PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 2018

香港刑事檢控 PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 2018 律政司司長 鄭若驊資深大律師

鄭司長：

謹呈上刑事檢控科 2018 年的工作回顧。

本科在 2018 年事務紛繁，科內檢控人員整年在“秉行公義者”的崗位上 盡忠職守，持正獨立進行檢控。儘管社會曾有聲音質疑若干檢控決定，我們 的檢控人員一如既往根據法律、可接納的證據所證明的事實及適用的政策或 指引，獨立理智地行事。在庭上，我們竭力協助法庭，以公正客觀的態度依 法秉公行義。

我們致力促進本科工作的透明度和問責性，讓公眾可全面恰當了解刑事 司法工作，但也緊記不能為求在人前彰顯公義，致使公義無法施行。我們會 繼續孜孜不怠促進市民認識本科工作。

縱使考驗頻仍，本科的檢控和支援人員一直全力以赴，成果驕人。謹向 科內全體同事致以謝忱。

刑事檢控專員 梁卓然資深大律師 2019 年 10 月 23 日 The Hon Teresa CHENG Yeuk-wah, GBS, SC, JP Secretary for Justice

23 October 2019

Dear Secretary for Justice,

I am pleased to submit to you the Yearly Review of the Prosecutions Division for 2018.

2018 is an eventful year for the Division. Throughout the year, prosecutors in the Division upheld their role as “ministers of justice” in pursuance of fair and independent prosecution. Although there have been voices in the community questioning certain prosecutorial decisions, our prosecutors have, as always, acted independently and dispassionately on the basis of the law, the facts provable by admissible evidence and any applicable policy or guidelines. In court, we strived to assist the court to the fullest and to do justice according to the law in a fair and objective manner.

We endeavour to promote transparency and accountability in our work so that the public may be fully and properly informed about the administration of criminal justice. We however bear in mind that the benefit of justice being seen to be done must not be allowed to result in justice not being done. We shall continue to work hard to promote public understanding of our work.

I wish to take this opportunity to thank all my colleagues, both prosecutors and support staff, in the Division for their remarkable efforts and achievements in often challenging circumstances.

Yours sincerely,

(David Leung SC) Director of Public Prosecutions 目錄 6 刑事檢控專員的序言 Contents Director’s Overview

10 架構及職責 Structure and Duties 組織圖表 Organization Chart 服務承諾 Performance Pledge 12 分科一 法律指引 58 分科四 商業罪案 Sub-division I Sub-division IV Advisory Commercial Crime 分科一第 1 組﹣原訟法庭法律指引 分科四第 1 組﹣嚴重詐騙 Section I (1) - Court of First Instance Advisory Section IV (1) - Major Fraud

分科一第 2 組﹣區域法院法律指引 分科四第 2 組﹣證券、稅務及詐騙 Section I (2) - District Court Advisory Section IV (2) - Securities, Revenue and Fraud

分科一第 3 組﹣裁判法院法律指引 分科四第 3 組﹣廉政公署（公營機構） Section I (3) - Magistrates’ Courts Advisory Section IV (3) - ICAC (Public Sector)

分科一第 4 組﹣公眾秩序活動及電腦網絡罪行 分科四第 4 組﹣廉政公署（私營機構） Section I (4) - Public Order Events & Cybercrime Section IV (4) - ICAC (Private Sector)

法庭檢控主任 分科四第 5 組﹣海關 Court Prosecutors Section IV (5) - Customs & Excise

30 分科二 政策及政務 72 行政及支援 Sub-division II Administration Policy and Administration and Support 刑事檢控專員辦公室 Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions 犯罪得益 78 特稿 Proceeds of Crime Feature Article 部門檢控 律政司：倫敦來客有感 Departmental Prosecutions The Department of Justice: Some Views from London

分科三 訟辯及上訴 44 82 外展及培訓 Sub-division III Outreach and Training Advocacy & Appeals 分科三 – 訟辯 Sub-division III – Advocacy 分科三（上訴）第 1 組 – 裁判法院上訴 92 凝聚一心 Section III (Appeals) (1) – Magistracy Appeals Bonding 分科三（上訴）第 2 組 – 上級法院上訴 Section III (Appeals) (2) – Higher Court Appeals 分科三（上訴）第 組 人權 3 – 統計數字 Section III (Appeals) (3) – Human Rights 96 Statistics 梁卓然資深大律師 David Leung SC 刑事檢控專員 Director of Public Prosecutions

6 PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 2018

香港刑事檢控 刑事檢控專員的序言 Director’s Overview

2018 年是我擔任刑事檢控專員的首年，剛好本司 2018 was the first year since I became DPP. Incidentally, the 也由新任律政司司長領導。 Department was also headed by the new Secretary for Justice.

新章肇啟，總帶來新的機遇和挑戰。前任刑事檢 A new chapter always comes with new opportunities and challenges. I was fortunate to benefit from one of the numerous 控專員楊家雄法官建樹良多，我慶幸能受惠其 good work of my predecessor Mr Justice Keith Yeung - the new 中。他任內開設的新職位在 2018 年設立，刑事 posts he created during his tenure came into existence in 2018. 檢控科的檢控官人數在年底達 145 名，為歷年之 The number of counsel in the Prosecutions Division reached the 冠。隨着人手增加，加上我以提升檢控官的訟辯 historical height of 145 by the end of 2018. With the additional 技巧為目標，更多年資較淺的檢控官獲指派與較 manpower and my goal to enhance the advocacy skills of Public 資深的檢控官一同就審訊和上訴出庭檢控，令檢 Prosecutors, more junior prosecutors have been assigned to 控官處理的案件數目較 2017 年增加 11%。 prosecute trials and appeals together with more experienced prosecutors. This resulted in an increase by 11% of the number 此外，我們很榮幸邀得布思義資深大律師就不同 of cases conducted by Public Prosecutors when compared with 7 審訊階段—開案陳詞、盤問證人和結案陳詞—主 2017. 講一系列講座、Collingwood Thompson 御用大律 In addition, we were hounored to have Mr Andrew Bruce SC 師就新興議題“法團賄賂與加密數碼貨幣”主講 giving us a series of lectures on the different stages of trials - 講座，以及其中一名前任刑事檢控專員上訴法庭 opening speech, examination of witness and closing speeches. 法官薛偉成就“高等法院內的訟辯”分享睿智明 Mr Collingwood Thompson QC gave us a talk on the thriving 識，使我們獲益良多。這些講座讓本科檢控人員 topic of “Corporate Bribery and Crypto-currency”. We also had the 適時重溫訟辯技巧的基本原則，並提供最新的法 benefit of the wisdom of one of the former DPPs, Mr Justice of PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 律專題知識。 Appeal Zervos who shared his insight with us on “Advocacy in the 2018

High Court”. All these talks provided our prosecutors with timely 此外，我們也繼續每年參加海外訟辯課程，維持 reminder of the basic principles of advocacy skills and update knowledge of topical issues. 與國際社會的聯繫。年資較淺的檢控官參加為期 兩星期的倫敦中殿大律師學院訟辯培訓課程，接 Meanwhile, we maintain our international link by continuing to 香港刑事檢控 受全面的小組培訓，內容涵蓋不同訟辯範疇，包 participate annually in overseas advocacy courses. Junior Public 括向陪審團陳詞和處理證人。較資深的檢控人員 Prosecutors attended a two-week Middle Temple Advocacy Course 則會到英國牛津大學基布爾學院參加一星期密集 in which they received comprehensive small group trainings 式的高級國際訟辯課程。上述兩項課程均由英國 on different aspects of advocacy, including delivering speeches 頂尖大律師主持，後者更由世界各地的頂尖大律 to jury and witness handling. More experienced prosecutors would attend an intensive one-week Advanced International 師主持。檢控官不僅把所得的寶貴經驗和技巧應 Advocacy Course at Keble College, Oxford, the United Kingdom. 用在日常工作上，也會秉承優良傳統，把他們所 得經驗在香港大律師公會舉辦的訟辯培訓課程 Both courses are conducted by leading counsel from the United 中傳承下去。 Kingdom, with the latter also by leading counsel worldwide. Not only will Public Prosecutors apply the invaluable experience and skills 雖然 2018 年的公眾秩序活動減少，但年內法庭 gained in their daily work, they will also follow the good tradition and 仍須分別審訊佔領中環行動和旺角暴亂事件中 pass on their experience earned in the advocacy training courses organized by the Hong Kong Bar Association. 的被告及審理若干相關的上訴案件。

Although the number of public order events that took place in 2018 我注意到有市民把我們檢控某些涉及政治事實 had dropped, the trials of the defendants in the Occupy Central 背景的案件說成是“政治檢控”，對此我感到 Movement and the Mongkok Riots, and some of the related appeals, 遺憾。正如我在檢控週 2018 開幕儀式致辭時公 saw their respective days in court in 2018. 開表示，這種指控令我感到難受。 I regret to note that some members of the public accused the 檢控官負責秉行公義，不會按照執法機關的指 prosecution of certain cases having a political factual background as 示行事。執法機關並非我們的委託人或委託部 “political prosecution”. As I said openly at the Opening Ceremony of 門，他們履行調查職責，然後把所得的證據交 the Prosecution Week 2018, I am saddened by such accusation. 給律政司。檢控官會考慮所獲得的證據，決定 Public Prosecutors are ministers of justice. We do not take 應否提出刑事檢控，如提出檢控，再決定控以 instructions from law enforcement agencies. They are not our clients 何罪以確切反映所涉刑責。我們不會不惜一切 or client departments. They carry out their investigative duties and 代價令被告入罪，我們的職責是確保所有被告 submit all the available evidence to the Department of Justice. 都得到公平審訊。 Public Prosecutors consider the available evidence and decide whether criminal charges should be laid and if so, what charge(s) 8 容我不厭其煩地重申檢控人員如何作出檢控決 best reflect(s) the criminality involved. We do not seek to secure a 定。首先，我們會評估所獲得的證據能否支持 conviction at all costs. Our role is to ensure that every defendant 合理機會達致定罪，如能支持，則考慮檢控是 receives a fair trial. 否符合公眾利益。政治或涉案人士的政治背景 I make no apologies for repeating how a prosecutor makes a 都不是決定檢控與否的考慮因素。在決定過程 prosecutorial decision. Firstly, whether the available evidence 中，檢控人員的職責並非探究犯罪主因或背景 supports a reasonable prospect of conviction and if so, whether it is 的是非曲直。終審法院在律政司司長 訴 黃之鋒 in the public interest to prosecute. Politics or political background of

PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 及另二人 (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35 一案判案書第 75 the person involved plays no part in prosecutorial decision-making. 段所述最能闡釋這點：“⋯⋯法院不會衡量犯 In the process, it is not the function of a prosecutor to dwell into 2018

罪者所主張的信念是否可取⋯⋯然而，法院的 the merits of the underlying cause or background leading to the commission of the offence. I can do no better than repeating what 工作不是就政治問題表態，也不是裁斷某一套 the Court of Final Appeal said in Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung 社會或其他範疇的價值觀較另一套可取”。 & 2 others (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35 at para 75: “…the court will not enter 香港刑事檢控 into an evaluation of the worthiness of the cause espoused…It is not, 同樣，在處理刑事上訴案件時，除非我們信納 however, the task of the courts to take sides on issues that are political or 被告是妥為定罪，否則我們不會尋求維持所有 to prefer one set of social or other values over another.” 定罪。有時 ( 雖非經常 )，我們更會提出一些上 訴人在其上訴理由內未有提及，但或會令他們 Likewise, in criminal appeals, we do not seek to uphold all convictions 的定罪或判刑上訴得直的論點，這也是為了對 unless we are satisfied that the conviction was entered into properly. 上訴人公平起見而為之。 Occasionally, though not often, in fairness to the appellant(s), we raise points not covered in the appellant’s grounds of appeal which 9 我們為了香港的福祉，代表公眾作出檢控。即 may potentially lead to the allowing of the appeal against conviction 使工作日益不討好，即使面對種種批評和重重 or sentence. 責難，我們定必戮力同心緊守崗位，迎難而上， We prosecute in the name of the public for the good of Hong Kong. 並莊敬自強，以秉持公義為己任，致力維持優 We shall do so even though it is an increasingly thankless task. We 質的檢控服務。我們今年的表現較去年進步， shall do so amidst tides of criticisms and abuses. We shall brave 期望來年更上層樓。得此成果，實有賴科內一 the storm, together as a Division; and with dignity, fulfill our duty to 眾檢控和支援人員專業幹練、竭誠勤勉所致。 uphold justice. We strive to do our best to maintain a high quality PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG prosecution service. We did better than in 2017 and aim for further 2018

improvement in 2019. This would not have been possible without the professionalism, dedication and hard work of all the prosecutors and supporting staff of the Prosecutions Division. 香港刑事檢控 ) 高級 SADPP Duties) (Special 助理刑事 檢控專員 特別職務 ( (5) 版權 Trade Trade 海關 助理 Excise ADPP IV Dutiable Copyright 應課稅品 商品說明 Customs & 刑事檢控 descriptions commodities 專員 IV (5) ) ) (4) ICAC ICAC ICAC 案件 Sector) (Private SADPP IV 私營機構 廉政公署 廉政公署 私營機構 高級助理 刑事檢控 ( 專員 IV (4) ( (Private Sector) (Private Legend: ) ) ADPP = Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions of Public Director ADPP = Assistant Prosecutions of Public SADPP = Senior Director Assistant Appeal = Court of Final CFA CA = Court of Appeal Corruption Against = Independent Commission ICAC Division Selection Board PDSB = Prosecutions Office Police Against CAPO = Complaints 圖例 (3) ICAC ICAC ICAC 案件 分科四 商業罪案 (Public Sector) SADPP IV 公營機構 廉政公署 Deputy Director of 廉政公署 公營機構 高級助理 刑事檢控 ( 專員 IV (3) (Public Sector) (Public ( 副刑事檢控專員（四） Public Prosecutions (IV) Prosecutions Public Sub-division Crime IV Commercial (2) fraud fraud 稅務 Inland revenue 及詐騙 Revenue Securities SADPP IV properties 證券詐騙 商業詐騙 一手住宅 物業銷售 and Fraud Securities, Commercial Commercial 高級助理 刑事檢控 Sales of first- 專員 IV (2) 證券、稅務 hand residential hand residential (1) fraud Fraud Major Terrorist Terrorist financing SADPP IV 商業詐騙 恐怖分子 資金籌集 Commercial Commercial 嚴重詐騙 高級助理 刑事檢控 專員 IV (1)

) (1) ) (3) ) (4) ) (2) ) (3) ) (4) ADPP III ADPP III ADPP III (Adv) (1) (Adv) (3) (Adv) (4) (Adv) (2) (Adv) (3) (Adv) (4) SADPP III SADPP III SADPP III 訟辯 訟辯 訟辯 訟辯 訟辯 訟辯 高級助理 高級助理 高級助理 助理刑事 助理刑事 助理刑事 ( ( ( ( ( ( 檢控專員 III 檢控專員 III 檢控專員 III 刑事檢控專員 III 刑事檢控專員 III 刑事檢控專員 III III )(3) 人權 review Rights Judicial Human 基本法 專員 (App) (3) 上訴 SADPP III 司法覆核 高級助理 刑事檢控 Bill of Rights ( 人權法案及 and Basic Law Deputy Director of 分科三 訟辯及上訴 III )(2) 副刑事檢控專員（三） CA Public Prosecutions (III) Prosecutions Public CFA 上訴 Court Higher Appeals sentence 專員 (App) (2) 上訴 SADPP III Reviews of Reviews 終審法院 覆核刑罰 Appeals by Appeals by case stated 上訴法庭 上級法院 高級助理 刑事檢控 ( 藉案件呈述 提出的上訴 Sub-division & Appeals III Advocacy 條 III )(1) 104 上訴 根據 上訴 reviews appeals Appeals 專員 (App) (1) 上訴 SADPP III 裁判法院 案件呈述 第 Magistracy Case stated Case Section 104 Magistracy 裁判法院 高級助理 刑事檢控 ( 提出的覆核 (4) 罪行 罪行 助理 ADPP I 活動及 events & events 活動及 Events & 公眾秩序 電腦網絡 cybercrime 專員 I (4) Public order order Public 公眾秩序 電腦網絡 刑事檢控 Cybercrime Public Order ) (3) Director of Public Prosecutions Director of Public 案件 Court Courts SADPP I 包括法庭 Advisory (including 裁判法院 Magistrates’ Magistrates’ 專員 I (3) 裁判法院 法律指引 高級助理 刑事檢控 ( 檢控主任 Courts cases Prosecutors) 10 Magistrates’ ) (2) Trial Trial Court Court) District (District SADPP I 分科一 法律指引 Advisory 案件籌備 區域法院 preparation preparation 專員 I (2) 區域法院 法律指引 高級助理 刑事檢控 Deputy Director of ( Public Prosecutions (I) Prosecutions Public 副刑事檢控專員（一） Sub-division I Advisory ) 刑事檢控專員 (1) Trial Trial SADPP I Court of (Court of (Court Advisory 案件籌備 原訟法庭 preparation preparation 專員 I (1) 原訟法庭 法律指引 高級助理 刑事檢控 ( First Instance) First First Instance ) ADPP 部門檢控 部門檢控 助理刑事 檢控專員 部門檢控 prosecutions Prosecutions Departmental Departmental Prosecutions) ( (Departmental of of 及監察 及監察 截取通訊 截取通訊 Interception Interception Interception & surveillance & Surveillance communication communication Communication Communication PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG CAPO 投訴及 投訴及 投訴警察 意見回應 & feedback Complaints Complaints 意見回應 Complaints & Feedback 8 24 61 60 26 76 Strength 215 470 2018

人手 Prosecutions Division Organization Chart Division Organization Prosecutions

Policy Policy 政策 Policy ) research 政策研究 Structure and Duties 9 27 68 55 30 100 227 516 Establishment 培訓 培訓 SADPP Training Training New recruits 新招聘人員 香港刑事檢控 編制 Chief of Staff 刑事檢控專員辦公室 刑事檢控專員辦公室 高級助理刑事檢控專員 ( 分科二 政策及政務 Costs 管理 外判 訟費 管理 of trials 檔案室 Registries Allocation Allocation 審判分配 Office of the Director Public Prosecutions Briefing out (Office of the Director Public Prosecutions) Management Management 副刑事檢控專員（二）/ 人事主管 Sub-division and Administration II Policy Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (II) / Prosecutions Deputy Director of Public Media Media relations Relations 傳媒關係 傳媒關係 Directorate Officer Directorate Counsel Senior Government Counsel Government Grade Court Prosecutor Clerk Grade Law Officer Translation Law Other support staff Total 行政 PDSB 政務 投訴組 Registry Complaints Complaints 刑事檢控科 遴選委員會 Administration Administration ) ADPP Crime) 助理刑事 檢控專員 犯罪得益 of Crime Proceeds Proceeds of Crime Proceeds 犯罪得益 (Proceeds of (Proceeds ( 犯罪得益 首長級人員 高級政府律師 政府律師 法庭檢控主任職系 律政書記職系 法庭翻譯主任 其他支援人員 總數 架構及職責 刑事檢控科組織圖表 服務承諾 Performance Pledge

本科負責向執法機關提供有關刑事方面的法律 The Division advises law enforcement agencies in relation to 指引，並代表律政司司長行使《基本法》第 criminal matters and exercises on behalf of the Secretary for Justice 六十三條規定的酌情權，以決定是否提出刑事 the discretion of whether or not to bring criminal proceedings, in 訴訟。本科並負責在香港各級法院進行一切刑 accordance with Article 63 of the Basic Law. It also has conduct of all 事案件的主控工作。 criminal cases in the Courts of Hong Kong.

Our pledges are: 本科承諾如下： • To apply the Prosecution Code of the Department of Justice in • 在刑事訴訟程序方面執行律政司的《檢控守 relation to criminal proceedings 則》 • To give thorough consideration to all matters relevant to the • 就提出和進行刑事訴訟的決定，周詳考慮所 making of decisions in relation to the institution and conduct of 有有關事宜 criminal proceedings

• Upon the receipt of a request from a law enforcement agency • 在接獲執法機關要求提供法律指引時，於 14 for legal advice, to provide such advice within 14 working days, 個工作天內作覆；如案件較為複雜，則於 14 and in more complex cases to provide an interim reply within 個工作天內給予初步回覆，說明估計可於何 14 working days with an estimated time within which the 時提供指引；如投訴警察課要求提供指引， advice will be provided; for requests from Complaints Against 於法律程序完成並取得所有資料後的 14 天 Police Office of the Police, to provide information about court 內作覆 proceedings within 14 days after all materials are available upon completion of those proceedings • 在法院所定的期限內就案件有關事宜提供法 律指引 • To provide legal advice in matters connected with court cases 11 within the time limit set by the Courts • 在裁判法院命令將被控人交付審判後七天 • To prepare and file indictments in the Court of First Instance 內，擬備公訴書並送交原訟法庭 within 7 days of committal of the accused in the Magistrates’ Courts • 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 • To prepare and deliver charge sheets to the Registrar of the 法常務官 District Court within 14 days after the date of the order of transfer of the cases from the Magistrates’ Courts to the District

• 在刑事訴訟中，恪守充分而適當地向辯方披 Court PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 露資料的責任，尤其遵行與香港大律師公會 2018

• To rigorously comply with our obligation to make full and proper 和香港律師會就送達文件所達成的協議 disclosure of materials to the defence in criminal proceedings and in particular to abide by agreements reached with the Hong • 按照《罪行受害者約章》規定，將不提出檢 Kong Bar Association and the Law Society of Hong Kong in 控的決定通知罪行受害者並處理他們的查詢

respect of the service of documents 香港刑事檢控

• 在接獲關於檢控政策或決定的查詢時，於 14 • To inform victims of crime of the decision not to prosecute, and 個工作天內作覆；如果未能在這限期內詳盡 to attend to their enquiries, in accordance with The Victims of 作覆，也會給予初步回覆 Crime Charter

• To reply to enquiries on matters related to prosecution policy or decision 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 分科一 法律指引 Sub-division I Advisory

分科一負責向執法機關提供法律指引，並聯同負 責商業罪案、證券及貪污案件的分科四，就所有 刑事案件作出檢控決定。檢控官根據《檢控守 則》訂明的兩階段驗證標準決定就某案件提出檢 控與否，即首先判斷現有的證據能否支持有合理 機會達致定罪，如果有的話，再考慮檢控是否符 12 合公眾利益。檢控官也會就適當的控罪和合適的 審訊法院，提供法律指引。

Sub-division I is responsible for advising law enforcement agencies and making prosecutorial decisions on all criminal cases, alongside with Sub-division IV which deals with cases relating to commercial crime, securities and corruption.

PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG Prosecutors decide whether or not to prosecute in accordance with the two-stage test stated in 2018

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 香港刑事檢控 interest to do so. Prosecutors also advise on the appropriate charges to be laid as well as the proper venue of trial. 分科一 法律指引 Sub-division I Advisory

分科一設有四組，各組有特定的工作範疇。下文 Sub-division I comprises four sections, each handling its specific 闡述分科一的工作範疇及 2018 年內經該分科處 area. A description of those areas and a highlight of some notable 理的一些值得注意的案件。 cases handled by the Sub-division in 2018 are set out below. Section I(1) – 分科一第 1 組 ― 13 原訟法庭法律指引 Court of First Instance Advisory In 2018, the Court of First Instance Advisory Section, headed by 2018 年，原訟法庭法律指引組由高級助理刑事 Ms Catherine Ko, Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, 檢控專員高寶翠女士掌管，負責就所有由原訟法 gave legal advice to the Police and other law enforcement 庭審理的刑事案件 ( 商業罪案除外 )，向警方及 agencies on all criminal matters that are dealt with in the Court 其他執法機關提供法律指引。該組給予指引的案 of First Instance, except commercial crime. Offences advised by 件涉及法律上只容許在原訟法庭審理的殺人、亂 the Section include homicide, incest and rape, which can only be 倫和強姦罪，以及經考慮《檢控守則》所載的 lawfully tried in the Court of First Instance and also a wide range 準則後決定交付原訟法庭審理的多種嚴重刑事案 of serious criminal cases that are recommended to be tried in the PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 件。 Court of First Instance after consideration of the criteria set out in 2018 the Prosecution Code. 該組檢控官向執法機關提供準確、全面和適時的 法律指引。執法機關提交的調查報告會分配給檢 Prosecutors in this Section provide accurate, comprehensive and timely legal advice to law enforcement agencies. Investigation 控官處理，就證據是否充分及適當的控罪提供法 files submitted by the law enforcement agencies are allocated to 香港刑事檢控 律指引，在決定把案件交付原訟法庭審理後，便 prosecutors who then advise on the sufficiency of evidence and 會處理法律程序事宜，以確保案件可適時交付原 the appropriate charges. Upon making a decision that the case 訟法庭審理或判刑。 is to be dealt with in the Court of First Instance, prosecutors then attend to procedural matters to ensure that cases are committed 決定起訴疑犯和其案件在原訟法庭審理，只是漫 to the Court of First Instance for trial or sentence in a timely 長的司法程序之始。檢控官在提供指引後，還要 manner. 負責處理案件交付原訟法庭審判的整個程序。 2018 年，交付審判程序幾乎全部以書面進行， The decision to charge a suspect and have him/her tried in 初級偵訊絕無僅有，該組在年內只處理了一宗初 the Court of First Instance is only the beginning of a lengthy 分科一第 1 組 原訟法庭法律指引 Section I(1) Court of First Instance Advisory

級偵訊。此外，檢控官與執法機關緊密合作， judicial process. After giving advice, prosecutors are responsible 決定是否須就案件作進一步調查和 ( 若有需要 ) for seeing the cases through the committal proceedings. In 2018, 作哪方面的調查，或搜集什麼證據，以期在審 committal proceedings were almost exclusively “paper committals” 14 訊階段前加強控方的案情。 and preliminary inquiry has been rare with only one conducted during the year. In addition, prosecutors also work closely with law 2018 年，該組檢控官已完全熟習並竭盡所能嚴 enforcement agencies to decide whether, and if so, what additional enquiries or evidence is required to strengthen the prosecution case 格遵從 2017 年 6 月 12 日生效的《實務指示 9.3— until the trial stage. 原訟法庭的刑事訴訟程序》(《實務指示 9.3》)。 新《實務指示 9.3》的首要目標之一是規範交付 In 2018, prosecutors in the Section had fully familiarized themselves 至審訊或判刑的程序及時間表，重申法庭在案 with, as well as diligently and strictly complied with, the procedures 件管理的司法管轄權，以確保刑事法律程序得 and timetables stipulated in the “Practice Direction 9.3 – Criminal 以公平和迅速地進行。 Proceedings in the Court of First Instance” (“PD 9.3”) for the PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG proceedings from committal to trial or sentence which came into 舉例而言，如被告在交付審判時承認控罪，負 effect on 12 June 2017. One major objective of the new PD 9.3 is to 2018 責就案件提供指引的檢控官須依照新《實務指 re-iterate the jurisdiction of the Court in case management for the 示 9.3》的規定，擬備標明頁碼的“聽取對控罪 purpose of ensuring a fair and expeditious criminal process. 的回答及判刑文件冊”，以及出席原訟法庭的 By way of examples, where a case has been committed for sentence 判刑聆訊。 香港刑事檢控 after a guilty plea at committal, the prosecutor who gave advice on the case would be required to prepare the paginated “Plea and 另一方面，如被告在交付審判時否認控罪，負 Sentence Bundle” in accordance with the new PD 9.3 and to attend 責就案件提供指引的檢控官須隨之擬備“公訴 the sentencing hearing in the Court of First Instance. 書”並送交存檔，以及向原訟法庭遞交標明頁 碼的“交付文件冊”。檢控官須小心謹慎地擬 On the other hand, in a case where a defendant pleads not guilty 備“公訴書”，因為他們必須慎重考慮控罪是 at committal, the prosecutor who gave advice on the case would 否適當以及如何向陪審團陳述案情。 then be required to deal with the subsequent preparation and filing of the “Indictment”; and to lodge the paginated “Committal Bundle” with the Court of First Instance. The prosecutor shall exercise an 就案件管理而言，為了貫徹一致處理由交付審 abundance of caution in preparing the “Indictment” as it is crucial 判起一直不認罪的案件，負責就案件提供指引 that careful thoughts are given to the appropriateness of the charges 的檢控官須與負責在審訊時檢控的律師一同出 and how the case is to be presented to the jury. 席“案件管理聆訊”，在有需要時提供意見， To maintain continuity in terms of case management, in cases 並與他們緊密合作，為他們提供協助，直至案 where a not-guilty plea has been maintained since committal, the 件審結。負責就案件提供指引的檢控官也處理 prosecutor who gave advice on the case would be required to 向辯方披露案件資料的事宜，並向法庭提交附 attend “Case Management Hearings” with the trial counsel giving 加證據。 their input whenever needed, and to work closely with the trial counsel and render them assistance up to the conclusion of the trial. 除了提供法律指引及審前籌備工作外，該組檢 The prosecutors who gave advice on the case also deal with issues of 控官也處理大量在原訟法庭審理的保釋聆訊。 disclosure and the filing of additional evidence. 此外，該組會審查所有與死因研訊有關的事宜， 以確保死因並不涉及刑事罪行而需要進一步調 Apart from their advisory and preparation work, members of the 查。該組也負責處理死因裁判官依據《死因裁 Section also handle a large number of bail hearings in the Court of 判官條例》( 第 504 章 ) 第 35 條為調查刑事罪行 First Instance. In addition, all matters that are to be the subject of a 而轉介的事宜。 death inquest are screened by the Section to ensure that there is no evidence of any criminal offences committed in relation to the death of the deceased that would require further investigation. The Section 涉及嚴重性侵犯受害人的案件向來是敏感的範 also deals with referrals from the Coroner pursuant to section 35 of 疇。該組檢控官致力以關懷和尊重的態度對待 the Coroners Ordinance (Cap. 504) for investigation into a criminal 受害人。2018 年，《刑事訴訟程序條例》( 第 offence. 221 章 ) 第 79B(4A) 條和經修訂的實務指示 9.3、 9.4、9.5 及 9.10 開始實施，賦予法院酌情權，准 Cases involving victims of serious sexual abuse have always been a 許某些性罪行的受害人藉閉路電視聯繫方式或 sensitive area. Every effort is made to treat these victims with care 在屏障後作證，以及使用特別通道出庭，讓他 and respect. 2018 saw the implementation of section 79B(4A) of the 們可以在沒有威嚇的環境下作供，並保護他們 Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 221) and the revised Practice 15 免於面對可能出現的難堪情況。自新程序實施 Directions 9.3, 9.4, 9.5 and 9.10 (“PDs”) which together confer upon 以來，受害人要求使用保護措施的審訊數目有 the Court a discretion to permit victims of certain sexual offences 所上升。 to give evidence by way of live television link or behind screen, and to use special passageways to attend court, so as to enable them to give their evidence in a non-intimidating environment and to shield 關於法院應如何處理被告在被定罪前或後（但 them from the embarrassments that they may encounter. There has 於判刑前），為協助當局而提供敏感資料的問 since the implementation of the new procedures been an increase 題，在 2018 年取得新進展。該問題一直根據 R v in the number of requests from victims for the protective measures. Sivan and Others [1988] 87 Cr App R 407 及香港特 別行政區 訴 Tse Ka-wah [1998] 1 HKLRD 925 這兩 2018 also saw a new development in how the Court would deal PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 宗案件所訂立的程序原則處理。直至 2018 年 9 with sensitive information relating to assistance to the authorities 2018 月 18 日，上訴法庭在香港特別行政區 訴 Kilima rendered by a defendant prior to, or subsequent to, his conviction Abubakar Abbas [2018] HKLRD 88 一案的判決中 for an offence but before his sentence. This issue has always been 訂定多項重要原則，說明如何適當評價被告向 handled with care in accordance with the procedural principles set 當局提供的協助，以及就所提供的敏感資料或 out in R v Sivan and Others [1988] 87 Cr App R 407 and HKSAR v Tse 香港刑事檢控 協助可換取減免多少刑期方為合適。自此，該 Ka-wah [1998] 1 HKLRD 925. It was on 18 September 2018, that the Court of Appeal in its judgment in HKSAR v Kilima Abubakar Abbas 組發現向當局提供協助的被捕人士及／或被告 [2018] HKLRD 88, annunciated a number of important principles 不斷增加。 in relation to the proper approach for assessing the value of a defendant’s assistance to authorities and the appropriate discount to 該組檢控官力求掌握刑事法及訴訟程序的最新 be given for the sensitive information or assistance provided to the 發展，與時並進。他們定期參加科內同事及外 authorities. This Section has since witnessed an increasing number 間專業人員舉辦的培訓課程和講座，以增進法 of arrested person and/or defendant proffering assistance to the 律知識和技巧。此外，該組檢控官定期在審訊 authorities. 和上訴中出庭檢控，以期汲取訟辯經驗，以及 Members of the Section strive to keep themselves updated with 磨練提供法律指引和籌備審訊的技巧。 the latest developments in the criminal law and procedures. They regularly attend training sessions and lectures organized 2018 年交付原訟法庭審理的案件有 401 宗，其 both by in-house colleagues and professionals from outside the 中 128 宗交付審訊，273 宗交付判刑。此外，依 Division to enhance their legal knowledge and skills. In addition, 據上訴法庭的重審令而提交法庭存檔的公訴書 members regularly prosecuted trials and appeals with a view to gaining experience in advocacy and honing their advising and trial 有 10 份。與過去數年相比，2018 年交付審訊的 preparation skills. 案件數目持續減少，這或許由上訴法庭在香港 特別行政區 訴 吳文南 [2016] 5 HKLRD 1 一案的 In 2018, there were 401 cases committed to the Court of First 裁決造成，因為該裁決訂明在司法程序較後期 Instance, of which 128 cases were committed for trial and 273 cases 始認罪的被告可獲較少的刑期減免，實際鼓勵 for sentence. In addition, 10 indictments were filed pursuant to 被告在交付審判前承認控罪。 orders for retrial made by the Court of Appeal. The number of cases committed for trial continued to decrease in 2018 when compared 該組曾處理的一些值得注意案件包括： with previous years. The Court of Appeal’s decision in HKSAR v Ngo Van-nam [2016] 5 HKLRD 1 might have contributed to the decrease 在香港特別行政區 訴 莫俊賢 [2018] HKCFI 1652 because it in effect encourages guilty pleas at committal by reducing 一案中，被告在 2012 年結識生前任職港龍航空 the discount in sentence a defendant may get upon his/her guilty 空中服務員的死者，二人成為情侶，其後關係 plea entered only further down the road of the judicial proceedings. 轉差。2013 年 12 月 4 日，被告勒斃死者，把屍 Some interesting cases that have been dealt with by the Section 體擠進死者房內衣櫃下格，並蓋上衣物和袋子。 include the following: 被告又把死者的制服、鞋履、手袋和行李箱藏 起，以製造她上班的假象。被告拿走死者的手 In HKSAR v Mok Chun-yin [2018] HKCFI 1652, the defendant came 提電話和提款卡，並在同日嘗試操作其銀行帳 to know the deceased, who was a Dragonair flight attendant, in 戶但不果。他把殺死死者一事告知兩名朋友後， 2012 and they became lovers. Their relationship later turned sour. 16 在 2013 年 12 月 7 日離港前赴內地。死者的屍 On 4 December 2013, the defendant strangled the deceased and 體在翌日被發現，而被告則在 2017 年 2 月 1 日 squeezed her body inside the sunken compartment of a wardrobe 被拘捕。被告在警誡下承認殺死死者，但聲稱 in the deceased’s room, and covered it with clothing and bags. The 是因當時被激怒。他被控謀殺、盜竊和企圖盜 defendant also concealed her uniform, shoes, handbag and suitcase 竊，陪審團裁定他全部罪名成立，他被判處強 to create an appearance that she had gone to work. Having taken away the deceased’s mobile phone and bank card, the defendant 制性終身監禁。 tried to operate her bank account on the same day but failed. He left Hong Kong for the Mainland on 7 December 2013 after telling 在香港特別行政區 訴 林嘉偉 [2018] HKCFI 2311 2 friends he had killed the deceased. Body of the deceased was 一案中，被告被控謀殺某著名街頭賽車手的 16 discovered the following day while the defendant was apprehended PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 歲女兒。控方案情指，被告明知死者不懂游泳 on 1 February 2017. Under caution, he admitted killing the deceased 而讓她與自己一同從橋上跳海，意圖殺死死者 but alleged that he was provoked. He was indicted with murder, 2018

theft and attempted theft and was found guilty of all charges by a jury. He was sentenced to a mandatory life sentence.

In HKSAR v Lam Ka-wai [2018] HKCFI 2311, the defendant was indicted 香港刑事檢控 for murder of a famous street car racer’s 16-year-old daughter. It was the prosecution case that defendant caused the deceased to fall from a bridge into the sea together with him knowing that the deceased could not swim; and the defendant intended to kill the deceased and himself. Instead of drowning, the cause of the deceased’s death was unascertainable due to decomposition of her body. After committal, the Prosecution accepted the defendant’s plea to manslaughter (suicide pact). The defendant was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment. 和自殺。死者屍體腐爛，故未能確定她是否遇 HKSAR v Wong Wing-man, Mandy alias Wang Xuexin (D1) and Ling 溺而死。被告交付審判後，控方接納他承認誤 Yiu-chung, Rocky (D2) [2018] HKCFI 1484. This was a very bad case 殺罪 ( 自殺協定 )。被告被判處監禁四年。 of willful neglect of child described by the trial judge as “one of the worst cases of its kind”. Under the care of D1, her 7-year old daughter 香港特別行政區 訴 王榮汶 ( 別名王雪欣，第一 was being starved and deprived of nutritional food. The loss of 被告 ) 及凌耀忠 ( 第二被告 )[2018] HKCFI 1484 一 weight and mobility through weakness led to victim suffering from 案涉及故意疏忽照顧兒童，作案手法極為卑劣， wounds and bedsores that were growing in severity. As a result, the victim now lies in a vegetative state with permanent brain damage. 原審法官形容為“同類案件中最嚴重之一”。 D1, and D2 who was the victim’s stepfather, knowingly provided 第一被告的七歲女兒在其照顧下挨餓，得不到 false information to the doctors and the police to conceal the poor 有營養食物。受害人由於身體虛弱，體重下降， condition of the victim with a view to preventing or deflecting the 失去活動能力，以致身上的傷口和褥瘡日益惡 police investigation or criminal proceedings of child neglect or 化。受害人現處於植物人狀態，腦部永久受損。 abuse. After trial, D1 was found guilty of one count of wilful neglect 第一及第二被告 ( 受害人繼父 ) 向醫生和警方提 and two counts of perverting the course of justice, one of which 供明知虛假的資料，隱瞞受害人狀況欠佳，目 was jointly convicted with D2. D1 was sentenced to 15 years and 的是阻止或干擾警方對疏忽照顧或虐待兒童的 3 months’ imprisonment, while D2 was sentenced to 4 years and 6 調查、或有關刑事訴訟程序。經審訊後，第一 months’ imprisonment. They are appealing against both conviction 被告被裁定一項故意疏忽照顧罪及兩項妨礙司 and sentence. 法公正罪罪名成立，就其中一項妨礙司法公正 In HKSAR v Ngan Wing Chau [2018] HKCFI 2859, the defendant is 罪，第二被告同判罪成。第一被告被判處監禁 charged with the murder of his distant relative who was last captured 15 年 3 個月，第二被告則判監四年零六個月。 on CCTV alive entering the building where the defendant resided 二人正就定罪和刑罰提出上訴。 and had not been seen then. Later, the CCTV captured the defendant pulling heavy luggage many times in and out of the building the 在香港特別行政區 訴 顏永周 [2018] HKCFI 2859 same day. Blood stains matching the deceased’s DNA were found on 一案中，被告被控謀殺其遠親。閉路電視拍攝 furniture inside the defendant’s premises. Forensic pathologist and 到死者生前最後片段，死者進入被告所住樓宇 scientist‘s evidence supported a case of the deceased body parts 17 後便不知所終。同日其後，閉路電視拍攝到被 being dismembered for disposal. The defendant was convicted after 告多次拉着重行李進出樓宇。在被告寓所家具 trial by a jury of one count of murder and one count of preventing 上發現的血迹，與死者的脫氧核糖核酸吻合。 the lawful burial of a body. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. 案情指死者被肢解棄置，獲法醫和法證化驗師 的證供支持。被告經審訊後被陪審團裁定一項 In the notable “yoga ball case”, HKSAR v Khaw Kim Sun [2018] HKCFI 謀殺及一項阻止合法埋葬屍體罪罪名成立，判 2276, the wife and the daughter of an associate professor of the Chinese University of Hong Kong who was also an anesthetist, 處終身監禁。 were found dead inside a Mini Cooper outside Sai O Village on 22

May 2015. The associate professor was charged and convicted of PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 在香港特別行政區 訴 許金山 [2018] HKCFI 2276 murder of his wife and daughter by a jury and sentenced to life 一案 ( 即備受關注的“瑜伽球案”) 中，香港中

imprisonment. The evidence showed that the defendant placed 2018

文大學一名副教授兼麻醉科醫生的妻子及女兒 a yoga ball filled with carbon monoxide which he took from his 在 2015 年 5 月 22 日被發現死於西澳村外一輛 laboratory at the University inside the Mini Cooper and had the Mini Cooper 的車廂。副教授被控謀殺妻女，遭 stopper of the yoga ball removed. As a result, the lethal carbon 陪審團裁定罪名成立，判處終身監禁。證據顯 monoxide leaked into the cabin of the Mini Cooper without 香港刑事檢控 示，被告把取自其大學實驗室的瑜伽球注入一 the defendant’s wife and daughter inside knowing. It was the 氧化碳，放進 Mini Cooper 車內，再移走球塞。 prosecution case that the defendant did so with the intention to 結果，致命的一氧化碳在車內被告妻女不知不 kill his wife and daughter. The defendant instead alleged that he 覺間泄入 Mini Cooper 車廂。控方案情指，被告 took the carbon monoxide home to kill rats. This was evidently not 此舉是意圖殺害妻女；但被告聲稱把一氧化碳 believed by the jury. In sentencing, the trial judge remarked that it 帶回家是為了滅鼠。陪審團明顯不相信被告的 was “shocking that a highly educated, clever and successful man such as the defendant would conjure such a calculated method 說法。原審法官判刑時指出，“被告接受過高 to get rid of his wife. Though there is no direct evidence as to the 深教育，如此聰明、成功的人竟精心策劃殺妻 motives for getting rid of his wife, the fact that there was a third party 大計，實在令人震驚。儘管沒有直接證據證明 involved, and the fact that the defendant and his wife own certain 被告有殺妻動機，但本案牽涉第三者，加上被 properties, half of which might, in the case of divorce, had gone to 告與妻子擁有若干物業，一旦離異，其中一半 the wife, might have some bearing on his motive”. The defendant has 或會歸妻子所有，這些都或許與其動機有一定 lodged an appeal against conviction and sentence. 關係”。被告已就定罪及刑罰提出上訴。 In HKSAR v YHL [2019] HKCFI 199, the 76-year-old defendant repeatedly raped his daughter X since 2015 when X was aged 9 until 在香港特別行政區 訴 YHL [2019] HKCFI 199 一案 2017 after X revealed the matter to her mother and a police report 中，76 歲的被告自 2015 年起多次強姦當時九歲 made. The defendant was charged with 3 counts of rape and elected 的女兒 ，直至 年 將事件告訴母親並向 X 2017 X to have a preliminary inquiry which lasted for 24 days during which 警方舉報為止。被告被控三項強姦罪。他選擇 he acted in person with a total of 18 witnesses called. Having heard 初級偵訊，歷時 24 天，其間他親自行事，傳召 the evidence, the magistrate committed the defendant’s case for 共 18 名證人。裁判官聽取證供後將被告的案件 trial. The defendant then discharged his lawyers and opted to act in 交付審訊。被告原有律師代表，但他其後解除 person in the trial which lasted for 36 days. He was convicted of all 3 他們的職務，選擇在審訊中親自行事，審訊歷 counts of rape. In sentencing, the trial judge made reference to the 時 36 天。他被裁定三項強姦罪名全部成立。原 fact that both X and her mother had to give evidence twice in this 審法官判刑時提到 X 和母親均須在本案兩度作 case and the defendant used all sorts of means to embarrass the 證，而被告則用盡方法使證人尷尬。被告被判 witnesses. A sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment was passed and the 監禁 18 年，現正就定罪和刑罰提出上訴。 defendant is appealing against both conviction and sentence.

