上訴問題具重大意義？？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v Pang Hung Fai - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Stock VP, Lunn JA and McWalters J - 判決日期：2013年5月31日 ### 案情摘要 本案申請人Pang Hung Fai（彭洪輝）早前就其定罪提出上訴許可申請，上訴法庭雖然批准了上訴許可，但最終駁回了其定罪上訴。申請人其後向終審法院申請上訴許可，並根據《終審法院條例》（Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484）第32(2)條，申請上訴法庭發出證明書，證明其上訴涉及具有重大而廣泛重要性的法律論點，以供終審法院審議。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於，上訴法庭是否應根據《終審法院條例》第32(2)條，就申請人提出的六項法律問題發出證明書，以供終審法院審議。這些問題主要圍繞《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》（Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance）第25(1)條中關於處理可公訴罪行得益的客觀元素，以及該條文的正確詮釋，包括合理相信的標準、法律確定性原則的適用性，以及是否存在隱含的辯護理由。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭審議了申請人提出的六項問題。對於第一項問題，法庭認為其判決已對申請人有利，故無需就此發出證明書。對於第二、三、四項問題，法庭認為這些問題本質上相同，且不具備合理可爭辯性。對於第六項關於法律確定性原則的問題，法庭認為其判決已處理該議題，且在《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》第25(1)條的背景下，該問題不具備合理可爭辯性。至於第五項問題，雖然表面上具有重大而廣泛的重要性，但法庭指出，即使所建議的辯護理由成立，原審法官的事實裁斷亦不足以支持申請人援引該辯護，因此拒絕就第五項問題發出證明書。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回了申請人根據《終審法院條例》第32(2)條提出的申請，拒絕發出證明書，以供終審法院審議。這意味著申請人未能獲得上訴至終審法院的許可。 ### 判決啟示 null --- ### 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 Pang Hung Fai - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Stock VP, Lunn JA and McWalters J - Date of Judgment: 31 May 2013 ### Factual Background The applicant, Pang Hung Fai, had previously applied for leave to appeal against his conviction. The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal but ultimately dismissed the appeal. The applicant subsequently sought leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and, under section 32(2) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, applied for a certificate from the Court of Appeal that his appeal involved points of law of great and general importance for consideration by the Court of Final Appeal. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was whether the Court of Appeal should issue a certificate under section 32(2) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance for the six legal questions raised by the applicant, for consideration by the Court of Final Appeal. These questions primarily concerned the objective element of dealing with proceeds of an indictable offence under section 25(1) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, and its correct interpretation, including the standard of reasonable belief, the applicability of the principle of legal certainty, and the existence of an implied defence. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal considered the six questions raised by the applicant. For the first question, the court found that its judgment had already been in the applicant's favour, thus no certificate was needed. For the second, third, and fourth questions, the court deemed them essentially the same and not reasonably arguable. Regarding the sixth question on legal certainty, the court stated that it had addressed the issue in its judgment and found it not reasonably arguable in the context of section 25(1) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance. As for the fifth question, despite its apparent great and general importance, the court noted that even if the suggested defence were available, the trial judge's findings of fact would not have assisted the applicant, and therefore declined to certify question No. 5 as well. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's application under section 32(2) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, refusing to issue a certificate for consideration by the Court of Final Appeal. This means the applicant was not granted leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. ### Key Takeaways null --- ### 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.