香港特別行政區 訴 曹建成
The court refused the certificate because the matter was decided on the special facts of the case: an unrepresented accused who consented to agreed facts without being advised of his rights and the consequences cannot be treated as having 'called witnesses' or other evidence so as to permit the prosecution to make a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 香港特別行政區 訴 曹建成
- Parties
- Respondent: 香港特別行政區; Applicant: 曹建成 (TSO KIN SHING)
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 11 April 2014
- Case Number
- CACC284/2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal Conviction and Sentence (application for Certificate to Appeal to Court of Final Appeal) / Application for Certificate Under Section 32(2) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance
- Outcome
- Application for certificate under section 32(2) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance refused.
- Legal Topics
- Unrepresented Accused, Closing Speech by Prosecution, Admission of Evidence, Agreed Facts, Right to Counsel
- 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
曹建成 (TSO KIN SHING)
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Conviction and Sentence (application for Certificate to Appeal to Court of Final Appeal) / Application for Certificate Under Section 32(2) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution is entitled to make closing speech where an unrepresented accused, other than giving oral evidence, has called non-oral evidence as part of his defence
- 2 Whether submitting written or agreed facts is equivalent to 'calling witnesses' for the purpose of permitting prosecution closing speech
- 3 Whether the issue is of general or great importance warranting a certificate under s32(2) CFAO
Ratio Decidendi
The court refused the certificate because the matter was decided on the special facts of the case: an unrepresented accused who consented to agreed facts without being advised of his rights and the consequences cannot be treated as having 'called witnesses' or other evidence so as to permit the prosecution to make a closing speech; the issue was not shown to be of general or great importance or to give rise to conflicting authority.
Court Disposition
Application for certificate under section 32(2) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance refused.
Orders
- Application for certificate refused
- No certificate granted under s32(2) CFAO
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CACC 284/2013 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 刑事司法管轄權 定罪及刑期上訴許可申請 刑事上訴案件 2013 年第 284 號 （原高等法院刑事案件 2013 年第 111 號） 答辯人 香港特別行政區 與 申請人 曹建成 (TSO KIN SHING) 審理法官： 高等法院上訴法庭法官張澤祐 高等法院原訟法庭法官張慧玲 高等法院原訟法庭法官彭偉昌 聆訊日期：2014 年 4 月 9 日 判決日期：2014 年 4 月 9 日 判決理由書日期：2014 年 4 月 11 日 判決理由書 上訴法庭法官張澤祐頒發上訴法庭判決理由書： 答辯人根據《香港終審法院條例》(香港法例第 484 章)第 32(2) 條，就本庭 2014 年 2 月 21 日的裁決，申請以下答辯人認為具有重大而廣泛的重要性的法律論點的證明書，讓它向終審法院提出上訴： 「當一名沒有律師代表的被告人，除了作供自辯還傳召了非口頭的證供作為他案情的一部份，控方在該審訊中是否有權作結案陳詞？」 代表答辯人的覃民輝資深大律師表明，雖然他提出這項申請，但他不會要求終審法院推翻本庭批准上訴及命令重審的裁決。 一名無律師代表的被告人，除非在審訊時作供及傳召證人，否則控方是無權作出結案陳詞的原則是清晰及牢固的。答辯人在上訴時提出的其中一個論點是：被告人以同意案情形式提交書面證據是等同他傳召證人。本庭在判案理由書表明不同意這論點，原因是答辯人沒有提供案例支持這說法，而這論點亦存有問題。無論如何，本庭認為本案不存有偏離上述原則的情況。換句話說，就算「傳召證人」這句話是泛指傳召其他證據（包括書面證據），根據本案特殊的案情，即無律師代表的被告人在同意案情前沒有被忠告他的權利及提交同意案情的後果，被告人是不應該被視為已經傳召證人或者傳召其他證據，而讓控方作出結案陳詞。這是本庭根據本案特殊案情所作出的獨有裁決。答辯人未能顯示本庭處理的爭議經常會在審訊時發生或者不同的法庭對這論點持有不同的意見。基於上述原因，本庭拒絕申請。 （張澤祐） 高等法院上訴法庭 法官 （張慧玲） 高等法院原訟法庭法官 （彭偉昌） 高等法院原訟法庭法官 答辯人: 由律政司高級助理刑事檢控專員覃民輝資深大律師代表。 申請人: 無律師代表, 親自應訊。