The defendant in HKSAR v Cheung Chu-kong [2018] HKCFI 2551 在香港特別行政區 訴 張儲剛 [2018] HKCFI 2551 pleaded guilty to 3 counts of attempted murder for attempting to 一案中，被告承認三項企圖謀殺罪，與三名兩 commit suicide by burning charcoal in his bedroom together with his 歲至六歲的子女在睡房企圖燒炭自殺。被告的 3 children aged 2 to 6. Alerted by the defendant’s business partner, 妻子收到丈夫的業務伙伴通知，到場揭發事件 the defendant’s wife attended the scene and discovered the incident, 並拯救各人。尤幸三名子女沒有因而傷殘或永 thus saving everyone. Fortunately, the three children suffered no 久受傷。被告在警誡下表示因欠債纍纍而生自 disability or permanent injury. Under caution, the defendant said he 18 殺念頭，但想到死後無人照顧三名年幼子女， was in heavy debts and wanted to commit suicide, and thought that 遂決定與他們一起燒炭。他被判監禁八年，已 since no one could take care of his 3 young children after his death, 就刑罰提出上訴。 he decided to burn charcoal with them. He was sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment and he has lodged an appeal against sentence. 分科一第 2 組 ― Section I(2) – 區域法院法律指引 District Court Advisory 2018 年，區域法院法律指引組由高級助理刑事 Mr David Chan, Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, led

PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 檢控專員陳大偉先生掌管，組內有兩名副主管， the District Court Advisory Section in 2018 which comprises two 分別是高級檢控官招秉茵女士及陳冰華女士， Deputy Section Heads, Senior Public Prosecutors Ms Samantha 2018 另有高級檢控官和檢控官共 21 名。 Chiu and Ms Eva Chan; and 21 Senior Public Prosecutors and Public Prosecutors. 2018 年，該組向執法機關提供 1,576 項法律指 引，並透過一般稱為 FAST 的特快法律指引制度 In 2018, this Section had rendered 1,576 advices to law enforcement

香港刑事檢控 處理另外 205 宗案件。年內，在區域法院檢控 agencies and had handled a further 205 cases via the speedy 的案件共 1,183 宗。案件的種類有販毒、入屋犯 advisory system which is commonly known as “FAST”. A total of 法、搶劫、嚴重交通意外、性罪行，以至欺詐、 1,183 cases were prosecuted in the District Court in 2018. The 串謀詐騙、行騙和洗錢等複雜商業罪案。 cases ranged from drug trafficking, burglary, robbery, serious traffic accidents and sexual offences, to complex commercial crimes of fraud, conspiracy to defraud, deception and money laundering. 涉及欺詐行為的案件日益增加。在香港特別 行政區 訴 張家玲 ( 又名張嘉禧 Florence) [2018] Cases involving fraudulent conducts are on the rise. In HKSAR v HKDC 1274 一案中，被告在香港中文大學修畢 Cheung Ka-ling aka Cheung Ka-hei Florence [2018] HKDC 1274, the Juris Doctor 課程，但學術表現不符合入讀法學 defendant completed a Juris Doctor programme at the Chinese 分科一第 2 組 區域法院法律指引 Section I(2) District Court Advisory

專業證書課程的資格，她遂竄改成績單，結果 University of Hong Kong, but her academic performance did 成功入讀香港大學法學專業證書課程。她又在 not qualify her for the Postgraduate Certificate in Laws (PCLL) 未修畢該課程前偽造法學專業證書，獲律師行 programme. She then falsified her academic transcripts to 聘任為實習律師。她被裁定五項不誠實罪行罪 successfully enrol in the PCLL programme at the University of Hong 名成立。她承認控罪，被判監禁共九個月。 Kong. Without completing the PCLL programme, she secured an employment with a law firm as a trainee solicitor by using a forged PCLL certificate. She was convicted of 5 dishonesty offences and 在香港特別行政區 訴 林卓謙 [2018] HKDC 249 was sentenced to a total of 9 months’ imprisonment upon her guilty 19 一案中，受害人從銀行取得按揭貸款。某天， pleas. 他收到聲稱代表該銀行的財務中介公司的促銷 電話。來電者指受害人違反按揭條款，要求他 In HKSAR v Lam Cheuk-him [2018] HKDC 249, the victim had obtained 到辦公室重新安排按揭。被告在會議上成功誘 a mortgage loan from a bank. One day, he received a cold call from 使受害人向該公司貸款港幣 120 萬元，然後要 a financial intermediary company purporting to represent the bank. 求受害人把其中港幣 45 萬元轉帳到被告的個人 The caller informed the victim that he had breached the mortgage 銀行帳戶，聲稱作償還受害人債務之用，但其 terms and requested the victim to attend their office for refinancing. 實不然。被告承認控罪，被裁定一項“欺詐” At the meeting, the defendant successfully induced the victim to

罪罪名成立，被判監禁 16 個月。 take out a loan of HK$1.2 million from the company. The victim was PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG then requested to transfer HK$450,000 of the loan to the defendant’s

personal bank account, allegedly for settling the victim’s own 2018 除了複雜的欺詐案外，該組也處理各類一般罪 debts, but it was not so used eventually. Upon his guilty plea, the 行案件。在香港特別行政區 訴 葉炳權 [2018] defendant was convicted of a charge of “fraud” and was sentenced to HKDC 1236 一案中，房屋委員會一名經理到被 16 months’ imprisonment. 告居住的公屋單位收樓。被告無視警告，拒絕 香港刑事檢控 遷出，並突然在單位內用火水縱火，毀壞家具、 Complex fraud cases aside, the Section also dealt with a range 牆壁和天花板。被告承認一項“罔顧生命是否 of general crimes. In HKSAR v Yip Ping-kuen [2018] HKDC 1236, a 會受到危害而縱火”罪，被法院判處監禁 24 個 manager of the Housing Authority attended the defendant’s home 月。 at a public housing unit for repossession. The defendant refused to move out despite warnings, and suddenly set the flat on fire 在香港特別行政區 訴 袁志恒 [2018] HKDC 560 with kerosene, damaging the furniture, wall and ceiling. The Court 一案中，被告在網上認識一名未成年女童，她 sentenced the defendant to 24 months’ imprisonment upon his 同意充當被告的“兼職女友”，被告則同意給 guilty plea to a charge of “arson being reckless as to whether life 她港幣 25,000 元，以維持性關係一個月。兩人 would be endangered”. 在被告的住所首次見面時，被告性侵犯該女童， In HKSAR v Yuen Chi-hang [2018] HKDC 560, the defendant was 但拒絕按協議付款。被告更用刀恐嚇女童，不 acquainted with an underage girl online who agreed to be his “part- 准她離開，並繼續猥褻侵犯她。女童在其後的 time girlfriend” and the defendant agreed to pay her HK$25,000 for 糾纏中受傷。被告認罪，被裁定“猥褻侵犯”、 maintaining a sexual relationship with him for one month. On their “非法禁錮”、“刑事恐嚇”和“傷人”罪罪 first encounter at the defendant’s flat, the defendant sexually abused the girl but refused to pay her any money as agreed. The defendant 名成立，判監共 30 個月。 20 further threatened her with a knife disallowing her to leave, and continued to indecently assault her. A struggle ensued which 香港特別行政區 訴 陳天佑 ( 第一被告 ) 及另一 injured the girl. Upon his guilty plea, the defendant was convicted 人 ( 第二被告 ) [2019] HKDC 70 一案涉及虐待兒 of charges of “indecent assault”, “false imprisonment”, “criminal 童。案中一名單親母親把一對四歲孿生女兒交 intimidation” and “wounding”; and was sentenced to a total of 30 託兩名被告照顧。一天，該母親到第一和第二 months’ imprisonment. 被告家中接回長女時發現她失去知覺，身上有 多處瘀傷和傷口。第一和第二被告承認曾毆打 The case of HKSAR v Chan Tin-yau (D1) & Another (D2) [2019] HKDC 70 女童，包括掌摑、拳打，又用打火機燒她雙腿。 is a case of child abuse. A single mother entrusted the defendants to

PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 另一方面，第一被告承認是濫用藥物者，警方 take care of her twin daughters both aged 4. One day, the mother 在她家中搜出若干數量的毒品和適合用作服用 came to D1 and D2’s home to pick up the elder daughter only to 2018 毒品的器具。兩名被告認罪，第一被告被裁定 find that she was in a state of unconsciousness with multiple 三項控罪罪名成立，包括“看管兒童的人虐待 bruises and wounds. D1 and D2 admitted having assaulted the girl by slapping her face, punching her body and burning her legs with 兒童”罪及其他毒品相關罪行，判處監禁共兩 a lighter. On the other hand, D1 was admittedly a drug abuser and a 年零十個月；第二被告同樣被裁定“虐待兒童”

香港刑事檢控 quantity of drugs and apparatus fit for consuming drugs were found 罪罪名成立，判處監禁兩年零八個月。 at her home. Upon their guilty pleas, D1 was convicted of 3 charges including “ill-treatment of child by persons in charge of that child” 2018 年，區域法院審理多宗導致死亡或重傷的 and other drug-related offences; and was sentenced to a total of 2 嚴重交通罪行案件，每宗案件均獲法院嚴正處 years and 10 months’ imprisonment. D2 was convicted of the same 理。在香港特別行政區 訴 方烱華 [2018] HKDC offence of “ill-treatment of child” and was sentenced to 2 years and 8 1593 一案中，被告在深水埗駕駛雙層巴士，沒 months’ imprisonment. 有遵從前面的紅色交通燈號停車，巴士剷上行 人路，導致三人死亡，另外七名行人重傷。被 In 2018, the District Court saw a number of trials of serious traffic 告在認罪後被裁定“危險駕駛引致他人死亡” offences involving death or serious injuries; and the Court had dealt with such cases sternly. In HKSAR v Fong Kwing-wah [2018] HKDC 及“危險駕駛引致他人身體受嚴重傷害”罪罪 1593, the defendant drove a double-decker bus in Sham Shui Po 名成立，判監共 30 個月，取消駕駛資格五年。 and failed to stop in compliance with a red traffic light signal ahead. The bus crashed onto the pavement, causing 3 deaths and serious 該組在過去一年就多種不同罪行提供法律指引。 injuries to 7 other pedestrians. Upon his guilty plea, the defendant 儘管工作繁重，該組成員還為待審案件作審前 was convicted of the offences of “causing death by dangerous 準備，並出席法院就提訊、答辯和判刑、保釋 driving” and “causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving”. He 申請、死因研訊、審訊和上訴進行的聆訊。 was sentenced to a total of 30 months’ imprisonment and was being disqualified from driving for 5 years. 分科一第 3 組 ― Throughout the year, the Section delivered advices on a variety of offences. Despite the caseload, members of the Section also 裁判法院法律指引 prepared cases for trial, and attended Court hearings for plea days, plea and sentences, bail applications, death inquests, trials and 裁判法院法律指引組負責確保在香港七個裁判 appeals. 法院循簡易程序檢控刑事案件的工作績效俱備。 該組 20 名高級檢控官及檢控官的職責是就這些 案件向執法機關提供法律指引，並在審訊和上 Section I(3) – 訴聆訊中出庭檢控較複雜和敏感的案件；而該 Magistrates’ Courts Advisory 組督導的 76 名法庭檢控主任則在審訊中出庭檢 控其餘大部分案件。法庭檢控主任的工作會在 The Magistrates’ Courts Advisory Section is responsible for the efficient and effective prosecutions of criminal cases at the summary 本工作回顧較後部分談及。該組在 2018 年 10 level in the seven Magistrates’ Courts in Hong Kong. Our 20-strong 月前由高級助理刑事檢控專員溫淑芳女士掌管， Senior Public Prosecutors and Public Prosecutors of the Section are 其後由署理高級助理刑事檢控專員鄭凱聰先生 tasked to give legal advice to law enforcement agencies regarding 接掌。 these cases and prosecute the more complex and sensitive ones for trial and appeal; whilst our 76-strong Court Prosecutors under the 由於裁判法院審理香港絕大部分的刑事案件， Section’s supervision prosecute the bulk of the rest for trial whose 21 該組檢控官提供法律指引的職責繁重。2018 年， work is discussed later in this Review. At the helm of the Section until 該組檢控官提供法律指引共 3,880 項，涉及林林 October 2018 was Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Ms 總總的案件，包括複雜詐騙、行騙、偽造、盜竊、 Polly Wan who was succeeded by Acting Senior Assistant Director of 拍攝女子裙底、沒有出租汽車許可證而駕駛私 Public Prosecutions Mr Raymond Cheng. 家車作出租或取酬載客用途、虐待兒童、性侵 犯、與三合會有關的色情及賭博罪行，以及洗 Since the Magistrates’ Courts deal with the lion’s share of criminal cases in Hong Kong, the advisory commitment of our prosecutors 錢等。這些循簡易程序檢控的案件儘管不屬最 is heavy. In 2018, our prosecutors had given 3,880 legal advices 嚴重的類別，但與市民的日常生活相關，伴隨 involving an array of cases ranging from complicated fraud,

社會發展而演變，並往往關乎公眾利益和引起 PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG deception, forgery and theft, to taking upskirt photographs, driving 傳媒關注。該組檢控官已整裝待發，按照《檢 a private car for carriage of passengers for hire or reward without 2018 控守則》為上述種種案件提供專業可靠的法律 a hire car permit, child and sexual abuses, triad-related vice and 指引。 gambling, and money laundering. Although such cases at summary level are not the most serious ones, they concern the everyday life of 下文載述該組處理的一些值得關注或重要的案 members of our community, evolve as our society does, and often 件： attract public interest and media attention. Our prosecutors are 香港刑事檢控 well equipped to give sound and professional legal advices for such 接近 2017 年年底，原訟法庭在岑永根 訴 警務 diverse cases in adherence to the Prosecution’s Code. 處處長 [2017] 5 HKLRD 589 一案中裁定，為使受 憲法保障的私隱權具有實際效力，根據對《警 Some of the interesting or significant cases dealt with by the Section are set out below. 隊條例》( 第 232 章 ) 第 50(6) 條的恰當解釋，警 務人員雖獲授權無需手令而查閱經拘捕後撿取 Towards the end of 2017, the Court of First Instance held in Sham 的手提電話或電子器材內容，但只限於逼切情 Wing Kan v Commissioner of Police [2017] 5 HKLRD 589 that to 況 ，即 (a) 為防止公共或警方安全受到逼切威脅； give meaningful effect to the constitutionally protected right to 分科一第 3 組 裁判法院法律指引 Section I(3) Magistrates’ Courts Advisory

(b) 為防止證據即將失去或毀滅；或 (c) 在極其緊 privacy, on a proper construction of section 50(6) of the Police Force 急的情況下從中搜查證據。因為此判決，警務 Ordinance, Cap 232, a police officer was authorized to search without 人員在沒有手令的情況下查閱手提電話或電子 a warrant the digital content of a mobile phone or digital device 器材內容的合法性在 2018 年開始廣受質疑，甚 seized on arrest only in exigent circumstances, namely, (a) to prevent 而延伸至持依據第 232 章第 50(7) 條發出的手令 an imminent threat to public or Police safety; (b) to prevent an imminent loss or destruction of evidence; or (c) circumstances which 進行的搜查，香港特別行政區 訴 莊志強 ( 觀塘 may lead to the discovery of evidence in extremely urgent situations. 裁判法院刑事案件 2018 年第 650 號 ) 一案正是 As a result, challenges to the lawfulness of police officers’ warrantless 一例。案中被告是休班警務人員，在自動梯攝 22 searches of digital content of mobile phone or digital device began 錄一名女子裙底，當場被捕，其後被控“作出 to loom large in 2018 and extend even to such searches with 有違公德行為”這項普通法罪行。被告被捕後， warrant issued pursuant to section 50(7) of Cap 232. The case HKSAR 被發現管有內藏記憶卡的手機。由於情況並非 v CHONG Chi-keung KTCC 650/2018 was one of such cases. The 逼切至可無需手令而查閱手機和記憶卡，警方 defendant, an off-duty police officer, was charged with the offence of 就該手機和記憶卡申請兩項搜查令，均獲批准， “committing an act outraging public decency” contrary to Common 被刪除的該段裙底錄像其後從記憶卡修復。被 Law for having taken an upskirt video of a female on an escalator and 告在審訊期間提出的答辯論點包括：(1) 依據第 he was caught red-handed. Upon arrest, the defendant was found 232 章第 50(7) 條發出的搜查令無效，因該條只 in possession of a mobile phone which contained an SD card. Since

PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 賦權搜查“地方”，而“地方”不包括手機或 there were no exigent circumstances which might otherwise warrant 記憶卡；以及 (2) 即使手令有效，主審裁判官也 a warrantless search of the mobile phone and the SD card, the Police 2018 不應行使酌情權接納從搜查取得的裙底錄像為 applied for two search warrants in respect of the mobile phone and 證據。主審裁判官將被告定罪時駁回被告的論 the SD card and the applications were granted. The deleted subject upskirt video was recovered from the SD card. The defendant sought 點 (1)，並就論點 (2) 進一步裁定，接納該段裙 to argue at trial, amongst other things, that (1) the search warrants 底錄像為證據 (a) 有利公平審訊；(b) 可兼顧並

香港刑事檢控 issued pursuant to section 50(7) of Cap 232 were invalid because the 協調對私隱權的尊重；以及 (c) 不大可能促使這 section empowers only search of a “place” which does not include 項權利在日後被侵犯。被告被判監禁兩個月。 mobile phone or SD card; and (2) even if the warrants were valid, the trial magistrate should not exercise his discretion to admit the upskirt 同樣在 2017 年年底左右，抗議性侵犯的“#Me video obtained from the search. In convicting the defendant, the trial Too”運動席捲香港。裁判法院在 2018 年審理 magistrate rejected the defendant’s argument under (1) and further 部分此類案件，其一為香港特別行政區 訴 CCT held under (2) that the admission of the upskirt video into evidence ( 九龍城裁判法院刑事案件 2018 年第 1695 號 ) would be (a) conducive to a fair trial; (b) reconcilable with the respect 一案。案中被告被控三項猥褻侵犯罪，違反《刑 due to the right to privacy; and (c) would unlikely encourage any 事罪行條例》( 第 200 章 ) 第 122(1) 條，案情指 future breach of such right. The defendant was sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment. 20 年前 (1996 至 1997 年期間 ) 被告 15 歲時三度 Also around the end of 2017, the “#MeToo” movement against sexual 猥褻侵犯當時八歲的表妹。被告以時效早已消 violation also spread to Hong Kong. In 2018 some of these cases 失為由申請擱置法律程序失敗，經審訊後被裁 were heard in the Magistrates’ Courts. One of them was HKSAR v CCT 定所有控罪成立，被判接受 12 個月感化。 KCCC 1695/2018. In this case the defendant was prosecuted with 3 counts of indecent assault, contrary to section 122(1) of the Crimes 另一方面，2018 年繼續有一些被指非法侵犯個 Ordinance, Cap 200, for having indecently assaulted his female 人權利與自由的法定罪行被質疑是否合憲，令 cousin on 3 occasions 20 years ago back in 1996 to 1997 when she was 8 years old and the defendant 15 years old. Following an 這方面的法律難題得以闡釋。在香港特別行政 unsuccessful application for stay of proceedings on the ground of 區 訴 黃敬牧 ( 粉嶺裁判法院刑事案件 2017 年第 long lapse of time, the defendant was convicted of all the charges 2466 號 ) 一案中，被告無視警務人員多番警告， after trial and was sentenced to being placed under a Probation 進入屬禁區的落馬洲港鐵站售票大堂，並留在 Order for 12 months. 該處接收來自身分不詳人士的多袋貨物，被控 “無許可證進入禁區”罪，違反《公安條例》( 第 On the other hand, challenges on constitutionality of statutory 245 章 ) 第 38(1)(a) 條。被告試圖辯稱，該罪行 offences that allegedly impermissibly infringe one’s rights and 條文限制《基本法》第三十一條及適用於香港 freedom continued in 2018 to help explicate this difficult area of 的《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》相關條文 law. In HKSAR v WONG King-muk FLCC 2466/2017, the defendant 所確立的遷徙自由，故屬違憲。裁判官將被告 was charged with an offence of “entering a closed area without a 定罪時裁定，該罪行條文有必要對禁區內的遷 permit”, contrary to section 38(1)(a) of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap 245, for having entered the Ticketing Hall of the Lok Ma Chau 徙自由施加限制，以保障公眾安全及維持公眾 MTR Station which is a closed area and stayed therein to collect bags 秩序。被告被判監禁六星期。 of goods from unknown persons despite repeated warnings given by police officers. The defendant sought to argue that the restriction 該組鼓勵檢控官與時並進，在百忙中抽空了解 imposed on his freedom of movement enshrined under Articles 31 法律的最新發展，並透過參與內部研討會、培 of the Basic Law and the relevant provisions under the International 訓及教育暨消閒活動，建立協作關係。下文概 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as applied to Hong Kong 述這類特別為該組檢控官設計的活動。 by the offence provision was unconstitutional. In convicting the 23 defendant the magistrate held that the restrictions on one’s freedom 該組的檢控官在 2 月參加社會福利署舉辦的培 of movement in closed area imposed by the offence provision 訓課程，內容講述如何處理涉及兒童和精神上 was necessary for upholding public safety and public order. The 無行為能力人士的虐待個案。課程讓檢控官了 defendant was sentenced to 6 week’s imprisonment. 解問題複雜之處，有助他們處理裁判法院絕大 部分此類案件。 Amidst the hectic work of the prosecutors of the Section, they are encouraged to keep themselves abreast of the latest developments in the law and participate in synergy-building activities through in-

house seminars, trainings, and educational cum leisure activities. PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG Some of these activities specifically designed for prosecutors of the

Section are highlighted below. 2018

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

In December, our prosecutors visited the Police Traffic Branch Headquarters and the Police Driving and Traffic Training Centre, where they participated in a series of experience sharing activities which helped brush up our prosecutors’ understanding of the most up-to-date traffic enforcement policies and prosecutions. Our 該組檢控官在 12 月參觀警務處交通總部和警察 prosecutors were also given a treat to a demonstration of the state- 駕駛及交通訓練中心，其間參與連串經驗分享 of-the-art traffic enforcement equipment. 活動。這些活動有助檢控官加深對最新交通執 法政策和交通違例檢控工作的了解，警方更向 Prosecutors of the Section also took part in international conferences such as the 56th Annual Conference of the International Association 他們示範如何操作先進的交通執法設備。 of Prosecutors held in Johannesburg, South Africa; and the Conference on Equality in Asia Pacific held in Hong Kong. 該組檢控官也參與多個國際會議，例如在南非 約翰內斯堡舉行的第五十六屆國際檢察官聯合 會年會，以及在香港舉行的平等共融亞太區 Section I(4) – Public Order 會議。 Events & Cybercrime

The Section was headed by Mr Raymond Cheng and subsequently 分科一第 4 組 ― by Mr Ira Lui, both Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions at the 公眾秩序活動及電腦網 time. There were 4 Senior Public Prosecutors in the Section. 絡罪行 Into the fourth year since its establishment in 2015, the Section continued to provide legal advice to the Police on cases involving 該組先後由時任助理刑事檢控專員鄭凱聰先生 disruption of public order, including riot, unlawful assembly and 和雷芷茗先生掌管，組內有四名高級檢控官。 other violence related offences. The year of 2018 also saw a number of cases emanating from the Occupy Central Movement between 該組自 2015 年成立至今已有四年，繼續就涉及 September and December 2014 and the riotous incident in 擾亂公眾秩序的案件 ( 包括暴動、非法集結及其 Mongkok over the Chinese New Year of 2016 reaching conclusions 他暴力相關罪行 )，向警方提供法律指引。年內， at trial. Some of the notable cases are highlighted below. 多宗源於 2014 年 9 月至 12 月期間的佔領中環 In HKSAR v Tai Yiu-ting & 8 Others [2019] HKDC 450, the relevant 行動和 年農曆新年期間的旺角暴亂事件的 2016 defendants were charged with “conspiracy to commit public 24 案件審結，下文概述一些值得注意的案件。 nuisance” for having conspired to conduct a civil disobedience movement known as “Occupy Central” to cause a nuisance to the 在香港特別行政區 訴 戴耀廷及另八人 [2019] public through unlawful obstruction of public places and roads HKDC 450 一案中，相關被告串謀進行稱為“佔 in or in the neighbourhood of Central. The defendants were also 領中環”的公民抗命運動，非法阻礙中環或中 charged with offences of “incitement to commit public nuisance” and 環周圍的公眾地方和道路，對公眾造成妨擾， “incitement to incite public nuisance”, for having unlawfully incited 被控“串謀犯公眾妨擾”罪。一眾被告也就 other persons to cause, and to incite others to cause, a nuisance 2014 年 9 月 27 和 28 日非法煽惑他人和煽惑他 to the public by unlawfully obstructing the major thoroughfares 人去煽惑其他人非法阻礙金鐘的主要道路，對 in Admiralty on 27 and 28 September 2014. All the defendants PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 公眾造成妨擾，被控“煽惑他人犯公眾妨擾” pleaded not guilty and were convicted of the respective charges 罪和“煽惑他人煽惑公眾妨擾”罪。各被告一 after trial (save and except D1 to D3 who were acquitted on some 2018 of the charges). They were sentenced to sentences ranging from 律不認罪，經審訊後被裁定相關控罪成立 ( 除了 suspended sentence, community service order, to imprisonment for 第一至第三被告若干控罪不成立 )，分別判處緩 16 months. 刑、社會服務令，以至監禁 16 個月不等。

香港刑事檢控 In HKSAR v Mo Jia-tao & 10 Others [2018] HKDC 225, the defendants 在香港特別行政區 訴 莫嘉濤及另十人 [2018] were charged with offences of “riot” and other criminal offences. HKDC 225 一案中，被告被控“暴動”及其他刑 The case arose from the riotous incident in Mongkok on 9 February 事罪行。此案源自 2016 年 2 月 9 日的旺角暴亂 2016, when a large crowd of protesters attacked the police officers 事件，當日大批示威人士襲擊正在執勤維持公 who were performing the duties to maintain public order and 眾秩序的警員，並向他們投擲磚頭和玻璃樽。 hurled objects including bricks and glass bottles at the Police. One 其中一名被告潛逃不應訊，而另一名被告承認 of the defendants absconded from the proceedings, and another 一項“暴動”控罪，被判監禁 28 個月。其餘九 defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of “riot” and was sentenced 名被告經審訊後被裁定“暴動”罪及其他刑事 to 28 months’ imprisonment. The remaining 9 defendants were convicted after trial of “riot” and other criminal offences. 8 of them 罪行罪名成立，當中八人判監 33 至 51 個月不 等，一人判入教導所。

在香港特別行政區 訴 鄧浩賢 [2018] HKDC 393 一案中，被告在 2016 年 2 月 9 日參與旺角暴亂 事件期間，與其他示威人士一起向警方防線投 擲磚頭。他承認干犯“暴動”罪，被判監禁兩 年零十個月。被告就刑罰提出上訴，被上訴法 庭駁回。

2018 年也有多宗案件源自在立法會範圍內及其 他公眾地方發生的衝突。

在香港特別行政區 訴 梁頌恆及另四人 ( 九龍城 分科一第 4 組 公眾秩序活動及電腦網絡罪行 裁判法院刑事案件 2017 年第 2035 號 ) 一案中， Section I(4) Public Order Events & Cybercrime 一眾被告被控“在立法會內參與非法集結”， 衝擊保安人員防線，並企圖強行進入舉行立法 were sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from 33 months 會會議的會議室。多名立法會保安人員在混亂 to 51 months, and one was sentenced to detention in a Training 中受傷。所有被告經審訊後被裁定罪名成立， Centre. 各判監四星期。 In HKSAR v Tang Ho-yin [2018] HKDC 393, the defendant pleaded 在香港特別行政區 訴 高傑飛及另三人 [2018] guilty to “riot” for having hurled bricks at a checkline formed by the HKCFI 2819 一案中，四名上訴人及另一人趁對 Police together with other protesters during the Mongkok riotous 立政治陣營一名成員出訪台灣後抵達香港國際 incident on 9 February 2016. He was sentenced to 2 years and 10 months’ imprisonment. His appeal against sentence was dismissed 機場時，施以包圍、責罵和襲擊，被裁定“參 25 by the Court of Appeal. 與非法集結”罪名成立，各判監三個月。他們 不服定罪提出上訴，被原訟法庭駁回。 The year of 2018 also saw cases arising from clashes within precincts of the Legislative Council and in other public places. 該組也就涉及對公眾構成不便或危險的行為的 案件，提供法律指引。在香港特別行政區 訴 蘇 In HKSAR v Leung Chung-hang Sixtus & 4 Others KCCC 2035/2017, the 良恩及另十八人 ( 東區裁判法院刑事案件 2018 defendants were charged with “taking part in an unlawful assembly” 年第 1473 號 ) 一案中，19 名被告被控“擅入機 inside the Legislative Council for charging at a defence line formed 動遊戲機”罪。他們擅入位於中環的香港摩天 by the security officers and attempting to force their way into the

Conference Room where the Legislative Council meeting was held. PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 輪，爬上摩天輪的輪輻，企圖展示橫額抗議。 A number of the security officers of the Legislative Council were 然而，當時風大，橫額未能展開，反而纏着摩 2018

injured in the chaos. All defendants were convicted after trial and 天輪的風速儀使之損毀，最終令摩天輪停止運 each was sentenced to 4 weeks’ imprisonment. 作一天，多名訪客無法乘坐摩天輪，而警方為 安全計須封鎖摩天輪附近道路。各被告在認罪 In HKSAR v Giok Kheng & 3 Others [2018] HKCFI 2819, the 4 後一律被裁定罪名成立，判處罰款。 appellants and another were found guilty of “taking part in an 香港刑事檢控 unlawful assembly” for having surrounded, scolded and assaulted a 此外，該組也就涉及電腦網絡罪行 ( 包括在電腦 person of the opposing political camp when he arrived at the Hong 管有兒童色情物品罪 ) 的案件，提供法律指引。 Kong International Airport following a trip to Taiwan. Each of the 在香港特別行政區 訴 黃希樂 [2018] HKDC 1365 appellants was sentenced to a term of 3 months’ imprisonment. 一案中，被告被控一項“管有兒童色情物品” Their appeals against conviction were dismissed by the Court of First 罪。警方在搜查被告寓所期間檢取其電腦，經 Instance. 鑑證後發現其內儲存共 107 段兒童色情錄影片 The Section also advised on cases involving conduct that gave rise 段和 幅兒童色情照片。被告在認罪後被裁定 54 to inconvenience or posed a danger to members of the public. 罪名成立，判監十個月。 In HKSAR v So Leung-yan & 18 Others ESCC 1473/2018, the 19 defendants were charged with the offence of “trespassing on an amusement ride”. The defendants trespassed onto the Hong Kong Observation Wheel in Central and climbed onto the spokes of the wheel in an attempt to display a banner for demonstration. Due to the strong wind, they failed to unfold the banner, which got entangled with and damaged an anemometer on the wheel. As a result, the wheel was closed for operation for 1 day, and a number of visitors were prevented from riding the wheel. The Police had to cordon off the roads in the vicinity of the wheel for safety reasons. All the defendants were convicted on their own pleas and were fined.

The Section also rendered legal advice on cases involving cybercrime, including offences of possession of child pornography on computers. In HKSAR v Wong Hay-lok [2018] HKDC 1365, the 總法庭檢控主任 Chief Court Prosecutors defendant faced a charge of possession of child pornography. The defendant’s computer was seized by the Police during a house search. Forensic examination of the defendant’s computer revealed 法庭檢控主任 that a total of 107 video clips and 54 photographs containing child pornography were stored on the computer. Convicted on his own 對法庭檢控主任來說， 年是碩果豐收的一 2018 plea, the defendant was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment. 年。《在裁判法院的檢控工作：未來的發展路 向》諮詢文件建議的各項措施，在 2018 和 2019 Court Prosecutors 年逐步落實。其中一項措施關乎自 2017 年起在 東區和西九龍裁判法院派駐高級檢控官，負責 2018 was a fruitful year for the Court Prosecutors. The initiatives 掌管法庭檢控主任團隊。這些高級檢控官與法 proposed in the Consultation Paper on “Prosecution Works in the 26 庭檢控主任緊密合作，就突發情況或敏感事宜， Magistracy: Direction for the Future” have been implemented 適時向法庭檢控主任提供意見。此外，他們也 progressively in 2018 and 2019. One of the initiatives concerned 為檢控案件的外判律師提供強大的支援和確切 the posting of Senior Public Prosecutors to the Eastern and West 的指引。另一項措施是把裁判法院檢控辦事處 Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts since 2017 to head the teams of 的種種職務分類為“表列”和“非表列”職務， Court Prosecutors. The Senior Public Prosecutors worked closely with the Court Prosecutors by providing them with timely advice 法庭檢控主任現只須履行“非表列”職務，故 on ad hoc or sensitive issues; and they also gave strong support 可分配更多時間集中精力專責處理“非表列” and guidance to lawyers who prosecuted cases on fiat. Another 職務，使工作效率和質素得以大大提高。另一 initiative concerned the classification of the myriad duties of the 方面，2018 年恢復招聘法庭檢控主任，也有助 PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG Prosecution Offices in the Magistracies into “scheduled” and “non- 解決人手短缺問題，並使法庭檢控主任職系更 scheduled” duties whereby the Court Prosecutors are now only

2018 為年輕。新入職人員自 2018 年 8 月起參加培訓 required to perform “non-scheduled” duties so that they can devote 課程，學習在裁判法院進行檢控工作所必需的 more time and effort to focus and specialise on such duties which 法律知識和實用技巧。他們將於 2019 年 5 月派 greatly enhanced their efficiency and the quality of their work. On 駐不同裁判法院。為進一步緩和人手短缺問題 the other hand, the resumption of recruitment of Court Prosecutors

香港刑事檢控 並改善職系的晉升前景，2019 年將分階段增設 in 2018 had also helped address the shortage in manpower and 高級二等法庭檢控主任的職位。 rejuvenate the Court Prosecutors Grade. The new recruits had since August 2018 been attending courses to equip themselves with the 2018 年，律政司在全港七個裁判法院派駐 66 名 requisite legal knowledge and practical skills for prosecution work 法庭檢控主任。他們聯同外判檢控人員年內共 in the Magistracies. They will be posted to different Magistracies in May 2019. To further help alleviate the shortage in manpower and 處理 146,352 宗裁判法院審理的案件。法庭檢控 enhance the promotional prospect of the Grade, additional posts 主任負責檢控由警方、香港海關和強制性公積 at the rank of Senior Court Prosecutors II will be created in stages in 金計劃管理局提供資料的案件，也負責檢控由 2019. 入境事務處、食物環境衞生署和其他執法機關 及法定機構調查的若干特別案件。 裁判法院審理過一些多人談論並獲廣泛報道的 In 2018, 66 Court Prosecutors were attached to the 7 Magistrates’ 案件，現概述如下。 Courts. Together with the prosecutors on fiat, they had dealt with a total of 146,352 cases heard in the Magistracies in 2018. The Court 在香港特別行政區 訴 李亮 ( 東區裁判法院刑事 Prosecutors prosecuted cases involving information laid by the 案件 2015 年第 1798 號及東區裁判法院刑事案 Police, the Customs and Excise Department and the Mandatory 件 2018 年第 2794 號 ) 一案中，被告被裁定“使 Provident Fund Schemes Authority. They also prosecuted some 用偽造身分證”、“沒有歸押”、“逃離合法 special cases investigated by the Immigration Department, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department and other law enforcement 羈押”及“抗拒警務人員”罪罪名成立。2015 agencies and statutory bodies. 年，被告使用偽造身分證向美國領事館申請簽 證，但被領事館職員揭發。被告在審訊期間不 Highlighted below are some of the cases heard in the Magistracies 知所終，法庭遂向他發出拘捕令。2018 年 11 月， which were particularly interesting and had attracted a great deal of 被告試圖持前所未知的護照經香港國際機場進 publicity. 入香港，被揭發為通緝人士。被告在警方扣押 期間指稱身體不適，送院診治，其後趁機從病 In HKSAR v Li Leon ESCC 1798/2015 & ESCC 2794/2018, the defendant 房廁所的假天花逃走。被告翌日被發現身處灣 was convicted of “using a forged identify card”, “failing to surrender to 仔某酒店內，被捕時向警方作出反抗。被告承 custody”, “escape from legal custody” and “resisting a police officer”. In 2015, the defendant used a forged identity card to apply for a 認上述控罪，判監共 18 個月。 visa from the US Consulate but was discovered by its staff. In the middle of the trial, the defendant disappeared and a warrant for his 在香港特別行政區 訴 雲泉仙館有限公司 ( 粉嶺 arrest was issued. In November 2018, the defendant attempted to 裁判法院傳票案件 2018 年第 9068 號 ) 一案中， enter Hong Kong at the International Airport on the strength of a 被告公司在認罪後被裁定“殘酷對待動物”罪 previously unknown passport. His wanted status was discovered. During police custody, the defendant was sent to the hospital for allegedly feeling unwell where he took the chance to escape via the suspended ceiling of a toilet in his ward. The defendant was later located inside a hotel in Wanchai on the following day. He 27 put up a struggle with the police upon arrest. The defendant was charged with the above offences to which he pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to a total of 18 months’ imprisonment.

