非禮案上訴許可申請？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v Z - 法院：終審法院 (Court of Final Appeal, CFA) - 法官：Bokhary PJ, Chan PJ, Ribeiro PJ - 判決日期：2012年2月24日 ### 案情摘要 申請人被控非禮一名14歲少女（「X小姐」），指控他捏了X小姐的臀部。申請人承認觸碰了X小姐，但否認非禮，聲稱他只是觸碰她的肩膀，讓她讓路。裁判官裁定申請人罪名成立，判處四星期監禁。高等法院原訟法庭法官駁回定罪上訴，但將刑期減至七天監禁。申請人現向終審法院申請上訴許可。 ### 核心法律爭議 申請人提出三項上訴許可理由。第一，裁判官在未向申請人提出某些不一致之處的情況下，根據其證供中的不一致和弱點作出定罪，被指違反了 Browne v Dunn 原則或自然公義 (natural justice) 規則。第二，原訟法庭法官在判斷案件時，錯誤地考慮了「固有可能性」(inherent probabilities)。第三，X小姐向其姊妹作出的投訴是否可根據「構成事件一部分」(res gestae) 原則妥為接納為證據，以及這是否涉及一項具重大及普遍重要性的法律論點。 ### 判決理由 終審法院認為，裁判官並非必須接受未經盤問的證據，其裁決是基於整體證據，接受控方版本並拒絕辯方證據，並無不公。對於原訟法庭法官提及「固有可能性」的言論，終審法院認為這是一個基本錯誤，但裁判官的裁決並無錯誤或不公。關於「構成事件一部分」原則，終審法院指出X小姐的投訴並非作為傳聞證據 (hearsay evidence) 提出，而僅作為圍繞涉嫌罪行的情況一部分，因此無需考慮該原則的適用性。申請人的身份並無爭議，爭議點僅在於觸碰部位，故不涉及重大法律論點。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 終審法院拒絕了申請人的上訴許可申請，並駁回該申請。 ### 判決啟示 終審法院明確指出，原訟法庭法官在考慮「固有可能性」時，錯誤地認為定罪是合理的，因為控方版本比辯方版本「固有上更可能」屬實，並批評了法官關於男性衝動的「不明智建議」。然而，由於裁判官的裁決並無錯誤，此錯誤並未導致不公。 --- ### 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 Z - Court: Court of Final Appeal (CFA) - Judge: Bokhary PJ, Chan PJ, Ribeiro PJ - Date of Judgment: 24 February 2012 ### Factual Background The applicant was charged with indecent assault, the allegation being that he squeezed the buttock of a 14-year-old girl (Miss X). He admitted touching her but denied indecent assault, claiming he merely touched her shoulder to get her to move out of his way. The magistrate convicted the applicant, sentencing him to four weeks' imprisonment. The Court of First Instance judge dismissed the appeal against conviction but reduced the sentence to seven days' imprisonment. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. ### Key Legal Issues The applicant sought leave to appeal on three grounds. First, the magistrate was alleged to have violated the rule in Browne v Dunn or breached natural justice by convicting based on inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence that were not put to him. Second, the Court of First Instance judge was criticized for making an elementary mistake regarding "inherent probabilities." Third, whether Miss X's complaint to her sister was properly admitted as part of the res gestae, and if this raised a point of law of great and general importance. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Final Appeal held that the magistrate was not bound to accept evidence not cross-examined upon and made findings based on the evidence as a whole, accepting the prosecution's version without unfairness. Regarding the judge's comments on "inherent probabilities," the CFA found it an elementary mistake but noted no error or injustice in the magistrate's findings. Concerning the res gestae doctrine, the CFA clarified that Miss X's complaint was adduced not as hearsay but as part of the circumstances surrounding the alleged offence, and thus no relevant point of law arose as the applicant's identity was not in dispute, only the manner of touching. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Final Appeal refused the applicant's leave to appeal and dismissed the application. ### Key Takeaways The Court of Final Appeal explicitly stated that the Court of First Instance judge made an elementary mistake in suggesting a conviction was sound because it was inherently more likely that the complainant's account was true, and criticized the judge's "ill-advised suggestion about purported male impulses." However, this error did not lead to injustice as the magistrate's findings were sound. --- ### 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.