香港特別行政區 訴 湛岳霖
The judge found there was a real prospect that the confiscation application may not have complied with the procedural requirements established in Ngoma and that the applicant may have been denied a proper opportunity to oppose the forfeiture; for that reason leave to appeal out of time against the confiscation order...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] HKCA 915
- Parties
- Applicant: CHAN Yue lin (湛岳霖); Respondent: The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 9 August 2019
- Case Number
- CACC293/2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal — Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time / Leave to Appeal Application (out of Time)
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal out of time granted
- Legal Topics
- Confiscation Order, Seizure of Property, Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Procedural Fairness, Representation
- 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
CHAN Yue lin (湛岳霖)
Applicant
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal — Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time / Leave to Appeal Application (out of Time)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the confiscation (forfeiture) order in respect of RMB26,300 was made in compliance with required procedural safeguards
- 2 Whether the applicant was denied an effective opportunity to oppose the confiscation in court
- 3 Whether defence counsel's off‑court discussions with prosecutors and subsequent in‑court lack of opposition were adequate and transparent
Ratio Decidendi
The judge found there was a real prospect that the confiscation application may not have complied with the procedural requirements established in Ngoma and that the applicant may have been denied a proper opportunity to oppose the forfeiture; for that reason leave to appeal out of time against the confiscation order was granted.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal out of time granted
Orders
- Applicant granted leave to appeal against the confiscation order in respect of RMB26,300
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CACC 293/2018 [2019] HKCA 915 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 刑事司法管轄權 不服刑罰逾期上訴許可申請 刑事上訴案件2018年第293號 (原高等法院刑事案件2015年第292號) __________________ 答辯人 香港特別行政區 對 申請人 CHAN Yue lin (湛岳霖) __________________ 主審法官： 高等法院上訴法庭法官彭偉昌 聆訊日期： 2019年8月9日 判案日期： 2019年8月9日 判 案 書 2016年9月5日，作為原案第二被告的申請人，承認一項‘販運危險藥物’罪，涉及以淨含毒量計算2千克的冰，處即時監禁17年2個月。 2019年9月27日，申請人提出逾期申請，希望取得准許，就原審法官充公他案發時身懷的26,300元人民幣，進行上訴。 以下是原審法官發出充公令的整個過程： 「 官 ： 證物方面？ MS SEE ： 係，法官閣下，我哋有一個證物處理嘅申請表。 官 ： 係。 MS SEE ： 我簡單啲講，其實就所有毒品有關㗎喇，同埋兩名被告人身上搜到嘅物件（包括係金錢）都全部充公嘅。 官 ： 係。 MS SEE ： 咁辯方冇反對嘅。 官 ： 可唔可以確認？ MS CHONG ： 確認嘅。 MR CHING ： 確認呢點，閣下。 官 ： 係。法庭係依照控方所嘅--就住證物嘅申請係作出命令。唔該哂三位大律師。」 申請人向我表示，他反對控方充公這一整筆款項，是因為他帶毒，只收了別人10,000元人民幣作報酬。為此，原審辯方大律師亦曾私下和外聘主控官進行商討，並取得後者答應向律政司反映，但最終卻被律政司否決，以致辯方勉強地不在庭上提出反對。申請人甚至說，他曾經舉手欲向原審法官直接提出異議，卻被法庭傳譯員制止。 我會另外向原審辯方大律師求證，他就充公令所取得的指示，和不反對控方充公整筆人民幣的原因。無論如何，從上述的謄本看來，有關的申請，在程序上可能未盡符合判例如HKSAR v Ngoma Juma Shabani [2015] 5 HKLRD 57（判案書日期：2015年9月2日）所訂立的要求。 基於上述原因，我接納申請人的申請，准許他就充公令提出上訴。 (彭偉昌) 高等法院上訴法庭法官 申請人： 無律師代表, 親自應訊 答辯人： 由律政司高級檢控官傅悅耳女士代表