In HKSAR v The Wun Chuen Sin Kwoon Association Ltd FLS 9068/2018, the defendant company was convicted of “cruelty to animals” upon its own plea. The defendant company ran a temple which allowed visitors to set free their turtles by placing them in a pool within the temple’s premises. However, 5 of such turtles in the pool were found PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 東區裁判法院法庭檢控主任 dead and 38 others were found in poor condition of underweight Court Prosecutors in the Eastern Magistrates’ Courts 2018

香港刑事檢控

觀塘裁判法院法庭檢控主任 九龍城裁判法院法庭檢控主任 Court Prosecutors in the Kwun Tong Magistrates’ Courts Court Prosecutors in the Kowloon City Magistrates’ Courts 西九龍裁判法院法庭檢控主任 屯門裁判法院法庭檢控主任 Court Prosecutors in the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts Court Prosecutors in the Tuen Mun Magistrates’ Courts

名成立。被告公司經營的廟宇容許訪客到廟宇 and dehydrated. The veterinary expert was of the view that the 內的水池放生烏龜。然而，有人發現水池內有 turtles had endured unnecessary suffering due to insufficient food 五隻烏龜死去，另有 38 隻身體狀況欠佳，不是 and water. The defendant company was fined a total of HK$50,000. 過輕就是脫水。獸醫專家認為這些烏龜因食物 In HKSAR v Tsui San-kwan KTCC 2001/2018, the defendant was 和食水不足而蒙受不必要的痛苦。被告公司遭 convicted of “administering poison or other destructive or noxious 罰款共港幣 50,000 元。 thing with intent to injure” upon her own plea. The defendant’s son was studying in a primary school where the victim in the charges 28 在香港特別行政區 訴 徐新群 觀塘裁判法院刑 ( was one of the teachers. Being aggrieved with the teacher’s 事案件 2018 年第 2001 號 ) 一案中，被告在認罪 comments that her son was having behavioural problem, the 後被裁定“意圖損害而施用毒藥或其他殘害性 defendant approached the victim in the lobby of the school with a 物品或有害物品”罪罪名成立。控罪中的受害 canister of insecticide. She sprayed insecticide at the victim’s face 人是被告兒子就讀小學的一名教師。被告因教 and kept doing it even though the victim tried to run away from her. 師批評其兒子有行為問題而感到受屈，在學校 As a result, the victim sustained bilateral eye redness. The defendant 大堂手持罐裝殺蟲劑走向受害人，朝受害人臉 was put on probation for 18 months. 部噴灑殺蟲劑，即使受害人嘗試走避，被告仍 繼續噴灑，令受害人雙眼發紅。被告被判接受 In HKSAR v Pang Yuk-ching KCCC 1581/2018, the defendant, an

PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG elderly woman aged 80, was charged with “common assault” and 18 個月感化。 “criminal intimidation”. The defendant’s son employed the victim in 2018

the charges who was an Indonesian domestic helper to take care 在香港特別行政區 訴 彭玉貞 ( 九龍城裁判法院 of the defendant. On various occasions, the defendant scolded the 刑事案件 2018 年第 1581 號 ) 一案中，被告為一 victim and slapped her mouth, chest and arms. The defendant also 名 歲老婦，被控“普通襲擊”和“刑事恐嚇” 80 threatened to injure and kill her. One of such incidents of assault 罪。控罪中的受害人是被告兒子僱用的印尼籍

香港刑事檢控 was recorded and uploaded to the Internet. The defendant was 家庭傭工，負責照顧被告。被告曾多次責罵受 later found to suffer from dementia. Although there was sufficient 害人，掌摑其嘴巴，又拍打其胸部和手臂，更 evidence to proceed with the charges laid against the defendant, 恐嚇會傷害和殺死受害人。其中一次襲擊事件 having considered the special circumstances of the case, including 被攝錄下來，並上載到互聯網。被告其後被發 the minor injuries suffered by the victim; the victim’s agreement 現患有認知障礙症。雖然有充分證據起訴被告， to allowing the defendant to be bound over; and the poor health 但考慮到該案的特殊情況，包括受害人只受輕 condition of the defendant, with the leave of the court, the 傷；受害人同意讓被告簽保；以及被告健康欠 defendant was bound over in the sum of HK$3,000 for 2 years with 佳，經法院許可，被告獲撤銷控罪，並准以港 the charges withdrawn. 幣 3,000 元簽保，守行為兩年。 粉嶺裁判法院法庭檢控主任 沙田裁判法院法庭檢控主任 Court Prosecutors in the Fanling Magistrates’ Courts Court Prosecutors in the Sha Tin Magistrates’ Courts

為改善裁判法院檢控工作的質素，法庭檢控主 With a view to enhancing the quality of the prosecution work in 任積極參與培訓工作，對象為負責調查和籌備 the Magistracies, our Court Prosecutors took active part in training 案件審訊的執法機構人員，以及可在裁判法院 officers of the law enforcement agencies who are responsible for 檢控案件但年資較淺的法律執業者。總法庭檢 conducting investigations and preparation of cases for trial; and 控主任李家雄先生為 30 名總督察舉辦工作坊， training junior members of the legal professions who may prosecute 就毒品案所涉的種種問題分享經驗。李先生也 cases in the Magistracies. Our Chief Court Prosecutor Mr Angus Lee had conducted workshop for 30 Chief Inspectors of the Police to 為該科新入職的檢控官和見習律政人員舉辦講 share his experiences on various issues relating to drug cases. Mr Lee 座，講解裁判法院的檢控工作和法院程序，向 29 also gave talks to the newly recruited Public Prosecutors and legal 他們灌輸最新資訊，俾能在短期內獨自進行檢 trainees of the Prosecutions Division about prosecution work and 控工作。此外，高級一等法庭檢控主任黎莉莉 curial procedures in the Magistracies to equip them with the latest 女士與警務處見習督察分享經驗，談論如何適 information so that they can stand on their own feet to prosecute in 當地籌備案件和在庭上作證的常見錯誤。高級 the near future. Our Senior Court Prosecutor I Ms Lily Lai also shared 二等法庭檢控主任黃華芬先生和署理高級二等 her experiences with the Probationary Inspectors of the Police on 法庭檢控主任邱錫倫先生分別為警務人員舉辦 how to prepare cases properly and common mistakes in giving 研討會，探討籌備案件的常見錯誤和在庭上作 evidence in court. Our Senior Court Prosecutor II Mr William Wong 證的正確方式。另外，兩名高級二等法庭檢控 and Acting Senior Court Prosecutor II Mr Alan Yau each conducted a 主任黃華芬先生與周晅女士各自為東九龍警區 seminar for police officers on common mistakes in case preparation PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 的警務人員講解有關法院程序的事宜。上述所 and proper manner in giving evidence in court. Further, Senior Court 2018 有工作坊、研討會、講座和演講均以已審結的 Prosecutor IIs Mr William Wong and Ms Ivy Chau each gave a lecture 案件為輔助例子，有助解釋常犯的錯誤和適當 to police officers of the Kowloon East District on matters about the court proceedings. All the aforesaid workshops, seminars, talks and 的補救方法，大獲參加者好評。 lectures were well received with the aid of some concluded cases as

examples which helped explain the common mistakes made and 香港刑事檢控 2018 年，該科法庭檢控主任不斷提升法律專業 the appropriate remedies. 資格。截至 2018 年年底，在 76 名法庭檢控主 任 ( 包括 10 名新聘的法庭檢控主任 ) 中，有八 Our Court Prosecutors keep on improving their legal qualifications in 人擁有執業律師資格，其中一人獲認許為大律 2018. As at the end of 2018, of the 76 Court Prosecutors (including 師；五人持有法學專業證書；九人完成法學碩 the 10 new recruits), 8 were fully qualified lawyers with 1 of them 士課程；24 人取得法學士學位或同等學歷。現 called to the Bar; 5 of them had obtained the PCLL qualification; 9 an 時，一名法庭檢控主任正就讀第三年兼讀制法 LLM and 24 an LLB or equivalent qualification. 1 Court Prosecutor is 學士學位課程。 currently doing his third year LLB part-time study. 分科二 政策及政務 Sub-division II Policy and Administration

分科二由刑事檢控專員辦公室、犯罪得益組及 部門檢控組組成，職責範疇多元化，涵蓋行政、 管理、制定政策、就犯罪得益及部門檢控向執法 機關提供法律指引、處理涉及截取通訊及監察的 案件，以及回應傳媒及公眾索取資料和提供協助 的要求。此外，本分科為訪客及司內其他科別的 同事舉辦和協調各類項目和活動，例如法律研討 30 會、培訓、招待暨簡報會及講座，也有安排一些 建立協作關係的社交聚會，幫助司內同事增進友 誼。2018 年，本分科由副刑事檢控專員暨人事 主管許紹鼎資深大律師領導。

Sub-division II, comprising the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Proceeds of Crime Section and the Departmental Prosecutions Section, has a diversified work portfolio which encompasses matters relating to administration, PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG management, policy development, providing legal advice to law enforcement agencies 2018 concerning proceeds of crime and departmental prosecutions, handling cases involving interception of communication and surveillance, and answering requests for information and assistance from

香港刑事檢控 media and the general public. The sub-division also organises and coordinates events and activities such as law conferences, trainings, reception briefings and talks for visiting guests and colleagues from other divisions of the Department, and synergy-building social gatherings which help enhance camaraderie within the Department. In 2018, the sub-division was led by Mr Martin Hui SC, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions cum Chief of Staff. 分科二 政策及政務 Sub-division II Policy and Administration

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

刑事檢控專員辦公室 ( 專員辦公室 ) 致力促進刑 Prosecutions 事檢控科日常運作的成效，確保本科時刻全力以 The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) is 赴，有效率地履行職務。 年，專員辦公室 2018 dedicated to facilitating the effective day-to-day operation of the 31 由副刑事檢控專員暨人事主管許紹鼎資深大律師 Prosecutions Division and ensuring that the Division is always 掌管，高級助理刑事檢控專員 ( 專員辦公室 ) 何 on its mettle to discharge its functions efficiently. In 2018, the 詠光先生擔任副手。 ODPP was headed by Mr Martin Hui SC, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions cum Chief of Staff, who was assisted by Mr Paul Ho, 專員辦公室的職責廣泛多元，包括所有與行政及 Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions (SADPP(ODPP)). 管理、政策、處理傳媒查詢、投訴及意見、培訓 有關的事宜。在高級助理刑事檢控專員 ( 專員辦 The responsibilities of the ODPP are extensive and multifarious. They include all matters relating to administration and 公室 ) 的督導下，五名高級檢控官擔任這五大工 management, policy, handling media enquiries, complaints

作範疇的經理。 PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG and feedback, and attending to training matters. Under the supervision of SADPP(ODPP), 5 Senior Public Prosecutors work in 2018 高級助理刑事檢控專員 ( 專員辦公室 ) 也負責督 their capacity as Managers across these 5 major areas of work. 導本科的法律支援團隊，當中包括八名法律翻 譯主任及 26 名律政書記。他們提供不可或缺的 SADPP(ODPP) also supervises the Division’s legal support team, 法律支援服務，協助本科所有檢控官履行專業職 comprising 8 Law Translation Officers and 26 Law Clerks. Their 務。 legal support service is indispensable to the professional discharge 香港刑事檢控 of the duties of all counsel within the Division. 傳媒關係組 Media Relations 刑事司法制度的有效運作依賴制度整體能獲社會 信任和接納。公眾從傳媒接收的資訊相當影響他 The effective operation of the criminal justice system depends on its trust and acceptance by the community as a whole. The 們對刑事司法制度成效的觀感，以至對制度的接 information which the public receives from the media will have a 納程度。 significant impact on their perception on the effectiveness of the system, hence their acceptance of the system. 刑事檢控專員辦公室 Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

控方設有既定機制，確保在合適情況下向傳媒 The prosecution is well placed to assist the media by providing 提供相關資訊。刑事檢控專員辦公室致力使公 relevant information whenever appropriate. The ODPP strives to 眾全面而恰當地獲知刑事司法制度的各方面。 keep the public fully and properly informed of different aspects of 為協助傳媒，刑事檢控專員辦公室負責傳媒關 the criminal justice system. To assist the media, colleagues of the 係事務的同事適時向傳媒提供完整的資訊，協 ODPP tasked with media relation work provide timely and complete 32 助傳媒作出公正準確的即時報導。這些資訊可 information to the press with a view to aiding them in making fair, accurate and contemporaneous reports. Such information may 包括在法庭聆訊中已公開的事宜，例如在法庭 include matters which have been presented in open court such as 聆訊中公開宣讀的控罪及案情摘要、一些已確 charges and brief facts as read out in court, the settled future course 定的未來事態及其他有關案件的一般公開資料。 of events and other general open information about a case.

根據統計，我們在 2018 年收到傳媒逾 130 項有 Statistically, over 130 media enquiries were received from the press 關各類刑事案件資訊和刑事檢控科各項事宜的 in 2018 for information about various criminal cases and matters 查詢，當中許多是對新案件或判決的即時跟進 concerning the Prosecutions Division. Many of them concerned 查詢。傳媒也問及本司所作的檢控決定和檢控 immediate follow-ups on fresh cases or judgments. Questions were PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 政策。此外，個別記者為使預備發表的專題文 also raised on the making of prosecutorial decisions and prosecution

2018 policy. From time to time, individual reporters also sent in enquiries 章更為充實，會不時提出查詢。為回應公眾特 別關注的事項，本司會按照《檢控守則》的規 with a view to enriching the contents of their featured articles to 定，經傳媒向公眾解釋本司的立場和採取某項 be published. To address matters of particular public concern, in accordance with the Prosecution Code, the Department would 行動的理由。 explain through the media to the public, the Department’s position 香港刑事檢控 and reasons for certain course of action. 刑事檢控專員辦公室繼續與傳媒保持負責任及 良好互動的關係，在維持司法制度公開公正的 The ODPP continues to preserve a responsible and dynamic 公眾利益，與保障罪行受害人或證人的私隱權 relationship with the media by balancing the public interest in 和尊嚴之間取得平衡。刑事檢控專員辦公室的 maintaining open justice and the right to privacy and dignity of the 同事和刑事檢控專員緊密合作，確保本科人員 victims or witnesses of crimes. The colleagues of the ODPP and the 遵照《檢控守則》向傳媒適時提供準確和完整 Director of Public Prosecutions work closely to ensure that accurate, 的資料。 complete and timely information and materials are provided to the media in compliance with the Prosecution Code. 管理組 Management

刑事檢控科負責香港各級法院所有刑事案件的 The Prosecutions Division has conduct of all criminal cases in the 檢控工作。刑事檢控專員辦公室轄下管理組的 courts of Hong Kong. The Management Unit of the ODPP has the 職責是維持本科有效暢順運作。 duty of maintaining the efficient and smooth functioning of the Division. 管理組主要職責之一是把法庭案件分派給合適 One of the primary duties of the Unit is to assign court cases to 的科內檢控人員或外判律師，以及把要求法律 appropriate in-house prosecutor or fiat counsel, and to refer requests 指引的個案轉交具備最適當專門知識的組別或 for legal advice to sections or prosecutors who have the most 檢控人員處理。管理組繼續保持高水準的服務， appropriate expertise to deal with them. In continuing to maintain 適時處理執法機關／政府部門有關提供法律指 its high standard of performance, the Unit handles requests from law 引和委派檢控人員出庭檢控的要求。管理組會 enforcement agencies/departments for legal advice and provides 因應每宗案件的複雜程度，以及檢控人員的資 prosecutors to prosecute in a timely manner. In performing this duty, 歷、專業經驗和培訓需要，履行分派案件的職 the Unit bears in mind the complexity of each individual case, as 務。2018 年，分派給科內檢控人員處理的法庭 well as the seniority, exposure and training needs of the prosecutors 案件達 3,730 宗。 assigned. In 2018, 3,730 court cases were assigned to in-house prosecutors. 無論是分派給檢控人員出庭檢控的法庭案件， Very often, whether it is an assignment of court case or a referral/ 或是轉交／要求法律指引的個案，往往涉及相 request for legal advice, they invariably carry with them imminent 當緊迫的聆訊日期或必須提出檢控的時限。管 court dates and time bars for commencement of proceedings. The 理組經理須以謹慎敏銳的態度監督本組機制及 Unit manager has to monitor and supervise the system and the 人員的運作，確保案件檔案的流程及通報機制 personnel carefully and sensitively to ensure that the file movement 有效運作，令檢控人員能妥善執行職務。 system and the notification mechanism function properly so that they can facilitate prosecutors’ work. 當科內人手緊張，或本科檢控人員對處理某宗 33 案件有利益衝突，又或基於某宗個案的性質或 When manpower in the Division is strained or when there is a conflict 複雜程度所需，本組會把法庭案件或尋求法律 of interest, or when the nature or complexity of a case so warrants, 指引的個案外判予私人執業的大律師或事務律 court or advice cases are briefed out to barristers or solicitors in 師處理。本組會不斷檢討和監察外判案件的機 private practice. The briefing out system and the performance of 制和外判律師的表現，以貫徹本司致力確保刑 lawyers on fiat are kept under constant review and scrutiny. This is to give effect to the Department’s commitment in ensuring that the 事檢控達到高度專業水平的目標。 public prosecution service is provided at a high level of professional competency. 管理組另一項重要工作是處理訟費事宜。刑事

檢控專員辦公室的檢控人員負責評估控方所提 Another important aspect of the work handled by the Unit is costs PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 出和辯方向控方提出的訟費申索，以及出席訟 matter. Prosecutors in the ODPP are responsible for assessing claims 2018 費評定的法庭聆訊 ( 包括覆核及相關上訴程序 )。 for costs by and against the prosecution and attending taxation 在 2018 年 1 月至 12 月期間，由刑事檢控專員 hearings (including reviews and related appellate proceedings). 辦公室處理的待決訟費個案約有 333 宗。 Between January and December 2018, there were 333 active costs cases handled by the ODPP. 培訓組 香港刑事檢控 Training 一如以往，我們在 2018 年為新入職的檢控官和 As in previous years, 2 rounds of Criminal Advocacy Course were 見習律政人員舉辦了兩班刑事訟辯課程。課程 arranged for the newly recruited Public Prosecutors and Legal 分為三部分：首先，學員出席為期三星期的一 Trainees in 2018. The course was divided into 3 parts. At the 系列課堂講座，內容集中講解刑事法律、常規 beginning, the participants attended a series of lectures over 3 weeks 及程序的一些重要議題，其間學員會參觀中區 which focused on important topics of criminal law, practice and 警署和政府化驗所，以加深認識調查過程。隨 procedure. Within the same 3 weeks, the participants also visited the 後，學員參與兩星期的模擬法庭實習訓練，在 Central Police Station and the Government Laboratory to gain better 模擬審訊中擔當檢控官或辯方律師的角色。其 understanding of the investigation process. The participants then 顧問律師、總法庭檢控主任及新聘法庭檢控主任 Consultant Counsel, Chief Court Prosecutors and new Court Prosecutors

後，學員獲派駐各裁判法院檢控刑事案件，為 took part in mock court exercises for 2 weeks to conduct trials in the 期共七星期，其中首兩星期由我們的資深檢控 roles of prosecutors or defence counsel. They were then deployed 官從旁督導。 to various Magistrates’ Courts to prosecute criminal cases for a 34 total of 7 weeks with the first 2 weeks under the supervision of our 相隔九年之後，我們在 2018 年恢復招聘法庭檢 experienced prosecutors. 控主任，共聘得十名新血，他們將身負重任， After a 9-year hiatus, ten new Court Prosecutors were recruited in 負責維持裁判法院的高水平檢控工作。新聘人 2018. The new blood is expected to play a pivotal role in maintaining 員在 年 月開始參與專為他們而設的九個 2018 8 the high standard of the prosecution work in the Magistrates’ Courts. 月培訓課程，以掌握有關刑法和程序法的知識， In August 2018, the new recruits began to participate in a 9-month 以及所需的訟辯技巧。他們也接受了模擬法庭 training programme tailor-made to equip them with knowledge 實習訓練，並獲派駐裁判法院進行刑事檢控， on substantive and procedural law and the necessary advocacy 為在裁判法院有效履行日常檢控職務作好準備。 skill. Mock court exercises and deployments to Magistrates’ Courts PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 他們也到訪警察總部 ( 或其他警署 ) 和政府化驗 to prosecute criminal cases were also arranged for them to prepare

2018 所，並與有關人員會面，以加深認識這些部門 them for effectively discharging their daily prosecution duty in the

的日常運作和加強合作。 Magistrates’ Courts. They also paid visits to the Police Headquarters or other police stations, and the Government Laboratory, to meet 我們在 2018 年 11 月為受聘於不同政府部門和 with their personnel to gain a better understanding of the daily operation of these departments and to enhance cooperation.

香港刑事檢控 法定機構的檢控人員舉辦為期 14 天的檢控人員 培訓課程，共有 41 名來自 23 個政府部門和法 For the Departmental Prosecutors employed by different 定機構的人員參加。課程內容包括七天的法律 government departments and statutory bodies, a 14-day 專題講座、一天法庭旁聽聆訊，以及六天模擬 Departmental Prosecutors Training Course was held in November 法庭實習訓練。 2018. A total of 41 participants from 23 government departments and statutory bodies attended the course, which comprised 7 days 刑事檢控科與法律界保持緊密連繫和交流。 of lectures on various legal topics, a day of court visit, and 6 days of 2018 年 4 月及 10 月，我們與香港大律師公會和 mock court exercises. 香港律師會繼續攜手合作，為新晉律師舉辦聯 合培訓課程，讓執業少於五年的新晉律師熟習 To continue cross-fertilization with the private sector, the Joint 如何檢控刑事案件。課程由一整天的專題講座 Training Programme for young lawyers, jointly organized by the 暨工作坊開始，隨後在裁判法院就檢控刑事案 Prosecutions Division, the Hong Kong Bar Association and the 件進行為期兩星期的實習，參加者可獲發定額 Law Society of Hong Kong was conducted in April and October 酬金。在 4 月舉辦的課程中，刑事檢控專員梁 2018, the aim of which is to provide training to young lawyers with 卓然資深大律師、駱應淦資深大律師和黎得基 less than 5 years’ experience on how to prosecute criminal cases. The Programme began with a full-day lecture-cum-workshop 先生為參加者主持內容實用精闢的講座；至於 and followed by a 2-week attachment to the Magistrates’ Courts 在 10 月舉辦的課程，則由副刑事檢控專員黎婉 to prosecute criminal cases. A fixed remuneration is paid to the 姬資深大律師、謝志浩先生和黎得基先生擔任 participants. For the April instalment, Mr David Leung SC, DPP, 講者。模擬法庭訓練工作坊由本科資深的首長 Mr Lawrence Lok SC and Mr Christopher Knight gave useful and 級人員主持。這課程非常成功，所有參加的新 insightful lectures to the participants; and for the October instalment, 晉律師均好評如潮。 Ms Anna Lai SC, DDPP, Mr Bruce Tse and Mr Christopher Knight did the same. The workshops were conducted by experienced 年內，刑事檢控科也持續舉辦一系列研討會和 directorate officers from the Division in the form of mock court 交流會，作為“持續法律進修課程”的一部分， exercises. The Programme has proved to be a great success and is 讓科內律師了解程序法和刑法的最新發展，增 well received by all participating young lawyers. 進法律知識並磨練檢控技巧。 As part of the Prosecutions Division’s Continuing Legal Education 政策研究組 Programme, a series of seminars and sharing sessions were held in a continuing manner over the entire year to keep counsel abreast of 一如《檢控守則》所述，刑事檢控專員肩負多 the latest developments in procedural and substantive law, and to 項職務，當中包括制定和推展刑事檢控政策， enrich their legal knowledge and hone their prosecutorial skills. 以及就刑事法的發展、執行與實施向政府提供 意見。政策研究組經理負責協助刑事檢控專員 Policy Research 履行這些範疇的檢控職責，角色舉足輕重。署 As stated in the Prosecution Code, the Director of Public Prosecutions 35 理高級檢控官梁文豐先生在 2018 年 3 月接替高 (DPP) is responsible for, amongst other duties, developing and 級檢控官何眉語女士出任政策研究組經理，而 promoting prosecution policy, and advising the government on the 檢控官伍永杰先生則在同年 9 月加入本組出任 development, enforcement and implementation of the criminal law. 政策研究組助理經理一職。 The Policy Manager plays an important role in assisting the DPP to discharge these aspects of his prosecutorial responsibilities. Mr Ivan 政策研究組經理有很大部分的工作是就立法建 Leung, Senior Public Prosecutor (Acting), succeeded Miss Lily Ho, 議和現有法例修訂建議所引起關乎檢控的問題 Senior Public Prosecutor, as the Policy Manager in March 2018, and was in September of the same year joined by Mr Ng Wing-kit, Public 提供意見，涉及的範圍廣泛，涵蓋 (i) 有關舉證 Prosecutor, as the Assistant Policy Manager. 責任、舉證標準，及規管證據接納性條文的法 PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 律效力；(ii) 罪行元素；(iii) 刑事訴訟程序；(iv) A substantial part of the Policy Manager’s work involves giving advice 2018 有關從罪行元素排除意念元素，及顛倒和修改 on prosecution-related issues arising from proposed new legislation 舉證責任或舉證標準等建議的合憲性；(v) 適當 and amendments to existing legislation. The issues involved can 程度的罰則；以及 (vi) 執法問題。上述問題由為 be wide-ranging including (i) legal effect of burden and standard 擬訂法例草擬指引、實際着手草擬條文內容、 of proof and provisions that regulate admission of evidence; (ii) 以至最終把擬訂法例提交立法會審議的不同立 elements of offences; (iii) criminal procedure; (iv) constitutionality 香港刑事檢控 法階段中都可能出現，需要本組給予意見。此 of proposed displacement of the mental element or reversal and 外，政策研究組經理也負責為立法會會議就檢 modification of burden or standard of proof; (v) appropriate level of 控相關事宜的討論擬備文件，並回覆提問。政 penalties; and (vi) enforcement problems. These issues could arise and require our advice at different stages of the legislative exercise 策研究組經理在 2018 年曾就多項擬訂法例提供 beginning with drafting instructions for the proposed legislation, to 意見，重要例子包括： the actual drafting of the terms of the provisions, and finally to the Legislative Council’s scrutiny of the proposed legislation. The Policy (1) 為落實刑事法律程序中傳聞證據法律改革的 Manager also prepares papers for Legislative Council meetings on 《2018 年證據 ( 修訂 ) 條例草案》； prosecution-related matters and provides replies to questions arising. (2) 為改善酒店及賓館發牌制度並利便當局採取 Notable proposed legislation which the Policy Manager had advised 相關執法行動的《2018 年旅館業 ( 修訂 ) 條 upon in 2018 include: 例草案》； (1) Evidence (Amendment) Bill 2018, which seeks to implement the (3) 為落實都市固體廢物收費計劃以達致減廢的 law reform on hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings; 《2018 年廢物處置 ( 都市固體廢物收費 )( 修 (2) Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation (Amendment) Bill 2018, 訂 ) 條例草案》； which seeks to improve the hotel and guesthouse licensing (4) 為改善舊式工業大廈消防安全標準的《2018 regime and facilitate relevant enforcement actions; 年消防安全 工業建築物 條例草案》； ( ) (3) Waste Disposal (Charging of Municipal Solid Waste) (5) 落實司法機構資訊科技策略計劃以便在法庭 (Amendment) Bill 2018, which seeks to implement the 程序中應用電子科技的立法建議； municipal solid waste charging scheme in order to achieve waste reduction; (6) 規管醫療儀器的立法建議；以及 (4) Fire Safety (Industrial Buildings) Bill 2018, which seeks to improve (7) 提高違反職業安全與健康相關法例罰則的立 the fire safety standards of old industrial buildings; 法建議。 (5) Legislative proposal to implement the Judiciary’s Information Technology Strategy Plan to facilitate the use of electronic 政策研究組經理也就多個範疇的事宜定期向政 technology in court proceedings; 府各決策局及部門提供意見，包括 (i) 制定或修 訂執法的政策及常規以回應某些罪行的普及化、 (6) Legislative proposal to regulate medical devices; and 罪犯層出不窮的犯案手法和法律的變更；以及 (ii) (7) Legislative proposal to raise the penalties for contraventions of 檢視各種聲稱造成損害的新興行為有何 ( 如有 ) occupational safety and health-related legislation. 刑責。 The Policy Manager also regularly gives advice to government 此外，政策研究組經理亦協助擬備內部法律通 bureaux and departments on wide-ranging issues including (i) formulation or revision of enforcement policies and practice for 36 告，以及代表部門出席青少年罪犯問題常務委 tackling proliferating offences, changing modus operandi of offenders, 員會和關注家庭暴力工作小組的恆常會議。 and changes in the law; and (ii) examination of the criminality, if any, of new kinds of alleged mischiefs. 投訴及意見 In addition, the Policy Manager also assists in drafting internal Legal 投訴及意見組主要負責處理公眾對刑事檢控科 Circulars and represents the Department at regular meetings of the 任何工作方面的投訴，並且蒐集他們的回應和 Standing Committee on Young Offenders and the Working Group 答覆查詢。在 2018 年，本組經理是高級檢控官 on Combating Domestic Violence. 蕭啟業先生。

PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG Complaints and Feedback 一直以來，我們以公正無私的專業態度認真處

2018 The Complaints and Feedback Unit is mainly responsible for 理對本科工作的投訴或查詢。本組負責調查投 handling complaints, receiving feedback and answering enquiries 訴，並以適當的行動跟進針對個別案件所表達 from the general public concerning any aspect of the work of the 的關注。跟進行動例如包括 (i) 檢討在刑事法律 Prosecutions Division. In the year 2018, Mr William Siu, Senior Public 程序中進行的檢控工作是否適當；(ii) 獨立覆核 Prosecutor, was the manager of the Unit. 香港刑事檢控 不檢控決定；(iii) 評估有關就刑罰看似過輕提出 覆核或就無罪裁定提出上訴的勝訴機會；以及 Complaints and enquiries about the work of the Division are always (iv) 在可行範圍內向有關各方提供檢控程序的資 handled seriously in a fair, impartial and professional manner. The 料。所有投訴均交由本組的合資格律政人員考 Unit investigates complaints and takes appropriate follow-up 慮和評估，處理時嚴格保密。 actions in a case-sensitive manner to address the concerns raised in each individual case. The follow-up actions include, for example, 除了處理投訴外，本組也蒐集和聆聽意見。任 (i) reviewing the propriety of prosecutorial conduct in criminal 何公眾人士均可向本科反映意見，我們會在可 proceedings; (ii) conducting independent review of decisions of 行和合適的情況下回應。我們對收到的每項意 not to prosecute; (iii) assessing the merits of reviewing ostensibly inadequate sentences or lodging appeals against acquittals; and (iv) 見和關注，不論褒貶毀譽，均予重視，並相信 keeping the parties concerned informed of the prosecutorial process 這可增進本科與公眾之間的溝通，以加強公眾 so far as practicable. All complaints are considered and assessed by 對我們的工作和整體刑事司法制度的信心。 qualified legal officers of the Unit and handled in strict confidence

Apart from handling complaints, the Unit also receives and listens 2018 年，投訴及意見組處理的投訴及查詢共 to feedback. Any member of the public can provide feedback to 389 宗。 the Division. A response to the feedback will be provided where it is possible and appropriate to do so. We value each and every 犯罪得益 view or concern conveyed to us, positive or negative. We believe communication between the Division and the general public can be 沒收犯罪得益及犯罪工具 ( 包括等值財產 )，在 strengthened so as to boost the public confidence in our work and 本港的刑事制度內發揮重要作用，其作用是迫 the administration of criminal justice as a whole. 使罪犯交出全數非法收益，防止他們用以進一 步從事洗錢、販毒或恐怖分子資金籌集等非法 In 2018, the Complaints and Feedback Unit handled a total of 389 活動。犯罪得益組專責限制和沒收罪犯的財產， cases of complaints and enquiries. 在追討資產方面與執法機關緊密合作，又積極 與海外檢控人員協作，以了解打擊洗錢及恐怖 Proceeds of Crime 分子資金籌集活動標準的最新發展。 Confiscation of proceeds and instrumentalities of crime, including property of equivalent value, plays an important role in our criminal 香港打擊洗錢及恐怖分子資金籌集活動的主要 system. It has the effect of disgorging the illicit gains from criminals 法例包括《販毒 追討得益 條例》 第 章 ( ) ( 405 ) and preventing them from using such gains to pursue further illegal 和《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》( 第 455 章 )，兩 activities such as money laundering, drug trafficking or terrorist 者分別賦權法庭限制和沒收來自販毒和可公訴 financing. The Proceeds of Crime (“PoC”) team is tasked to restrain 罪行的非法得益；針對恐怖分子財產的《聯合 and confiscate the property of criminals. It works closely with law 國 ( 反恐怖主義措施 ) 條例》( 第 575 章 )；以及 enforcement agencies in asset recovery and actively cooperates with 把金融機構違反就客戶盡職審查的規定列為刑 overseas counterparts to keep abreast of the latest development in 37 事罪行的《打擊洗錢及恐怖分子資金籌集條例》 anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing standards. ( 第 615 章 )。 PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 2018

香港刑事檢控

犯罪得益組 Proceeds of Crime Section 2018 年，本組由助理刑事檢控專員陳鳳珊女士 Hong Kong’s principal laws for combatting money laundering 掌管，並與兩名高級檢控官周天行先生 (2018 年 and terrorist financing include the Drug Trafficking (Recovery of 10 月 8 日由高級檢控官李希哲先生接任 ) 和霍 Proceeds) Ordinance (Cap. 405) and the Organized and Serious 莎莎女士，以及兩名檢控官林曉敏女士和劉德 Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 455) which empower the Court to restrain 澤先生 (2018 年 10 月 3 日加入本組 ) ，在副刑 and confiscate illicit proceeds emanating from drug trafficking and 事檢控專員許紹鼎資深大律師的整體監督下， indictable offences respectively; the United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Ordinance (Cap. 575) which targets terrorist property; 組成專責組。 and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance (Cap. 615) which criminalises the non-compliance with 犯罪得益組在 2018 年收獲甚豐。由於組內各 customer due diligence requirements by financial institutions. 員勤奮盡職，致力提交限制令和沒收令申請， 令追討資產的數字大幅增加。與 2017 年 31 項 In 2018, the Section was headed by Ms Denise Chan, Assistant 限制令和 28 項沒收令相比，本組在年內共取得 Director of Public Prosecutions who, together with 2 Senior 47 項限制令和 43 項沒收令，凍結了總值港幣 Public Prosecutors Mr Anthony Chau (succeeded by Senior Public 80.81 億元的可變現財產，而沒收罪犯的非法得 Prosecutor Mr Andrew Li on 8 October 2018) and Ms Jennifer Fok 益總額則由港幣 3.36 億元飆升至港幣 7.16 億元； and 2 Public Prosecutors Ms Human Lam and Mr Douglas Lau (who 經變現並撥入政府一般收入帳目的款額共達港 joined the team on 3 October 2018), formed the specialist team 幣 4.08 億元。 under the overall supervision of Mr Martin Hui SC, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions. 2018 年 5 月，法院在一宗廉署案件中裁定被告 2018 has proven to be a rewarding year. With the dedication and “窩輪天王”多項控罪，包括串謀詐騙罪在內 diligence of every member of the PoC Section in taking out restraint 的罪名成立，對其發出港幣 億元沒收令。 1.11 and confiscation applications, the figures on asset recovery increased 該筆款項在 2018 年 8 月全數繳清。2018 年 12 significantly. A total of 47 restraint orders and 43 confiscation orders 月，伯明翰足球會 (Birmingham Football Club) were obtained, compared to 31 restraint orders and 28 confiscation 前班主被裁定五項洗錢控罪罪名成立，在其擱 orders in 2017. An aggregate amount of HK$8,081 million of 38 置沒收法律程序的申請遭駁回後，被頒令向政 realisable property was frozen in 2018, and the total amount of illicit 府繳付港幣 3.38 億元。 proceeds ordered to be confiscated from criminals surged from HK$336 million to HK$716 million. A total of HK$408 million was 年內有多宗司法覆核案件尋求就“不同意處理 realised and paid to the general revenue. 書”制度是否合憲這個爭論點重新提出訴訟。 In May 2018, a confiscation order for HK$111 million was made “不同意處理書”制度由聯合財富情報組執行， against the “King of Warrants” - a defendant in an ICAC case who 該組可依據《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》( 第 455 was convicted of multiple offences including conspiracy to defraud. 章 ) 第 25A 條，不同意財務機構處理懷疑犯罪得 That sum was fully paid in August 2018. In December 2018, the 益，藉此打擊洗錢活動。在最近一宗標誌性案 ex-chairman of Birmingham Football Club, convicted of 5 charges PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 件，Interush Ltd 及另一人 訴 警務處處長及其他 of money laundering, was ordered to pay HK$338 million to the 人 [2019] HKCA 70 中，上訴法庭頒下判決，確 government, after his application for stay of the confiscation 2018

認“不同意處理書”制度合憲，並駁回上訴 ( 上 proceedings was dismissed.

