香港特別行政區 訴 呂鳳宝
Leave to appeal was granted on grounds (1) and (4) because both raise arguable points: (1) that the trial judge may have misdirected the jury by involving reliability at the wrong stage when considering cautioned statements (Mushtag issue), and (4) that there is a real issue whether the appellant possessed the drugs...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] HKCA 161
- Parties
- Applicant: LUI Fung po (呂鳳宝); Respondent: 香港特別行政區
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 20 January 2022
- Case Number
- CACC74/2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Leave to Appeal Against Conviction / Permission to Appeal (leave) Application
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted in respect of grounds (1) and (4); leave refused in respect of grounds (2) and (3).
- Legal Topics
- Cautioned Police Statements, Jury Directions, Possession of Controlled Drugs, Admissibility Vs Reliability of Confession, Amendment of Grounds of 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
LUI Fung po (呂鳳宝)
Applicant
香港特別行政區
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Leave to Appeal Against Conviction / Permission to Appeal (leave) Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury in dealing with cautioned statements by introducing reliability at an inappropriate stage (Mushtag issue)
- 2 Whether the appellant had possession of drugs in the vehicle trunk given immediate arrest after boarding
- 3 Whether the trial judge's remark that the appellant lied in the cautioned interview constituted reversible error
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was granted on grounds (1) and (4) because both raise arguable points: (1) that the trial judge may have misdirected the jury by involving reliability at the wrong stage when considering cautioned statements (Mushtag issue), and (4) that there is a real issue whether the appellant possessed the drugs in the trunk given the facts; leave was refused on (2) and (3) because the contested remarks were explanatory comments on evidence or legitimate separations of issues by the trial judge and did not constitute reversible misdirection.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted in respect of grounds (1) and (4); leave refused in respect of grounds (2) and (3).
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted on grounds (1) and (4)
- Leave to appeal refused on grounds (2) and (3)
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CACC 74/2021 [2022] HKCA 161 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 刑事司法管轄權 不服定罪上訴許可申請 刑事上訴案件2021年第74號 (原高等法院刑事案件2019年第260號) __________________ 答辯人 香港特別行政區 對 申請人 LUI Fung po (呂鳳宝) __________________ 主審法官： 高等法院上訴法庭法官彭偉昌 聆訊日期： 2022年1月20日 判案日期： 2022年1月20日 判 案 書 我批准申請人就上訴理由（1）和（4）進行上訴。 上訴理由（1）指原審法官就如何處理警誡供詞作出錯誤指引，是合理可供辯的。投訴的核心，是考慮供述是否由警方不當取得，即三個相關問題中的問題二之時，不應牽涉供述是否可靠的議題（Mushtag），但原審法官卻可能在這點誤導了陪審團。 上訴理由（4）涉及幾個投訴，其中一個關乎申請人是否管有毒品。議題是，由於申請人在上車後旋即被捕，控方是基於什麼理由指他管有車尾箱內的毒品？根據他的招認，申請人到案發地點是要拿取毒品，然後把毒品往別處送，但光登上由別人開來的車就是管有車上的毒品？這是有爭辯空間的。 我同時批准申請人就上訴理由（4）的內容和書面陳詞作原有範圍內的修改和增減，以便更精準地聚焦問題。 我拒絕申請人就上訴理由（2）進行上訴。原審法官備受批評的那番話，只是要指出，申請人在警誡會面裡說謊，並不一定如他所說，是聽從了警方的指示。原審法官把這個議題分開處理，沒有包含在警誡供詞的指引之內，做法雖然並未完全按照《範本指引》的建議，卻不構成有效的上訴理由。 我拒絕申請人就上訴理由（3）進行上訴。正如申請方本身指出，原審法官多番提到案中的電話通話紀錄，是因為她在複述證人的證據。也由於這是原審控辯雙方大律師在發問時造成的後果，突顯了原審控辯雙方對這個議題的著重，所以現時代表申請方的大律師就更沒有基礎作出投訴。 我已就《刑事訴訟程序條例》第83W條，即重新就上訴 理由（2）和（3）提出申請所帶來的‘減時’風險，警告過申請人，申請人表示明白。 (彭偉昌) 高等法院上訴法庭法官 申請人： 由法律援助署委派梁譚黃律師行轉聘何婉嫻大律師代表 答辯人： 由律政司外聘大律師張秀群女士代表