香港特別行政區 訴 廖月琴
The Court granted leave to appeal against conviction limited to the first ground concerning the adequacy of the Mushtaq direction, finding that this issue raised a real prospect of disturbance and warranted full appellate consideration; grounds relating to joint possession and alleged unfairness of directions on the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] HKCA 838
- Parties
- Respondent: 香港特別行政區; Applicant: 廖月琴 (Liu Yuet Kam)
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 4 June 2021
- Case Number
- CACC176/2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal — Conviction Appeal (permission Application) / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal (conviction)
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal against conviction granted limited to Ground 1 (adequacy of Mushtaq direction); leave refused on Grounds 2 and 3.
- Legal Topics
- Mushtaq Direction, Joint Possession, Defence Case Directions, Fair Trial, Leave to Appeal
- Source Language
- ch
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
香港特別行政區
Respondent
廖月琴 (Liu Yuet Kam)
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal — Conviction Appeal (permission Application) / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal (conviction)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge gave adequate, appropriate and correct Mushtaq directions in respect of a confession alleged to have been induced by the applicant's fiancé by inducement and pressure
- 2 Whether the judge's directions on joint possession were insufficient or incorrect
- 3 Whether the judge's directions on the defence case were unbalanced and denied the applicant a fair trial
Ratio Decidendi
The Court granted leave to appeal against conviction limited to the first ground concerning the adequacy of the Mushtaq direction, finding that this issue raised a real prospect of disturbance and warranted full appellate consideration; grounds relating to joint possession and alleged unfairness of directions on the defence case were dismissed as unarguable because the trial judge's directions on joint possession were adequate and those complaints lacked foundation.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal against conviction granted limited to Ground 1 (adequacy of Mushtaq direction); leave refused on Grounds 2 and 3.
Orders
- Grant leave to appeal against conviction limited to the adequacy of the Mushtaq direction (Ground 1)
- Refuse leave to appeal on grounds relating to joint possession and fairness of directions on the defence case (Grounds 2 and 3)
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CACC 176/2019 [2021] HKCA 838 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 刑事司法管轄權 定罪上訴許可申請 刑事上訴案件2019年第176號 （原高等法院原訟法庭刑事案件2018年第406號） 答辯人 香港特別行政區 對 申請人 廖月琴 （LIU YUET KAM） 主審法官： 高等法院上訴法庭副庭長楊振權 聆訊日期： 2021年6月4日 判案書日期： 2021年6月4日 判案書 申請人（廖月琴）被控販運693.7克“冰毒”。她否認控罪，並在高等法院原訟法庭法官李運騰（原審法官）會同陪審團席前受審。2019年5月29日，陪審團裁定申請人罪名成立，而在翌日，原審法官判處申請人入獄20年5個月。 申請人曾就定罪及判刑提出上訴許可申請，但申請人於2020年6月11日存檔放棄通知書，知會法庭放棄就判刑的上訴許可申請。因此，本席只需處理林沙文及黎家傑兩位大律師代表申請人提出就定罪的上訴許可申請。 林大律師提出三項上訴理由： 原審法官沒有就申請人指稱她受其未婚夫利誘及壓迫而招認作出恰當的Mushtaq指引； 原審法官就共同管有指引這議題給予陪審團的指引不足夠及不正確；及 原審法官就辯方案情給予陪審團的指引不持平，令申請人未能取得公平的審訊。 本席已考慮過案件的背景和雙方的書面陳述及林大律師的陳詞。本席認為以案件的背景而言，原審法官就共同管有這議題給予陪審團的指引是足夠和合理的。事實上，根據控方的說法和申請人的答辯理由，共同管有這議題不具重要性，更不會影響有關定罪的穩妥性。本席更認為林大律師指原審法官就辯方案情給予陪審團的指引不持平的說法更是沒有基礎支持，根本不應該提出。本席認為林大律師提出的第二項和第三項上訴理由沒有可爭拗的地方。 但本席認為以本案的背景而言，申請人聲稱受其未婚夫給予她的壓迫及利誘而作出招認，原審法官就Mushtaq Direction這議題向陪審團作出的指引是否足夠、是否適當及正確有值得爭論之處。因此，這議題應交由上訴法庭合議庭審理。 因此，本席批准申請人就定罪提出上訴許可申請，但範圍只局限在第一項上訴理由。 （楊振權） 高等法院上訴法庭副庭長 答辯人： 由律政司高級檢控官黃俊軒代表。 申請人：由法律援助署委派梁淑莊律師事務所轉聘大律師林沙文代表；大律師黎家傑以義務性質行事。