This year has also seen a number of judicial review cases which sought to revive or re-litigate the issue of the constitutionality of 香港刑事檢控 the “Letter of No Consent” (“LNC”) regime, a scheme administered by the Joint Financial Intelligence Unit (“JFIU”) for tackling money laundering activities by withholding consent to financial institutions to deal with suspected crime proceeds pursuant to section 25A of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 455). In a recent landmark judgment in Interush Ltd & Another v The Commissioner of Police & Others [2019] HKCA 70, the Court of Appeal upheld the constitutionality of the LNC regime and dismissed the appeal by the appellants who lost the judicial review at first instance before the Hon Patrick Li J a few years back in 2015. The Court of Appeal 訴人曾在 2015 年向原訟法庭申請司法覆核，但 held that whilst the constitutionally protected rights to property are 遭李瀚良法官駁回 )。上訴法庭裁定，儘管“不 engaged, the encroachment on such rights by the operation of the 同意處理書”制度觸及受憲法保障的財產權利， LNC regime passes the proportionality analysis and is constitutionally 但因為要實行該制度而侵犯這項權利是能夠通 justified. 過相稱分析且有合憲理據支持的。 The year 2018 was crucial for the HKSAR on a broader dimension as it is the year the Financial Action Task Force against Money 在更廣闊的層面上，2018 年對香港特區而言是 Laundering (“FATF”) conducted the 4th Round Mutual Evaluation 十分重要的一年，因為打擊清洗黑錢財務行動 of Hong Kong on its anti-money laundering & counter terrorist 特別組織 (FATF) 正在這年就香港打擊洗錢及恐 financing (“AML/CFT”) regime. FATF, as an inter-government body, 怖分子籌集資金的活動制度進行第四輪相互評 strives to set standards and to promote effective implementation 核。FATF 是跨政府組織，致力訂立標準和推動 of legal, regulatory and operational measures for combating 有效落實法律、規管及運作措施，以打擊洗錢 money laundering and terrorist financing, and Hong Kong is an 及恐怖分子籌集資金的活動。香港是 FATF 的活 active member and an ex-president of the FATF. FATF conducts 躍成員，並曾出任該組織的主席。FATF 成員之 peer reviews on an ongoing basis to assess members’ levels of 間持續相互評估彼此落實 FATF 建議所達到的水 implementations of its Recommendations. To prepare for the 平。本組人員一直與各決策局及部門緊密合作， mutual evaluation and provide a comprehensive presentation to 以便為相互評核作好準備，並為 FATF 評審小組 the FATF’s Assessment Team, members of the Section have been 提供詳盡資料。陳鳳珊女士曾出席不同會議和 working closely with various bureaux and departments. Ms Denise Chan attended meetings and workshops and advised on the 工作坊，並就相關法例的制定和修訂提供法律 enactment and amendments of relevant legislations, including the 意見，包括《2018 年聯合國 ( 反恐怖主義措施 ) United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) (Amendment) Ordinance ( 修訂 ) 條例》、《實體貨幣及不記名可轉讓票 2018, the Cross-boundary Movement of Physical Currency and 據跨境流動條例》和《 年公司 修訂 條 2018 ( ) Bearer Negotiable Instruments Ordinance and the Companies 例》。FATF 評審小組在 2018 年 11 月初訪問香 (Amendment) Ordinance 2018. The FATF Assessment Team visited 港兩周，與公營及私營機構的相關持份者訪談。 Hong Kong in early November 2018 for 2 weeks to interview relevant 有關工作仍在進行中，而香港的相互評核報告 stakeholders from both the public and private sectors. Work is still on- 39 會在 2019 年 6 月的 FATF 全體會議上提交討論。 going and the mutual evaluation report of Hong Kong will be tabled at the FATF plenary meetings in June 2019 for discussion. 本組人員在 2018 年繼續積極與海外檢控人員 分享知識。2018 年 1 月，身為合資格 FATF ／ In 2018, members of the Section continued to actively participate 亞洲／太平洋反清洗黑錢組織 (APG) 評估人員的 in knowledge sharing with our overseas counterparts. In January, 2018, Ms Denise Chan, being a qualified FATF/APG assessor, 陳鳳珊女士出席在深圳舉行的 FATF ／ APG ／歐 attended the FATF/APG/EAG Workshop for Judges and Prosecutors 亞小組法官和檢控人員工作坊，並以“犯罪得 held in Shenzhen and delivered a presentation on Proceeds and 益和犯罪工具 ~ 檢取與沒收”為題演講；周天

Instrumentalities of Crimes – Seizure and Confiscation, and Mr PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 行先生則參加在香港舉行的 FATF ／ APG 評估人 Anthony Chau attended the FATF/APG assessors training held in 員培訓。2018 年 6 月，許紹鼎資深大律師和陳 Hong Kong. In June 2018, Mr Martin Hui SC, together with Ms 2018

鳳珊女士到法國巴黎出席 FATF 全體會議，會上 Denise Chan, attended the FATF Plenary Meeting in Paris, France, 討論對巴林和沙特阿拉伯的相互評核報告，並 where the mutual evaluation reports of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia 詳論 FATF 的工作項目和政策。2018 年 8 月，身 were discussed and the FATF’s project and policy were canvassed. 兼合資格 FATF ／ APG 評估人員及 APG 庫克羣島 In August 2018, Ms Human Lam, a qualified FATF/APG assessor and 香港刑事檢控 相互評核法律評估人員的林曉敏女士到尼泊爾 the legal assessor in the APG Mutual Evaluation of the Cook Islands, 加德滿都出席 2018 年 APG 周年會議，討論庫克 attended the 2018 APG Annual Meeting in Kathmandu, Nepal 羣島相互評核報告的主要事項。2018 年 9 月， to discuss the key issues of the mutual evaluation report of Cook 許紹鼎資深大律師出席在南非約翰內斯堡舉行 Islands. At the 23rd International Association of Prosecutors Annual 的第二十三屆國際檢察官協會年會，並以“追 Conference held in Johannesburg, South Africa in September 2018, 討資產與國際合作”為題向與會代表團致辭。 Mr Martin Hui SC spoke to the delegations on the topic of “Assets Recovery and International Cooperation”. In December 2018, Ms 2018 年 12 月，霍莎莎女士獲 FATF 委任為法律 Jennifer Fok was appointed by the FATF as the legal assessor of the 評估人員，由 2019 年年中起對大韓民國進行第 4th Round Mutual Evaluation of the Republic of Korea which will 四輪相互評核。 commence in mid-2019. 為協助執法機關掌握現時打擊洗錢和追討資產 In keeping the law enforcement agencies abreast of the current 法律的最新發展，本組律師也在年內為有關方 development of the law on anti-money laundering and asset 面主持講座和舉辦研討會。2018 年 5 月及 6 月， recovery, counsel of the Section delivered talks to, and conducted 霍莎莎女士在聯合財富情報組每年舉辦的財富 seminars for, various parties during the year. In May and June 2018, 調查課程上為執法機關人員主持講座，題為“經 Ms Jennifer Fok, and then followed by Mr Anthony Chau and Ms Human Lam in August and December 2018, delivered talks to the 驗分享 ~ 限制和沒收的法律程序”；其後在同 officers of law enforcement agencies on “Experience Sharing – 年 8 月和 12 月，周天行先生和林曉敏女士也為 Restraint and Confiscation proceedings” at the JFIU’s annual Financial 該課程主持同一主題的講座。2018 年 4 月及 6 Investigation Courses. In April and June 2018, Mr Anthony Chau 月，周天行先生和霍莎莎女士在律師會舉辦的 and Ms Jennifer Fok spoke at the “AML/CFT Seminar for the legal “法律專業人員打擊洗錢及恐怖分子資金籌集 professionals” organized by the Law Society and delivered a talk 研討會”上發言，並以“洗錢罪行、舉報可疑 on “Money Laundering Offence, Suspicious Transaction Reporting: 交易：法律責任與法律專業保密權”為題演說。 Legal Obligations & Legal Professional Privilege”. In August 2018, Ms 2018 年 8 月，陳鳳珊女士與香港警務處商業罪 Denise Chan shared her experience on Restraint and Confiscation 案調查科分享其從處理洗錢案中有關限制和沒 proceedings in money laundering cases with the Commercial Crime 收的法律程序獲得的經驗。 Bureau of the Hong Kong Police Force.

從上可見，犯罪得益組已發展為專職於這個重 As can be seen above, the PoC Section has developed into a unique 要法律及常規範疇的獨特專家隊伍。多年來， squad and specialized team of experts dedicated to this significant area of law and practice. The team as a whole has gained a lot of 本組整體進步長足，今後必將繼續精益求精， momentum over the years and will without a doubt continue to 務求在追討資產和執法打擊洗錢及恐怖分子資 grow from strength to strength, in-keeping with the pace and focus 金籌集這個日益重要的範疇上，緊貼國際社會 of the international community in this growing area of asset recovery 的步伐和焦點。 and AML/CFT enforcement.

40 部門檢控 Departmental Prosecutions 一如以往，部門檢控組在 2018 年就多個政府部 As in previous years, the Departmental Prosecutions Section in 門和規管機構提交的案件提供實質法律指引， 2018 provided substantive legal advice on and prosecuted cases 並進行檢控。本組在 2018 年大部分時間有三名 submitted by a multitude of government departments and 高級檢控官和八名檢控官，全部由助理刑事檢 regulatory bodies. Throughout most of 2018, the Section had 3 控專員黃志偉先生領導。本組處理的案件經常 Senior Public Prosecutors and 8 Public Prosecutors, all led by Mr 因對社會有廣泛深遠的影響而引起傳媒的興趣 Beney Wong, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions. The cases handled by the Section often aroused media interest and sensitivity 和關注。本組在 2018 年處理的重要敏感案件選 because of their wide and deep impact on society. The following are 錄如下：

PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG some of the sensitive and significant cases handled by the Section in 2018 : 香港特別行政區 訴 魏彬 [2018] HKDC 1311 一 2018

案，是《保護瀕危動植物物種條例》( 第 586 章 ) HKSAR v Wei Bin [2018] HKDC 1311 is the first case in relation to 的修訂在 2018 年 5 月 1 日生效後首宗在區域法 endangered species heard in the District Court since the amendment 院聆訊涉及瀕危物種的案件，有關修訂大幅加 of the Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants 重條例所訂各項罪行的最高刑罰，以收阻嚇之 Ordinance (Cap. 586) took effect on 1 May 2018. The amended 香港刑事檢控 效。案中的訪港中國旅客魏彬在香港國際機場 Ordinance had substantially elevated the maximum penalties for 遭截停，被發現管有 3.11 公斤犀牛角切片。他 various offences under it with the aim of achieving a deterrent effect. 承認非法進口屬於條例附錄 I 中指名的犀牛角標 Wei Bin, an incoming Chinese visitor, was found in possession of 本的控罪後被裁定罪名成立，判監 12 個月。在 3.11 kilograms of rhino horn cut pieces when he was intercepted at the Hong Kong International Airport. He was convicted of illegal 香港特別行政區 訴 廖有光 [2018] HKDC 93 一案 import of Appendix I specimens and was sentenced to 12 months’ 中，一名離港中國旅客在深圳灣管制站遭截停， imprisonment upon guilty plea. In HKSAR v Liao Youguang [2018] 被發現管有 2.596 公斤土沉香木片。鑑於該本地 HKDC 93, an outbound Chinese visitor was found in possession of 物種處於瀕危狀態，法院以三年為量刑起點， 2.596 kg of incense tree wood chips when he was intercepted at 在被告認罪後判處他監禁兩年。 Shenzhen Bay Control Point. In view of the endangered status of the 部門檢控組 Departmental Prosecutions Section

在香港特別行政區 訴 Bruhat Arnaud [2018] HKDC local species, the Court adopted 3 years as the starting point and 41 917 一案中，一名法國旅客受僱協助進行非法移 sentenced the defendant to 2 years’ imprisonment upon guilty plea. 民活動，被控兩項串謀以欺騙手段取得服務的 罪名。被告以本人身分在航空公司櫃檯辦理登 In HKSAR v Bruhat Arnaud [2018] HKDC 917, a French visitor was recruited to assist in illegal migration activities. The defendant was 機手續後把登機證轉交他人，並同意再以相同 charged with 2 counts of conspiracy to obtain services by deception. 手法讓其他人以虛假身分登上開往其他國家的 The defendant had transferred his boarding pass to another person 航班。被告在認罪後被裁定罪名成立，判監共 after checking in at an airline counter using his own identity, and 兩年零六個月。 agreed to do the same again to enable other persons to board flights bound for another country with false identity. Upon his guilty plea, 根據《旅館業條例》( 第 349章 )，“旅館” (hotel、 the defendant was convicted and sentenced to a total of 2 years and PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG guesthouse) 指“任何處所，其佔用人、東主或 6 months’ imprisonment.

租客顯示在他可提供的住宿的範圍內，他會向到 2018

臨該處所的任何人提供住宿的地方，而該人看 Under the Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation Ordinance 似是有能力並願意為所提供的服務及設施繳付 (Cap. 349), “hotel” and “guesthouse” mean “any premises whose 合理款項，並且是在宜於予以接待的狀況的。” occupier, proprietor or tenant holds out that, to the extent of his available accommodation, he will provide sleeping accommodation for any 根據該定義的涵蓋範圍，大部分租賃期少於 28 香港刑事檢控 person presenting himself who appears able and willing to pay a 天的租約須受第 349 章規管。在香港特別行政 reasonable sum for the services and facilities provided and is in a fit state 區 訴 邱德瑋 ( 九龍城裁判法院傳票案件 2018 年 to be received.” Given the ambit of the definition, most tenancies 第 22854 至 22860 號 ) 一案中，被告為在職公務 with duration of less than 28 days are subject to Cap. 349. In HKSAR 員，被控七項在沒有豁免證明書或牌照的情況 v Yau Tak-wai KCS 22854-22860/2018, the defendant, a serving civil 下經營旅館罪，違反第 349 章第 5 條的規定。 servant, was prosecuted for 7 counts of operating a guesthouse 被告在所有關鍵時間於佐敦三幢住宅樓宇六個 without certificate of exemption or licence, contrary to s 5 of Cap. 處所內經營無牌旅館。這些處所分間為四個或 349. At all material times, the defendant was operating unlicensed 五個獨立房間，附共用廁所設施和公用地方， guesthouses at 6 premises in 3 residential buildings in Jordan. 這些旅館房間可透過網上平台“Airbnb”預訂。 These premises were sub-divided into 4 or 5 individual rooms with 2018 年 1 月 23 日至 5 月 9 日期間，民政事務總 shared toilet facilities and common areas. Reservations of rooms in 署人員進行了七次“放蛇”行動，喬裝顧客光 these guesthouses could be made via the on-line platform “Airbnb”. 顧有關旅館，並於最後一次“放蛇”行動時拘 From 23 January 2018 to 9 May 2018, officers of the Home Affairs 捕被告。被告承認傳票上所有七項控罪，被判 Department had conducted 7 decoy operations by patronizing 處共 200 小時社會服務令。 these guesthouses and successfully arrested the defendant at the last decoy operation. The defendant pleaded guilty to all 7 summonses and was sentenced to a total of 200 hours of community services 香港特別行政區 訴 優景有限公司 (2018) 21 order. HKCFAR 562 是由終審法院審理的上訴案，涉及 已到期的魚類養殖牌照在前持牌人士就牌照被 HKSAR v Special View Limited (2018) 21 HKCFAR 562 was an appeal 取消而提出上訴期間是否有效的問題。優景有 before the Court of Final Appeal concerning the validity of a licence 限公司是魚類養殖牌照的前持牌人，因在無牌 to engage in fish culture after its expiry date where there is an 照的情況下准許魚排在魚類養殖區內停留而被 appeal concerning its cancellation. Special View Limited, an ex- 檢控。案中牌照在 2015 年 11 月 24 日被漁農自 licensee of a License to Engage in Fish Culture, was prosecuted for 然護理署 ( 漁護署 ) 取消，但優景有限公司在牌 permitting a raft to remain in a fish culture zone without licence. 照在 2015 年 12 月 16 日到期後才向行政上訴委 The subject licence had been cancelled by Agriculture, Fisheries & 員會提出上訴，反對漁護署取消牌照的決定。 Conservation Department (AFCD) on 24 November 2015 but Special 其間，優景有限公司並無及時為牌照續期，而 View Limited did not appeal against AFCD’s decision of cancellation 只是在前牌照到期後才提出逾時的續期申請， to the Administrative Appeal Board (AAB) until after the licence had expired on 16 December 2015. Meanwhile, Special View Limited 其申請遭漁護署拒絕。優景有限公司被控從牌 did not timeously seek a renewal of the licence either; and when it 照到期當天起至該公司就拒絕續期的決定提出 sought a renewal out of time after the expiry of the previous licence, 上訴期間，無牌准許魚排在魚類養殖區內停留。 the renewal was rejected by the AFCD. Special View Limited was 該公司經裁判法院審訊後被裁定罪名成立，但 prosecuted for permitting the raft to remain in the fish culture zone 不服定罪而提出上訴，在 2017 年 11 月獲原訟 without licence for the period from the expiration of its licence to the 法庭判上訴得直。終審法院裁定，《海魚養殖 day on which it lodged an appeal against the non-renewal decision. 42 條例》( 第 353 章 ) 第 16(2)(a) 條的條文的施行 Special View Limited was convicted after trial in the Magistrates’ 只會令取消牌照的決定暫緩生效，並不影響牌 Courts but the Court of First Instance allowed its appeal against 照的原來有效期。由此觀之，鑑於優景有限公 conviction in November 2017. The Court of Final Appeal held that 司並沒有為牌照續期，單就取消牌照的決定提 the provision of s 16(2)(a) of the Marine Fish Culture Ordinance 出上訴沒有推遲牌照的到期日。因此，該公司 (Cap. 353) only operates to suspend the coming into effect of the 被裁定罪名成立，實屬恰當。 cancellation decision but did not affect the original period of validity of the licence. As such, since the licence was not sought to be 香港特別行政區 訴 耀天工程有限公司及另二 renewed, the fact that an appeal against the decision of cancellation of licence had been lodged did not extend the expiry date of the 人 ( 粉嶺裁判法院傳票案件 2018 年第 12468 至

PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG licence and hence Special View Limited had been properly convicted 12472 號 ) 一案關乎 2018 年 5 月 11 日在上水名 of the offence charged. 都巴黎閣發生的致命意外。一名女乘客在巴黎 2018

閣七樓進入 5 號升降機後，升降機突然向上移 HKSAR v Eugene Engineering Co. Ltd & 2 Others FLS 12468-12472 動，導致女乘客被夾於樓層站門楣及升降機機 / 2018 was about a fatal accident that happened at Paris Court 門門坎之間，繼而跌落升降機井底坑並在該處 in Sheung Shui Town Centre on 11 May 2018. When a female 被發現死亡。當局向三名被告 ( 即第一、第二和 passenger entered Lift No. 5 (“Lift”) on 7/F of Paris Court, the Lift 香港刑事檢控 第三被告 ) 發出共五張傳票，他們分別是肇事 suddenly moved upwards, resulting in that person being trapped 升降機的註冊升降機承辦商 ( 第一被告 )、註冊 between the landing lintel and the sill of the lift doors. The 升降機承辦商的總經理 ( 第二被告 ) 及保養部經 passenger subsequently fell into the lift pit and was found dead 理 ( 第三被告 )。控罪指 (a) 第一至第三被告違反 thereat. A total of 5 summonses were laid against 3 defendants (i.e. 《升降機及自動梯條例》( 第 618 章 ) 第 16(1)(a)、 D1, D2 and D3), being respectively the Registered Lift Contractor (“RLC”) of the Lift (D1), the General Manager of the RLC (D2) and the 16(2) 及 141(1) 條，在第二和第三被告的同意、 Maintenance Manager of the RLC (D3), for (a) failing to ensure that 縱容或疏忽下沒有確保肇事升降機制動器的保 the maintenance works of the brake of the Lift were carried out 養工程妥善進行，以及 (b) 第一和第二被告違反 properly with D2's and D3's consent, connivance or neglect, contrary 《升降機及自動梯 ( 一般 ) 規例》( 第 618A 章 ) to ss 16(1)(a), 16(2) and 141(1) of the Lifts and Escalators Ordinance 第 4(1) 及 4(4) 條和第 618 章第 141(1) 條，在第 (Cap. 618) (against D1 to D3), and (b) failing to notify the Director of 二被告的同意、縱容及疏忽下沒有就分包升降 Electrical and Mechanical Services of subcontracting of lift works with 機工程通知機電工程署署長。第一和第二被告 D2's consent, connivance and neglect, contrary to ss 4(1) and 4(4) of 承認四張傳票上的控罪，分別罰款港幣 63,000 the Lifts and Escalators (General) Regulation (Cap. 618A) and s 141(1) 元及港幣 33,000 元。第三被告的案件仍在審理 of Cap. 618 (against D1 and D2). D1 and D2 pleaded guilty to the 4 中。 summonses against them and were respectively fined HK$63,000 and HK$33,000. D3's case is ongoing. 香港特別行政區 訴 香港寶嘉建築有限公司及 HKSAR v Dragages Hong Kong Ltd & 8 Others WKS 14831-14885 of 另八人 ( 西九龍裁判法院傳票案件 2017 年第 2017 concerned a serious accident that happened at the Hong Kong 14831 至 14885 號 ) 一案關乎 2017 年 3 月 29 日 - Zhuhai - Macao Bridge on 29 March 2017 involving the collapse of a 在港珠澳大橋發生的嚴重意外，意外中一個臨 temporary working platform which resulted in fatalities of 2 workers 時工作平台倒塌，導致工人兩死三傷。案中九 and injuries to 3 workers. A total of 55 summonses were laid against 名被告 ( 即第一至第九被告 ) 包括聯營企業的 9 defendants (i.e. D1 to D9), including the joint venture’s principal 各個總承建商、兩個次承建商、工程顧問公司 contractors, 2 sub-contractors, the project consultant company 和三名在涉案地盤工作的僱員，他們需要面對 and three persons employed at the construction work concerned, 共 55 張傳票，被控多項條例及規例所訂的罪 for offences under various ordinances and regulations, including 行。該等條例及規例包括：《工廠及工業經營 the Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance (Cap. 59), the Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance (Cap. 509), the Factories 條例》( 第 59 章 )、《職業安全及健康條例》 and Industrial Undertakings (Safety Management) Regulation (Cap. ( 第 509 章 )、《工廠及工業經營 ( 安全管理 ) 規 59AF), the Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations (Cap. 59I) and the 例》( 第 59AF 章 )、《建築地盤 ( 安全 ) 規例》 Factories and Industrial Undertakings (Lifting Appliances and Lifting ( 第 59I 章 ) 及《工廠及工業經營 ( 起重機械及 Gear) Regulations (Cap. 59J). As a result of a plea negotiation, D1 to 起重裝置 規例》 第 章 。經答辯商討後， ) ( 59J ) D3 pleaded guilty to a total of 27 summonses and were respectively 第一至第三被告承認合共 27 張傳票上的控罪， fined HK$264,000, HK$214,000 and HK$136,000. The cases of D4 to 分別罰款港幣 264,000 元、港幣 214,000 元及港 D9 are ongoing. 幣 136,000 元。第四至第九被告的案件仍在審理 43 中。 PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 2018

香港刑事檢控 分科三 訟辯及上訴 Sub-division III Advocacy & Appeals

審訊完畢不一定代表刑事法律程序的終結。被定 罪的人可就其定罪及／或刑罰提出上訴。另一方 面，控方亦可基於公義和公眾利益就無罪裁定提 出上訴。上訴機制可糾正在審訊過程中或許出現 的錯誤、訂下判刑指引和釐清法律，對香港刑事 司法制度的妥善運作十分重要。 44 Criminal proceedings do not necessarily end with the conclusion of a trial. A convicted person may appeal against his conviction and/or sentence. On the other hand, the prosecution may find initiating an appeal against an acquittal apposite where justice and public interest so demand. The appellate process can rectify errors if occurred in

PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG the trial process, lay down sentencing guidelines and clarify the law, it is thus instrumental to the due 2018

administration of criminal justice in Hong Kong. 香港刑事檢控 分科三 訟辯及上訴 Sub-division III Advocacy & Appeals

分科三 ( 訟辯及上訴 ) 由兩個專業領域的檢控官 Sub-division III Advocacy & Appeals comprises prosecutors of 組成。訟辯小組的檢控官專責審訊，在各級法院 two areas of expertise. Those in the Advocacy Sections are trial 較複雜和敏感的審訊中擔任主控官，以及在死因 specialists and they prosecute the more complicated and sensitive 裁判法庭協助召開複雜的死因研訊。上訴小組的 trials at all levels of court as well as complex death inquests in 檢控官則專責在各級上訴法院處理上訴及覆核案 the coroners’ courts. Those in the Appeal Sections specialize in conducting appeals and reviews, again, at all levels of appellate 件。該分科在 2018 年由黎婉姬資深大律師掌管。 45 court. In 2018, the Sub-division was headed by Miss Anna Lai SC. 該分科的工作向來具挑戰性， 年也不例外。 2018 The work of the Sub-division has always been a challenging one 下文闡述該分科各組別負責的工作。 and 2018 was no exception. Its work, carried out through its various sections, is elaborated below. 分科三 ( 上訴 ) 第 1 組 ― 裁判法院上訴 Section III(Appeals)(1) – Magistracy Appeals

裁判法院上訴組處理在裁判法院被定罪的被告所 PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 提出的裁判法院上訴案件，這類上訴聆訊在原訟 The Magistracy Appeals Section handles magistracy appeals

instituted by the defendants convicted in the Magistrates’ Courts. 2018 法庭進行。該組在 2018 年由高級助理刑事檢控 專員單偉琛先生掌領。年內，法庭聆訊了 597 宗 Such appeals are heard in the Court of First Instance. Mr Eddie 裁判法院上訴。由於裁判法院審理香港絕大部 Sean, Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions headed the section in 2018. There were a total of 597 such magistracy 分的刑事案件，裁判法院上訴數量因而龐大。近 appeals heard by the Court in 2018. As the Magistrates’ Courts 年，沒有律師代表的上訴人大幅增加，而這類上 香港刑事檢控 deal with most of the criminal cases in Hong Kong, the number 訴案件一般以粵語審理。我們的檢控官代表香港 of magistracy appeals is huge. Appellants without legal 特別行政區，不論上訴人是否有法律代表，我們 representatives have grown enormously in recent years, and those 都肩負協助法庭公正及適當地審理上訴的職責。 appeals are generally conducted in Cantonese. Representing the HKSAR, our prosecutors’ duty to the Court is paramount and we 依據《裁判官條例》( 第 227 章 )，與訟各方可根 assist the Court in disposing of the appeals justly for all appellants, 據第 104 條申請覆核裁判官的決定，以及根據第 whether legally represented or not. 105 條“以法律觀點有錯誤或超越司法管轄權為 理由，就任何定罪、命令、裁定或⋯⋯其他法律 Pursuant to the Magistrates Ordinance (Cap. 227), parties to the 程序”以案件呈述方式上訴；而刑事法律程序中 proceedings are allowed under section 104 to apply to review 分科三（上訴）第 1 組 裁判法院上訴 Section III(Appeals)(1) Magistracy Appeals

的各方包括香港特別行政區。該組的檢控官就 magistrates’ decisions and under section 105 to appeal by way of 香港特別行政區應否就個別案件申請覆核或提 case-stated “any conviction, order, determination or other proceeding 出上訴提供法律指引，其間緊記控方只會在明 … on the ground that it is erroneous in point of law, or that it is in 46 顯合乎公義和公眾利益的情況下提出覆核或上 excess of jurisdiction”, and parties include the HKSAR in criminal 訴。2018 年，該組的檢控官提供該等法律指引 proceedings. Prosecutors in the Section advise on whether such applications or appeals should be made in any particular case by the 共 133 項，並申請覆核 80 宗案件，另以案件呈 HKSAR, bearing in mind they should only be made in obvious cases 述方式就七宗案件提出上訴。 where justice and public interest so demand. In 2018, prosecutors in the Section gave 133 pieces of such advice, and initiated 80 下文載述 2018 年審結的一些較重要和較有趣的 applications to review and 7 appeals by way of case-stated. 裁判法院上訴案件： Below are some examples of the more significant or interesting 在香港特別行政區 訴 張建忠 [2018] 2 HKLRD magistracy appeals that were concluded in 2018. PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 597 一案中，上訴人向不同的裁判官申請發出三 張傳票，擬就兩名人士協助和教唆某身分不詳 In HKSAR v Cheung Kin Chung [2018] 2 HKLRD 597, the appellant 2018 的人毆打他及企圖妨礙司法公正提出私人檢控。 applied before different magistrates to issue 3 summonses for private 各裁判官均認為上訴人提交的文件上的資料不 prosecution against 2 intended defendants for aiding and abetting 足以構成針對兩人的表面證據，因此拒絕申請。 an unknown man to assault him; and attempting to pervert the course of justice. The magistrates considered there was insufficient 上訴人在上訴中辯稱有關的各位裁判官對他偏 香港刑事檢控 information on the papers to establish a prima facie case against the 頗不公，因為他們沒有進行“公開聆訊”便駁 intended defendants and refused the applications. In his appeal, the 回發出傳票的申請，以致他未能得到公平聆訊， appellant argued that the magistrates were biased against him, as 違反《香港人權法案》 《人權法案》 第十條。 ( ) they dismissed his applications without a “public hearing” which was 原訟法庭聆訊後裁定：(1) 上訴人的申請無一能 in breach of Article 10 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (HKBOR) so that 展示針對兩人控罪的表面證據，因此各裁判官 he was denied a fair hearing. On appeal, the Court of First Instance 均有充分理由拒絕發出傳票 ( 應用徐冠華 訴 九 held that: (1) none of the appellant’s applications disclosed a prima 龍城裁判法院主任裁判官 ( 高院憲法及行政訴 facie offence against the intended defendants and the magistrates 訟 2006 年第 81 號，[2006] HKEC 1721) 一案的判 had good cause to refuse to issue the summonses (Tsui Koon Wah v 決 )；(2) 由於拒絕發出傳票的裁定正確，因此沒 Principal Magistrate of Kowloon City Magistrates’ Courts (HCAL 81/2006, 有人遭到刑事控告，《人權法案》第十條亦因 [2006] HKEC 1721) applied); (2) Article 10 of the HKBOR did not apply 此並不適用。裁判官拒絕發出傳票的裁定，既 since no criminal charge had been laid. The magistrates’ refusals to 非出於上訴人自己被刑事起訴，亦不涉上訴人 issue the summonses were not a determination of a criminal charge 在訴訟中的公民權利和義務，因此沒有違反上 against the appellant or his civil rights and obligations in a suit at 訴人獲得公平聆訊的權利；(3)《裁判官條例》 law. There was no breach of his right to a fair hearing; (3) section 11 of the Magistrates Ordinance (Cap. 227) which provides for a ( 第 227 章 ) 第 11 條訂明聆訊須於公開及公眾法 hearing in open and public court, did not apply to an application 庭進行，但此條文不適用於私人檢控申請，因 for a private prosecution, since the magistrate was not sitting “to 為案中的裁判官並非在“聆訊及審理申訴或告 hear and try any complaint or information”; (4) neither Article 10 of 發案”；(4)《人權法案》第十條和《裁判官條 the HKBOR nor section 11 of the Ordinance required a magistrate to 例》第 條均無規定裁判官須於公開法庭聆訊 11 hear an application in open court to issue a summons. A refusal to 發出傳票的申請。基於案中資料沒有披露任何 issue a summons for private prosecution without a hearing because 罪行或表面上顯示指稱罪行的必要元素，在沒 the information did not disclose any offence in law or, prima facie, 有進行聆訊的情況下拒絕就私人檢控發出傳票， the essential ingredients of the alleged offence, did not offend the 並無違反司法制度須公開公正的原則。( 引述香 principle of open justice. (Headnotes of HKSAR v Cheung Kin Chung 港特別行政區 訴 張建忠 [2018] 2 HKLRD 597 的 [2018] 2 HKLRD 597 quoted.) 提要。) In MTR Corp Ltd v Chow Nok Hang [2018] 2 HKLRD 1378, the appellant was a publicly listed statutory corporation limited by shares, 在香港鐵路有限公司 訴 周諾恆 [2018] 2 HKLRD which was required to “maintain a proper and efficient service at all 1378 一案中，上訴方香港鐵路有限公司是一家 times” during the franchise period under section 9(1) of the Mass 上市公司，根據《香港鐵路條例》( 第 556 章 ) Transit Railway Ordinance (Cap. 556). The respondent was acquitted 第 9(1) 條，香港鐵路有限公司在專營期內的“任 of failing to comply with a “reasonable” direction and request of an 何時間”，均須“維持妥善而有效率的服務”。 MTR official in railway premises, namely, Tai Wai Station, contrary to 答辯人被控在鐵路處所 ( 即大圍站 ) 內沒有遵從 by-law 21(1) of the Mass Transit Railway By-laws (Cap. 556B). About 港鐵人員的“合理”指示及要求，違反《香港 15 people, including the respondent, placed a table in the middle 鐵路附例》( 第 556B 章 ) 第 21(1) 條，被裁定罪 of the paid area of the Station, displayed a banner and used a 47 名不成立。案情指包括答辯人在內的約共 15 人 loudspeaker to ask for passengers’ signatures to protest against the 在大圍站已付車費區域的中間位置擺放一張桌 construction of the cross-border high-speed rail link. The respondent 子，展示橫額，並使用揚聲器呼籲乘客簽名反 and other protestors ignored 3 requests by the MTR officials to stop 對興建跨境高速鐵路。由於答辯人及其他示威 broadcasting their appeal with the loudspeaker, demonstrating 者無視港鐵人員的三個要求：停止使用揚聲器 and collecting signatures and leaving the Station (the Directions). 廣播呼籲、示威及收集簽名，以及離開車站的 The respondent eventually left after being served with a Notice of Intended Prosecution for Breach of the By-law. The trial deputy 指示 ( 統稱“該等指示”) ，港鐵人員以答辯人 magistrate held that the paid area of the Station was a public place; 觸犯《附例》為理由向他送達擬檢控通知書，

the respondent was exercising his constitutional rights to freedom of PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 答辯人最終離開車站。原審暫委裁判官裁定： speech, assembly and demonstration; and the appellant had failed 車站已付車費區域是公眾地方；答辯人當時正 2018

to prove that the Directions were necessary and reasonable. The 在行使其享有言論、集會、示威自由的憲法權 appellant appealed by way of case-stated. The Court of First Instance 利；以及上訴人未能證明該等指示實屬必要和 allowed the appeal by substituting a verdict of guilty against the 合理。上訴人以案件呈述方式提出上訴。原訟 respondent and remitting the case to the deputy magistrate for 法庭裁定上訴得直，改判答辯人罪名成立，並 sentencing and held that: (1) although the Government owned 香港刑事檢控 把案件發還暫委裁判官判刑。原訟法庭裁定：(1) shares in the appellant, it was a separate legal entity and the 雖然政府持有上訴人的股份，但上訴人是獨立 Station was therefore a privately owned property. However, both 法律實體，因此車站屬於私人擁有物業，而上 commuters and other members of the public were allowed free 訴人衹為促進其業務而容許乘客及其他公眾人 admission into the Station in furtherance of their business; (2) on a 士自由進入車站；(2) 按立法目的詮釋《附例》 purposive construction of by-law 21(1), the Directions were fair and 第 21(1) 條，該等指示的目的為根據《條例》第 reasonable for the purpose of maintaining “a proper and efficient service at all times” inside the paid area of the Station under section 9(1) 條“在⋯⋯任何時間”在車站已付車費區域 9(1) of the Ordinance; (3) the Directions were also reasonable having 內維持“妥善而有效率的服務”，實屬公平合 regard to the proportionality analysis. The maintaining of a proper 理；(3) 按照相稱原則分析，該等指示也屬合理。 上訴人在任何時間在車站已付車費區域內維持 and efficient service at all times by the appellant inside the paid area 妥善而有效率的服務，屬合法目的，為的是尊 of the Station was a legitimate aim, namely, to respect the rights 重車站其他使用者的權利或保障公共秩序 (ordre of other users of the Station or protect the public order or ordre public)。大圍站的已付車費區域經常擠滿趕車趕 public. The Directions were rationally connected to such aim by 路的乘客，該等指示旨在限制在該區域內的阻 restricting obstructive and disruptive conduct in the paid area of the Station which was often crowded with passengers in a hurry; (4) the 礙及干擾行為，與上述目的有合理關聯；(4) 該 Directions were no more than reasonably necessary to accomplish 等指示並不超逾為達致該合法目的而合理所需 the legitimate aim. The respondent was not prevented from 者。答辯人要示威和發起運動，大可在車站已 protesting and campaigning outside the paid areas of Station and by 付車費區域以外地方或以其他方式 ( 例如社交媒 other means such as social media. Thus, a reasonable balance had 體 進行。因此，該等指示一方面照顧讓乘客乘 ) been struck between the benefit to society of enabling commuters 搭港鐵列車的社會利益，另一方面對答辯人受 to use MTR trains and the limited restriction on the respondent’s 保障的發表自由權利施加有限度的限制，兩者 guaranteed right of freedom of expression; and (5) having regard 之間已取得合理平衡；以及 (5) 鑑於所有相關考 to all relevant considerations, the deputy magistrate should have 慮因素，暫委裁判官理應裁定該等指示合理， held that the Directions were reasonable and therefore had wrongly 而非裁定答辯人罪名不成立。( 引用香港鐵路有 acquitted the respondent. (Headnotes of MTR Corp Ltd v Chow Nok 限公司 訴 周諾恆 [2018] 2 HKLRD 1378 的提要。) Hang [2018] 2 HKLRD 1378 quoted.)

In HKSAR v Wong Chun Yam [2018] 4 HKLRD 840, the appellant 在香港特別行政區 訴 黃俊欽 [2018] 4 HKLRD (D2 at trial) and 3 others (D1, D3, D4) (collectively, the Group) were 840 一案中，上訴人 ( 原審時為第二被告 ) 與另 jointly charged with and convicted of loitering that caused another 外三人 ( 第一、第三和第四被告 )( 統稱“涉案 person, the complainant, reasonably to be concerned for his 羣組”) 共同被控「遊蕩導致他人合理地擔心本 own safety or well-being, contrary to section 160(3) of the Crimes 身安全或利益」罪，違反《刑事罪行條例》 第 ( Ordinance (Cap. 200). The complainant was a candidate in the 2016 200 章 ) 第 160(3) 條，被裁定罪名成立。事主 Legislative Council election. Shortly before 8 a.m. on the polling 是 2016 年立法會選舉的候選人。投票日近早上 day, the complainant left his home with his election team in a car to 48 8 時，事主與競選團隊乘車離開寓所前往元朗一 begin campaigning in the Yuen Long area. In the next 3 hours, the 帶展開競選活動。隨後三小時，事主的車輛被 complainant’s car was tailed alternately or simultaneously by 2 cars, 兩輛車交替或同步跟蹤，該兩輛車的司機和乘 of which the drivers and passengers were D1 and D2; and D3 and 客分別是第一和第二被告及第三和第四被告。 D4 respectively. CCTV footage captured the Group, including D2 閉路電視片段錄得涉案羣組 ( 包括第二和第四被 and D4, shadowing the complainant on foot. The complainant later 告 ) 徒步尾隨事主的過程。其後，事主看到第四 saw D4 take photographs of him on the street and became aware 被告在街上對他拍照，繼而知悉該兩輛車已跟 that the 2 cars had been following him for an hour. The complainant 着他一小時。事主在某條盡頭路掉頭三次，但 could not evade the Group, despite making 3 U-turns in a cul-de- sac. The complainant, feared for his and his election team’s safety; 未能擺脫涉案羣組。事主擔心自己和競選團隊

PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG made a report to the police. Upon arrest, D2 said he and D1, his 的安全，於是報警。第二被告在被捕時表示， elder brother, were only on their way to have breakfast. In a video- 他和第一被告 ( 其兄長 ) 當時正去吃早餐而已。 2018

recorded interview, D2 denied having committed any offence and 第二被告在錄影會面中否認干犯任何罪行，只 only admitted keeping D1 company in the car that day. The trial 承認案發當日在車上陪伴第一被告。原審裁判 magistrate found that the tailing was “boldly noticeable” and not 官裁定，案中的跟蹤行為屬“擺明車馬”且非 short-lived; and it was reasonable that the complainant, or anyone 短暫，而事主或身在同一處境的任何人擔心自 香港刑事檢控 in his position, would be concerned for his own safety. D2 appealed 身安全實屬合理。第二被告不服定罪並提出上 against his conviction, arguing that D1, D3 and D4 did not engage 訴，辯稱第一、第三和第四被告沒有作出任何 in any conduct which would be of concern to the complainant; and 會令事主感到擔心的行為，以及沒有足夠證據 there was inadequate evidence that he himself had participated in 證明他本人曾參與任何該等行為。原訟法庭駁 any such conduct. In dismissing the appeal, it was held that: (1) D1, 回上訴，裁定：(1) 事主曾嘗試擺脫第一、第三 D3 and D4’s conduct was plainly disturbing to the complainant, 和第四被告但不果，可見他們的行為顯然對事 who had tried in vain to shake them off; (2) the term “loitering”, as defined to mean “idling, lingering and hanging about” should be 主造成騷擾；(2) “遊蕩”一詞的定義是指“閒 interpreted in the context in which it appeared in the statutory 逛、徘徊或逗留”，應根據提及該詞的法例條 provision, namely, “loitering causing concern”. Even though the “idling, 文的文意予以詮釋，即“遊蕩而導致擔心”。 即使案中的“閒逛、徘徊或逗留”是“有所目 lingering and hanging about” was “purposeful” in the present case, 的”( 例如以乘車或步行方式達到跟蹤或監視他 e.g. for the “purpose” of tailing or surveilling others by car or on foot, 人為“目的”)，該等行為仍屬遊蕩罪的涵蓋範 it was still “loitering” within the scope of the offence. Accordingly, the 圍。因此，原審裁判官裁定涉案羣組的行為構 magistrate was correct to find that the Group’s conduct amounted 成“遊蕩”，實屬正確；(3) 原審裁判官按主觀 to “loitering”; (3) the trial magistrate was also right in finding that 和客觀標準裁斷事主因涉案羣組的遊蕩行為而 on both a subjective and objective basis, the complainant was reasonably concerned for his safety or well-being because of the 合理地擔心本身的安全或利益，也屬正確；以 Group’s loitering; and (4) D2 was not merely present but was on 及 (4) 第二被告不僅身處現場，而且有任務在 a mission of knowingly engaging in a joint enterprise with his co- 身，明知而與同案其他被告共同犯案，干犯被 defendants and committing the offence charged. (Headnotes of 控罪行。 引用香港特別行政區 訴 黃俊欽 ( [2018] HKSAR v Wong Chun Yam [2018] 4 HKLRD 840 quoted) 4 HKLRD 840 的提要。) Section III(Appeals)(2) – 分科三 ( 上訴 ) 第 2 組 ― Higher Court Appeals 上級法院上訴 Higher Court Appeals Section is one of the sections under Sub- 上級法院上訴組隸屬分科三 ( 訟辯及上訴 )。顧 division III Advocacy & Appeals. As the Section name connotes, 名思義，該組檢控官主要負責處理在香港終審 prosecutors of the Section are mainly responsible for prosecuting 法院 ( 終審法院 ) 及上訴法庭審理的上訴案件， appeals, mainly in the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) 以及在原訟法庭審理的裁判法院上訴案件。在 and the Court of Appeal (“CA”), but they also prosecute magistracy appeals in the Court of First Instance (“CFI”). In addition, they also 上訴案件分派給指定檢控官專責處理前，該組 assist in attending to directions issued by the courts on appellate 檢控官也協助處理法庭就上訴程序發出的指示 procedures and handling requests made by appellants or their 和上訴人或其法律代表提出的要求。他們負責 legal representatives before the appeal cases are assigned to 的法庭訟辯職務還包括處理各級法院的審訊及 specific prosecutors to take charge. As part of their advocacy duties, 覆核案件。另外，與科內其他檢控官一樣，他 prosecutors of the Section also conduct trials and reviews at all levels 49 們也透過 FAST 制度給予法律指引。 of court. Moreover, like all other prosecutors in the Division, they give legal advice under the FAST system. 檢控官身為秉行公義者，如發現被定罪者就定 罪或刑罰提出的上訴有理據，控方會認同予以 As ministers of justice, prosecutors recognize that some of the 接受。為此，副刑事檢控專員 (III) 在刑事檢控專 appeals against conviction or sentence initiated by convicted 員指引下督導所有上訴。而上級法院上訴組主 persons may merit concessions from the prosecution. In this 管的職責是向副刑事檢控專員 (III) 提出相關合適 connection, it is the duty of the head of the Higher Court Appeals 建議。 Section to make such recommendations, where appropriate, to the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (III) who oversees appeals PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG under the guidance of the Director of Public Prosecutions. 該組檢控官也負責就控方應否就個別案件向終 2018 審法院及上訴法庭提出上訴或申請覆核提供法 Prosecutors of the Section also give advice as to whether the 律指引，當中包括根據《區域法院條例》( 第 prosecution should initiate an appeal or a review in a particular case 336 章 ) 第 84 條，就區域法院審理的案件以案 to be heard in the CFA and the CA. These include appeals by way 件呈述方式提出上訴；根據《刑事訴訟程序條 of case stated in relation to District Court cases pursuant to section 例》( 第 221 章 ) 第 81A 條，就區域法院或原訟 84 of the District Court Ordinance (Cap. 336), reviews of sentence 香港刑事檢控 法庭審理的案件申請覆核刑罰；以及根據《香 in relation to cases tried in the District Court or the CFI pursuant to 港終審法院條例》( 第 484 章 ) 第 31 條，就原訟 section 81A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 221), and 法庭或上訴法庭所作的上訴判決提出上訴。該 appeals against appellate decisions made by the CFI or the CA in 組檢控官會在適當情況下就此類上訴或覆核案 accordance with section 31 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal 件進行檢控。 Ordinance (Cap. 484). Where appropriate, prosecutors of the Section prosecute these appeals or reviews. 只在有極充分理據顯示案件的刑罰有原則上錯 Reviews of sentence would only be initiated in the most meritorious 誤及／或明顯不足的情況下，該組檢控官才會 of cases where the sentence in question was wrong in principle 申請覆核刑罰。2018 年，該組對大部分有關案 件都不建議申請覆核刑罰，只就六宗案件作出 此類申請，其中兩宗由上訴法庭審理，所涉罪 行有協助未獲授權入境者前來香港的旅程、串 謀行劫、搶劫，以及管有適合於和擬用作吸服 危險藥物的器具。該兩宗案件均獲上訴法庭裁 定申請得直，並改判較重刑罰。

