香港特別行政區 訴 鄧永福

CACC 109/2021，[2023] HKCA 924 原案件：[2021] HKDC 750 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 刑事司法管轄權 不服刑罰上訴許可申請 刑事上訴案件2021年第109號 (原區域法院刑事案件2020年第604號) __________________ 答辯人 香港特別行政區 對 申請人 TAN WING FOOK (鄧永福) __________________ 主審法官： 高等法院上訴法庭法官彭偉昌 高等法院上訴法庭法官彭寶琴 聆訊日期： 2023年 7 月26日 判案日期： 2023年 7 月26日 判案理由書日期： 2023年8月2日 判 案 理 由 書 高等法院上訴法庭法官彭偉昌頒發上訴法庭判案理由書： 2021年5月3日，申請人承認六項‘處理已知道或相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產’罪。三天後，原審區域法院法官把他判囚共3年7個月。同年5月21日，申請人存檔表格XI，就刑期提出上訴許可申請。2021年9月20日，法庭獲懲教署通知，申請人已於同日在醫院身故。本庭現處理此申請。 相關法律 香港法例第221章《刑事訴訟程序條例》第82及 83G 條賦予被定罪者上訴的權利。《條例》沒有列出被定罪者在提出上訴許可申請後死亡的情況該如何處理。 然而，上訴法庭已在香港特別行政區 訴 鄧荻雄 [2018] HKCA 98作出了相關的討論和裁定如下：考慮到終審法院案HKSAR v Cheng Chee Tock Theodore (2015) 18 HKCFAR 292的判決，上訴法庭有酌情權在顧及各有關因素後決定繼續有關的定罪或判刑上訴許可申請或因申請人去世而把申請視為自動終止及變得無效。有關的因素在Cheng Chee Tock Theodore案第51段列出，現節錄如下: “ (1) Whether leave to appeal has been or will be granted: The Court will be guided primarily by whether leave to appeal has been granted or, if leave has not yet been granted, by the basis on which leave to appeal is sought and the likelihood of such leave being granted. Where leave to appeal is sought on a point of law, this will probably be a critical factor in any given case since the grant of leave to appeal on that ground will serve to demonstrate the Appeal Committee’s view that the appeal is of sufficient importance to be heard by the Court as the final appellate court in Hong Kong. Similarly, although not as critical as the point of law ground, the grant of leave to appeal on the basis of substantial and grave injustice will be a relevant factor, the weight of which will depend on the circumstances of the particular case. (2) The existence of an applicant: The existence of a party who wishes the appellant’s appeal to be continued and who makes an application for such continuation will usually be an essential requirement. It would be most unlikely that the Court would consider exercising the discretion to continue if there were no such party. Indeed, in the absence of such a party, the application of the provisions for dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution (where leave has been granted) will probably result in the dismissal of the appeal. (3) The continuation of the appeal on a proper adversarial basis: The Court will be concerned that the issues to be determined by it in any continued appeal are to be properly argued. The willingness of the party applying for the appeal to be continued to be substituted as appellant will be relevant in the event the Court considers such substitution to be necessary. Similarly, the Court will wish to be satisfied that the appeal will continue on a proper adversarial basis with appropriate legal representation to argue the appeal. It may wish to be satisfied that legal aid is available for the appellant’s case or that the applicant is otherwise able to instruct legal representatives for the appeal. In cases of exceptional importance, the Court may see fit to appoint an amicus curiae. (4) The interest of the applicant in the continuation of the appeal: The reason why the party applying wishes the appeal to be continued will be relevant. The financial interest of an appellant’s estate in the pending appeal may be relevant where the executors or personal representatives of the appellant apply for the appeal to be continued. If financial interest is relied upon, the nature of that interest and its amount will be relevant to the weight to be attached to this factor. Similarly, the applicant’s interest in restoring the reputation of the appellant may be relevant but this will be a factor to which varying weight will attach: the graver the offence of which the appellant has been convicted, the more weight this factor will carry. ” 在本案：當局在申請人身故後並未能找到他任何的家人，更遑論其家人對是次申請的任何意向；是次申請不具任何公眾重要性，不會影響任何其他人士；申請人投訴原審法官依賴錯誤的涉案金額判刑，但原審法官依賴的明顯是控罪書所勾畫的金額而申請人提出的金額則與其認罪的基礎相違背。 結論 基於以上的理由，本庭認為申請人的上訴理由實沒有任何可爭辯之處，所以不應行使酌情權繼續處理其上訴許可申請。本庭正式宣告，申請人的刑期上訴許可申請及所有相關法律程序因申請人逝世而終止及無效。 (彭偉昌) (彭寶琴) 高等法院上訴法庭法官 高等法院上訴法庭法官 申請人(已歿)： 無律師代表 答辯人： 由律政司高級檢控官許顯祖先生代表