香港特別行政區 訴 云強
The court found the ground of appeal challenging the use of s.51(2) to convict the applicant of assault causing bodily harm is reasonably arguable because a robbery count does not necessarily imply an allegation of causing bodily harm; combined with the short sentence which had largely been served, the applicant was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] HKCA 1011
- Parties
- Applicant: YUN Qiang (云強); Respondent: 香港特別行政區
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 11 July 2022
- Case Number
- CACC82/2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Bail Application Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Bail granted pending appeal on agreed conditions
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Appeal, Section 51(2) Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Substituted Conviction, Robbery Vs Assault Causing Bodily Harm
- 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
YUN Qiang (云強)
Applicant
香港特別行政區
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Bail Application Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a count for robbery impliedly contained an allegation of assault causing bodily harm for the purposes of s.51(2) CPO
- 2 Whether the trial judge properly convicted the applicant of assault causing bodily harm under s.51(2) when the original charge was robbery
- 3 Whether the appeal is arguable and whether bail pending appeal should be granted given time served
Ratio Decidendi
The court found the ground of appeal challenging the use of s.51(2) to convict the applicant of assault causing bodily harm is reasonably arguable because a robbery count does not necessarily imply an allegation of causing bodily harm; combined with the short sentence which had largely been served, the applicant was entitled to bail pending appeal on agreed conditions.
Court Disposition
Bail granted pending appeal on agreed conditions
Orders
- Applicant released on bail on conditions agreed between prosecution and defence pending determination of the appeal
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CACC 82/2022 [2022] HKCA 1011 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 刑事司法管轄權 上訴期間申請保釋 刑事上訴案件2022年第82號 (原區域法院刑事案件2021年第471號) __________________ 答辯人 香港特別行政區 對 申請人 YUN Qiang (云強) __________________ 主審法官： 高等法院上訴法庭法官彭偉昌 聆訊日期： 2022年7月6日 判決日期： 2022年7月6日 判決理由書日期：2022年7月11日 判 決 理 由 書 申請人被控一項 ‘搶劫’ 罪，經審訊後被裁定罪名不成立，但原審法官根據《刑事訴訟程序條例》第51(2)條，裁定申請人一項 ‘襲擊致造成身體傷害罪’ 罪成。 申請人現申請保釋等候上訴。基於本申請的性質，我不會就上訴理據詳細討論，只會指出以下數點。 根據第51(2)條，只有在「告發、指控或公訴書中的指稱(不論明示或隱含地)構成或包括......另一罪行的指稱」時，法庭方可裁定該另一罪名成立。終審法院在HKSAR v Chan Kam Ching (陳鑑清) [2022] HKCFA 7就此有詳細討論，並於第106段引述R v Graham [1997] 1 Cr App R 302第313頁指： “ A count charging offence A impliedly contains an allegation of offence B if the allegation in the particular count would ordinarily involve an allegation of offence B and on the facts of the particular case did so.” 申請人面對一項 ‘搶劫’ 控罪，此罪行的元素雖包括「使用武力」，但不包括「造成身體傷害」；何況 ‘搶劫’ 罪中使用的武力需與盜竊有關，本案未必如此。因此，原審法官援引該條例第51(2)條裁定申請人 ‘襲擊致造成身體傷害罪’ 罪成的決定，有值得商榷之處，我認為此上訴理據是合理可爭辯的。 另外，申請人只被判囚13個月，並已於2022年5月6日開始服刑，在審理本案的上訴時，有相當機會已完成全部或大部分刑期。 基於上述原因，我批准申請人依控辯雙方同意的條件保釋在外等候上訴。 (彭偉昌) 高等法院上訴法庭法官 申請人： 由談美鈴律師事務所轉聘李國銓大律師代表 答辯人： 由律政司高級檢控官莫韻妍女士代表