2018 年，該組由高級助理刑事檢控專員林穎茜 女士掌管，並由四名能幹的檢控官協助處理職 務。下文概述 2018 年由終審法院審理的一些值 得關注的上訴案件。

香港特別行政區 訴 溫皓竣及另一人 (2018) 21 HKCFAR 214 一案關乎《監獄規則》中有關探訪 分科三（上訴）第 2 組 上級法院上訴 還押候審的在囚人士的制度。各上訴人在裁判 Section III(Appeals)(2) Higher Court Appeals 法院被裁定串謀欺詐罪罪名成立。案情指第一 and/or manifestly inadequate. In 2018, while the Section advised 上訴人成立了一家公司，為還押在荔枝角收押 against initiating a review of sentence in the majority of such cases, 6 所的候審在囚人士的家人及朋友提供探訪服務、 such applications for review of sentence had been initiated and 2 of 為在囚人士購置物品和來回傳遞他們的訊息。 them were heard in the CA. These 2 cases involved the offences of 各上訴人在收押所的探訪申請表上表明自己是 assisting passage to Hong Kong of unauthorized entrants, conspiracy 所探訪候審在囚人士的“朋友”。終審法院要 to rob, robbery and possession of apparatus fit and intended for the 處理的爭議點是，候審在囚人士的“朋友”是 inhalation of a dangerous drug. Both applications were allowed by 否只限於已與該在囚人士建立個人關係的人士， the CA with more severe sentences substituted. 50 而不包括與該在囚人士素未謀面的陌生人。法 院認為“朋友”一詞應獲賦予較廣闊的定義， In 2018, the Section was headed by Ms Vinci Lam, Senior Assistant 以涵蓋與各上訴人身分相同的人士。終審法院 Director of Public Prosecutions who was ably assisted by four 注意到，探訪最重要的目的是讓被定罪的在囚 prosecutors throughout the year. Highlighted below are some of the interesting appeals heard in the CFA in 2018. 人士與監獄外的人聯繫，並且得到精神及物質 上的支援。然而，探訪的目的還包括讓假定無 HKSAR v Wan Thomas and Another (2018) 21 HKCFAR 214 concerned 罪的候審在囚人士透過較寬鬆的制度為自己購 the regime under the Prison Rules for visits to prisoners on remand 置那些被定罪的在囚人士不獲提供的個人必需 awaiting trial. The Appellants were convicted of conspiracy to 品。因此，法院認為除了與候審在囚人士相識 defraud in the magistracy. The 1st Appellant set up a company PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 的人外，其“朋友”亦應包括應要求探訪他們 which offered visiting services to the family and friends of prisoners 的人士；為使在囚人士在精神或物質上有所得 awaiting trial remanded in Lai Chi Kok Remand Centre, procuring 2018

益 ( 符合探訪的法定目的 ) 而欲探訪他們的人士； items for the prisoners and conveying messages to and from the 以及在囚人士願意接受其探訪的人士。不過， prisoners. Each Appellant indicated on the remand centre’s Visit 法院補充指，所謂朋友必須有合法理由和本着 Request Slip that he was a “friend” of the prisoner awaiting trial visited. 真誠探訪候審在囚人士，而非出於不當目的和 The issue for the CFA was whether “friends” of a prisoner awaiting 香港刑事檢控 trial were limited to those persons who had a pre-existing personal 別有用心。 relationship with the prisoner and could not include strangers whom the prisoner had never met. The court considered that a wider 在律政司司長 訴 黃之鋒及另二人 (2018) 21 definition should be given to the word “friends” to include persons HKCFAR 35 一案中，各上訴人被控干犯涉及非法 in the Appellants’ position. The CFA noted that the most important 集結的罪行。原審裁判官判處第一和第二上訴 purpose of any visit to convicted prisoners is to allow them contact 人社會服務令，而第三上訴人則被判處監禁三 with persons outside the prison and the provision of moral and 星期，緩刑一年。控方向上訴法庭申請覆核刑 material support. But the purpose of visits to prisoners awaiting trial 罰。上訴法庭將各上訴人的刑罰改為六至八個 who are presumed innocent includes also enabling them to take 月監禁，上訴人隨後向終審法院提出上訴。案 advantage of a more liberal regime to procure for himself personal 情指，2014 年 9 月 26 日，第一和第三上訴人在 necessities which are otherwise not available to convicted prisoners. 抗議政府政制改革方案的行動中攀越圍欄，進 The court therefore considered that “friends” of a prisoner awaiting 入屬限制範圍的政府總部前地。第二上訴人呼 trial, in addition to personal acquaintances, should also include a 籲其他示威者進入前地，數百人響應，其中數 person who has been requested to visit the prisoner, who wishes to 十人成功進入該處。其後，他們在前地中的旗 visit the prisoner in order to provide him with some moral or material 桿四周聚集，高呼口號。事件中有十名保安人 benefit consistent with the statutory purposes of visits, and by whom the prisoner is willing to be visited. The court added, however, that 員受傷，一人傷勢嚴重。終審法院裁定上訴得 the putative friend of a prisoner awaiting trial must have a legitimate 直，並恢復裁判官判處的刑罰。終審法院認為 reason for visiting him and must be seeking to do so in good faith (i) 上訴法庭在決定判刑法庭有否犯下任何容許 and not for some improper ulterior purpose. 干預的錯誤時，審視判刑法庭席前所得的任何 相關證據，做法顯然適當；(ii) 倘若判刑法庭就 In Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung and 2 Others (2018) 21 事實裁定犯下錯誤，並基於該些錯誤判刑，則 HKCFAR 35, the Appellants were charged with offences related 上訴法庭必然有權糾正這些錯誤；(iii) 然而，控 to unlawful assembly and the trial magistrate sentenced the 1st 方在上訴中依據的事實不可有異於其在審訊中 and 2nd Appellants to a community service order and the 3rd 接受的事實，也不得重開在審訊中提出的控方 Appellant to 3 weeks’ imprisonment suspended for 1 year. The 案情；(iv) 以行使言論自由和集會自由或公民抗 prosecution applied to the CA for a review of the sentences. The CA 命之名，為有關違法行為求情，將不大可能給 substituted sentences of 6 to 8 months of imprisonment for each 予顯著的比重，因為根據定義，罪犯在干犯有 of the Appellants who then appealed to the CFA. The facts were that on 26 September 2014 in a protest against the government’s 關罪行時並非在行使憲法權利。這尤以涉及暴 proposals for constitutional reform, the 1st and 3rd Appellants 力為然，因為憲法根本不支持涉及暴力的不法 scaled a perimeter fence and entered the Forecourt of the Central 行為；(v) 鑑於本案判刑之時，上訴法院從沒有 Government Offices which was a restricted area. The 2nd Appellant 發出指引要求就這種性質的案件判處即時監禁， called on other protestors to enter the Forecourt. Several hundred 而且法庭過往也通常就非法集結罪判處社會服 people tried to do so and several tens of them succeeded. They 務令，因此上訴法庭並無恰當基礎對原審裁判 then gathered around a flagpole and chanted slogans. Ten security 官所考慮的相關判刑因素給予不同比重。然而， guards were injured, one seriously. The CFA allowed the appeals and 51 終審法院認同上訴法庭作出的判刑指引，即鑑 reinstated the sentences imposed by the magistrate. It held that (i) 於此罪行的嚴重性在於示威者仗着人多勢眾而 in determining whether the sentencing court had committed any 引起破壞社會安寧的風險與驚恐，法庭日後或 error which permitted interference, it was plainly appropriate for 有充分理由就涉及暴力 ( 即使暴力程度相對較 the CA to look at any relevant evidence available to the sentencing 低 ) 的非法集結罪判處即時監禁。 court; (ii) if the sentencing court had made an error as to the facts on which it passed the sentence, it was only right that the CA could correct them; (iii) the prosecution, however, was not permitted to 在香港特別行政區 訴 Harjani Haresh Murlidhar rely on a factual basis different to that accepted by the prosecution [2017] 5 HKLRD 326 一案中，上訴人被控串謀處

at trial or to reopen the way the prosecution case was advanced at PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 理已知道或相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的 trial; (iv) submissions in mitigation that the offending acts concerned 財產罪 ( 一般稱為串謀洗黑錢 )。控方案情指， 2018

were committed in the exercise of freedom of expression and 上訴人及其同謀在 年 月 日至 月 2014 4 26 7 21 freedom of assembly, or by way of an act of civil disobedience will 日期間串謀處理一筆來自電郵騙案的 539,375 美 unlikely carry any significant weight since, by definition, the offender 元款項。上訴人沒有爭議騙案有發生，但聲稱 was not doing so at the time of committing the offence; and this 他對騙案一無所知，自己也是騙案的受害者之 is all the more so when violence was involved since there was no 香港刑事檢控 一。案件在區域法院審理，上訴人被裁定罪名 constitutional justification for violent unlawful behavior; (v) since 成立，判監三年零九個月。原審法官裁定，上 there was prior to this case no appellate court sentencing guidelines 訴人唯一可以提出的免責辯護，乃證明自己真 that required an immediate custodial sentence for a case of this 誠並合理地相信有關款項是合法得益，但上訴 nature and community service orders were frequently passed for 人無法證明他有此信念。上訴法庭在審理上訴 unlawful assemblies, there was thus no proper basis for the CA to 時，認為原審法官要求上訴人必須證明其真誠 ascribe different weights to the relevant sentencing factors taken 信念是合理方可確立免責辯護，實屬錯誤。然 into account by the magistrate. Nevertheless, the CFA endorsed the CA’s sentencing guidelines set out for unlawful assemblies involving 而，上訴法庭裁定，原審法官重複使用“[ 有關 violence (even of a relatively low degree) to the effect that immediate 款項 ] 欠缺理據”和對涉案款項“視若無睹”的 字眼，清楚顯示他不相信上訴人真誠並合理地 imprisonment may be justified in the future, given the gravamen 相信有關款項合法的指稱。因此，儘管原審法 of the offence which involves the instigation of a risk and fear of a 官錯誤引用法律，本案罪行仍獲妥為證明。上 breach of the peace due to the number of protesters involved. 訴人其後就下述爭議點申請許可上訴至終審法 In HKSAR v Harjani Haresh Murlidhar [2017] 5 HKLRD 326, the 院：(1) 故意視若無睹是否足以支持就本案罪行 Appellant was charged with conspiracy to deal with property known 定罪，以及 (2) 上訴法庭以交替基礎維持上訴人 or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence, or more 定罪的裁決，是否誤判。最終上訴在 2018 年 11 commonly known as conspiracy to commit money laundering. It 月 日進行初步聆訊，聆訊期間，終審法院邀 27 was the prosecution case that between 26 April and 21 July 2014, 請訴訟雙方回應另外四個爭議點：(1) 就本案罪 the Appellant and his accomplices conspired together to deal 行而言，“有合理理由相信”這法定驗證準則 with a sum of US$539,375 from an email fraud. The Appellant did 的涵義為何；(2) 被告實際相信的事、與裁定是 not dispute that a fraud had been perpetrated but alleged that 否符合上述法定驗證準則之間有何相關之處； he was also a victim who had been duped and knew nothing (3)“故意視若無睹”對於裁定是否符合上述法 about the fraud. After a trial in the District Court, the Appellant was 定驗證準則的相關程度；以及 (4)(a) 串謀洗錢可 convicted of the offence charged and was sentenced to 3 years 否構成罪行，(4)(b) 被告如有合理理由相信有關 and 9 months’ imprisonment. The trial judge held that the only 財產以不正當手段取得，並同意處理有關財產 defence which might otherwise be available to the Appellant was ( 即使該等理由在處理財產時可能並不存在 )， for him to establish that he had an honest and reasonable belief that the money was legitimate but he failed. On appeal, the CA 是否即屬干犯串謀罪行。上訴聆訊在 2019 年 6 considered that the trial judge was wrong to require an honest 月 10 日進行，判決押後宣告。 belief to be established to be reasonable before the defence can be established. Nonetheless, the CA held that the trial judge’s repeated 分科三 ( 上訴 ) 第 3 組 ― use of the phrase “[the money was] ill-founded” and the phrase “turning a blind eye” to the money quite clearly showed that he did 人權 not believe the Appellant’s allegation that he had an honest and reasonable belief that the money was legitimate. As such, despite 該組檢控官負責處理涉及與《基本法》和《香 52 that the trial judge had misapplied the law, the offence had been 港人權法案》有關的上訴案件的檢控工作，並 duly proved. The Appellant then sought leave to appeal to the CFA 就刑事審訊或上訴中出現有關上述兩個範疇的 on the following issues: (1) whether wilful blindness is a sufficient 問題提供法律指引。此外，該組也負責就刑事 basis for conviction of the offence; and (2) whether the CA wrongly 法律程序及刑事案件引發的司法覆核提供法律 upheld the Appellant’s conviction on an alternative basis. The final 指引，以及處理此類案件。2018 年，本組由高 appeal was initially heard on 27 November 2018. During the hearing, 級助理刑事檢控專員黎嘉誼先生掌管。 the CFA invited the parties to address four further issues: (1) what is the meaning of the statutory test “having reasonable grounds to 以下為該組在 2018 年處理的一些重要案件： believe” in the context of the offence; (2) what is the relevance of the

PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG defendant’s actual belief in determining whether the said statutory 在香港特別行政區 訴 張貴財及另一人 [2018] test is satisfied; (3) to what extent is “wilful blindness” relevant in 2018 HKCFI 2243 及香港特別行政區 訴 葉寶琳及另四 determining whether the said statutory test is satisfied; and (4)(a) can 人 [2018] HKCFI 2243 這兩宗一併審理的上訴案 there be an offence of conspiracy to commit money laundering; and 件中，各上訴人均被控違反一項根據《立法會 (4)(b) where defendants have reasonable grounds to believe that ( 權力及特權 ) 條例》( 第 382 章 ) 第 8(3) 條所發 property is tainted, will they be guilty of conspiracy if they agree to 香港刑事檢控 出的行政指令，即未能依據《規限獲准進入立 deal with the property notwithstanding that those grounds may not exist at the time of dealing. The appeal was heard on 10 June 2019 法會大樓的人士及其行為的行政指令》( 第 382A with judgment reserved. 章 ) 第 11 條的規定在立法會會議廳範圍 ( 會議 廳範圍 ) 內遵守秩序，違反《立法會 ( 權力及特 權 ) 條例》第 20(b) 條。這兩宗案件源於立法會 Section III(Appeals)(3) – 財務委員會在 2014 年 6 月兩個不同日子舉行會 Human Rights 議期間，在會議廳範圍內發生兩次不同的示威 Prosecutors of the Section prosecute appeals and give advises on 事件。法庭裁定第 382A 章第 11 條有關在會議 cases involving issues concerning the Basic Law and the Hong 廳範圍內須遵守秩序的規定合憲。法庭認為， Kong Bill of Rights that arise during a criminal trial or appeal. Our prosecutors also give advises on and handle judicial reviews arising from criminal proceedings and matters. In 2018, the Section was headed by Mr Ned Lai, Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions.

Some of the significant cases handled by the Section in 2018 were as follows:

In the consolidated appeals of HKSAR v Cheung Kwai Choi & Another [2018] HKCFI 2243 and HKSAR v Yip Po Lam & 4 Others [2018] HKCFI 2243, each of the appellants was charged with an offence of contravening an Administrative Instruction issued under section 8(3) 分科三（上訴）第 3 組 人權 of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. Section III(Appeals)(3) Human Rights 382) (“LCPPO”), namely, failing to behave in an orderly manner within the precincts of the Chamber of the Legislative Council (“precincts of 立法會因其憲制角色和職能而具有建制上的獨 the Chamber”) pursuant to the requirement under section 11 of the 特性。雖然社會人士可到會議廳範圍內表達意 Administrative Instructions for Regulating Admittance and Conduct 見，但他們在該處的行為必須受到規管。為了 of Persons (Cap. 382A), contrary to section 20(b) of the LCPPO. 維持公眾秩序 ( 公共秩序 )，以及保障其他因合 The cases stemmed from 2 different incidents of demonstration 法目的進入及逗留在會議廳範圍內人士的權利， within the precincts of the Chamber on 2 different days in June 第 11 條所施加的限制是必要的。法庭進一步裁 2014, when the LegCo Finance Committee meetings were held. 定，第 11 條的目的是在會議廳範圍內締造既安 The Court held that the requirement for orderly behaviour within 全又莊嚴的環境，以助立法機關履行其憲制職 the precincts of the Chamber under section 11 of Cap. 382A is constitutional. The Court reasoned that owing to its constitutional 能，這是一個合法目的；第 11 條訂立遵守秩序 role and functions, the LegCo has institutional uniqueness. While 的標準，規管公眾人士在會議廳範圍內的行為， members of the community may go to the precincts to express 53 與該目的有合理的關連。第 11 條對權利的限制 their views, their behaviour therein must be subject to regulation. 並非不相稱，而是在個人權利與社會利益之間 The restriction imposed by section 11 is necessary in the interest of 取得恰當平衡。法庭遂駁回上訴。 public order (ordre public) as well as the protection of the rights of those who enter and stay in the precincts for a legitimate purpose. 在梁耀輝 訴 律政司司長及區域法院法官 [2018] The Court further held that section 11 aims at creating a secure and HKCFI 87 一案中，申請人就區域法院法官的下 dignified environment within the precincts of the Chamber which is 述決定申請司法覆核：(a) 因申請人沒有按照區 conducive to the legislature carrying out its constitutional function 域法院的指定裁決時間出庭應訊而沒收其保釋 which is a legitimate aim; and it is rationally connected to that aim

金；以及 (b) 拒絕他的退還保釋金申請。區域法 for section 11 to set a standard of orderly behaviour and regulating PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 院法官經查詢後得知 (a) 申請人經已離港並且沒 the behaviour of members of the public within the precincts. The

limitation of rights under section 11 is not disproportionate. It strikes 2018 有其回港記錄；及 (b) 辯方律師和申請人的家人 均未能聯絡申請人，因而命令沒收保釋金。其 the right balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of the community. The appeals were dismissed. 後，當申請人告知區域法院法官他是因為被內 地當局扣留而無法出席早前的聆訊，區域法院 In Leung Yiu Fai v Secretary for Justice and a District Judge [2018] 香港刑事檢控 法官認為自己的權責已終結，因此不能更改沒 HKCFI 87, the applicant applied for judicial review of a District Judge’s 收保釋金的命令和退還保釋金予申請人。原訟 decisions (a) to forfeit his bail money when he failed to attend the 法庭就申請人的司法覆核申請裁定，區域法院 District Court at the appointed time for verdict, and (b) to reject his 法官是根據當時所得的資料，知悉申請人沒有 application for returning the bail money to him. The District Judge 提供合理理由而缺席聆訊，而命令沒收保釋金， ordered the forfeiture of the bail money only upon knowing through 這並無犯錯。而且申請人當時顯然是自願離開 enquiries that (a) the applicant had already left Hong Kong and there 香港，因此沒收整筆保釋金亦非不相稱。此外， was no record of him having returned to Hong Kong; and (b) neither 法庭也確認，區域法院法官的權責已終結，不 the defence counsel nor the applicant’s family could contact the 能退還保釋金給申請人。因此，申請人推翻區 applicant. Subsequently, when the applicant surrendered himself to the District Court and informed the District Judge that he had been detained by the authorities in the Mainland, the District Judge took the view that he could not vary his forfeiture order and return the bail money to him as he was already functus officio. The Court of First Instance upon the applicant’s application for judicial review held that on the basis of the information then available to the District Judge, he had not erred in making the forfeiture order because no reasonable case was shown for the absence of the applicant. The forfeiture of the entire sum of the bail money was not disproportionate as it was clear that the applicant had voluntarily absented himself from Hong Kong. Furthermore, the Court confirmed that the District Judge was functus officio and could not return the bail money to the applicant. Both the applicant’s applications for quashing the District Judge’s decisions and for returning the bail money to him were therefore dismissed. 域法院法官的裁決的申請和退還保釋金的申請 均被駁回。 In HKSAR v Choi Wai Lun (2018) 21 HKCFAR 167, the appellant was acquitted after trial of 1 charge of indecent assault, contrary to 在香港特別行政區 訴 蔡偉麟 (2018) 21 HKCFAR section 122(1) of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200). The complainant 167 一案中，上訴人經審訊後被裁定一項違反 was a girl aged 13. The girl offered sexual services at listed prices on 《刑事罪行條例》( 第 200 章 ) 第 122(1) 條的猥 an adult website on which she described herself as aged 17. The 褻侵犯罪罪名不成立。申訴人是一名 13 歲女童， appellant was a third year university student aged 22. He patronised the girl for showering together and performing oral sex on him. 她在成人網站虛報自己年齡為 17 歲，並表示會 By virtue of section 122(2) of Cap. 200, a person under the age of 按所列價格提供性服務。上訴人是一名 22 歲的 16 could not in law give any consent which would prevent an act 大學三年級學生，他光顧該女童所提供的性服 being an assault for the purpose of the offence of indecent assault. 務，女童與他一起淋浴及為他口交。根據第 200 54 The trial magistrate acquitted the appellant of the sole charge of 章第 條的規定，年齡在 歲以下的人， 122(2) 16 indecent assault on the basis that his testimony that he honestly 在法律上是不能給予同意，使某項作為不構成 and reasonably believed that the girl was aged 16 or above was 猥褻侵犯罪所指的侵犯。由於控方未能推翻上 not rebutted. On appeal by way of case-stated by the prosecution, 訴人指自己真誠和合理地相信該女童年滿 16 歲 the appellant’s acquittal was quashed for the reason that section 或以上的證供，原審裁判官裁定上訴人所面對 122(2) of Cap. 200 imposes an absolute liability as far as the age of 的猥褻侵犯罪罪名不成立。控方以案件呈述方 a consenting underage complainant is concerned. The appellant 式提出上訴，法庭撤銷被告的無罪裁決，理由 then appealed to the Court of Final Appeal which held that section 是第 200 章第 122(2) 條就申訴人對猥褻侵犯行 122(2) should be construed as imposing a reverse onus on an

PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 為在法律上能夠給予同意的年齡施加了絕對法 accused to prove on the balance of probabilities that he honestly 律責任。上訴人隨後向終審法院提出上訴，終 and reasonably believed that the complainant in question was aged 2018

16 or above. The Court held that the reverse onus, which imposes a 審法院裁定第 122(2) 條的正確詮釋是對被告施 suitably demanding standard designed to encourage men to steer 加逆轉的舉證責任，被告須在相對可能性的標 clear of indecent conduct with young girls who may fall within the 準下，證明他真誠和合理地相信該名申訴人年 protected class, is constitutional as it (a) strikes a reasonable balance 滿 16 歲或以上。終審法院亦裁定，該項逆轉舉

香港刑事檢控 between the societal benefits promoted and the inroads made into 證責任所施加的要求嚴苛程度適中，旨在勸導 the constitutionally protected presumption of innocence; and (b) 男士切勿對可能屬受保護類別的少女作出猥褻 does not place an unacceptably harsh burden on an individual. 行為。由於該項舉證責任 (a) 在社會利益與規限 受憲法保護的無罪推定原則之間取得合理平衡； 以及 (b) 不會把過分嚴苛的舉證責任加諸個人身 上，故裁定為合憲。 分科三 ― 訟辯 Sub-division III – Advocacy 訟辯小組分別由高級助理刑事檢控專員萬德豪 The following are some of the major or high profile cases conducted 先生、陳淑文女士和黎劍華先生主管。以下是 by prosecutors in the Advocacy Sections headed variously by Senior 該小組檢控官處理的一些重大或矚目的案件。 Assistant Directors of Public Prosecutions Mr Jonathan Man, Ms Alice Chan and Mr Derek Lai. 在香港特別行政區 訴 黎駿豪 ( 高院刑事案件 In HKSAR v Lai Chun Ho HCCC 213/2016, the defendant is charged 2016 年第 213 號 ) 一案中，被告被控三項誤殺 with 3 counts of manslaughter, contrary to common law and 罪，違反普通法並可根據《侵害人身罪條例》 punishable under section 7 of the Offences against the Person ( 第 212 章 ) 第 7 條予以懲處。案情指，2015 年 Ordinance (Cap. 212). It is alleged that on 26 April 2015, in a garage 月 日，被告在九龍黃大仙的車房中，在沒 4 26 in Wong Tai Sin, Kowloon, the defendant was doing work without 有具備任何必要資格的情況下，處理一輛的士 any requisite qualification on the liquid petroleum gas (“LPG”) tank 的石油氣燃料缸。被告在工作過程中，(i) 沒有 of a taxi. In the course of such work, the defendant (i) failed to 採取足夠措施確保該輛的士的燃料缸不會泄漏 take sufficient steps to ensure that there would be no leakage or 或積聚石油氣；及／或 (ii) 沒有採取足夠措施確 accumulation of LPG from the fuel tank of the taxi; and/or (ii) failed to 保石油氣泄漏時不會被點燃。因石油氣泄漏並 take sufficient steps to ensure that should such leakage of LPG occur, 積聚而引發的大爆炸導致以下三人死亡：該輛 it would not be ignited. As a result of the leakage and accumulation 的士的司機、車房東主和毗鄰店鋪的老闆娘。 of LPG, a large explosion occurred causing the deaths of 3 people: 控方案情指被告的嚴重疏忽引致上述三人死亡。 the driver of the taxi, the owner of the garage and the wife of the 2018 年 3 月 23 日，被告否認全部三項嚴重疏 owner of the adjoining shop premises. It was the prosecution case 忽導致誤殺罪。審訊展開前，主審法官應允控 that the defendant caused the deaths by his gross negligence. On 23 March 2018, the defendant pleaded not guilty to all 3 counts of 方的申請，將一條法律問題呈上訴法庭裁決。 manslaughter by gross negligence. Before the trial commenced, 而該法律問題是：就嚴重疏忽的要素而言（嚴 the trial judge acceded to the prosecution’s application to reserve a 重疏忽的要素在 R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171 一 question of law to the Court of Appeal (“CA”) for resolution, namely, 案中解釋為“被告違反該責任可被視為嚴重疏 55 whether, for the element of gross negligence as explained in R v 忽，因而構成罪行”），是否必須證明被告在 Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171 to be a “breach of the duty by the defendant 主觀意念上察覺有明顯和嚴重的死亡風險，抑 being capable of being characterized as gross negligence and therefore 或只須採用客觀可預見的驗證準則。這問題在 a crime”, a defendant’s subjective state of mind as to his awareness of 上訴法庭與另一同類案件香港特別行政區 訴 麥 the obvious and serious risk of death should be proved or that only 允齡 ( 高院刑事案件 2015 年第 437 號 ) 一併審 the objective foreseeability test should be adopted. The question 理，該案涉及同一問題，並且也在候審中。上 was argued before the CA together with another similar case HKSAR 訴法庭在 2018 年 11 月 16 日頒下判決 ([2019] 1 v Mak Wan Ling, HCCC 437/2015 involving the same issue which HKLRD 4)，作出對控方有利的裁定：即控方無 was also pending trial. By its judgment delivered on 16 November 須證明被告主觀上察覺有明顯和嚴重的死亡風 2018 ([2019] 1 HKLRD 4), the CA ruled in favour of the prosecution PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 險，衹須採用客觀可預見的驗證準則。高院刑 and held that the prosecution is not required to prove that the 2018 defendant was subjectively aware of the obvious and serious risk of 事案件 2015 年第 437 號的被告現正向終審法院 death and only the objective foreseeability test should be adopted. 提出上訴。終審上訴將在 2019 下半年進行聆訊 The defendant in HCCC 437/2015 now appeals to the Court of Final ( 終院刑事上訴 2019 年第 3 號 )。高院刑事案件 Appeal (“CFA”). The substantive appeal will be heard on 5 September 年第 號的審訊現已押後，等待該法律 2016 213 2019 (FACC 3/2019). HCCC 213/2016 is adjourned pending the final 香港刑事檢控 問題的最終裁決。 resolution of the question of law.

在香港特別行政區 訴 李國勇 ( 高院刑事案件 In HKSAR v Li Guoyong HCCC 38/2018, there was an attempt to 2018 年第 38 號 ) 一案中，有人企圖綁架前市政 kidnap the former Chairman of the Urban Council Mr Leung Ting- 局主席梁定邦先生。2007 年 11 月 6 日，在梁先 bong. On 6 November 2007, on the 10th floor of a commercial 生辦公室所在的商業大廈 10 樓，有三名男子企 building where Mr Leung’s office was situated, 3 men attempted 圖強行擄拐梁先生。三人用膠紙束縛他，將他 to forcibly abduct Mr Leung by restraining him with adhesive tapes 放進木箱內。梁先生極力掙扎，咬斷其中一名 and putting him inside a wooden box. Mr Leung put up a vigorous struggle and bit off a segment of 1 culprit’s finger. The culprits 罪犯的一節手指。各罪犯繼而把連接氧氣瓶的 面罩套在梁先生的口鼻上，並嘗試關上木箱， then put a mask, which was connected to an oxygen cylinder, on 但因梁先生反抗而未能成事。最終，三名罪犯 Mr Leung’s mouth and nose, and tried unsuccessfully to close the 逃離現場而梁先生獲救。六天後，案中主腦被 wooden box, because of Mr Leung’s resistance. Eventually, the 3 捕，其後被裁定串謀強行禁錮以取得贖金罪名 culprits fled the scene and Mr Leung was rescued. 6 days later, the 成立，判監 14 年。案中一名從犯是雙程通行證 mastermind was arrested and subsequently convicted of a charge of conspiracy to commit forcible detention for ransom. He was 持有人，他 10 年後在 2017 年 8 月 15 日進入香 sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment. An accomplice, a two-way 港時被捕，同樣被控一項串謀強行禁錮以取得 permit holder, was arrested when he entered Hong Kong 10 years 贖金罪。針對該名從犯的證據主要包括從多項 later on 15 August 2017. He was likewise charged with 1 count of 與該罪行相關的物品 ( 包括木箱 ) 上套取所得大 conspiracy to commit forcible detention for ransom. The evidence 量屬於他的指紋、掌紋和腳印。陪審團一致通 against the accomplice essentially consisted of a large number of 過有罪裁決，裁定該名從犯罪名成立，他與案 his fingerprints, palm prints and footprints being lifted from various 中主腦同樣被判監 14 年。 articles connected with the crime, including the wooden box. By their unanimous guilty verdict, the jury convicted the accomplice. 在香港特別行政區 訴 李潤福及另二人 [2018] He was likewise sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment. HKDC 357 一案中，第一和第二被告 ( 分別是警 員和警署警長 ) 與第三被告 ( 涉嫌三合會會員 ) In HKSAR v Lee Yuen-fook & 2 Others [2018] HKDC 357, D1 and D2, 經審訊後被裁定一項共同被控的串謀公職人員 a police constable and a police sergeant respectively, and D3, a 行為失當罪罪名成立。案情指第一和第二被告 suspected triad affiliate, were convicted after trial of a joint charge of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office. For monetary 在取得警方就一宗謀殺案保存的機密資料後， reward, D1 and D2 took steps to obtain confidential information 將有關資料交給第三被告，並告知第三被告該 of a murder case kept by the police force and passed that on to 謀殺案的疑犯在面對警方調查時應如何應對的 D3, together with their recommendations as to how the suspects 一些建議，以換取金錢報酬。第一、第二和第 in the murder case should conduct themselves in face of police 三被告分別判監三年、兩年零八個月和兩年零 investigation. D1, D2 and D3 were sentenced to 3 years’, 2 years and 三個月。 8 months’, and 2 years and 3 months’ imprisonment respectively. 56 在香港特別行政區 訴 吳偉漢及另二人 [2018] In HKSAR v Ng Wai-hon & 2 Others [2018] HKDC 1278, D1 and D2 HKDC 1278 一案中，第一和第二被告被裁定一 were convicted of a joint charge of conspiracy for a public servant to 項共同被控的串謀使公職人員接受利益罪罪名 accept advantage; and D3 was convicted of a charge of aiding and 成立，第三被告被裁定一項協助和教唆他人向 abetting another person to offer advantage to a public servant. D1 公職人員提供利益罪罪名成立。第一被告是警 was a Superintendent of Police; and D2 and D3 were the operators 司，第二和第三被告是兩家私人會所的營運者。 of 2 private clubs. From 29 November 2015 to 24 January 2017, D1 and D2, together with others, conspired for D1 to accept a total 2015 年 11 月 29 日至 2017 年 1 月 24 日，第一 of HK$570,000 from D2 and D3 as rewards for D1 to disclose to D2 和第二被告連同其他人串謀使第一被告接受來

PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG and D3 confidential information relating to the police investigations 自第二和第三被告共港幣 570,000 元的款項，作 of the 2 private clubs, and to give advice or assistance to them as 為第一被告向第二和第三被告披露有關警方調

2018 to how to deal with the matter. D3, on the other hand, knowingly

查該兩家私人會所的機密資料，以及就如何處 assisted D2 to offer D1 a sum of HK$114,000 for disclosing the said 理有關事宜向他們提供意見或協助的報酬。另 confidential information. D1, D2 and D3 pleaded guilty to their 一方面，第三被告在知情的情況下協助第二被 respective charges and were sentenced to 28 months’, 20 months’ 告給予第一被告一筆港幣 114,000 元的款項，以 and 12 months’ imprisonment respectively. 香港刑事檢控 披露上述機密資料。第一、第二和第三被告承 認各自被起訴的控罪，分別判監 28 個月、20 個 In HKSAR v Leung Chung-hang Sixtus & 4 Others KCCC 2035/2017, Leung Chung-hang Sixtus, Yau Wai-ching and 3 of their assistants 月和 12 個月。 were charged with taking part in an unlawful assembly for having attempted to force their way into the Conference Room where 在香港特別行政區 訴 梁頌恆及另四人 ( 九龍城 the Legislative Council meeting was held on 2 November 2016. 裁判法院刑事案件 2017 年第 2035 號 ) 一案中， They charged at a cordon line formed by the security officers 梁頌恆、游蕙禎和他們的三名助理在 2016 年 11 with unreasonable force. A number of the security officers of the 月 日因企圖強行進入立法會舉行會議的會議 2 Legislative Council were injured in the chaos. At the trial, it was 室而被控參與非法集結罪。他們不合理地使用 contended that Leung and Yau were entitled to retake their oaths 武力，衝擊由保安人員組成的封鎖線。混亂中， of office and to attend the Council meeting; and that the security 立法會有數名保安人員受傷。辯方在審訊中辯 officers were acting unlawfully in preventing their entry into the 稱，梁、游有權重新作出就職誓言和出席立法 Conference Room. The magistrate rejected such contention, and 會會議，而保安人員阻止他們進入會議室，並 held that irrespective of the alleged Council member status of 非依法行事。裁判官拒絕接納有關論點，並裁 Leung and Yau, they would not be exempted from criminal liability 定梁、游二人不論是否擁有指稱的議員身分， in respect of the violence they used. All the defendants were found guilty of the offence charged. Each of them was sentenced to a term 也不能獲豁免承擔因使用暴力而須負上的刑事 of 4 weeks’ imprisonment. Leung has lodged an appeal against both 責任。所有被告均被裁定控罪成立，各被判處 conviction and sentence which will be heard in 2020. 監禁四星期。梁已就其定罪和刑罰提出上訴， 有關聆訊會在 2020 年進行。 In HKSAR v Ma Siu Lun KCS 31375 & 31379/2017, a number of passengers were injured when an upward moving escalator at 在香港特別行政區 訴 馬兆麟 ( 九龍城裁判法院 Langham Place, Mongkok suddenly stopped and travelled in the 傳票案件 2017 年第 31375 及 31379 號 ) 一案中， reverse direction due to the breakage of its main drive chain and 旺角朗豪坊一部自動梯在上行期間因主驅動鏈 the malfunctioning of the broken-chain-drive device. The engineer 斷裂和驅動鏈斷裂安全裝置失靈而突然停頓， responsible for the bi-annual examination of the escalator was 並逆向移動，導致若干乘客受傷。負責每年檢 prosecuted for the offences of failing to ensure an escalator and 驗該自動梯兩次的工程師被控沒有確保自動梯 its associated equipment being thoroughly examined, contrary to 及相聯設備獲徹底檢驗，違反《升降機及自動 section 54(1), (2) and (7) of the Lifts and Escalators Ordinance, Cap. 618. The issue at the trial was whether the defendant had failed to 梯條例》( 第 618 章 ) 第 54(1)、(2) 及 (7) 條。審 examine thoroughly the main drive chain and broken-chain-drive 訊的爭議點是被告是否沒有徹底檢驗該自動梯 device of the escalator. Accepting the expert evidence adduced 的主驅動鏈和驅動鏈斷裂安全裝置。裁判官接 by the prosecution, the magistrate held that the defendant, who 納控方援引的專家證據，裁定被告在每年兩次 only made a brief visual inspection of the main drive chain and 的檢驗中，只短暫查看主驅動鏈和驅動鏈斷裂 broken-chain-drive device during the bi-annual examination, had 安全裝置，沒有按適當程序確保該等裝置獲徹 failed to ensure that those devices had been thoroughly examined 底檢驗。被告在審訊後被裁定控罪成立，判監 in accordance with the proper procedure. The defendant was 57 兩個月，緩刑 12 個月，罰款共港幣 40,000 元。 convicted of the offences charged after trial, and was sentenced to 2 months' imprisonment suspended for 12 months as well as a total 在香港特別行政區 訴 余祖林 [2018] HKDC 1195 fine of HK$40,000. 一案中，被告被控刑事恐嚇、刑事損壞及管有 攻擊性武器，他否認所有控罪。案情指，法院 In HKSAR v Yu Zulin [2018] HKDC 1195, the defendant was charged with criminal intimidation, criminal damage and possession of 要求被告在 2017 年 10 月 17 日到高等法院大樓 offensive weapon and he pleaded not guilty to all the charges. On 第三庭領取其民事申索上訴的判案書。被告領 17 October 2017, the defendant was requested to attend Court 3 of 取判案書後走入正在開庭的第十三庭，取出一

the High Court Building to obtain the judgment of the appeal of his PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 把菜刀並走向法官席。司法書記站起來喝止， civil claim. After obtaining the judgment on that day, the defendant 但被告繼續走向法官席，法官及書記即時離開

went to Court 13 where the court was in session. He took out a 2018

法庭。被告一邊把菜刀砍在法官桌上，一邊出 chopper and walked towards the bench. The judicial clerk stood 言恐嚇，最後離開法庭。法官桌上留下一道凹 up and shouted at the defendant who continued to proceed to the 痕。控方指被告進入法庭是要恐嚇庭內法官， bench. The judge and his clerk left the court room immediately. The 主審法官不接納此論點，裁定被告刑事恐嚇及 defendant struck the chopper at the judge’s bench while uttering 香港刑事檢控 管有攻擊性武器的控罪不成立，但由於被告把 some threatening words before he finally left the court room. A dent 菜刀砍在法官桌上造成凹痕，因此裁定被告刑 mark was left on the judge’s bench. Although the trial judge did not 事損壞控罪成立，判監 16 個月。 accept the prosecution’s contention that the defendant entered the court room with a view to threatening the judge there and hence acquitted the defendant of the charges of criminal intimidation and possession of offensive weapon, the defendant was, however, convicted of the charge of criminal damage for the dent mark caused by his striking the chopper at the judge’s bench and was sentenced to 16 months' imprisonment. 分科四 商業罪案 Sub-division IV Commercial Crime

