015 FinancialActionTask ForcePlenary andWorkingGroupMeetings (Brisbane, Australia)

• Annual Conference of the Australian Association of CrownProsecutors 2015 (Melbourne, Australia)

• InauguralMeetingandSummitForumoftheChineseLegalResearchInstitute (Beijing, China)

國際反貪局聯合會第八次年會暨會員代表大會8th Annual Conference and General Meeting of the International Association of Anti-Corruption Authorities

• 亞洲／太平洋反洗黑錢組織第十八屆周年大

會暨技術援助及培訓周年論壇 ( 新西蘭奧克

蘭 )

• 第十六屆國際反貪污會議 ( 馬來西亞布城 )

• 第三十三屆劍橋國際經濟罪行研討會 ( 英國

劍橋 )

• 第二十屆國際檢察官聯合會年會暨會員代表

大會 ( 瑞士蘇黎世 )

• 國際反貪局聯合會第八次年會暨會員代表大

會 ( 俄羅斯聖彼德堡 )

• 第九屆中國―東盟成員國總檢察長會議 ( 中

國廣西南寧巿 )

培訓課程

在 2015 年，本科律師參加了多項不同類型的培

訓課程，藉以增進知識和磨練技巧，使他們能

夠更有效地履行檢控職務及為事業發展打好基

礎。這些培訓課程及講座包括：

• 倫敦中殿大律師學院訟辯培訓課程 ( 英國倫

敦 )

• 暫調往青島市司法局進行研習 ( 中國青島 )

• 透過《海牙誘拐兒童及保護兒童公約》向兒

童的幸福邁進：亞太研討會 ( 中國澳門 )

• 在牛津大學基布爾學院舉辦的 South Eastern Circuit Bar Mess Foundation 高級國際訟辯

課程 ( 英國牛津 )

倫敦中殿大律師學院訟辯培訓課程Middle Temple Advocacy Training Course

91

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

• 18th Annual Meeting of the Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering and Annual Forum on Technical Assistance and Training (Auckland, New Zealand)

• 16th International Anti-Corruption Conference (Putrajaya, Malaysia)

• 33rd Cambridge International Symposium on Economic Crime (Cambridge, United Kingdom)

• 20th International Association of Prosecutors Annual Conference and General Meeting (Zurich, Switzerland)

• 8th Annual Conference and General Meeting of the International Association of Anti-Corruption Authorities (St. Petersburg, Russia)

• 9th China-ASEAN Prosecutors General Conference (Nanning City, Guangxi, China)

暫調往青島市司法局進行研習Attachment training to Qingdao Justice Bureau

Training Activities

In 2015, our counsel attended a wide range of training activities to hone their knowledge and skills necessary for a more efficient discharge of their duties and for future career advancement. Some of these courses and talks included:

• MiddleTempleAdvocacyTrainingCourse(London,UnitedKingdom)

• AttachmenttrainingtoQingdaoJusticeBureau(Qingdao,China)

• Towards theWell-Beingof theChildThrough theHagueChildAbduction and Protection of Children Conventions: An Asia Pacific Symposium (Macao, China)

• The South Eastern Circuit Bar Mess Foundation AdvancedInternational Advocacy Course at Keble College, Oxford (Oxford, United Kingdom)

凝聚一心Bonding

龍舟競賽Dragon Boat Race

聖誕聯歡會Christmas Dinner

93

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

接待斐濟刑事檢控專員Reception for the Director of

Public Prosecutions of Fiji

足球賽Football Tournament

慶祝活動Celebration

94

凝聚

一心

Bond

ing

升職Promotion

95

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

統計數字Statistics

97

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

服務表現的標準及目標

在 2015 年， 刑 事 檢 控 科 除 處 理 法 庭 檢 控 工

作外，也向政府決策局及執法部門提供了共

13,348 次涉及刑事事宜的法律指引。在所有尋

求法律指引的案件中，有 94.4% 的案件符合本

科的服務表現目標，即在 14 個工作天內作出回

覆，而 2014 年則有 94%。

工作量

就案件籌備及提供法律指引的工作

本科在 2015 年提供法律指引的次數較 2014 年

增加 3.5%。為了善用律師的時間，並使處理案

件的手法更貫徹一致，我們會繼續鼓勵執法機

關多參考以往本科律師在同類案件的法律指引。

Performance Standards and Targets

In 2015, in addition to court work, the Division gave a total of 13,348 legal advice on criminal matters to government bureaux and law enforcement agencies. Of all the requests for legal advice, 94.4% were replied to within 14 working days in accordance with our performance target, as compared to 94% in 2014.

