DCCC202/2024

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 黃耀聰 - 法院：區域法院 - 法官：黃國輝 (暫委法官) - 判決日期：2025年12月10日 ### 案情摘要 被告人是一名偵緝警員。控方指稱其在處理10宗刑事案件時，偽造或誤導受害人簽署「不追究證人口供」，並將這些虛假文件呈交上級，導致該等案件被終止調查。其中部分受害人（如越南籍及巴基斯坦籍人士）在不懂中文或視力不佳的情況下，被誘導簽署空白文件，而另一部分則是被被告人冒簽。 ### 核心法律爭議 核心 legal issue 在於被告人是否製造虛假文書以誘使上級終止調查，以及其行為是否構成公職人員的嚴重失當。控方主張被告人故意偽造口供；辯方則認為受害人確實表示不追究，且被告人的行為嚴重性未達致 misconduct in public office 的入罪門檻。 ### 判決理由 法官認為，由於多名受害人證供一致且合理，且部分受害人簽名與報案口供不符，可推斷被告人製造了虛假文書。根據《刑事罪行條例》第70(1)(f)條，誘使上級在履行職責時接受虛假文書而作出終止調查決定，即構成對上級「不利」。就 misconduct in public office 而言，被告人利用職務之便誤導受害人並欺騙上級，導致受害人失去追回款項機會，其行為嚴重且無合理辯解。 ### 引用案例與條文 引用《刑事罪行條例》Cap 200 第68, 69及70條定義文書偽造及「不利」；引用 HKSAR v Chan Kam Ching [2022] 25 HKCFAR 48 以及 Sin Kam Wah & Another v HKSAR [2005] 8 HKCFAR 192 等案例分析公職人員不當行為之嚴重性。 ### 裁決與命令 被告人就兩項控罪（偽造罪及藉公職作出不當行為罪）均被裁定罪名成立。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調了公職人員在處理刑事調查時的誠信義務。法官指出，即使受害人口頭表示不追究，調查員仍必須確保書面口供的真實性，任何利用職權偽造文件的行為均會被視為嚴重違背公共目標的刑事犯罪。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: HKSAR v Wong Yiu Chung - Court: District Court - Judge: Wong Kwok Fai (Acting Judge) - Date of Judgment: 10 December 2025 ### Factual Background The defendant, a detective police officer, was charged with forgery and misconduct in public office. He allegedly fabricated or misled victims into signing "non-pursue statements" in 10 criminal cases. By submitting these false documents to his superiors, he caused the investigations to be terminated. Some victims were tricked into signing blank papers, while others had their signatures forged. ### Key Legal Issues The core issues were whether the defendant created false documents to deceive superiors into stopping investigations and whether his actions constituted a serious breach of public office. The defense argued that victims had expressed a desire not to pursue the cases and that the severity of the defendant's conduct did not meet the threshold for misconduct in public office. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge found the victims' testimonies credible and concluded that the defendant was the only officer with access to the files. Under Section 70(1)(f) of Cap 200, inducing a superior to act upon a false document in the course of their duty constitutes "prejudice." Regarding misconduct in public office, the judge ruled that deceiving superiors and depriving victims of their chance to recover funds was a serious breach of duty without reasonable excuse. ### Key Precedents & Statutes Statutory provisions of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap 200) ss. 68, 69, and 70 were used to define forgery and prejudice. Case law including HKSAR v Chan Kam Ching [2022] and Sin Kam Wah & Another v HKSAR [2005] influenced the analysis of the severity of misconduct in public office. ### Decision & Orders The defendant was found guilty of both counts: Forgery and Misconduct in Public Office. ### Key Takeaways The judgment underscores the high standard of integrity required of police officers. It clarifies that the statutory definition of 'prejudice' in forgery cases is satisfied when a superior is misled into making an official decision based on a false document. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.