分科四在科內又稱為商業罪案組，專責處理嚴重 詐騙和洗錢案件，以及市場失當行為、貪污、走 私和逃稅等指定範疇的檢控工作。本分科由副刑 事檢控專員譚耀豪資深大律師掌管，就眾多事項 向各執法機關提供法律指引，包括香港警務處商 業罪案調查科、證券及期貨事務監察委員會、廉 政公署和香港海關。本分科與執法機關合作，檢 控嚴重商業罪案，以維持香港金融機構及金融體 58 系的廉潔和誠信。隨着互聯網及流動科技興起， 現今商業犯罪手法日新月異，使本分科的工作更 具挑戰性。下文闡述本分科五個組別的各類工 作，以及在 2018 年處理的一些值得注意案件。

Sub-division IV, also known as the Commercial Crime Unit within the Division, specializes in cases of major fraud, money-laundering and designated areas of prosecution such as market misconduct, corruption, smuggling and evasion of tax or duty. Headed by Mr William Tam SC, Deputy Director

PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG of Public Prosecutions, the Sub-division renders legal advice on a multitude of subject matters to various law enforcement agencies including the 2018 Commercial Crime Bureau of the Hong Kong Police Force, the Securities and Futures Commission, the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Customs and Excise Department. The Sub-

香港刑事檢控 division works with the law enforcement agencies to prosecute serious commercial crimes with a view to maintaining the integrity and probity of the financial institutions and systems in Hong Kong. The portfolio of the Sub-division is a challenging one especially when the modern landscape of commercial crime changes rapidly with the advent of the internet and mobile technology. What follows is a description of the types of work of each of the 5 sections within the Sub-division and some of the notable cases that were dealt with in the year of 2018. 分科四 商業罪案 Sub-division IV Commercial Crime

分科四第 1 組 ― Section IV(1) – Major Fraud 嚴重詐騙 The Major Fraud Section, headed by Ms Virginia Lau, Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, with the strength of 4 Senior Public 嚴重詐騙案件組由高級助理刑事檢控專員劉少儀 Prosecutors and 1 Public Prosecutor, is mainly responsible for 女士掌管，成員包括四名高級檢控官及一名檢控 giving legal advice to the Commercial Crime Bureau of the Hong 59 官，主要負責就嚴重商業詐騙案件向香港警務處 Kong Police Force on major commercial fraud cases. Prosecutors 商業罪案調查科提供法律指引。組內檢控官也處 in the Section also conduct trials and appeals at all levels of courts. 理在各級法院的審訊及上訴工作。 The Section handles a wide range of white-collar crime cases, 該組處理的案件涉及範疇廣泛的白領罪行，包括 including money laundering with international dimensions, 跨國洗錢、盜用公司款項、投資／按揭詐騙及涉 embezzlement of corporate funds, investment/mortgage fraud and theft involving virtual currencies. 及虛擬貨幣的盜竊。

White-collar crimes evolve over time. They are now more

白領罪行日新月異，也愈趨複雜多變，無遠弗 PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG sophisticated, diverse and global in scale. They are often 屆，往往涉及越境犯案，橫跨多個司法管轄區。 transnational in nature, transcending a number of jurisdictions. 2018 罪犯利用不同的會計和銀行金融手段掩飾不法活 Criminals use a range of accounting and banking devices to 動，使執法機關的偵查和該組的檢控工作更為困 conceal their unlawful activities which increases the difficulty for 難。由於案件規模龐大，又牽涉不同司法管轄 law enforcement agencies to investigate and for us to prosecute. 區，故該組不時透過請求書向海外取證，以供調 In view of the enormous scale of the cases and the involvement 查之用及用以支持隨後的檢控。 of different jurisdictions, letters of request are used from time to 香港刑事檢控 time to obtain overseas evidence for investigation purposes and to 除了向警方提供法律指引，該組也致力協助警方 support the subsequent prosecution. 掌握現時打擊白領罪行法律的最新發展。年內， Aside from providing legal advice to the Police, the Section strives 組內檢控官與警務人員定期舉行會議。該組在 to keep the Police abreast of the current development of law on 2018 年處理的各類案件選錄如下： white-collar crimes. Prosecutors of the Section conduct regular meetings with Police officers throughout the year. The Section 香港特別行政區 訴 高家威 高院刑事案件 ( 2018 handled a variety of cases in 2018 with some examples as follows: 年第 78 號 ) 一案是典型的“盜用公司款項”案件。 分科四第 1 組 嚴重詐騙 Section IV(1) Major Fraud

被告是香港一家上市公司的會計部主管，該公 HKSAR v Ko Ka-wai HCCC 78/2018 was a classic case of “embezzlement 司擁有一間英屬足球會。被告使用假冒兩名董 of corporate funds”. The defendant was the head of the accounting 事簽發的 75 張公司支票，從該公司的銀行帳戶 department of a listed company in Hong Kong which held a football 60 共提取約港幣 3,700 萬元。負責調查案件的庫務 club in England. The defendant used 75 cheques of the company 會計師發現，上述款項經被告的香港賽馬會投 bearing the false signatures of 2 directors to withdraw from the 注戶口用作投注。計及以中彩和回扣款項進行 company’s bank account a total of around HK$37 million. The Treasury Accountant who investigated into the matter found that 的其他投注，被告累積投注的總額達港幣 3.72 the said sum of money was used for betting through the defendant’s 億元。被告辭職後，該公司的行政助理察覺公 Hong Kong Jockey Club betting account. Together with other 司銀行帳戶有大額款項不翼而飛，使有關罪行 betting using moneys from winnings and rebates, the defendant 曝光。被告經審訊後被裁定一項盜竊罪罪名成 had betted a total sum of HK$372 million. The offence came to light 立，判監十年。法庭同時針對被告頒下刑事破 when the administrative assistant of the company noticed that large 產令。

PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG sums of money in the company’s bank account were missing after the defendant had resigned. The defendant was convicted of a

2018 香港特別行政區 訴 林慧妍 [2018] HKCA 973 一 count of theft after trial and was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment 案是典型的“發票貸款欺詐”案件，商人藉詐 along with a criminal bankruptcy order made against him. 騙銀行為其掌控的公司克服財困或減輕現金周 轉不靈問題。被告和丈夫在中國內地經營紙製 HKSAR v Lam Wai-yin [2018] HKCA 973 was a typical case of “invoice loan fraud” against banks by businessmen in order to overcome 香港刑事檢控 禮品廠。她是其夫設在香港的潤財有限公司 ( 潤 financial difficulties or to ease cash-flow problems of companies 財 ) 的負責人。在 2007 年 9 月至 2008 年 9 月， under their control. The defendant and her husband operated 被告利用虛假銷售發票向不同銀行申請貸款， paper giftware factories in Mainland China. She was in charge of 宣稱有關發票顯示潤財與三家公司有業務交易， her husband’s company Yun Choy Limited (“Yun Choy”) which was 但被揭發該三家公司均屬虛構，並無基本業務。 in Hong Kong. From September 2007 to September 2008, the 案中 50 筆貸款申請涉及逾港幣 6,000 萬元。潤 defendant used false sales invoices to apply for loans from various 財在 2009 年清盤時，清盤人發現上述宣稱真實 banks. Those invoices purportedly showed that there were business 的交易有不當之處，遂揭發有關欺詐行為。被 transactions between Yun Choy and 3 companies which were found 告在區域法院承認七項欺詐罪，被判監禁共 58 to be bogus and they had no underlying business. There were 50 個月，其後就刑期提出上訴，而上訴法庭維持 loan applications involving over HK$60 million. When Yun Choy 刑期不變。 was wound up in 2009, the liquidator found irregularities in the said purported transactions and the fraud was exposed. The defendant 香港特別行政區 訴 卜耀棠 [2019] HKDC 305 一 pleaded guilty to 7 counts of fraud in the District Court and was 案是“按揭貸款欺詐”案件。被告向財務公司 sentenced to a total of 58 months’ imprisonment which was upheld 提交虛假文書，即兩份一般適用授權書和兩份 by the Court of Appeal upon appeal. 委託書，宣稱他獲父母授權以他們的婚姻居所 HKSAR v Bok Yiu-tong [2019] HKDC 305 was a “mortgage loan fraud” 作抵押，申請港幣 250 萬元按揭貸款。該財務 case. The defendant submitted false instruments to a financial 公司因上述虛假文件而被誤導，批准被告的申 company, namely 2 general powers of attorney and 2 authorisation 請。被告承認一項欺詐罪，被判監禁 28 個月。 letters, purporting that he was authorised by his parents to use their matrimonial home as security to apply for a mortgage loan in the 香港特別行政區 訴 陳志杰 [2018] HKDC 759 一 sum of HK$2.5 million. The financial company was deceived by 案涉及一名馬來西亞籍被告，他是馬來西亞某 the false documents and granted his application. The defendant “信用卡欺詐”集團成員，在 2017 年 6 月至 pleaded guilty to a count of fraud and was sentenced to 28 months’ 10 月經常乘搭航班往來吉隆坡與香港，其間曾 imprisonment. 11 次使用九張偽造的信用卡簽帳購買總值港幣 37,258 元的奢侈品。當局拘捕被告時發現他身 HKSAR v Chan Chee-jeck [2018] HKDC 759 involved a Malaysian defendant who was part of a “credit card fraud” syndicate in Malaysia. 上管有 12 張偽造的信用卡。被告承認五項使用 The defendant took frequent flights between Kuala Lumpur and 虛假文書罪和一項管有虛假文書罪，被判監禁 Hong Kong from June to October 2017, during which he used 36 個月。 9 forged credit cards in 11 transactions to purchase luxury items totaling HK$37,258. When arrested, the defendant was found in 香港特別行政區 訴 莫逸謙及梁子睿 東區裁判 ( possession of 12 forged credit cards. The defendant pleaded guilty 法院刑事案件 2017 年第 3568 號 ) 一案是牽涉保 to 5 counts of using false instruments and a count of possession of 險代理的“洗錢”案件。第一被告 ( 莫氏 ) 是著 false instruments. He was sentenced to 36 months’ imprisonment. 名保險公司的年輕保險代理。莫氏把其個人銀 行帳戶借給第二被告 ( 梁氏 ) 使用，以便梁氏 ( 他 HKSAR v Mok Yat-him and Leung Tsz-yui Kasval ESCC 3568/2017 was 61 是有多年經驗的前保險代理 ) 從澳門一名女客戶 a “money laundering” case involving insurance agents. The first 收取港幣 382,710 元。梁氏向莫氏表示，該筆款 defendant (“Mok”) was a young insurance agent in a prominent 項來自某三合會成員，是一筆約港幣 100 萬元 insurance company. Mok lent his personal bank account to the 資金的一部分，資金供購買保險產品之用。如 second defendant (“Leung”), a former insurance agent with years of experience, to receive a sum of HK$382,710 from a female client 莫氏及梁氏能完成交易，便可把該三合會成員 of Leung from Macau. Leung told Mok that this was part of a larger 約港幣 380,000 元的酬金作三七分帳。二人經審 sum of around HK$1 million coming from a member of a triad 訊後各被裁定一項“洗錢罪”罪名成立。莫氏 society to purchase insurance products. Mok and Leung would 被判處 小時社會服務令，而梁氏被判監禁 200 share a reward of around HK$380,000 from the triad member in a PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 15 個月。 split ratio of 30/70 if they completed the deal. Mok and Leung were each convicted of a count of “money laundering” after trial. Mok was 2018

分科四第 組 ― sentenced to a community service order of 200 hours. Leung was 2 sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment. 證券、稅務及詐騙

對證券、稅務及詐騙案件組來說，2018 年依然 Section IV(2) – 香港刑事檢控 充滿挑戰。年內，本組由高級助理刑事檢控專 Securities, Revenue and Fraud 員黃堅邦先生掌管，與三名高級檢控官和兩名 檢控官負責向多個執法機關提供法律指引，以 The year of 2018 continued to be a challenging year for the Securities, Revenue and Fraud Section. The Section, then headed by 及就他們調查的各類案件作出檢控。本組處理 Mr Michael Wong, Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, 的案件包括但不限於市場失當行為、證券詐騙、 together with 3 Senior Public Prosecutors and 2 Public Prosecutors, 商業詐騙、洗錢、使用虛假文書、管有／付給 is responsible for providing legal advices to, and prosecuting a 偽製紙幣、逃稅，以及在一手住宅物業銷售中 wide range of cases investigated by, a number of law enforcement 提供虛假及具誤導性資料等。 agencies. The cases handled by the Section include, but are not 有關執法機關包括證券及期貨事務監察委員會、 limited to, market misconduct, securities fraud, commercial fraud, 香港警務處商業罪案調查科、一手住宅物業銷 money laundering, using false instruments, possessing/tendering 售監管局、稅務局、保險業監管局和競爭事務 counterfeit notes, tax evasion and providing false and misleading 委員會。在草擬條例草案和推行部門政策方面， information in the sale of first-hand residential properties, etc. 本組人員不時應要求找出並解決各決策局提出 The relevant law enforcement agencies include the Securities and 的法律及證據問題，並須協助找出該等草擬工 Futures Commission, Commercial Crime Bureau of the Hong Kong 作和政策可能引致的法律後果。此外，本組人 Police Force, Sales of First-hand Residential Properties Authority, 員也會提出有堅實嚴謹的法律研究支持的可行 Inland Revenue Department, Insurance Authority and Competition 建議，以便快捷有效地處理各執法機關及決策 Commission. From time to time, members of the Section are 局的關注事宜。為確保所提供的法律指引準確、 requested to identify and resolve both legal and evidential issues 運用適時的法律和全面，本組人員往往須與司 raised by various bureaux in the context of bill drafting exercises 內其他科別聯絡和協調，就其專業範疇尋求他 and implementation of departmental policies. Members are also 們的意見和協助。下文載述本組在 2018 年處理 required to help identify potential legal implications that may result 的一些較重要和敏感的案件： from such exercises and policies. Further, members of the Section would also make practical recommendations, supported by solid 在香港特別行政區 訴 蔡鳳岐 [2018] HKDC 1146 and sound legal research, to effectively and efficiently address the 一案中，被告經審訊後被裁定兩項“洗錢”罪 concerns of the law enforcement agencies and bureaux. Very often, in order to ensure that the advices provided are accurate, up-to- 成，於 2018 年 7 月就兩控罪各判處即時監禁 date and comprehensive, members of the Section have to liaise and 五年零六個月，同期執行。控方案情指，2009 coordinate with other divisions of the Department by seeking their 年 7 月，被告身為一張總額達 2,828,832 美元支 views and inputs on areas in which they have expertise. Below are 票的受票人，利用美國支票結算系統的漏洞， some of the more significant and sensitive cases handled by the 在出票人帳戶尚未被確認是否有足夠款項的情 Section in the year of 2018. 況下，非法地把存入其美國銀行帳戶的上述款 項轉帳至其香港銀行帳戶。被告隨後從上述轉 In HKSAR v Tsoi Fung-kei [2018] HKDC 1146, the defendant was 62 帳款項中提取合共港幣 6,300,000 元現金，並離 convicted after trial of 2 counts of “money laundering”. A concurrent 開香港前往中國內地。他在當地逗留八年，至 sentence of 5 years and 6 months’ immediate imprisonment was 2017 年 7 月回港時被捕。 imposed in July 2018. It was the prosecution case that back in July 2009, the defendant, being the drawee of a cheque in the sum of 在證券及期貨事務監察委員會 訴 歐陽少鵬 ( 東 US$2,828,832, exploited a loophole in the cheque clearing system 區裁判法院傳票案件 2017 年第 30588 及 30589 of the United States of America by unlawfully transferring the said sum of money deposited into his US bank accounts to his Hong 號 ) 一案中，被告被裁定兩張傳票中所指就一家 Kong bank accounts before the availability of funds in the drawer’s 在香港聯合交易所 ( 港交所 ) 創業板上市的公司 account was confirmed. The defendant then withdrew a total of ( 該公司 ) 的股票進行“內幕交易”的控罪罪成，

PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG HK$6,300,000 in cash from the said transfer and left Hong Kong for 被判即時監禁四個月，罰款港幣 120,000 元。 the Mainland China, where he stayed for the next 8 years until his 控方案情指，被告案發時乃該公司的集團財務

2018 return to Hong Kong in July 2017 when he was arrested. 經理。他在取得有關該公司未經審核的虧損及 公司股份有可能被港交所暫停買賣的內幕消息 In Securities and Futures Commission v Au-Yeung Siu Pang ESS 30588 後，但在該公司向外公佈有關虧損前，在 2012 & 30589/2017, the defendant was convicted of 2 summonses of 年 3 月 28 及 29 日，售出自己和父親名下合共 “insider dealing” in the shares of a company (“Company”) listed on 香港刑事檢控 110 萬股該公司的股份。被告透過內幕消息出售 the GEM board of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (“HKEx”). He 股份後，名義上避免了合共港幣 174,000 元的損 was sentenced to 4 months’ immediate imprisonment and fined 失。 HK$120,000. It was the prosecution case that the defendant was the group finance manager of the Company at the material time. Having obtained insider information regarding the unaudited loss of the 香港特別行政區 訴 唐子樂 ( 東區裁判法院刑事 Company and the potential suspension of trading in the Company’s 案件 2018 年第 1467 號 ) 案是一宗強制性公積金 share on HKEx, the defendant sold a total of 1.1 million shares of the ( 強積金 ) 詐騙案。案中被告曾作法定聲明，表 Company held in his own name and in the name of his father on 28 示會在 年 月 日永久離開香港，移居 2015 1 20 and 29 March 2012 before the Company made the relevant public 其他地方，且無意回港定居。他向強積金受託 announcement regarding its loss. The total resulting notional loss 分科四第 2 組 證券、稅務及詐騙 Section IV(2) Securities, Revenue and Fraud

人提交該法定聲明，以永久離開香港為理由申 that had been avoided by the defendant by selling the shares on the 請提取累算權益。強積金受託人在 2015 年 6 月 insider information was HK$174,000. 向被告支付累算權益共港幣 18,706 元。警方商 業罪案調查科的調查發現，被告事實上沒有在 In HKSAR v Tong Tze-lok ESCC 1467/2018, the defendant was involved in a case of fraud involving the Mandatory Provident Fund (“MPF”). 2015 年 1 月 20 日後永久離開香港，反而在該日 He declared in a statutory declaration that he would leave Hong 之後繼續在港居留和受僱。本組建議檢控被告 Kong permanently on 20 January 2015 to reside elsewhere with no 一項“明知而故意在法定聲明中作出在要項上 intention of returning to reside in Hong Kong. He submitted such 屬虛假的陳述”罪名 違反《刑事罪行條例》 第 63 ( ( statutory declaration to his MPF trustee to apply for the withdrawal 200 章 ) 第 36(a) 條 )。被告經審訊後被裁定罪名 of the benefits accrued on the ground of permanent departure 成立，罰款港幣 5,000 元，並須按補償令向強積 from Hong Kong. The MPF trustee paid the accrued benefits of 金受託人償還港幣 18,706 元。 HK$18,706 to the defendant in June 2015. Investigation by the Commercial Crime Bureau of the Police revealed that the defendant 在香港特別行政區 訴 嘉拓有限公司 ( 觀塘裁判 did not leave Hong Kong permanently after 20 January 2015, and 法院傳票案件 2018 年第 8973-8995 號 ) 一案中， in fact continued to reside and take up employment in Hong Kong 被告被控《一手住宅物業銷售條例》( 第 621 章 ) thereafter. The Section advised to prosecute the defendant with 下所訂的多項罪行，涉及 23 張傳票：(i) 4 張涉 a charge of “knowingly and wilfully making a statement false in a 及“沒有在售樓說明書中列出物業天花板裝修 material particular in a statutory declaration”, contrary to section 36(a) PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200). The defendant was convicted 物料的類型”；(ii) 4 張涉及“沒有在售樓說明 2018 after trial. He was fined HK$5,000 and a compensation order was 書中列出物業牆腳線的用料”；(iii) 5 張涉及“沒 made for him to repay HK$18,706 to the MPF trustee. 有在售樓說明書中列出物業裝置及設備的用料 和沐浴設施的用料”；(iv) 5 張涉及“沒有在售 In HKSAR v Apex Harvest Limited KTS8973–8995/2018, the defendant

樓說明書中列出對升降機作出承諾的陳述”； faced 23 summonses for various offences under the Residential 香港刑事檢控 以及 (v) 5 張涉及“在售樓說明書中列出規定列 Properties (First-hand Sales) Ordinance (Cap. 621), namely, (i) 4 出資料以外的其他資料”。被告承認上述所有 summonses for “failing to set out the types of ceiling finishes of 傳票上的控罪，罰款合共港幣 320,000 元，判罰 the properties in the sales brochures”; (ii) 4 summonses for “failing 乃 2018 年中涉及違反該條例的同類案件中最重 to set out the material of the skirting of the properties in the sales 的。 brochures”; (iii) 5 summonses for “failing to set out the material of the fittings and equipment and the material of bathing facilities of the 在香港特別行政區 訴 倪銘賢及另三人 [2019] properties in the sales brochures”; (iv) 5 summonses for “failing to set HKDC 318 一案中，四名被告因在 Facebook 和 out the lift undertaking statement in the sales brochures”; and (v) 5 summonses for “setting out information other than the required Carousell 等網上平台售賣偽造主題公園門票而 被控“串謀詐騙”。共有九名受害人被騙購入 information in the sales brochures”. The defendant pleaded guilty to 32 張偽造主題公園門票，損失合共港幣 8,300 all of the said summonses and was fined a total sum of HK$320,000 元。各被告也因售賣聲稱由某流動電話服務供 which was the heaviest penalty imposed for contraventions under 應商發出，部分面值高達港幣 7,500 元的偽造 the Ordinance in the year of 2018. 禮券而被加控第二項“串謀詐騙”罪。受害人 In HKSAR v Ngai Ming-yin and 3 Others [2019] HKDC 318, the 4 被誘使購買按面值打折出售的偽造禮券。九名 defendants were charged with “conspiracy to defraud” for selling 受害人購入共 47 張偽造禮券，被詐騙港幣合共 forged theme park tickets on online platforms including Facebook 元。四名被告中三人承認控罪，判監 138,880 24 and Carousell. A total of 9 victims were deceived into purchasing 32 至 30 個月。第四被告承認首項控罪 ( 第二項控 forged theme park tickets and suffered a total loss of HK$8,300. The 罪在法庭存檔 )，判監 16 個月。 defendants were further charged with a second charge of “conspiracy to defraud” for selling forged gift vouchers purportedly issued by a 在香港特別行政區 訴 李朋 ( 第一被告 ) 及党培 mobile phone service provider, with some of the vouchers carrying ( 第二被告 ) [2018] HKDC 1327 一案中，兩名被 a face value of up to HK$7,500. The victims were induced into 告乃中國內地居民，他們各自利用若干偽造的 purchasing the forged vouchers which were offered at a discount 僱傭及收入證明文件，向中國銀行 ( 香港 ) 有限 from their face value. In total, 47 forged vouchers were sold to 9 公司申請一筆港幣 200 萬元的貸款。二人聲稱 victims, resulting in a total sum of HK$138,880 being defrauded. 偽造文件由中國內地一些中介人提供，自己只 Three of the four defendants pleaded guilty and were sentenced 是依照指示申請貸款。幸好，銀行在得悉有關 to 24 to 30 months’ imprisonment. The fourth defendant pleaded guilty to the first charge (with the second charge left on court file) 文件實屬虛假後，凍結第一被告獲批的貸款並 and was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment. 拒絕第二被告的貸款申請，得以避免損失。第 一和第二被告均被控“串謀詐騙”，在認罪後 In HKSAR v Li Peng (D1) and Dang Pei (D2) [2018] HKDC 1327, the 2 被區域法院裁定罪名成立。法院以監禁三年為 defendants, who were Mainland China residents, each used some 量刑起點，考慮到兩名被告認罪及其個人背景， forged employment and income documents to apply for a loan of 把二人的監禁刑期減至 22 個月。儘管有關銀行 HK$2 million from Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited. They claimed 64 沒有蒙受損失，法院指出本案罪行嚴重，涉及 that they were given the forged documents by some intermediaries 利用偽造文件詐騙財務機構，使之承受重大風 in the Mainland China and they just followed instructions to make 險；法院又指案件涉及跨境元素，即被告聲稱 the loan applications. Fortunately, the bank sustained no loss 依照中國內地虛假中介人的指示，由中國內地 because upon being informed of the falsity of the documents 到香港犯案。 concerned, the bank suspended the loan granted to D1 and rejected D2’s loan application. Both D1 and D2 were charged with “conspiracy to defraud” and were convicted on their own pleas in the District 分科四第 3 組 ― Court. The court adopted a starting point for sentence of 3 years’ 廉政公署 ( 公營機構 ) imprisonment and reduced the sentence to 22 months for both D1

PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG and D2 on account of their guilty pleas and personal backgrounds. 香港堅決打擊貪污，舉世聞名：法律嚴明且有 Despite the fact that the bank did not suffer any loss, the court

2018 pointed out that the offences were serious because they involved 效執行、檢控積極、刑罰一貫具阻嚇力。社會 the use of forged documents to defraud financial institutions thereby 不接受貪污成為一種生活方式，並期望公職人 exposing them to substantial risks; and a cross-border element in 員為着公眾利益，忠誠正直地行使獲授予的權 that the defendants came to Hong Kong from the Mainland China 力和酌情權。此外，香港一向致力維持廉潔的 to commit the offences allegedly on the instructions of fraudulent 香港刑事檢控 選舉文化，務求杜絕一切選舉非法及舞弊行為。 intermediaries they associated in the Mainland China.

該組由高級助理刑事檢控專員李鏡鏞先生掌管， 另有四名檢控官，負責就涉及公營機構貪污、 Section IV(3) – 公職人員行為不當及選舉舞弊行為的案件，向 ICAC (Public Sector) 廉政公署提供法律指引。2018 年，該組向廉政 Hong Kong is renowned for being robust in combating corruption: 公署提供共 130 項書面指引，案件關乎違反《防 with firm laws in place and effectively enforced, prosecutions 止賄賂條例》( 第 201 章 ) 的貪污及賄賂罪行、 actively pursued and deterrent penalties consistently imposed. The 違反《盜竊罪條例》( 第 210 章 ) 的不誠實罪行， community does not accept corruption as a way of life and expects 分科四第 3 組 廉政公署 ( 公營機構 ) Section IV(3) ICAC (Public Sector)

以及其他普通法罪行 ( 例如公職人員行為不當、 public officials to exercise the powers and discretion entrusted to 妨礙司法公正和串謀詐騙 )。此外，該組就涉及 them for the public good and with integrity. Besides, Hong Kong is 《選舉 ( 舞弊及非法行為 ) 條例》( 第 554 章 ) 所 committed to maintaining a clean election culture and striving hard 訂罪行的選舉投訴提供了 103 項書面指引。該 to eradicate all electoral illegal and corrupt conduct. 65 組檢控官又為 21 宗在區域法院和裁判法院審訊 The Section, headed by Mr Robert Lee, Senior Assistant Director of 的案件作籌備。儘管工作繁重，他們也要在各 Public Prosecutions, and comprising 4 prosecutors, is responsible 級法院進行的審訊及上訴案件中履行訟辯職務。 for advising the ICAC on cases of corruption in the public sector, 年，該組檢控官出庭的總日數為 日。 2018 58 misconduct in public office (“MIPO”) and election malpractices. In 2018, the Section gave a total of 130 pieces of written advice to the 在過去一年，該組積極為廉政公署及其他政府 ICAC on corruption and bribery offences contrary to the provisions in 部門人員等本地工作伙伴提供培訓課程，以期 the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap. 201) (“POBO”), dishonesty 讓他們熟習法院程序，並掌握有關公職人員行 related offences contrary to the Theft Ordinance (Cap. 210) and other

為不當的法律的最新發展，與時並進。2018 年， common law offences such as MIPO, perverting the course of public PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 李鏡鏞先生向來自美國、新西蘭和斯里蘭卡的 justice and conspiracy to defraud. In addition, the Section provided 2018 訪客簡介香港打擊貪污及賄賂的現行法律。 103 pieces of written advice on election complaints involving offences under the Election (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance 該組在 2018 年處理了多宗備受關注的案件，包 (Cap. 554) (“ECICO”). Prosecutors in the Section also prepared 21 cases 括： for trial in the District Court and the Magistrates’ Courts. Despite a heavy caseload, they also discharged their advocacy duties and 香港刑事檢控 conducted trials and appeals at all levels of Courts. In 2018 the total 在香港特別行政區 訴 沈泰鋒 ( 觀塘裁判法院 number of days on which our prosecutors attended Court stood at 刑事案件 2017 年第 1166 號 ) 一案中，被告是 58. 2015 年區議會選舉九龍城區土瓜灣北選區的落 敗候選人，因沒有在選舉結果於憲報刊登後 30 Throughout the year, the Section actively provided training sessions 日內提交選舉申報書，違反《選舉 ( 舞弊及非法 to our local working partners in the ICAC and officers in other 行為 ) 條例》第 38 條，被控一項沒有按照該條 government departments with a view to familiarizing them with 例第 37 條的規定提交選舉申報書的罪名。由於 Court procedures and updating them with the latest development 被告曾棄保潛逃，違反《刑事訴訟程序條例》( 第 in the law concerning MIPO. In 2018, visitors from the USA, New 221 章 ) 第 9L(2) 條，故被加控一項沒有按照指 Zealand and Sri Lanka were briefed by Mr Robert Lee on the current 定歸押的罪名。被告承認該兩項控罪，因違反 law in Hong Kong to fight corruption and bribery. 《選舉 ( 舞弊及非法行為 ) 條例》和干犯沒有歸 Cases of interest handled by the Section in 2018 include the 押的罪行分別被判處罰款港幣 6,000 元及監禁兩 following: 個月。 In HKSAR v Shum Tai-fung KTCC 1166/2017, the defendant was a 在香港特別行政區 訴 吳昌文 ( 東區裁判法院刑 defeated candidate in the 2015 District Councils Election for the 事案件 2018 年第 1678 號 ) 一案中，被告是輸入 To Kwa Wan North Constituency in Kowloon City District. The 內地人才計劃的成功申請人，獲入境事務處簽 defendant failed to lodge his election return within 30 days after the 發來港工作進入許可。被告試圖以雙程證經羅 publication of the election result in the Gazette. He was charged 湖管制站進入香港，但中國內地當局所發的是 with a count of failing to lodge an election return as required under “團體旅遊”簽注。一名入境事務主任建議被 section 37 of the ECICO, contrary to section 38 of the ECICO. The 告向內地當局申領適當簽注，被告隨後向該名 defendant had previously jumped bail and was hence prosecuted 主任提供人民幣四百元賄款，以求獲准進入香 with an additional charge of failing to surrender to custody as shall 港。被告承認一項向公職人員提供利益罪，違 have been appointed, contrary to section 9L(2) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 221). The defendant pleaded guilty to 反《防止賄賂條例》第 4(1)(a) 條，判監八個月。 both charges. He was fined HK$6,000 for breaching the ECICO and sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment for the offence of failing to 在香港特別行政區 訴 劉國輝 ( 第一被告 ) 及邢 surrender to custody. 育 ( 第二被告 ) ( 觀塘裁判法院刑事案件 2017 年 第 2379 號 ) 一案中，第一被告為香港鐵路有限 In HKSAR v Wu Changwen ESCC 1678/2018, the defendant was a 公司 ( 港鐵公司 ) 經理，負責港鐵車站的藝術設 successful applicant of the Admission Scheme for Mainland Talents 計，並督導公司內的設計師團隊。除了向公司 and Professionals. He was issued with an employment entry permit 內部設計師分配工作，第一被告也有權委聘已 by the Immigration Department. The defendant attempted to enter 登記的自由設計師或承辦商提供設計服務。第 Hong Kong via Lo Wu Control Point on the strength of his two-way 66 二被告是第一被告的妹夫，也是一家已向港鐵 permit but the endorsement on the permit issued by the authorities 公司登記的自由設計公司的唯一東主。在 2012 in the Mainland China was for “Group Tour”. The defendant was 至 2014 年間，第一與第二被告串謀訛稱第二被 advised by an Immigration Officer to obtain the appropriate 告的公司為港鐵公司設計了七件作品，向港鐵 endorsement from the Mainland authorities. The defendant then offered a bribe of RMB400 to the officer for allowing him to enter 公司收取款項；但事實上該等作品全屬港鐵公 Hong Kong. The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of offering 司內部設計師的手筆。第一和第二被告從港鐵 an advantage to a public servant, contrary to section 4(1)(a) of the 公司共取得港幣 582,450 元，二人共同被控七項 POBO. He was sentenced to 8 months’ imprisonment. 串謀詐騙罪。第一被告承認控罪，被判監禁 18 個月。經爭辯審訊後，第二被告在七項控罪中 In HKSAR v Lau Kwok-fai (D1) and Ying Yuk (D2) KTCC 2379/2017, D1 PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 只有一項被裁定罪名成立 ( 控方依賴一名獲免予 was a manager of the MTR Corporation Limited (“MTRC”) responsible 起訴的證人提供的證供 )，判監六個月。 for creating artistic design for MTR stations. He supervised a team of 2018 in-house designers. In addition to assigning works to the in-house designers, D1 had the authority to engage registered freelance designers or contractors to provide the design work. D2, brother-in- law of D1, was the sole owner of a registered freelance designer of 香港刑事檢控 the MTRC. From 2012 to 2014, D1 had conspired with D2 to make to the MTRC false claims of payments for 7 design works purportedly done by D2’s company when in fact the works were all done by the MTR’s in-house designers. D1 and D2 successfully obtained a total sum of HK$582,450 from the MTRC. D1 and D2 were jointly charged with 7 counts of conspiracy to defraud. D1 pleaded guilty to the charges and was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. Following a contested trial, D2 was only found guilty of 1 of the 7 charges in respect of which the prosecution had relied on the evidence of an immunized witness. D2 was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment. 分科四第 4 組 ― Section IV(4) - 廉政公署 ( 私營機構 ) ICAC (Private Sector)

根據 2018 年經濟自由度指數，香港連續第 24 Under the 2018 Index of Economic Freedom, for the 24th year in a 年獲評定為全球最自由的經濟體，評分項目包 row, Hong Kong’s economy is rated as the world’s freest based on 括法治、政府規模、監管效率和開放市場等。 such factors as rule of law, government size, regulatory efficiency 香港保持廉潔對其整體發展至為重要。廉潔社 and open markets. Keeping Hong Kong corruption-free is important to its overall development. A clean society helps to uphold fairness 會有助維護公正和公義、吸引海外投資，以及 and justice, attract foreign investments and facilitate sustainable 促進社會的可持續發展。根據透明國際在 2018 development of the society. According to the 2017 Corruption 年 2 月公佈的 2017 年清廉指數，香港的廉潔程 Perceptions Index which was released by Transparency International 度在 個國家／地區中名列 。 180 13 in February 2018, Hong Kong is ranked the 13th least corrupt place among 180 countries/territories. 廉政公署案件 ( 私營機構 ) 組的檢控官就私營機 構 ( 包括金融和保險機構及上市公司等 ) 貪污案 Prosecutors in the ICAC (Private Sector) Section give advice to 件向廉政公署提供法律指引，以確保貪污案件 the ICAC on cases related to corruption in the private sector, 的調查和檢控工作妥善迅速且具成效。該組檢 which covers financial and insurance institutions as well as listed 控官會與廉政公署人員舉行個案會議，就蒐集 companies etc. Legal advice is provided to the ICAC to ensure that 的證據作討論，以作出法律指引，以及指出可 the investigation and prosecution of corruption cases are conducted 能引起的法律問題。此外，該組檢控官也會不 in a proper, efficient and effective manner. Prosecutor would hold 時就貪污及其他案件的審訊和上訴出庭檢控。 case conferences with officers of the ICAC to discuss the evidence gathered for legal advice and identify possible legal issues which 2018 年，該組向廉政公署提供了 305 次法律 might arise. From time to time, prosecutors also prosecute trials and appeals concerning corruption and other cases. 指引，並就合共 37 宗新案件展開檢控，其中 33 宗在裁判法院審理，四宗在區域法院審理。 In 2018, the Section provided 305 legal advices to the ICAC. In the 67 2017 年檢控的新案件則有 54 宗，當中 42 宗在 same year, a total of 37 fresh cases of prosecution were commenced, 裁判法院審理，12 宗在區域法院審理。 33 of which in the Magistrates’ Courts and 4 in the District Court; whereas in 2017, 54 new cases were prosecuted, of which 42 in the 在 2018 年檢控的私營機構貪污案件中，值得注 Magistrates’ Courts and 12 in the District Court. 意的重大案件如下： Amongst the private sector corruption cases prosecuted in the year 在香港特別行政區 訴 馬善智 ( 第一被告 ) 及哈 2018, the following are of interest and significance: 弼意 ( 第二被告 ) [2018] HKCFI 438 一案中，兩名 被告分別是銀行的董事和投資者。在 2007 年 1 In HKSAR v Ma Sin-chi (D1) and Ha But-yee (D2) [2018] HKCFI 438, the defendants were respectively a director of a bank and an investor. PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 月至 2008 年 5 月，第一被告收受第二被告賄款 From January 2007 to May 2008, D1 accepted bribes of about HK$6.4 合共約港幣 萬元，作為他向第二被告及其

640 2018 million in total from D2 as rewards for giving information to D2 and 生意伙伴提供有關衍生認股權證消息的報酬， his associates on derivative warrants which might assist them in 該等消息或有助他們進行買賣。第二被告及其 their trading of those derivative warrants. As a result, D2 and several 數名家人因而獲取純利逾港幣 億元。 2.03 2013 members of his family had made a net profit of over HK$203 million.

年 12 月，原訟法庭的陪審團分別裁定第一被 In December 2013, D1 and D2 were found guilty by a jury in the 香港刑事檢控 告四項“代理人接受利益罪”罪成，以及第二 Court of First Instance of 4 counts of “agent accepting an advantage” 被告四項“向代理人提供利益罪”罪成，各判 and 4 counts of “offering an advantage to an agent” respectively. 監七年。隨後，第一及第二被告就定罪向上訴 They were each sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment. D1 and D2 法庭上訴。2016 年 6 月，上訴法庭撤銷他們的 subsequently lodged their appeals against convictions with the 定罪，並下令重審。在公訴書修訂後，第一被 Court of Appeal. In June 2016, their convictions were quashed on 告的控罪為一項受賄罪，第二被告則被控一項 appeal and a re-trial was ordered. Following an amendment of the 行賄罪，涉及賄款約 640 萬港元。兩名被告在 indictment, D1 and D2 each faced a count of accepting or offering 2018 年 1 月重審中承認控罪，各判監 45 個月。 about HK$6.4 million in bribes respectively. At the re-trial in January 分科四第 4 組 廉政公署 ( 私營機構 ) Section IV(4) ICAC (Private Sector)

在香港特別行政區 訴 林詠安 [2018] HKDC 422 2018, the defendants pleaded guilty to the charges and were each 一案中，被告是一家傳媒機構 ( 該機構 ) 的設備 sentenced to 45 months’ imprisonment. 經理，負責妥為保養該機構在香港各辦事處的 68 設備及設施，有權向承辦商和服務供應商批給 In HKSAR v Lam Wing-on Stephen [2018] HKDC 422, the defendant was a facilities manager of a media company (A) and was responsible for 有關設備和設施的施工單。2007 年，被告父親 maintaining in good order equipment and facilities of the company’s 擔任註冊東主的公司 ( 該公司 ) 成立。被告慫恿 offices in Hong Kong. He had the authority to award works orders 該機構把該公司列入和保留在認可貨品和服務 to contractors and service providers for equipment and facilities. In 供應商名單內，以及向該公司批給訂單，但他 2007, a company (C) was established with the defendant’s father as 沒有向該機構申報自己及／或其父親在該公司 its registered proprietor. The defendant induced A to include and 的權益。於是，在 2007 年 8 月至 2014 年 2 月， maintain C in the list of approved suppliers for the provision of goods 該公司有 144 次就供應貨品和服務收取合共逾 and services, and to place purchase orders with C, but he failed to 港幣 1,970 萬元。被告被裁定兩項“欺詐罪”罪 declare to A about his and/or his father’s interests in C. As a result, PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 成，判監六年八個月。被告已就定罪及刑罰提 payments totaling over HK$19.7 million were made to C on 144 occasions from August 2007 to February 2014 for the provision of

2018 交上訴通知書。

goods and services. The defendant was found guilty of 2 counts of 在香港特別行政區 訴 葉鋒 ( 東區裁判法院刑事 “fraud” and was sentenced to 6 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. 案件 2018 年第 2028 號 ) 一案中，被告是銀行客 The defendant has filed a notice of appeal against his conviction and sentence.