Caseload

Trial preparation and advisory work

The number of legal advice given in 2015 increased by 3.5% as compared to 2014. In order to allow better use of counsel’s time and also to enhance consistency in approach, we will continue to encourage law enforcement agencies to refer to previous advice given by us when handling cases of a similar nature.

2014 2015

提供法律指引次數Number of legal advice given 12,896 13,348

籌備由原訟法庭審理的案件數目Number of cases prepared for the Court of First Instance 540 503

籌備由區域法院審理的案件數目Number of cases prepared for the District Court 1,085 1,115

就本科律師及外判律師代替本科律師在各級法院出庭檢控的工作

去年處理的案件總數和出庭日數均有所減少。

與 2014 年相比，由外判律師處理的案件數目上

升 20.4%，而本科律師處理的案件數目則下跌

10.9%。本科律師的出庭日數減少了 16.7%，

而外判律師代替本科律師出庭的日數也減少了

2.9%。

Court work undertaken by In-house Counsel and Fiat Counsel in place of In-house Counsel in all levels of courts

There was a decrease in both the total number of cases conducted for the year and the number of court days. As compared to 2014, the number of cases conducted by fiat counsel increased by 20.4% while the number of cases conducted by in-house counsel decreased by 10.9%. The number of court days undertaken by in-house counsel decreased by 16.7%, and the number of court days undertaken by fiat counsel in place of in-house counsel also decreased by 2.9%.

本科律師及外判律師處理的案件數目Number of cases conducted by In-house Counsel and Fiat Counsel

1,500

0

1,000

1,317 1,311

498570 440

1,249 1,266

391 515

264

28 2

268

583 673

36 1

263

620 951

500

2,000

Appeal Courts*

2014 2014 2014 2014 20142015 2015 2015 2015 2015

Court of First Instance

District Court Magistrates’ Courts

Others^上訴法庭 * 原訟法庭 區域法院 裁判法院 其他 ^

98

本科律師及外判律師的出庭日數Number of court days undertaken by In-house Counsel and Fiat Counsel

Fiat Counsel

In-house Counsel

總數 Total: 5,602#

總數 Total: 3,846#

總數 Total: 5,441#

總數 Total: 3,203#

* 包括裁判法院上訴案件及在上訴法庭和終審法院聆訊的上訴案件。 This includes magistracy appeals and appeals heard before the Court of Appeal and the Court of Final Appeal.

^ 包括限制令申請、死因研訊、保釋申請、訟費評定及高等法院的雜項程序。 This includes restraint applications, death inquests, bail applications, taxation of costs and High Court miscellaneous proceedings.

# 以四捨五入方式計算至最接近的整數。 The number is rounded up to the nearest whole number.

外判律師

本科律師

2014

2014

2015

2015

Fiat Counsel

In-house Counsel

總數 Total: 1,554

總數 Total: 4,136

總數 Total: 1,871

總數 Total: 3,685

外判律師

本科律師

2014

2014

2015

2015

統計數字

Stat

istic

s

2,500

1,500

3,000

0

1,000

2,000

831 700841 633 840.5879 653535 533 602.5

32 6

2,128.5 2,173 1,262

63

3

1,584 2,253 1,537.5

500

3,500

Appeal Courts*

2014 2014 2014 2014 20142015 2015 2015 2015 2015

Court of First Instance

District Court Magistrates’ Courts

Others^上訴法庭 * 原訟法庭 區域法院 裁判法院 其他 ^

法庭檢控主任及外判律師代替法庭 檢控主任在裁判法院出庭檢控的工作

Court work undertaken by Court Prosecutors and Fiat Counsel in place of Court Prosecutors in the Magistrates’ Courts

2014 2015

案件數目 170,217 150,714

出庭日數

法庭檢控主任的出庭日數 9,987 9,474

外判律師代替法庭檢控主任出庭的日數5,109 5,585

Number of Cases

Number of Court Days

Number of court days undertaken by Court Prosecutors

Number of court days undertaken by Fiat Counsel in place of Court Prosecutors

99

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香港刑事檢控

案件的結果

定罪率

刑事檢控科用以計算定罪率的統計數字，是以

被告人數為基礎 *。

Case Outcomes

Conviction rates

The statistics used by the Prosecutions Division to calculate the conviction rates are defendant-based*.

* 舉例而言，一名被告如被控以四項罪名，最終被裁定一項罪名成立而其他三項罪名不成立，由於定罪率是以被告人數為基礎，這會視為一宗被定罪的案件。

For example, if a defendant faces four charges and if he has been convicted of one charge but not the other three charges, because the conviction rates are defendant-based, this will be regarded as a conviction case.

