香港特別行政區 訴 黃淑珍及另一人
Leave to appeal as to conviction was granted for A1 because her grounds were reasonably arguable; A1's sentence appeal was refused because there was no error in principle or manifest excess. For A2, grounds alleging lack of knowledge (grounds 1 and 2) were rejected as not reasonably arguable on the evidence, but...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] HKCA 94
- Parties
- Applicant: WONG Shuk chun (黃淑珍); Applicant: LUK Tung choi (陸棟才); Respondent: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (香港特別行政區)
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 20 January 2021
- Case Number
- CACC14/2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
- Outcome
- A1: leave to appeal conviction granted; leave to appeal sentence refused. A2: leave to appeal conviction refused on grounds 1 and 2; leave granted on grounds 3 and 4.
- Legal Topics
- Benefit Fraud, Double Claiming Housing Allowance, Dishonesty Element, Leave to Appeal, Evidential Sufficiency, Nature of Allowance
- 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
WONG Shuk chun (黃淑珍)
Applicant
LUK Tung choi (陸棟才)
Applicant
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (香港特別行政區)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether appellants committed fraud by dishonestly obtaining housing-related public allowance
- 2 Whether A2 knew the allowance was related to housing (knowledge/dishonesty issue)
- 3 Whether the trial evidence supports conviction on the basis of the allowance's nature
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal as to conviction was granted for A1 because her grounds were reasonably arguable; A1's sentence appeal was refused because there was no error in principle or manifest excess. For A2, grounds alleging lack of knowledge (grounds 1 and 2) were rejected as not reasonably arguable on the evidence, but grounds 3 and 4 challenging the true nature of the company allowance and its impact on the dishonesty element were sufficiently arguable to grant leave to appeal on those points.
Court Disposition
A1: leave to appeal conviction granted; leave to appeal sentence refused. A2: leave to appeal conviction refused on grounds 1 and 2; leave granted on grounds 3 and 4.
Orders
- A1 granted bail to await appeal
- A1 leave to appeal conviction granted; A1 leave to appeal sentence refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CACC 14/2020 [2021] HKCA 94 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 刑事司法管轄權 不服定罪及刑罰上訴許可申請 刑事上訴案件2020年第14號 (原區域法院刑事案件2018年第600號) __________________ 答辯人 香港特別行政區 對 第一申請人 WONG Shuk chun (黃淑珍) (D1) 第二申請人 LUK Tung choi (陸棟才) (D2) __________________ 主審法官： 高等法院上訴法庭法官彭偉昌 聆訊日期： 2021年1月20日 判案日期： 2021年1月20日 判 案 書 兩名申請人（A1和A2）是夫婦。A1是公務員，A2任職私人公司。他們以共犯身份被裁定一項欺詐罪成立，涉及俗稱的騙房津，即A2本身有房屋津貼，但A1卻繼續申領政府的PTA，導致雙重得益，為時十七年，涉款378萬。為此二人被分別判處入獄22和25個月。 A1就定罪的許可申請 我在較早時間已批准A1保釋在外等候上訴，原因是她所提出的上訴理由，都是合理可供辯的理由。基於同四項上訴理由，我批准A1就定罪提出上訴。 A1就判刑的許可申請 我不批准A1就判刑提出上訴。 這類案件的個別判刑差異很大，由非拘禁式刑罰至即時監禁都有先例，很難直接比較。申請方援引的個案，也可作出某些實質性的區別。申請方指本案有延誤，部分原因其實和辯方本身的作為有關，而且由拘捕至審訊的時間僅為一年十個月，並不過份。最後，原審法官已基於三個因素給A1減刑共八個月，幅度不少。 總括而言，我不認為A1的判刑原則有錯或明顯過重。 A2就定罪的許可申請 我不批准A2就上訴理由1和2進行上訴。 兩項理由均指A2不一定知道自己申領的津貼與住房有關，但這個說法和整體的人證物證根本不符，不是合理可供辯的上訴理由。申請方在聽到我的觀察後也表示會放棄這兩項理由。 我批准A2就理由3和4進行上訴。 控方證人郭先生在庭上證實，公司發放有關的津貼，目的的確是希望資助員工在住屋上的開支，但員工怎樣使用這筆津貼，公司則沒有規定。他甚至在一張A2要求他簽發的證明如實表明：the company does not provide any stipulation on how this allowance can be used。注意：不是不要求實報實銷，而是沒有規定用途，員工只要達到某一職級即可申領。這和發放無需報銷的現金津貼根本無異。因此，A2的行為，主觀（甚或客觀）上是否不誠實，實在是一個合理可供辯的議題。有關津貼的真正性質是什麼、答案是否會根本性地觸動到控罪的基礎，也可以提出合理的爭論（據了解，上述兩個議題在原審時並無出現。）。 (彭偉昌) 高等法院上訴法庭法官 第一申請人： 由陳漢光律師事務所轉聘蔡維邦資深大律師及溫家榮大律師代表 第二申請人： 由陳淑雄律師行轉聘駱應淦資深大律師及潘展平大律師代表 答辯人： 由律政司署理刑事檢控專員譚耀豪資深大律師及高級檢控官梁寶琦女士代表