香港刑事檢控 戶經理，職責包括為私人銀行客戶提供銀行服 務和處理他們的證券交易。在被告誤導下，一 In HKSAR v Jeff Ye Feng ESCC 2028/2018, the defendant was a 名中國內地客戶相信在香港客戶經理一貫可收 bank relationship manager. His duties included providing private 取客戶所得利潤的 20% 作為額外佣金。被告在 banking clients with banking services and handling their securities 2014 年 10 月和 2015 年 4 月兩度發出電郵，通 transactions. The defendant misled a Mainland China client to 知該中國內地客戶她的股票獲利，並先後向她 believe that it was a usual practice in Hong Kong for a relationship 索取額外佣金達人民幣 112,000 元和 620,000 元。 manager to receive 20 percent of the profit made by a client as 該客戶隨後將款項存入被告在中國內地的銀行 extra commission. On 2 occasions in October 2014 and April 2015, 帳戶。被告被控兩項“代理人索取利益罪”， the defendant informed the Mainland China client by emails that 在 2017 年 4 月被裁定兩項罪名成立。原訟法庭 her shares had made a profit and solicited extra commissions of 其後撤銷有關定罪，並下令重審。2018 年 8 月 RMB112,000 and RMB620,000 respectively from the client. The client 在案件提交東區裁判法院編排重審日期時，被 subsequently paid the money into the defendant’s bank account in 告承認兩項控罪，判監 17 個月。 the Mainland China. The defendant was charged with 2 counts of “soliciting an advantage as an agent” and was found guilty of both 在香港特別行政區 訴 陳珍妮 ( 第一被告 ) 及吳 charges in April 2017. On appeal, the Court of First Instance quashed 鎮林 ( 第二被告 ) [2018] HKDC 1324 一案中，各 the convictions and ordered a re-trial. When the case was brought 被告被控一項“詐騙罪”；第一被告額外被控“妨 before the Eastern Magistrates’ Courts in August 2018 for fixing a date for his re-trial, the defendant pleaded guilty to the 2 charges. He was 礙司法公正”。自 2006 年起，香港國際社會服 sentenced to 17 months’ imprisonment. 務社 ( 國際社 ) 受社會福利署委託，為國際社的 服務使用者 ( 即尋求庇護者及酷刑聲請人 ) 提供 In HKSAR v Jane Chan (D1) and Ng Chun-lam (D2) [2018] HKDC 1324, 實物援助，包括租金津貼及公用設施收費津貼。 the defendants each faced a charge of “fraud” with D1 additionally 在 2008 年 7 月至 2014 年 2 月，第一被告向國 charged with an offence of “perverting the course of public justice”. 際社訛稱是 27 名尋求庇護者及酷刑聲請人住處 From 2006, the International Social Service Hong Kong Branch (ISS) 的業主，並誘使國際社把逾港幣 788,000 元津貼 had been entrusted by the Social Welfare Department to provide 發放到她的銀行帳戶。同樣，在 2011 年 5 月至 assistance-in-kind, including rental allowances and allowances on 2014 年 2 月，第二被告向國際社訛稱是 19 名尋 utilities charges, to its service users – asylum seekers and torture 求庇護者及酷刑聲請人住處的業主，並誘使國 claimants (ASTCs). From July 2008 to February 2014, D1 falsely represented to ISS that she was the landlord of 27 ASTCs and 際社把逾港幣 406,000 元津貼發放到他的銀行帳 induced ISS to release allowances of over HK$788,000 into her bank 戶。兩名被告承認各自面對的控罪。第一被告 account. Likewise, from May 2011 to February 2014, D2 falsely 被判監禁 22 個月零 2 星期，第二被告被判囚 18 represented to ISS that he was the landlord of 19 ASTCs and induced 個月。 ISS to release allowances of over HK$406,000 into his bank account. Both defendants pleaded guilty to the charges they faced. D1 was 分科四第 5 組 ― 海關 sentenced to 22 months and 2 weeks’ imprisonment while D2 was jailed for 18 months. 海關案件組由助理刑事檢控專員鄭詠榆女士掌 69 管，負責就有關反走私、保護知識產權、保障 Section IV(5) - 政府收入、保障消費者權益和打擊洗錢的案件， 向香港海關提供法律指引。相關法例包括《進 Customs and Excise 出口條例》( 第 60 章 )、《版權條例》( 第 528 章 )、 The Customs and Excise Section, headed by Ms Bianca Cheng, 《商品說明條例》( 第 362 章 )、《應課稅品條例》 Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, is responsible for advising ( 第 109 章 )、《保護瀕危動植物物種條例》( 第 the Customs and Excise Department on cases of antismuggling, 章 、《消費品安全條例》 第 章 和《有 586 ) ( 456 ) intellectual property rights protection, revenue protection, consumer 組織及嚴重罪行條例》( 第 455 章 )。 rights protection and anti-money laundering. The relevant PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG legislations include the Import and Export Ordinance (Cap. 60), the 2018 年，本組提供書面法律指引共 932 項，而 Copyright Ordinance (Cap. 528), the Trade Descriptions Ordinance 2018

2017 年則為 747 項。這些案件包括集團式走私 (Cap. 362), the Dutiable Commodities Ordinance (Cap. 109), the 案 ( 當中部分涉及跨境洗錢活動 )，以及偽造商 Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance 標或商品說明和侵犯版權 ( 其中不少罪行透過互 (Cap. 586), the Consumer Goods Safety Ordinance (Cap. 456), and the 聯網干犯 。另一方面，《 年保護瀕危動植 Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 455).

) 2018 香港刑事檢控 物物種 ( 修訂 ) 條例》在 2018 年 5 月 1 日生效後， 販賣野生生物案件數量上升，該修訂條例大幅 In 2018, the Section gave a total of 932 pieces of written legal advice compared to 747 in 2017. Some of such cases involved syndicated 加重相關罪行的最高刑罰。隨着消費者對自身 smuggling of which some involved cross-border money laundering 權益的意識不斷提高，不良營商手法案件的數 activities; and forged trademarks or trade descriptions and breaches 量和種類也與日俱增。在運作上有需要時，該 of copyright many of which were committed through the internet. 組檢控官也會就涉及上述事宜的案件出庭檢控。 On the other hand, the number of wildlife trafficking cases has been on the rise since the Protection of Endangered Species of Animals 下文概述 2018 年一些較值得注意的案件： and Plants (Amendment) Ordinance 2018 came into force on 1 May 2018 which substantially raised the maximum penalties for 在香港特別行政區 訴 黃海英及另八人 [2018] the relevant offences. Cases of unfair trade practice also continued HKDC 641 一案中，第一至第九被告為集團成員， to increase in terms of number and variety as consumers became 因同謀在旺角通菜街公開售賣冒牌貨品被檢控。 increasingly aware of their rights. When operational needs arise, 第一、第二和第四被告為集團主腦。2015 年 prosecutors of the Section also prosecute cases related to such 10 月 13 日至 2016 年 1 月 21 日，該集團在通 matters in Court. 菜街經營六個小販排檔，以及在旺角區內經營 Below is a summary of some of the more interesting cases in 2018: 一個陳列室和五個倉庫。售賣貨品包括冒牌手 袋、錢包、手錶及其他不同商品，總值約港幣 In HKSAR v Wong Hoi-ying and 8 Others [2018] HKDC 641, a syndicate 600 萬元。九名被告被控串謀出售應用偽造商標 comprising D1 to D9 was prosecuted in connection with their 的貨品。第一、第二、第四和第八被告同時被 complicity in openly selling counterfeit goods on Tung Choi Street in 控處理已知道或相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得 Mongkok. D1, D2 and D4 were the masterminds. From 13 October 益的財產，涉及犯罪得益總值港幣 575 萬元。 2015 to 21 January 2016, the syndicate operated 6 hawker stalls on 經區域法院 44 天審訊後，第一、第二、第三、 Tung Choi Street as well as 1 showroom and 5 storages in the Mong 第六和第八被告被裁定串謀罪罪名成立，判處 Kok area. The goods sold included counterfeit handbags, wallets, watches and various other merchandises with a total value of about 不同刑期的監禁，由 22 至 26 個月不等；第一、 HK$6 million. The 9 defendants were charged with conspiracy to sell 第二和第四被告也被裁定洗錢罪罪名成立，判 goods to which forged trade marks were applied. D1, D2, D4 and D8 處不同刑期的監禁，由 11 至 18 個月不等。 were also charged with dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence, with the total amount of 在香港特別行政區 訴 袁煥銳 ( 九龍城裁判法院 crime proceeds involved being HK$5.75 million. After a 44-day trial 傳票案件 年第 號 一案中，一名人 2018 10629 ) in the District Court, D1, D2, D3, D6 and D8 were convicted of the 士向被告購買一輛二手貨車。被告在洽談階段 conspiracy charge and sentenced to different imprisonment terms 向買家表示里數錶的讀數約為 40,000 公里。在 ranging from 22 to 26 months. D1, D2 and D4 were also convicted 貨車交付買家時，里數錶的讀數顯示為 44,000 of the money laundering offences and sentenced to different terms 公里。然而，當買家其後就保養服務聯絡認可 of imprisonment ranging from 11 to 18 months. 70 經銷商時，卻獲告知貨車里數錶的讀數實際上 在他買入貨車前九個月已達到 99,000 公里。經 In HKSAR v Yuen Wun-yui KCS10629/2018, a person purchased from 調查後，貨車前車主確認在他向被告出售貨車 the defendant a second-hand goods van. At the negotiation stage, the defendant represented to the purchaser that the odometer 時，里數錶的讀數約為 130,000 公里。被告被控 reading was about 40,000 km. When the van was delivered to the 在營商過程或業務運作中供應已應用虛假商品 purchaser, the odometer appeared to read 44,000 km. However, 說明的貨品。被告承認控罪，判處 100 小時社 when the purchaser later contacted the authorized dealer for 會服務令。 maintenance service, he was then told that the odometer reading of the van had in fact already reached 99,000 km 9 months before 在香港特別行政區 訴 蔡惠綿 ( 西九龍裁判法院 he bought the van. Upon investigation, the previous owner of the PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 刑事案件 2018 年第 3143 號 ) 一案中，海關例行 van confirmed that the odometer read about 130,000 km when 抽查一艘來自危地馬拉格查爾港的船隻上一個 he sold the van to the defendant. The defendant was charged 2018

40 呎貨櫃。有關提單及電子艙單報稱貨櫃內貨 with supplying goods in the course of trade or business to which a 物是托運至一間本地物流公司的“天然橡膠”。 false trade description was applied. The defendant pleaded guilty 經檢查後，發現貨櫃內有 456 根共重 29,232 公 as charged and was sentenced to serve 100 hours of community 斤的未列艙單原木。漁農自然護理署確定該批 service. 香港刑事檢控 原木屬“伯利黃檀”物種，是《保護瀕危動植 In HKSAR v Cai Huimian WKCC 3143/2018, a 40-feet container on 物物種條例》( 第 586 章 ) 規管的附錄 II 物種。 a vessel arriving from Puerto Quetzal, Guatemala was selected for 跟進查詢後，發現被告是貨櫃的真正收貨人， routine Customs inspection. On the bill of lading and the e-manifest, 而她從未申請合法進口該批原木所需的許可證。 the cargo in the container was declared to be “Natural Rubber” 被告被控沒有許可證而進口附錄 II 物種的標本。 consigned to a local logistics company. Upon inspection, 456 她承認控罪，判監三個月。 unmanifested wood logs weighing 29,232 kg in total were found inside the container. The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation 在香港特別行政區 訴 郭美雲 ( 第一被告 ) 及另 Department confirmed that the wood logs were of the species 一人 ( 第二被告 ) ( 西九龍裁判法院刑事案件 “Dalbergia Stevensonii”, an Appendix II species controlled under the 分科四第 5 組 海關 Section IV(5) Customs and Excise

2017 年第 5569 號 ) 一案中，第一及第二被告分 Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance 別是美容公司的美容顧問及美容師。2016 年某 (Cap. 586). Follow-up enquiries revealed that the defendant was the 日，美容公司的唯一董事因懷疑而向香港海關 real consignee of the container, and that she had never applied for 71 舉報，指第一及第二被告以未獲美容公司批准 the requisite licence for lawful importation of the wood logs. The 的條款售賣美容療程套票。調查顯示，第一被 defendant was charged with importing specimens of Appendix II species without a licence. She pleaded guilty as charged and was 告在 2016 年年底以港幣 15,000 元向一名顧客售 sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment. 賣據稱“可永久使用且不限用途”的美容療程 套票。同月稍後，第一與第二被告共同以港幣 In HKSAR v Kwok Mei-wan (D1) and Another (D2) WKCC 5569/2017, D1 100,000 元向另一名顧客售賣據稱“可永久無限 and D2 were respectively a beauty consultant and a beautician of a 次使用”的美容療程套票。事實上，美容公司 beauty parlour (“parlour”). Sometime in 2016, the sole director of the 並沒有要約提供該等套票。第一被告被控將虛 parlour, upon suspicion, made a report to the Customs and Excise

假商品說明應用於要約向消費者提供的服務。 Department that D1 and D2 had sold beauty treatment packages on PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 第一及第二被告共同被控另一相似控罪。第一 terms that had not been authorized by the parlour. Investigations 2018 被告承認該兩項控罪，判處 240 小時社會服務 revealed that in late 2016, D1 sold to a customer a beauty treatment 令。第二被告經審訊後被裁定罪名成立，判監 package which she described as “permanently redeemable with 兩個月，緩刑 18 個月。 no limit as to usage” at the price of HK$15,000. Later in the same month, D1, this time together with D2, sold to another customer a

beauty treatment package which they described as “permanently 香港刑事檢控 redeemable with no limit as to the number of redemption” at HK$100,000. The parlour in fact offered no such packages. D1 was charged with applying a false trade description to a service offered to be supplied to a consumer. D1 and D2 were jointly charged with another similar offence. D1 pleaded guilty to both charges and was sentenced to perform 240 hours of community service. D2 was convicted as charged after a contested trial and was sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment suspended for 18 months. 行政及支援 Administration and Support

72 PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 2018

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 470 名職員和港幣 2.205 億元財政預算。因此，行政組的其中一項 行政主任 管理職責，是確保公帑、人力和財務資源得以善 Executive Officers 用。 Administration Unit 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別行政區檢 The Administration Unit provides administrative and logistical 控刑事案件。如有必要，我們也會在個別案件 support to the Division. Headed by Ms Maria Chow, Chief Executive Officer (Prosecutions Division), the Unit assists the Director of 中聘請獨立專家 ( 例如法證會計師 ) 協助舉證。 Public Prosecutions in handling a staff of 470 in number and a 2018年，本科在這方面的支出共港幣1.388億元。 73 divisional budget of HK$220.5 million. Part of its management role 行政組在過去一年也處理了共 1,356 宗以標準付 is to ensure that public revenue is wisely spent and that human 款額聘用外間專業人士的撥款申請，另有 29 宗 and financial resources are efficiently deployed. 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 A large proportion of the Division’s expenses goes to the 作出。 engagement of lawyers in the private sector to prosecute criminal cases on behalf of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region 此外，行政組負責安排外賓到訪本科及本科人員 on fiat. Where necessary, the Division also engages the services 外訪的活動。2018 年，該組處理了 25 次外賓到 of independent experts, such as forensic accountants, to assist in 訪本科，並安排本科人員參加海外會議和與案件 the prosecution of cases. In 2018, a total of HK$138.8 million was PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 有關的離港公幹 14 次。此外，行政組也監督投 spent on those engagements. The Unit also processed 29 requests 2018

訴組的工作。該組備存登記冊，記錄公眾就刑事 for funds to engage outside professionals on non-standard terms, often at short notice, in addition to 1,356 engagements on 檢控事宜提出的口頭和書面查詢，2018 年的有 standard terms. 關查詢有 389 項。

In addition, the Unit organizes visits of guests to the Division as 香港刑事檢控 本組也兼顧其他行政工作，包括協助編配本科人 well as outbound visits for officers from the Division. In 2018, it 員的辦公地方和添置辦公室設備，以及為重要的 processed 25 incoming visits, and arranged officers to participate 會議提供秘書支援服務。 in 14 overseas conferences and case-related duty trips. The Unit also oversees the work of the Complaints Registry. It maintains a register which recorded 389 verbal and written enquiries from the public in relation to criminal prosecution matters in 2018.

Amongst other administrative tasks, the Unit helps acquire office accommodation and equipment and provides secretarial support for major meetings. 打字組支援同事 Supporting Staff of Typing Pool

法律輔助人員及行政 Paralegal and Administrative 支援人員 Support Staff

法律輔助人員為本科檢控官在法律、行政及文 Paralegal staff provide prosecutors with legal, administrative and clerical services essential to the professional discharge of prosecutors’ 74 書方面提供重要的支援服務，協助他們專業地 履行職務。2018 年，本科的法律輔助人員團隊 duties. In 2018, the paralegal team of the Division comprised 8 Law Translation Officers, 26 Law Clerks and about 70 supporting staff 由 8 名法律翻譯主任、26 名律政書記及 70 名支 members. 援人員組成。 Law Translation Officers 法律翻譯主任 There are 1 Senior Law Translation Officer and 8 Law Translation 雙語法庭文件組有一名高級法律翻譯主任和八 Officers in the Bilingual Court Documents Unit (BCDU). The 名法律翻譯主任。這個翻譯隊伍主要協助檢控 translation team primarily assists prosecutors to prepare bilingual 官就刑事法律程序擬備雙語文件，翻譯的文件 PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG documents for criminal proceedings. BCDU translates a wide range 種類眾多，包括公訴書、控罪書、同意檢控書、 of documents, including indictments, charge sheets, consents 2018

免予起訴書、案情撮要、法律陳詞和判案書。 to prosecute, immunities, summaries of facts, legal submissions 由於法庭文件的翻譯文本或會帶有法律後果， and judgments. As translation of court documents may bear legal 雙語法庭文件組在翻譯時無不字斟句酌。2018 consequences, every word is translated by BCDU with utmost care. 年，該組製備了共 7,178 頁中譯本和 503 頁英譯 In 2018, BCDU produced a total of 7,178 pages of Chinese translated

香港刑事檢控 本。除翻譯文件外，該組也負責為本科提供以 texts and 503 pages of English translated texts. Apart from translation of documents, BCDU is also responsible for providing the following 下服務：(i) 向檢控官及法律輔助人員同事提供 services to the Division: (i) advising prosecutors and paralegal 語文方面的意見；(ii) 備存和更新載有各類文件 colleagues on linguistic matters; (ii) maintaining and updating ( 包括控罪詳情範本、判案書摘錄和翻譯判例 ) internal electronic databases of various documents, including 的內部電子資料庫； 定期舉辦有助檢控官在 (iii) specimen charges, judgment extracts and translation precedents; (iii) 庭上陳述論據的實用工作坊；以及 (iv) 與律政司 regularly conducting useful workshops to facilitate prosecutors’ case 其他科別共同建立網上辭彙。儘管工作量持續 presentation in courts; and (iv) creating an online glossary together 上升，雙語法庭文件組仍致力為本科提供高水 with other Divisions of the Department. Whilst the workload is 平的專業翻譯服務。 increasing, BCDU is committed to providing quality translation services for the Division. 律政書記 Law Clerks

律政書記在本科內提供全面的法律支援服務。 Law Clerks provide legal support across the board within the 他們隸屬刑事檢控總務室和案件外判及法庭職 Division. They draft legal documents, assess costs claims, compile 務組，負責草擬法律文件、評核訟費申索、編 case bundles, prepare briefs to fiat prosecutors, vet legal documents, 製案件文件冊、擬備外判檢控官委聘書、審閱 arrange hearing dates, and conduct fixed penalty proceedings. They 法律文件、安排聆訊日期和出席處理定額罰款 are posted to the Prosecutions Registry as well as the Briefing Out and Court Duties Section. 的聆訊。 Prosecutions Registry 刑事檢控總務室 The Prosecutions Registry assists prosecutors in their management 刑事檢控總務室負責協助本科檢控官在管理及 and discharge of administrative and professional duties. It also 履行行政和法律專業職務方面的工作，也協助 assists and provides statistics to the Office of the Director of Public 和提供統計數字予刑事檢控專員辦公室及行政 Prosecutions (ODPP) and the Administration Unit in their handling 組，以處理公眾查詢及立法會的提問。總務室 of public enquiries and questions from the Legislative Council. The 由高級一等律政書記鄧綺雲女士領導，下設七 Registry, headed by Ms Teresa Tang, Senior Law Clerk I, comprises 7 個組別，各由一名高級二等律政書記或律政書 units, each led by either a Senior Law Clerk II or Law Clerk. The units 記掌管，詳情如下： are:

Appeals Unit – This Unit supports prosecutors in their handling of 上訴事務小組 — 本小組負責協助本科檢控官處 criminal appeals heard in the High Court and the Hong Kong Court 理在高等法院及終審法院審理的刑事上訴案件， of Final Appeal as well as bail applications heard in the High Court. 以及在高等法院審理的保釋申請。2018 年，小 In 2018, the Unit provided support services to prosecutors in 1,208 組在 宗上訴案件和 宗高等法院保釋 1,208 1,010 appeals and 1,010 bail applications in the High Court. 申請中，為本科檢控官提供支援服務。

75 PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 2018

香港刑事檢控

律政書記 Law Clerks 雙語法庭文件組 — 本小組為本科提供法庭文件 Bilingual Court Documents Unit – This Unit provides bilingual 的雙語翻譯服務。組內律政書記及支援人員負 translation of court documents for the Division. Its Law Clerks 責協助法律翻譯主任為檢控官在刑事法律程序 and support staff assist Law Translation Officers in the provision of 中提供翻譯及審稿服務。 translation and vetting services to prosecutors conducting criminal proceedings. 原訟法庭小組 — 本小組協助分科一第 1 組 ( 原 Court of First Instance Unit – This Unit supports prosecutors in 訟法庭法律指引 ) 的檢控官籌備交付原訟法庭的 Section I(1) (Court of First Instance Advisory) in their preparation of 案件，以及處理有陪審團參與審理的原訟法庭 cases for committal to the Court of First Instance and their handling 案件。2018 年，小組就 407 宗交付原訟法庭審 of Court of First Instance cases for trial by jury. In 2018, the Unit 理的案件和 108 宗在原訟法庭有陪審團參與審 provided support services in 407 committal cases and 108 jury trials. 理的案件提供支援服務。 Commercial Crime and Corruption Unit – This Unit provides 商業罪案及貪污案件小組 — 本小組為分科四 support to prosecutors in Sub-division IV (Commercial Crime) who ( 商業罪案 ) 的檢控官提供支援，協助籌備和處 prepare and conduct cases investigated mainly by the Commercial 理主要由香港警務處商業罪案調查科、廉政公 Crime Bureau of the Hong Kong Police Force, the Independent 署、香港海關、稅務局和證券及期貨事務監察 Commission Against Corruption, the Customs and Excise 委員會調查的案件，以及處理追討本地資產案 Department, the Inland Revenue Department and the Securities and Futures Commission. It also processes domestic asset recovery cases. 件。2018 年，小組處理逾 1,780 宗要求法律指 In 2018, the Unit handled over 1,780 requests for legal advice and 引的個案，並在 204 宗在各級法院的審理和 135 provided support services to 204 trials in all levels of Courts and 135 宗追討資產案件提供支援服務。 asset recovery cases.

區域法院事務小組 — 本小組協助分科一第 2 組 District Court Unit – This Unit assists prosecutors in Section I(2) ( 區域法院法律指引 ) 的檢控官草擬由裁判法院 (District Court Advisory) in the preparation of legal documents for 移交區域法院審理的案件所涉及的法律文件， transferring cases from the Magistrates’ Courts to the District Court 76 以及籌備相關案件在區域法院審理。2018 年， and the preparation of cases for trial in the District Court. In 2018, the 由小組籌備文件以移交區域法院審理的案件逾 Unit processed over 1,120 transfer of cases to the District Court and 1,120 宗，小組並在 199 宗區域法院審理的案件 provided support services to prosecutors in 199 District Court trials. 向檢控官提供支援服務。 Management Support and Magistracy Unit – This Unit assists the ODPP in the management of the Division and the allocation 管理支援及裁判法院事務小組 — 本小組協助刑 of cases to prosecutors for providing legal advice and prosecuting 事檢控專員辦公室管理本科，並編配案件予檢 cases in Courts. It also provides support to prosecutors conducting 控官以提供法律指引及出庭檢控。小組也負責 magistracy trials and death inquests. In addition, it provides support 向處理裁判法院案件及死因研訊的檢控官提供 for the speedy advisory system known as “FAST”. In 2018, the Unit PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 支援，並在稱為 FAST 的特快法律指引制度下提 provided support services to prosecutors in conducting 438 供支援服務。2018 年，小組向檢控官提供支援 magistracy trials and review hearings, 37 death inquests; and giving 2018 服務，協助他們處理 438 宗裁判法院案件及覆 1,586 legal advice under FAST system. 核聆訊、37 宗死因研訊，以及透過 FAST 制度就 Receipt and Despatch Unit – This Unit ensures that files and 1,586 宗個案給予法律指引。 correspondence are efficiently and securely delivered and processed.

香港刑事檢控 It vets and classifies incoming cases, and ensures timely return of 收發小組 — 本小組確保本科的檔案和信件有效 completed legal advice to law enforcement agencies. In 2018, the 發送及妥善處理。小組也檢閱接收的檔案和予 Unit handled a total of 10,118 written legal advice provided by 以分類，並確保本科提供的法律指引能盡快發 prosecutors. 還有關的執法機關。2018 年小組共處理 10,118 份由檢控官提供的書面法律指引。 Briefing Out and Court Duties Section

案件外判及法庭職務組 The Briefing Out and Court Duties Section, headed by Ms Jenny Kwan, Senior Law Clerk I, comprises the Briefing Out and Work 案件外判及法庭職務組由高級一等律政書記關 Management System Unit, the Costs Unit and the Fixed Penalty Unit. 小珍女士掌管，下設案件外判及工作管理系統 Briefing Out and Work Management System Unit – This Unit 小組、訟費小組和定額罰款小組。 manages the daily operation of the briefing out system for both standard briefs and non-standard briefs. It maintains fiat counsel lists 案件外判及工作管理系統小組 — 本小組負責管 for standard briefing out cases; processes applications for inclusion 理標準及非標準外判案件機制的日常運作、編 in the lists as well as suspension or removal of fiat counsel from the 製和更新接辦標準外判案件的外判律師名單、 lists. In addition, this Unit liaises closely with the Office of the Director 處理列入外判律師名單以及把外判律師從有關 of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), the Court Prosecutors and the Administration Unit so as to ensure the timely briefing out of criminal 名單暫時或永久除名的申請。此外，本小組與 prosecutions. 刑事檢控專員辦公室、法庭檢控主任及行政組 保持緊密聯繫，確保能適時外判案件予外判律 This Unit also administers the Prosecutions Management Information 師作檢控。 System (PMIS) and is responsible for implementing briefing out policy of the Division and reviewing the briefing out matters from 本小組也掌管刑事檢控管理資訊系統，並負責 time to time. 推行本科的外判政策和不時檢討與外判相關的 事宜。 Costs Unit – This Unit assists prosecutors in processing claims for costs in criminal cases and its related proceedings at all Court levels. Its staff assists in the assessment of costs of various proceedings 訟費小組 — 本小組協助檢控官處理各級法院刑 in criminal cases, attends call-over hearings, assists prosecutors in 事案件及相關法律程序的訟費申索。小組人員 taxation hearings, prepares notices of objections, and negotiates with 協助評估各類刑事案件中不同法律程序的訟費、 defence solicitors, law costs draftsmen or litigants for settlement. The 出席法庭指示聆訊、在訟費評定聆訊為檢控官 Unit is also responsible for drafting bills of costs for cases where costs 提供協助、擬備反對通知書，以及與辯方事務 are awarded to the Prosecution. The Unit handled the cases arising 律師、訟費單草擬員或訴訟人商議訟費事宜。 from 333 orders for costs in 2018. 小組亦負責就控方獲判給訟費的案件草擬訟費 單。2018 年，小組處理關乎 333 項訟費命令的 Fixed Penalty Unit – This Unit deals with fixed penalty cases 案件。 concerning parking contraventions under the Fixed Penalty (Traffic 77 Contraventions) Ordinance (Cap. 237) referred by the Judiciary 定額罰款小組 — 本小組負責處理違反《定額罰 and by the Central Traffic Prosecutions Division of the Hong Kong 款 ( 交通違例事項 ) 條例》( 第 237 章 ) 的違例泊 Police Force. Its Law Clerks conduct fixed penalty proceedings in 車事宜所產生的定額罰款案件。這些案件由司 the Magistrates’ Courts; make applications for distress warrants and 法機構和香港警務處中央交通違例檢控組轉交 relevant court orders; conduct review applications; give instructions to the Police and Court Prosecutors for appropriate actions, and 本科。小組的律政書記負責在裁判法院處理有 handle enquiries and complaints arising from fixed penalty cases. In 關罰款的法律程序、申請財物扣押令及相關法 2018, the Unit handled a total of 9,269 new fixed penalty cases. 庭命令、並進行覆核申請、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 PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 案件的查詢和投訴。2018 年，小組處理的新定 2018 額罰款案件共 9,269 宗。 香港刑事檢控 特稿 Feature Article

律政司﹕倫敦來客有感 The Department of Justice: Some views from London

David Perry QC 78 PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 2018

香港刑事檢控 2010 年 10 月，我首次踏足香港，時任刑事檢 控專員是麥偉德資深大律師 1。2010 年 12 月至 I first came to Hong Kong in October 2010. At that time, the 2011 年 3 月期間，我重臨此地，離開時想不到 Director of Public Prosecutions was Mr Ian McWalters SC1. At the 日後會頻頻回來，接連處理與律政司有關的工 end of my next visit, between December 2010 and March 2011, I 作 2。首度訪港，距今九載，其間薛偉成資深大 had no idea that I would return on a frequent basis and become so 律師、楊家雄資深大律師和現任的梁卓然資深 involved with the work of the Department of Justice2. In the nine 大律師相繼接任專員一職。他們都是出類拔萃的 years since my first trip, the post of Director has been filled by Mr 律師，一直致力為香港的公眾利益服務，表現卓 Kevin Zervos SC, Mr Keith Yeung SC and now Mr David Leung SC. 越，誰都想與他們在同一陣線。他們不但兼備 These are formidable and distinguished lawyers who have served 律師和行政人員才能，更彰顯檢控官作為獨立 and continue to serve the public interest of Hong Kong with great “秉行公義者”行事的典範。正如加拿大最高 distinction. Who would not want them on their side? Quite apart 法院法官 Rand 在 Boucher 訴 女皇 [1955] SCR 16 from their skills as lawyers and administrators, they exemplify 一案 ( 第 23 至 24 頁 ) 指出：“檢控官不可存有 the ideal of the prosecutor acting as an independent ‘minister of 任何勝敗之心；其職能純粹是為公眾服務，在 justice’. As Rand J expressed it, speaking for the Supreme Court of 79 所有公職人員當中，他承擔的個人責任，無人 Canada, in Boucher v The Queen [1955] SCR 16 (at 23-24): “The role of 能及。檢控官應本着司法程序固有的威信、尊 prosecutor excludes any notion of winning or losing; his function is a matter of public duty than which in civil life there can be none charged 嚴和公義感，有效地履行其職責。＂簡潔的文 with greater personal responsibility. It is to be efficiently performed 字表達了崇高的目標。然而，不管專員 ( 無論男 with an ingrained sense of the dignity, the seriousness and the justness 女 3) 如何精明幹練，也無法獨力達到這個目標。 of judicial proceedings.” These are elegant words expressing noble 律政司刑事檢控科是一支高度專業、極具效率的 values. But no Director, no matter how skillful or dynamic can do 團隊，科內優秀人員克盡厥職，其日常工作 ( 往 it on his or her own3. The Prosecutions Division of the Department 往不為人知或鮮獲公眾表揚 ) 對香港司法工作的 is a highly professional and efficient organization with a dedicated PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 運作至為重要。《基本法》第 63 條確認律政司 and talented group of individuals whose daily work (often 主管刑事檢察工作的關鍵角色，並保障律政司享

unnoticed or unsung by the wide public) is vital to the functioning 2018

有作出專業決定而不受任何外界干涉的自由。鑑 of the administration of justice in Hong Kong. The pivotal role

1 我獲委聘在香港特別行政區 訴 Nancy Ann Kissel [2011] 3 HKLRD 1，高院刑事案件 2010 年第 55 號，[2014] 1 HKLRD 460，[2014] HKEC 155，[2014] HKEC 779 一案重審時負責檢控工作。濫用程序的論點在 2010 年 11 月聆訊，重審在 2011 年年初進行。 香港刑事檢控 I had been instructed to prosecute the retrial in HKSAR v Nancy Ann Kissel [2011] 3 HKLRD 1, HCCC 55/2010, [2014] 1 HKLRD 460, [2014] HKEC 155, [2014] HKEC 779. The abuse of process argument was heard in November 2010 and the trial took place at the beginning of 2011. 2 香港特別行政區 訴 陳振聰 [2013] 6 HKC 437，高院刑事案件 2012 年第 182 號，[2015] HKEC 2256，[2016] HKEC 304；香港特別行政 區 訴 Krieger [2014] 3 HKLRD 404，[2014] HKEC 1323；香港特別行政區 訴 許仕仁，高院刑事案件 2013 年第 98 號，[2016] HKEC 350， (2017) 20 HKCFAR 264；律政司司長 訴 陳志雲及另一人 (2017) 20 HKCFAR 98；香港特別行政區 訴 李國祥及其他人 (2014) 17 HKCFAR 319；香港特別行政區 訴 曾蔭權 [2018] 2 HKLRD 186，高院刑事案件 2015 年第 484 號，[2018] 3 HKLRD 564，[2018] 4 HKLRD 430，[2018] HKCFA 63；香港特別行政區 訴 余力維 [2019] 1 HKLRD 1149。 HKSAR v Chan Chun Chuen [2013] 6 HKC 437, HCCC 182/2012, [2015] HKEC 2256, [2016] HKEC 304; HKSAR v Krieger [2014] 3 HKLRD 404, [2014] HKEC 1323; HKSAR v Hui Rafael Junior HCCC 98/2013, [2016] HKEC 350, (2017) 20 HKCFAR 264; Secretary for Justice v Chan Chi Wan Stephen & Another (2017) 20 HKCFAR 98; HKSAR v Li Kwok Cheung George & Others (2014) 17 HKCFAR 319; HKSAR v Tsang Yam Kuen Donald [2018] 2 HKLRD 186, HCCC 484/2015, [2018] 3 HKLRD 564, [2018] 4 HKLRD 430, [2018] HKCFA 63; HKSAR v Yu Lik Wai William [2019] 1 HKLRD 1149. 3 我深信專員一職不久將由女性擔任。 I fully expect the post of Director to be filled by a woman in the not too distant future. 於法律對各個公共行政範疇影響益增，亦伸展 played by the Department in the control of criminal prosecutions 至日常生活每個角落 4，加上對立團體之間的社 is recognized in Article 63 of the Basic Law which guarantees the 會矛盾日多 ( 而這些矛盾終究會在法庭審理 )， freedom to make professional decisions free from any external 刑事檢控工作的獨立性因而更見重要。 interference; this independence has assumed an even greater significance given the growing influence of the law over all aspects 4 我對律政司的工作和理念的欽佩，並沒有因為 of public administration, its expansion into every corner of daily life 習以為常而減退。我處理每宗案件時都得到不 and the increasing social tension between opposing groups which, one way or another, will be played out in the Courts. 少能幹的律師協助。這些專業人員竭力維護公 義，對履行職責時得到全港市民信任，亦由衷 My admiration for the work and ethos of the Department has 感謝。法庭工作僅是部分職責，看數字可了解 not diminished with familiarity. I have been supported in each 更多。律政司約有 1,500 名員工，而刑事檢控科 of my cases by many gifted lawyers. These professionals have 由專員領導，轄下有四名副專員及 145 名檢控 demonstrated a conscientious commitment to the interests of 官提供支援。2018 年，該科就 13,105 宗案件向 justice and displayed a keen appreciation of the trust placed in the 執法機構提供法律指引，籌備由原訟法庭審理 performance of their role by all the people of Hong Kong. And court 的案件數目有 413 宗，區域法院則有 1,183 宗。 work is only part of the picture. The statistics tell their own story. The 這些數字若非以驚人來形容，也可說是極可觀， Department employs about 1,500 staff. The Division is led by the 某程度反映了該科的工作量。此外，還有 407 Director, supported by four deputies and 145 prosecutors. In 2018, 宗在上訴法庭審理的案件和六宗在終審法院審 the Division provided advice to law enforcement agencies in 13,105 cases. In the same year, the number of cases prepared for the Court 理的刑事案件。 of First Instance was 413 and for the District Court 1,183. These are impressive, if not staggering figures and provide some indication of 據我經驗所知，檢控官籌備案件時一絲不苟、 the Division’s work load. To these should be added the 407 cases 考慮周詳，不會斤斤計較合約訂立的工時，經 before the Court of Appeal and the 6 criminal cases heard by the 常工作至晚上，周末加班亦司空見慣。然而， Court of Final Appeal. 我從未聽過任何人員為此抱怨，他們只視之為 80 理所當然，是其專業職責的一部分。 My own experience is one of prosecutors engaged in meticulous and thoughtful preparation, very often conducted in the evenings 自 1997 年以來，法院在專業律師的協助下， and at weekends without reference to contractual working hours. I 累積了大量案例。香港在處理刑事案件方面的 have never heard anyone complain; it is simply accepted as a routine 一大特色是不僅受其他普通法司法管轄區 ( 尤 aspect of the professional duties of a prosecutor. 其是澳洲、加拿大、新西蘭和英國 ) 影響，也 Since 1997, with the assistance of professional lawyers, the Courts 受斯特拉斯堡歐洲人權法院的判決影響。這種 have developed a vast body of case law. A distinctive feature of 國際化做法產生大量案例，例如香港特別行政 criminal practice in Hong Kong is the influence not only of other 區 訴 幸凌宇 犯罪意圖 (2010) 13 HKCFAR 142 ( ) common law jurisdictions, particularly Australia, Canada, New PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 案的裁決；該案例曾於香港特別行政區 訴 蔡偉 Zealand and the United Kingdom, but also of the judgments of the 麟 (2018) 21 HKCFAR 167 案應用，而毛里求斯最 European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. This cosmopolitan 2018

高法院和倫敦樞密院最近也予引用。 approach has created a rich seam of case law, such as the decision in HKSAR v Hin Lin Yee (2010) 13 HKCFAR 142 (mens rea), applied in 2018 年有不少重要裁決。在香港特別行政 HKSAR v Choi Wai Lun (2018) 21 HKCFAR 167; recently cited before the 區 訴 李小向 (2018) 21 HKCFAR 272 一案中，終 Supreme Court in Mauritius and the Privy Council in London. 香港刑事檢控 審法院對愈來愈多人基於錯誤理解而不當地指 控律師明顯失職，堅決表示不認同。上述裁決 The year of 2018 saw a number of notable decisions. In HKSAR v Li Xiaoxiang (2018) 21 HKCFAR 272, the Court of Final Appeal firmly 顯示，法院理解律師在激烈的審訊中須肩負重 deprecated the trend of misconceived and inappropriate charges 大責任。法院裁定，除非有明顯而充分的理據， of flagrant incompetence. The Court’s decision shows a sensitive 否則上訴律師絕不應透過指控質疑另一名律師 appreciation of the burdens imposed on counsel during the heat 的能力和誠信。這項裁決值得我們支持。在香 of a trial. It was held that appellate counsel should never advance