^ 此欄包括“不提證據起訴”及“簽保案件”的數目。 The numbers in this column include “offering no evidence” and “bound-over” cases.

認罪後被定罪的被告人數

經審訊後被定罪的被告人數

經審訊後裁定無罪^的被告人數

經審訊後的定罪率

包括認罪案件的定罪率

裁判法院

2014 4,490 2,358 2,330 50.3% 74.6%

2015 4,038 2,357 2,180 52.0% 74.6%

區域法院

2014 930 229 28 89.1% 97.6%

2015 952 191 81 70.2% 93.4%

原訟法庭

2014 439 77 43 64.2% 92.3%

2015 430 77 35 68.8% 93.5%

No. of defendantsconvicted on

own plea(A)

No. of defendants convicted after trial

(B)

No. of defendants acquitted after trial^

(C)

Conviction rate after trial

(B)÷[(B)+(C)]

Conviction rate including guilty plea

[(A)+(B)]÷[(A)+(B)+(C)]

Magistrates’ Courts

District Court

Court of First Instance

100

統計數字

Stat

istic

s

終審法院 (“終院”) 及相關申請 Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) and related applications

由被告提出 由刑事檢控科提出

2014 2015 2014 2015

終院上訴證明書Certificate to appeal to CFA

得直 Allowed 1 2 1 3

駁回 Dismissed 41 22 2 2

撤銷 Withdrawn 1 0 0 0

待決 Pending 2 8 0 0

總數 Total 45 32 3 5

向終院提出的上訴許可申請Application for leave to appeal to CFA

得直 Allowed 9 5 1 4

駁回 Dismissed 52 57 3 1

撤銷 Withdrawn 4 3 0 0

待決 Pending 33 34 1 1

總數 Total 98 99 5 6

向終院提出的上訴Appeal to CFA

得直 Allowed 8 4 2 0

駁回 Dismissed 1 2 0 0

撤銷 Withdrawn 0 0 0 0

待決 Pending 6 4 0 4

總數 Total 15 10 2 4

From Defendants From Prosecutions

上訴法庭 Court of Appeal

104 104

209 212

181 215

1

51

1

原訟法庭 Court of First Instance

182 140

245 242

381 402

1

1 2

101

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香港刑事檢控

在法庭雙語並用狀況

2014

2014

2015

2015

By Defendants

By Defendants

By Prosecutions Division to review sentences Note

By Prosecutions Division by way of case stated Note

By Prosecutions Division by way of case stated Note

總數 Total: 494

總數 Total: 808

總數 Total: 5

總數 Total: 2

總數 Total: 1

總數 Total: 531

總數 Total: 784

總數 Total: 2

總數 Total: 2

總數 Total: 0

被告提出的上訴

被告提出的上訴

刑事檢控科提出的覆核刑罰申請註

刑事檢控科以案件呈述方式提出的上訴註

刑事檢控科以案件呈述方式提出的上訴註

2014

2014

2014

2014

2014

2015

2015

2015

2015

2015

Allowed得直

Withdrawn撤銷

Dismissed駁回

Pending待決註 同年提出並聆訊的申請。

Note Applications initiated and heard in the same year.

Bilingualism in courts

80%

40%

100%

0

20%

60%

68.8

73.5 87.4

42.6

82.1

25

68

71.1 84.8

38.3

80.3

40

Court of AppealCourt of

Final Appeal (Application for

Certificate)

2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 20142015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015

Court of First Instance

(Magistracy Appeal)

Court of First Instance

(Trial)

District Court

Magistrates’ Courts

上訴法庭終審法院 (申請上訴證明書 )

原訟法庭(裁判法院上訴案件 )

原訟法庭(審訊 )

區域法院 裁判法院

102

編輯組

主席

高寶翠女士

中文編輯 

李鏡鏞先生

組員 

梁文亮先生

范凱琳女士

傅悅耳女士

柏愛莉女士

許熙晴女士

李思賢先生

陳競匡先生

秘書 

周群英女士

助理秘書 

孔麗茵女士

律政司刑事檢控科

中國香港金鐘道 66 號

金鐘道政府合署高座 4-7 樓

Editorial Board

Chairman

Ms Catherine Ko

Chinese Editor

Mr Robert Lee

Members

Mr Matthew Leung

Ms Irene Fan

Ms Betty Fu

Ms Audrey Parwani

Miss Kasmine Hui

Mr Charles Lee

Mr King Chan

Secretary

Ms Maria Chow

Assistant Secretary

Ms Ada Hung

Prosecutions DivisionDepartment of Justice

4th - 7th Floors, High Block, Queensway Government Offices,66 Queensway, Hong Kong, China編

輯組

Edito

rial B

oard