4 舉例說，到了本世紀的第三個十年期，以司法覆核作補救似乎會愈見吃重。 For example, it seems likely that the remedy of judicial review will take on a more dynamic role in the third decade of this century. 港特別行政區 訴 陳子豪 (2018) 21 HKCFAR 588 allegations questioning counsel’s competence and integrity unless 一案中，終審法院就法院允許認罪的被告人更 there was a palpably sound basis to do so. This is to be welcomed. In 改答辯的酌情權提供指引，當中首要考慮因素 HKSAR v Chan Chi Ho Lincoln (2018) 21 HKCFAR 588, the Court of Final 是司法公正原則，這一點並不令人意外。司法 Appeal gave guidance on the Court’s discretion to allow a change 公正原則和有關公平的考慮因素也啟導法院就 of plea. Unsurprisingly, the interests of justice are the overriding consideration. The interests of justice and consideration of fairness 香港特別行政區 訴 梁竣傑 (2018) 21 HKCFAR 298 also motivated the decision in HKSAR v Leung Chun Kit Brandon (2018) 案作出裁決 ( 如被告人無律師代表，而除自己 21 HKCFAR 298 (no prosecution right to make a closing speech 以外並無傳召任何證人，則控方無權作結案陳 where an unrepresented defendant called no witnesses other than 詞 )。在律政司司長 訴 黃之鋒 (2018) 21 HKCFAR himself). Unusually for a final appeal court, the Court of Final Appeal 一案中，終審法院罕見地受理就判刑提出 35 entered the arena of sentencing in Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi 的終審上訴。在該案中，終審法院雖不同意上 Fung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35, and while disagreeing with the custodial 訴法庭判處就各被告人因擾亂公共秩序而判處 terms imposed by the Court of Appeal, the Court could hardly 監禁的刑期，但亦注意到社會漸趨動盪，公眾 overlook the increasing incidence of unrest and rising number of 抗議活動也日漸增多；法院繼而強調，如大規 public protests, and went on to emphasize the need for deterrence 模的擾亂公共秩序事件涉及暴力，便有需要加 and punishment in large scale incidents of public disorder involving 以阻嚇和懲處。令人遺憾的是，香港法院在未 violence. Regrettably, this is an aspect of sentencing which is likely 來數年很可能須再次考慮這個與判刑有關的範 to be considered again by the Courts of Hong Kong in the coming 疇。此外，上訴法庭曾就販毒案的判刑準則 ( 香 years. At Court of Appeal level there have been decisions on the 港特別行政區 訴 Kilima Abubakar Abbas [2018] 5 approach to sentencing in cases of drug trafficking (HKSAR v Kilima Abubakar Abbas [2018] 5 HKLRD 88, in which the Court made HKLRD 88 ~ 法院在該案中提及香港尤其容易被 reference to Hong Kong’s particular vulnerability to the trade in 利用作危險毒品交易平台 ) 及如何處理有關給 dangerous narcotics) and the approach to criticisms of directions to 予陪審團指示的批評 ( 香港特別行政區 訴 Wiwik jury (HKSAR v Wiwik Lestari [2018] HKCA 166; HKSAR v Tse Hin Yeung Lestari [2018] HKCA 166；香港特別行政區 訴 謝 [2018] HKCA 196; HKSAR v Chen Keen alias Jack Chen and Others [2018] 顯揚 ；香港特別行政區 訴 陳克 [2018] HKCA 196 HKCA 121). Of course, it should not be forgotten that the quality 81 恩及其他人 [2018] HKCA 121) 作出裁決。我們當 of this body of case law is a tribute not only to the industry of the 然不應忘記，香港得以有如此大量的優質案例， independent judiciary; it is also to the credit of advocates and all 獨立司法機構的努力固然重要，訟辯律師及所 those who support them in an administrative capacity5. 有行政支援人員 5 也功不可沒。 So what of the future? Despite recent tensions in civil society, 未來會怎樣？儘管最近公民社會氣氛緊張，大 and the vigorous community debate over its future governance, I 眾對政府的日後管治也有激烈辯論，我仍樂觀 remain optimistic that Hong Kong will continue to flourish in its own 地認為香港會以其獨特的方式繼續繁榮發展， distinctive manner and that the Courts will continue to produce case law of outstanding quality. Despite the many challenges 而法院也會不斷提供優秀案例。雖然未來考驗

that lie ahead, I am confident that the Division will continue to be PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 重重，但我深信，刑事檢控科定能一如既往， recognized as a centre of excellence as it continues to perform its 在執行公義上擔當核心角色，造福香港市民， 2018

central role in the administration of justice to the benefit of all the 繼續獲公認為卓越團隊。最後，我當然希望與 people of Hong Kong. Certainly it is the case that I hope to continue 律政司，以及在公非常敬佩、在私也有交情的 my association with the Department, and all those individuals for 每一位保持聯繫。 whom I have a profound professional admiration and much personal

affection. 香港刑事檢控

5 應理解為包括在律政司內處理行政工作的全體人員，包括送遞員、文書人員、圖書館管理員、行政主任及所有支援人員。他們每一 位都對部門運作貢獻良多。 This is to be read as including all those in the Department from messengers, clerks, librarians, executive officers and all the supporting staff. The work of every single individual contributes in no small measure to the functioning of the Department. 外展及培訓 Outreach and Training

82 PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 2018

香港刑事檢控 檢控週 2018 Prosecution Week 2018

律政司刑事檢控科自 2012 年起連續七年舉辦這 The Prosecutions Division of the Department of Justice has 項周年活動，目的是提倡法治並加深公眾對香港 organized this annual event for the 7th consecutive year since 刑事司法制度的認識。公眾對香港刑事司法制度 2012. Our aim is to promote the Rule of Law and to enhance 的運作和該科的工作所知越多，對本港法治和該 public awareness of the Hong Kong criminal justice system. The more the public is informed of the operation of our criminal justice 科維護法治的工作也就越有信心。 83 system and the work of the Division, the stronger the public’s confidence in the Rule of Law in Hong Kong and the Division’s role 檢控週 2018 的主題是“法理• 公義” (“The in upholding the same would be. Law • Transparency • Public Interest”)，精要地 總結了檢控決定是如何作出的︰首先，在判斷某 The theme of the Prosecution Week 2018 was “The Law • 人有否干犯罪行時必須考慮“法律”(The Law)， Transparency • Public Interest”. This theme succinctly sums up 不僅考慮構成該項罪行的所有元素是否存在，也 how a prosecutorial decision is made. First, in determining whether 考慮該等元素是否有可接納的證據支持。第二， a person has committed an offence, it is necessary to consider 這判斷過程必須具“透明度”(Transparency)，才 ‘The Law’ in relation not only to whether all the elements of an

能讓案中各方及公眾確信所有檢控決定皆以最高 offence are made out but also whether the said elements can be PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 專業標準作出。第三，檢控人員作出的任何檢控 made out with admissible evidence. Second, in the process of 2018 決定必須以“公眾利益”(Public Interest) 考慮為 making such determination, ‘Transparency’ is the key in assuring 最終依歸，以確保公義和公平得以彰顯。在某些 parties to a case as well as the general public that all prosecutorial decisions are determined with the highest professional standard. 案件中，即使有充分的證據進行檢控，也可能有 Third, in any prosecutorial decision that a prosecutor makes, the 基於公眾利益的其他原因而不予檢控。

consideration of ‘Public Interest’ must be the final safeguard to 香港刑事檢控 ensure justice and fairness be done. In certain cases, even if there is 檢控人員不受無關的考慮因素影響，不論其性質 sufficient evidence to prosecute, there might be other reasons not 為何或來自何人。具體而言，任何檢控人員都不 to do so on the ground of Public Interest. 受政治或個人利益影響。所有檢控決定只會考慮 法律、透明度及公眾利益，以最高的專業標準作 Prosecutors would not be influenced by irrelevant considerations, 出。 in whatever nature they are, or whoever they are coming from. In particular, political or individual interests are not of the concern for 該活動在 2018 年 6 月 22 日展開，開幕儀式上律 any prosecutor. All prosecutorial decisions are made on the highest 政司司長鄭若驊資深大律師, GBS 和刑事檢控專 professional standard considering only The Law, Transparency and the Public Interest. 員梁卓然資深大律師先後致辭，出席嘉賓包括 The event commenced on 22nd June 2018. At the opening 香港大律師公會主席戴啟思資深大律師、香港 ceremony, Ms Teresa Cheng, GBS, SC, Secretary for Justice, and Mr 律師會副會長黎雅明律師、立法會法律界代表 David Leung SC, Director of Public Prosecutions, each delivered a 郭榮鏗議員，以及多個政府部門和執法機關的 speech before the distinguished guests, including Mr Philip Dykes 代表。律政司司長和刑事檢控專員又在開幕儀 SC, Chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association, Mr Amirali Nasir, Vice 式上頒發獎座和獎狀予“義”問“義”答法律 President of the Law Society of Hong Kong, the Honourable Dennis 84 Kwok, Legislative Councilor of the Legal Functional Constituency, 問答比賽的得獎者。 and representatives of various government departments and law enforcement agencies. Winners of the fun quiz titled “The Law 本年共有約 360 名來自 14 間學校的學生參加檢 Games” were each presented with a trophy and a certificate by the 控週 2018 的各項活動，例如由專人帶領學生參 Secretary for Justice and the Director of Public Prosecutions at the 觀法庭、由檢控官主持的研討會及模擬法庭練 opening ceremony. 習。我們希望透過加深公眾對本港刑事司法制 度的認識，鼓勵香港人尤其是年輕一代秉承守 This year, we had about 360 students from 14 schools participated in 法觀念和尊重法治的精神。 various activities of the Prosecution Week 2018, such as guided visits to the Courts, seminars led by public prosecutors and mock court PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 持續法律進修課程 exercises. Having a better public awareness of our criminal justice

2018 system, people in Hong Kong, especially our younger generations,

will be encouraged to maintain a law-abiding attitude and show 本科在 2018 年舉辦了多個研討會和交流會，全 respect for the Rule of Law. 都深受同事歡迎。探討的課題廣泛，例如布思 義資深大律師就盤問證人及結案陳詞主持一系

香港刑事檢控 列共三場交流會；牛津大學講師 Karl Laird 先生 Continuing Legal Education 和多倫多大學 教授分別就涉及 Hamish Stewart Various seminars and sharing sessions were conducted in 2018, and 法團刑事法律責任和刑事傳聞證據的案件主持 were well-received. The topics were wide-ranging, for example, a 研討會，與參加者分享心得；上訴法庭法官薛 series of 3 sharing sessions were held by Mr Andrew Bruce SC on 偉成也向科內同事和大律師公會會員講解“高 taking witnesses and closing speeches. Mr Karl Laird, lecturer at 等法院內的訟辯”。2018 年舉辦的研討會全部 Oxford University, and Professor Hamish Stewart of the University 詳列如下： of Toronto gave seminars sharing with us their insights on cases involving corporate criminal liability and criminal hearsay respectively. • “複問：扭轉敗局”— 布思義資深大律師在 Mr Justice of Appeal Zervos also spoke to colleagues in the Division 1 月 26 日主講； as well as members of the Bar Association on Advocacy in the High Court. The following is a full list of seminars conducted in 2018: • “被控人以往失當行為的可接納性及證 明”— 布思義資深大律師在 2 月 9 日主講； • Re-examination: saving the game, by Mr Andrew Bruce SC on 26 • “不可解釋財富令與法團刑事法律責任”— January; 牛津大學 St Hilda’ s College 法律講師 Karl Laird • Admissibility and proof of previous misconduct on the part of 先生在 4 月 20 日主講； the Accused, by Mr Andrew Bruce SC on 9 February;

• “刑事傳聞證據：來自加拿大的看法”— 多 • Unexplained wealth orders and Corporate criminal liability, by 倫多大學法律學院 Hamish Stewart 教授在 6 Mr Karl Laird, Lecturer in Law, St Hilda’s College, University of 月 5 日主講； Oxford on 20 April;

• “就關於野生生物的可公訴罪行提出檢控 • Criminal Hearsay: A View from Canada, by Professor Hamish Stewart, Professor of Law at the University of Toronto on 5 June; 的新改變”— 香港大學法律學院副教授兼 Liberty 大律師事務所大律師 Amanda Whitfort • New Changes to Prosecuting Indictable Wildlife Offences, by Ms 女士在 7 月 6 日主講； Amanda Whitfort, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, HKU and Barrister-at-law, Liberty Chambers on 6 July; • “現代奴隸制度和販運人口：評估香港未來 在打擊販運人口方面的工作”— Liberty Asia • Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking - Evaluating the Future 法律部主管 Archana Kotecha 女士和 Admiralty of HK’s Anti-Trafficking Efforts, by Ms Archana Kotecha, Head of Legal Department of Liberty Asia and Mr Kay Chan, Barrister-at- 大律師事務所大律師陳國維先生在 8 月 22 law, Admiralty Chambers on 22 August; 日主講； • Commercial Crime made simple, by Ms Maggie Yang, Deputy • “商業罪案其實並不困難”— 副刑事檢控專 Director of Public Prosecutions on 23 August; 員楊美琪女士在 8 月 23 日主講； • Sinks exhausted to his seat, mops brow: Closing Submissions, by “結案陳詞：精疲力竭，拭一額汗”— 布思 • Mr Andrew Bruce SC on 19 October; 85 義資深大律師在 10 月 19 日主講； • Advocacy in the High Court, by Mr Justice of Appeal Zervos on • “高等法院內的訟辯”— 上訴法庭法官薛偉 9 November; and 成在 11 月 9 日主講；以及 • Corporate Bribery & Crypto-currency, by Mr Collingwood • “法團賄賂與加密數碼貨幣”— Collingwood Thompson QC on 27 November. Thompson 御用大律師在 11 月 27 日主講。 PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 2018

香港刑事檢控 實習計劃 Attachment Programme

2018 年，多個司法管轄區的檢控和實習人員在 In 2018, prosecutors and interns from various jurisdictions were 刑事檢控科實習，並獲安排見習，以了解香港 attached to the Prosecutions Division and they were arranged to 刑事司法制度的運作情況。實習計劃讓他們見 understudy the operation of the criminal justice system in Hong 識了香港如何進行檢控，獲益良多。在本科實 Kong. They gained useful insights into how prosecution is carried out 習的人員計有： here. Those attached to the Division were:

• Messrs. Yu Xiang and Cao Mingrui from the People's • 廣東省人民檢察院的余翔先生和曹明瑞先生 Procuratorate of Guangdong Province (8-31 January); (1 月 8 日至 31 日 )； • Mr David Khoo, Deputy Chief Prosecutor from the Attorney • 新加坡總檢察署副首席檢控官 David Khoo General’s Chambers of Singapore (27-29 March); 先生 (3 月 27 日至 29 日 )； • Messrs. Wang Yuanjie, Bai An and Tong Meng, recruits of the • 中華人民共和國外交部駐香港特別行政區特 Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of 派員公署的新聘人員王淵潔先生、白安先生 the People’s Republic of China in HKSAR (2-17 May); 和童萌先生 月 日至 日 ； (5 2 17 ) • Mr Mi Jian, Ms Zhai Xiaowei and Ms Liu Fei, Mainland officials in • 參與普通法培訓計劃的內地官員米建先生、 the Common Law Training Scheme (7-18 May, 4-15 June, and 翟曉巍女士及劉飛女士 (5 月 7 日至 18 日、 9-13 July respectively); 6 月 4 日至 15 日及 7 月 9 日至 13 日 )； • Ms Wang Yun, from the Renmin University of China (30 July – 3 August); • 中國人民大學的王韵女士 (7 月 30 日至 8 月 3 日 )； • Ms Tian Yuan and Mr Li Chenyuan, from the China University of Political Science and Law (23 July – 10 August); and • 中國政法大學的田园女士和李晨源先生 (7 月 23 日至 8 月 10 日 )；以及 • A total of 16 prosecutors from the Attorney General Office of the 86 Republic of Indonesia, led by Mr Rizky Fahrurrozi (15-16 August). • 由 Rizky Fahrurrozi 先生率領共 16 名來自印度 尼西亞共和國檢察總長辦公室的檢控官 (8 月 15 日至 16 日 )。 PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 2018

香港刑事檢控 “與公眾會面”計劃 “Meet the Community”

我們在 2014 年首次推行“與公眾會面”計劃， Programme 目的是令市民 ( 特別是年輕人 ) 對刑事司法制度、 The “Meet the Community” Programme was first implemented in 他們在制度中的角色，以及法治的重要性有更 2014 to enhance the understanding of the public, in particular, young 深入的認識。計劃的重點是檢控人員定期到中 people, of the criminal justice system and their role in the system as 學及社區團體接觸公眾。 well as the importance of the rule of law. The Programme focuses on outreaching secondary schools and community organizations on a 在這項計劃下，檢控人員到訪學校及其他對計 regular basis. 劃有興趣的社區機構，就不同議題舉行講座， 內容圍繞檢控人員執行職務的具體情況，包括 Under the Programme, prosecutors visit different schools and other 檢控人員的角色、作出檢控決定的依據等一般 interested community institutions to give talks on diversified topics. 事宜，以及檢控人員怎樣處理某種類的罪行。 The topics covered are those related to how prosecutors carry out their duties, including general issues like their role and the basis of 為進一步加深年輕人對法治及《基本法》下香 their prosecutorial decisions, as well as how they tackle specific types 港特區憲制架構的認識，本計劃在 2018/19 學年 of offences. For the purpose of further improving our young people’s 新增“香港特區法律制度概述”的題目，由本 knowledge of the rule of law and the HKSAR’s constitutional order 司法律政策科律師主講。 under the Basic Law, an additional topic under the title “Introduction to the Legal System of the HKSAR” has been introduced in the 這項計劃在 2014 年 4 月至 2018 年 8 月舉行了 2018/19 school year which will be delivered by counsel from the 首四輪講座，合共 141 場，涵蓋各類議題。在 Legal Policy Division of the Department. 2018 年 9 月，我們發出 2018/19 學年的邀請， 共有 30 間中學表示有興趣參加。截至 2018 年 In the first 4 rounds of the Programme which ran from April 2014 年底，我們共舉辦了六場講座。 to August 2018, a total of 141 talks covering various topics were conducted. In response to our invitation for the 2018/19 school year issued in September 2018, 30 secondary schools have indicated 87 見習計劃 interest in participating in the Programme. By the end of 2018, a total of 6 talks were given. 這項計劃在 2012 年開展。在計劃下，獲委聘負 責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 10 年的 Understudy Programme 私人執業大律師參與見習計劃，以每日定額酬 This Programme was introduced in 2012. Under this Programme, 金，在檢控工作中擔任副手。這項計劃為資歷 senior counsel or senior junior counsel briefed to prosecute complex 較淺的私人執業的初級大律師提供寶貴的學習 and sensitive cases can nominate a counsel in private practice with 機會，讓他們有機會汲取檢控較為複雜和敏感 less than 10 years’ experience to act as an understudy and to take PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 案件的經驗和技巧。2018 年，共有 20 名私人執 part in the prosecution work as his or her junior at a fixed daily rate. 業的初級大律師參與這項計劃。 This has provided valuable learning opportunities to junior counsel 2018

for gaining experience and skills in prosecuting cases of complexity and sensitivity. In 2018, a total of 20 junior counsel in private practice 接待到訪人員 participated in the Programme.

2018 年，刑事檢控科多次接待到訪本科的不同 香港刑事檢控 司法管轄區代表，向他們講解本科的工作及香 Briefing Visitors 港刑事司法制度的發展。到訪人員包括： In 2018, we briefed visitors from various jurisdictions on the Division’s work and the development of the criminal justice system in Hong 廣東省人民檢察院檢察長鄭紅先生及代表團 • Kong. The visitors included: • 廣東省人民政府金融工作辦公室黨組書記、 • Mr ZHENG Hong, Chief Procurator of the People’s Procuratorate 主任肖學先生 of Guangdong Province and his delegation • 美國TRACE International 及 TRACE Incorporated • Mr Xiao Xue, Party Committee Secretary and Director-General 主席兼創辦人 Alexandra Wrage 女士 of the Financial Affairs Office of the People's Government of Guangdong Province and his delegation • 漢陽大學法學院院長及法律教授 Lee Hyeong Kyu 教授及韓國法學院院長代表團 • Ms Alexandra Wrage, President and Founder, TRACE International and TRACE Incorporated, USA • 貴州省紀委監察廳第三紀檢監察室副主任李 • Professor Lee Hyeong Kyu, Dean & Professor of Law of the 88 劍先生及代表團 Hanyang University and a delegation of Korean Law School • 廣東省人民檢察院處長曾潔女士及代表團 Deans • 深圳市人居環境委員會主任劉初漢先生 • Mr LI Jian, Deputy Director-General of the Third Discipline Inspection and Supervision Office of the Guizhou Provincial • 法國駐北京大使館海關參贊 Fabrice Renard Discipline Inspection Commission and Supervision Department, 先生及代表團 and his delegation • 中國證券監督管理委員會主席助理黃煒先生 • Ms ZENG Jie, Director of the People’s Procuratorate of • 國家認證認可監督管理委員會副主任劉衛軍 Guangdong Province and her delegation

PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 先生 • Mr Liu Chuhan, Director-General, the Human Settlements and • 貴州省銅仁市紀委副書記、監委副主任黃道 Environment Commission of Shenzhen Municipality and his 2018

成先生及代表團 delegation

• 香港城市大學第十二屆中國高級法官研修班 • Mr Fabrice Renard, Customs Attaché, French Embassy in Beijing 課程的參加者 and his delegation

香港刑事檢控 • Mr Huang Wei, Assistant Chairman of China Securities Regulatory • 雲南省人民政府法制辦公室副主任張鈞先生 Commission and his delegation 及代表團 • Mr Liu Weijun, Deputy Director, Certification and Accreditation • 青網大使知識產權專章計劃的參與學生 Administration and his delegation 中國政法大學代表團 • • Mr HUANG Daocheng, Deputy Secretary of the Discipline • 日本南山大學法學部岡田悅典教授 Inspection Commission and Deputy Director-General of the Supervision Commission of Tongren Municipality, Guizhou • 山西省長治市人民政府副市長石建旺先生及 Province 代表團 • 法國駐香港總領事館警務聯絡事務處主管 • Participants of the 12th Advanced Programme for Chinese Laurent Maury 先生及代表團 Senior Judges organized by the City University of Hong Kong

• Government & Laws Committee (GLC) 代表團 • Mr ZHANG Jun, Deputy Director-General of the Legislative Affairs Office of the People’s Government of Yunnan Province and his • 山西省直工委副書記魏愛軍先生及代表團 delegation 香港城市大學第十三屆中國高級法官研修班 • • Students participating in the Intellectual Property Rights Badge 課程的參加者 Programme for Youth Ambassadors • 深圳市南山區紀律檢查委員會委領導張華偉 • A delegation from the China University of Political Science and 先生及代表團 Law • 深圳市前海廉政監督局案件調查處處長何莉 • Professor Yoshinori Okada, Faculty of Law of the Nanzan 女士及代表團 University, Japan

• 深圳市人民檢察院副檢察長余新喜先生及代 • Mr SHI Jianwang, Vice-Mayor of Changzhi Municipal People’s 表團 Government, Shanxi Province and his delegation

• 國家衞生健康委員會食品安全標準與監測評 • Mr Laurent Maury, Head of French Police Liaison Office and his 估司司長劉金峰先生及代表團 delegation • A delegation from the Government & Laws Committee (GLC) 國際會議 • Mr WEI Aijun, Deputy Secretary of the Shanxi Provincial Work Committee of Agencies Directly Under Shanxi Provincial 2018 年，本科繼續加強與其他司法管轄區的檢 Committee of the CPC and his delegation 控人員的聯繫。我們參與多項國際論壇和活動 • Participants of the 13th Advanced Programme for Chinese 並發表論文，從中掌握刑事法律和檢控方面的 Senior Judges organized by the City University of Hong Kong 最新發展，同時也與其他司法管轄區的同業交 • Mr ZHANG Huawei, Leader of the Shenzhen Nanshan District 流意見。這些國際活動包括： 89 Commission for Discipline Inspection and his delegation

• 財務行動特別組織／亞洲 / 太平洋反洗黑錢 • Ms HE Li, Director of the Case Investigation Division, Shenzhen 組織／歐亞小組為法官和檢控人員合辦的打 Qianhai Anti-corruption Bureau and her delegation 擊洗錢及恐怖分子資金籌集工作坊 ( 中國深 • Mr YU Xinxi, Deputy Chief Procurator of the People’s 圳 ) Procuratorate of Shenzhen Municipality and his delegation • 訪問廣東省人民檢察院 ( 中國廣州 ) • Mr Liu Jinfeng, Director-General, Department of Food Safety Standards, Risk Surveillance and Assessment, National Health • 中國─東盟成員國檢察官交流培訓基 Commission of the People’s Republic of China and his delegation

地 ─ 泰國高級檢察官研修班 ( 中國南寧 ) PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 2018

International Conferences

In 2018, we continued to foster links with counterparts in other jurisdictions. We participated in various international fora and events, in which we presented papers, kept abreast of the latest developments in criminal law and prosecutions, and exchanged 香港刑事檢控 ideas with our counterparts. Such international events included:

• The Financial Action Task Force / Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering / Eurasian Group workshop on Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Financing of Terrorism for Judges and 財務行動特別組織／亞洲 / 太平洋反洗黑錢組織／歐亞小組 為法官和檢控人員合辦的打擊洗錢及恐怖分子資金籌集工作 Prosecutors (Shenzhen, China) 坊 ( 中國深圳 ) The Financial Action Task Force / Asia/Pacific Group on Money • Visit to The People’s Procuratorate of Guangdong Province Laundering / Eurasian Group workshop on Anti-Money Laundering and (Guangzhou, China) Counter-Financing of Terrorism for Judges and Prosecutors (Shenzhen, China) 2018 年國際馬來西亞法律會議 ( 馬來西亞吉隆坡 ) 泰國高級檢察官研修班 ( 中國南寧 ) The International Malaysia Law Conference 2018 (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia) Training Course for the Thai Senior Prosecutors (Nanning, China)

• 2018 年 6 月舉行的財務行動特別組織全體及 • The China-ASEAN Prosecutors Exchange and Training Base - 工作小組會議 ( 法國巴黎 ) Training Course for the Thai Senior Prosecutors (Nanning, China)

• “清洗黑錢犯罪”專題講座 ( 中國澳門 ) • The Financial Action Task Force Plenary and Working Group meetings June 2018 (Paris, France) • 國際刑事法律改革協會的“二十一世紀非法 販運的禍害”會議 ( 加拿大魁北克省蒙特利 • Thematic talk on “Money Laundering Crime” (Macao, China) 爾 ) • International Society for the Reform of Criminal Law Conference – The Scourge of Trafficking in the 21st Century (Montreal, QC, • 第二十一屆亞洲／太平洋反洗黑錢組織周年 Canada) 會議 ( 尼泊爾加德滿都 ) • 21st Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering Annual Meeting • 第十一屆中國—東盟成員國總檢察長會議 (Kathmandu, Nepal) ( 汶萊斯里巴加灣市 ) • The 11th China-ASEAN Prosecutors-General Conference (Bandar • 2018 年國際馬來西亞法律會議 ( 馬來西亞吉 90 Seri Begawan, Brunei) 隆坡 ) • The International Malaysia Law Conference 2018 (Kuala Lumpur, • 第三十六屆劍橋國際經濟罪行研討會 ( 英國 Malaysia) 劍橋 )

• 第二十三屆國際檢察官聯合會年會暨會員代 表大會 ( 南非約翰內斯堡 )

• 2018 年 10 月舉行的財務行動特別組織全體 及工作小組會議 ( 法國巴黎 )

PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG • 野生生物跨區域執法會議 ( 肯尼亞內羅畢 ) 2018

第十一屆中國—東盟成員國總檢察長會議 ( 汶萊斯里巴加灣市 ) The 11th China-ASEAN Prosecutors-General Conference (Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei) 香港刑事檢控

第三十六屆劍橋國際經濟罪行研討會 ( 英國劍橋 ) 36th Cambridge International Symposium on Economic Crime (Cambridge, United Kingdom) 財務行動特別組織全體及工作小組會議 ( 法國巴黎 ) The Financial Action Task Force Plenary and Working Group meetings (Paris, France) • 36th Cambridge International Symposium on Economic Crime (Cambridge, United Kingdom) • 23rd International Association of Prosecutors Annual Conference and General Meeting (Johannesburg, South Africa) • The Financial Action Task Force Plenary and Working Group meetings October 2018 (Paris, France) • Wildlife Inter-Regional Enforcement Meeting (Nairobi, Kenya)

第二十三屆國際檢察官聯合會年會暨會員代表大會 ( 南非約 翰內斯堡 ) Training Activities 23rd International Association of Prosecutors Annual Conference and General Meeting (Johannesburg, South Africa) In 2018, our prosecutors 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:

• High Impact Leadership at the Columbia Business School (New York, United States of America) • International Law Enforcement Academy Bangkok’s Prosecuting Environmental Crimes Course (Bangkok, Thailand)

野生生物跨區域執法會議 ( 肯尼亞內羅畢 ) • Middle Temple Advocacy Training Course (London, United Wildlife Inter-Regional Enforcement Meeting (Nairobi, Kenya) Kingdom) • The South Eastern Circuit Bar Mess Foundation Advanced 培訓課程 International Advocacy Course 2018 at Keble College, Oxford (Oxford, United Kingdom) 91 年，本科檢控官參加了多項不同類型的培 2018 • Integrated Training of Prosecutors, Military Prosecutors, Police/ 訓課程，藉以增進知識和磨練技巧，使他們能 National Narcotics Board Investigators and Prosecutors from 夠更有效地履行檢控職務及為事業發展打好基 Thailand, Russia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Australia 礎。這些培訓課程及講座包括： on Handling Cross-Border Narcotics Crimes (Jakarta, Indonesia) • Mainland Legal Studies Course organised by The Liaison Office • 哥倫比亞大學商學院高效領導課程 ( 美國 of the Central People’s Government (Beijing, China) 紐約 )

• 國際執法學院曼谷分院檢控環境罪行課程 ( 泰國曼谷 ) PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 2018

• 倫敦中殿大律師學院訟辯培訓課程 ( 英國 倫敦 )

• 在英國牛津大學基布爾學院舉辦的 South Eastern Circuit Bar Mess Foundation 2018 年高級 香港刑事檢控 國際訟辯課程 ( 英國牛津 )

• 為來自泰國、俄羅斯、新加坡、香港、馬來 西亞及澳洲的檢控人員、軍事檢控人員、警 方／國家禁毒局調查人員和檢控人員舉辦的 處理跨境毒品罪行綜合培訓 ( 印尼雅加達 )

• 中央人民政府聯絡辦公室舉辦的內地法律制 倫敦中殿大律師學院訟辯培訓課程 ( 英國倫敦 ) 度研習班 ( 中國北京 ) Middle Temple Advocacy Training Course (London, United Kingdom) 凝聚一心 Bonding

92 PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 2018

香港刑事檢控 龍舟競賽 Dragon Boat

Race 93 PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 2018

香港刑事檢控 足球比賽 Football Match

94

籃球比賽 PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG Basketball Match 2018

香港刑事檢控 升職 Promotions

95 PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 2018

香港刑事檢控 統計數字 Statistics

96 PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 2018

香港刑事檢控 Performance Standards and Targets 服務表現的標準及目標 In 2018, in addition to court work, the Division gave a total of 13,105 pieces of legal advice on criminal matters to government 在 2018 年，刑事檢控科除處理出庭檢控的工作 bureaux and law enforcement agencies. Of all the requests for legal 外，也向政府決策局及執法機關提供了共 13,105 advice, 92% were replied to within 14 working days in accordance 份涉及刑事事宜的法律指引。在所有尋求法律指 with our performance pledge, as compared to 92.3% in 2017. 引的案件中，92% 符合本科的服務承諾，即在 14 個工作天內作出回覆，而 2017 年則是 92.3%。 Caseload Trial preparation and advisory work 工作量 The number of legal advice given in 2018 decreased by 5% 審訊籌備及提供法律指引的工作 as compared to 2017. Prosecutors will ensure that there is consistency in our approach in initiating and conducting 本科在 2018 年提供法律指引的次數較 2017 年減 prosecutions, and that recent development in law is adequately 少 5%。本科檢控人員會確保提出和進行檢控方 addressed in their advice to law enforcement agencies. 97 面的處理手法貫徹一致，以及在向執法機關提供 法律指引時充分斟酌最新法律發展。

2017 2018

提供法律指引次數 13,790 13,105 Number of legal advice given

籌備由原訟法庭審理的案件數目 457 413

Number of cases prepared for the Court of First Instance PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG

籌備由區域法院審理的案件數目 1,157 1,183 2018 Number of cases prepared for the District Court

本科檢控人員及外判律師代替本科檢控人員 Court work undertaken by In-house Prosecutors and

在各級法院出庭檢控的工作 Fiat Counsel in place of In-house Prosecutors in all 香港刑事檢控 levels of courts 去年處理的案件總數輕微上升，但出庭日數卻有 There was a slight increase in the total number of cases conducted 所下跌。與 2017 年相比，由本科檢控人員處理 for the year but the number of court days had decreased. As 的案件數目增加 11.7%，由外判律師處理的案件 compared to 2017, the number of cases conducted by in-house 數目則下跌 19.9%。本科檢控人員和外判律師的 prosecutors increased by 11.7% while the number of cases 出庭日數分別下跌 和 。 3.9% 9.1% conducted by fiat counsel decreased by 19.9%. The number of court days undertaken by in-house prosecutors and fiat counsel decreased by 3.9% and 9.1% respectively. 本科檢控人員及外判律師處理的案件數目 Number of cases conducted by In-house Prosecutors and Fiat Counsel

1,500 外判律師 Fiat Counsel 30 2017 44 11 總數 Total: 1,685 11 2018 1,000 @ @ 714 554 總數 Total: 1,349

本科檢控人員 1,161 1,276 690 593 1,091 1,196 In-house Prosecutors 500 2017 226 161 總數 Total: 3,338 2018 340 371 570 708 總數 Total: 3,730 176 179 0 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018 上訴法院 * 原訟法庭 區域法院 裁判法院 其他 ^ Appellate Courts* Court of District Court Magistrates’ Others^ First Instance Courts

本科檢控人員及外判律師的出庭日數 Number of court days undertaken by In-house Prosecutors and Fiat Counsel

3,500 外判律師 Fiat Counsel 3,000 2017 總數 Total: 6,297# 2,500 2018 總數 Total: 5,724# 98 2,000 本科檢控人員 2,138.5 2,000.5 2,401.5+ 2,024.5+ 1,500 In-house Prosecutors 2017 1,667.5 1,623.5 總數 Total: 3,404# 1,000 46 37 43 38 2018 500 總數 Total: 3,271# 867 792 725.5 660.5 860 693 305.5 421.5 645.5 703.5 0 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018 上訴法院 * 原訟法庭 區域法院 裁判法院 其他 ^ Appellate Courts* Court of District Court Magistrates’ Others^ First Instance Courts PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG

* 包括裁判法院上訴案件，以及在上訴法庭和終審法院聆訊的上訴案件。 2018 This includes magistracy appeals and appeals heard in 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. @ 包括自 2017 年 2 月起由外判律師處理的“答辯和判刑”案件的數目。 This includes the number of “plea and sentence” cases briefed out to Fiat Counsel since February 2017. 包括自 年 月起由外判律師處理的“答辯和判刑”案件的出庭日數。 香港刑事檢控 + 2017 2 This includes the number of court days in respect of “plea and sentence” cases briefed out to Fiat Counsel since February 2017. # 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. 法庭檢控主任及外判律師代替法庭檢控主任 Court work undertaken by Court Prosecutors and 在裁判法院出庭檢控的工作 Fiat Counsel in place of Court Prosecutors in the Magistrates’ Courts

2017 2018

案件數目 150,387 146,352 Number of Cases

出庭日數 Number of Court Days

法庭檢控主任的出庭日數 8,134# 7,839 Number of court days undertaken by Court Prosecutors

外判律師代替法庭檢控主任出庭的日數 5,466# 4,815 Number of court days undertaken by Fiat Counsel in place of Court Prosecutors

# 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.

案件的結果 Case Outcomes 定罪率 Conviction rates

刑事檢控科用以計算定罪率的統計數字，是以被 The statistics used by the Prosecutions Division to calculate the * 告人數為基礎 *。 conviction rates are defendant-based . 99 認罪後被定罪的 經審訊後被定罪 經審訊後裁定 經審訊後的 包括認罪案件的 被告人數 的被告人數 無罪的被告人數 ^ 定罪率 定罪率 No. of defendants No. of defendants No. of defendants Conviction Conviction rate convicted convicted acquitted rate including guilty plea on own plea after trial after trial^ after trial (A) (B) (C) (B)÷[(B)+(C)] [(A)+(B)]÷[(A)+(B)+(C)]

裁判法院 Magistrates’ Courts 2017 1,766 1,909 1,543 55.3% 70.4%

2018 1,644 1,925 1,423 57.5% 71.5% PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 區域法院 2018 District Court 2017 888 227 62 78.5% 94.7% 2018 872 171 118 59.2% 89.8%

原訟法庭 香港刑事檢控 Court of First Instance 2017 412 75 31 70.8% 94.0% 2018 328 89 42 67.9% 90.8%

* 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. 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 By Defendants By Prosecutions 2017 2018 2017 2018 終院上訴證明書： Certificate to appeal to CFA: 得直 3 3 0 1 Allowed 駁回 26 37 0 1 Dismissed 撤銷 2 2 0 0 Withdrawn 待決註 6 7 1 0 PendingNote 總數 37 49 1 2 Total 向終院提出的上訴許可申請： Application for leave to appeal to CFA: 得直 10 27 1 2 Allowed 駁回 44 47 0 0 Dismissed 100 撤銷 2 3 0 0 Withdrawn 待決註 35 23 1 0 PendingNote 總數 91 100 2 2 Total 向終院提出的上訴： Appeal to CFA: 得直 7 22 0 1 PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG Allowed

2018 駁回 5 2 1 0

Dismissed 撤銷 0 0 0 0 Withdrawn 待決註 8 11 0 1 香港刑事檢控 PendingNote 總數 20 35 1 2 Total

註 – 於該年提出的申請。 Note – Applications initiated in the year concerned. 上訴法庭 Court of Appeal

57 45 被告提出的上訴 By Defendants 2017 177 195 總數 Total: 396 2017 2018 2018 162 167 總數 Total: 407

註 1 刑事檢控科提出的覆核刑罰申請 2 By Prosecutions Division to review sentences Note 2017 總數 Total: 5 2017 2018 2018 總數 Total: 6 4 4

刑事檢控科以案件呈述方式提出的上訴註 1 By Prosecutions Division by way of case stated Note 2017 總數 Total: 0 2018 2018 總數 Total: 1

原訟法庭 Court of First Instance

97 93 被告提出的上訴 By Defendants 2017 226 191 總數 Total: 730 2017 2018 2018 407 313 總數 Total: 597

1 101 刑事檢控科以案件呈述方式提出的上訴註 By Prosecutions Division by way of case stated Note 2017 總數 Total: 3 3 2017 6 2018 2018 總數 Total: 7

註 – 於該年提出的申請。 Note – Applications initiated in the year concerned. 得直 Allowed 駁回 Dismissed 撤銷 Withdrawn 待決 Pending

在法庭雙語並用的狀況 ( 以中文審 Bilingualism in courts (Percentage of PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 理的刑事案件百分率 ) criminal cases conducted in Chinese) 2018

100%

80%

92.9% 80.7% 73.6% 75.3% 香港刑事檢控 60%

77.3% 74.8% 84.5% 79.5% 40%

20% 40.3% 36.7% 30.4% 28.6%

0% 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018 終審法院 上訴法庭 原訟法庭 原訟法庭 區域法院 裁判法院 ( 申請上訴證明書 ) Court of Appeal ( 裁判法院上訴案件 ) ( 審訊 ) District Court Magistrates’ Court of Final Appeal Court of First Instance Court of Courts (Application for (Magistracy Appeal) First Instance Certificate) (Trial) 鳴謝 Acknowledgements 編輯組 Editorial Board

102 主席 Chairman 鄭凱聰先生 Mr Raymond Cheng 組員 Members 馮美琪女士 Ms Mickey Fung 蕭啟業先生 Mr William Siu 連普禧先生 Mr Jonathan Lin 陳詩欣女士 Ms Chan Sze Yan 岑頴欣女士 Ms Jessie Sham PROSECUTIONS HONG KONG 羅天瑋先生 Mr Andy Lo

2018 李雅怡女士 Ms Annie Li 李思賢先生 Mr Charles Lee 吳加悅女士 Ms Karen Ng 秘書 Secretary 香港刑事檢控 黃寶怡女士 Ms Polly Wong 助理秘書 Assistant Secretary 孔麗茵女士 Ms Ada Hung

律政司刑事檢控科 Prosecutions Division, Department of Justice 電子郵件 Email: [email protected] 網址 Website: http://www.doj.gov.hk