DCCC654/2022

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 陳浩軒 及 其他 7 名被告人 - 法院：區域法院 - 法官：嚴舜儀 (暫委法官) - 判決日期：2024年2月17日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及一項代號為「旱雷」的臥底行動。一名臥底警員透過在酒吧兼職，滲透進入三合會圈子。控方指稱第一至第八被告人在不同場合聲稱自己是新義安成員。此外，第三、第六及第八被告人涉及於 2018 年 3 月 17 日在 A INN Club 發生口角及肢體衝突，其中第六被告人企圖傷人，第三被告人襲擊第八被告人，且第三被告人隨後涉嫌以 1,500 港元收買第八被告人以妨礙司法公正。 ### 核心法律爭議 核心 legal issue 在於臥底警員證供的誠信 (credibility) 與可靠性 (reliability)。辯方主張該警員在其他案件中被裁判官批評撒謊且證供不可信，因此其辨認證供及對對話的紀錄不可靠。控方則依賴警員的流水簿 (contemporaneous notes) 及相關證據證明被告人聲稱三合會身份及襲擊行為。 ### 判決理由 法官分析認為，雖然該警員在其他案件中受批評，但每宗案件情節不同，不能直接推論其在本案中必然撒謊。法官採取謹慎態度，將口頭證供與流水簿紀錄對比，發現紀錄字體整齊且與事後證據（如醫療紀錄、WhatsApp）吻合。法官認定警員在記憶猶新時作紀錄，其誠信足以令法庭接納，且被告人的說話涉及三合會常用術語，足以證明其成員身份。 ### 引用案例與條文 引用 HCMA 323/2022 中法官對臥底警員誠信的觀察，強調當證人誠信受質疑時，單憑其證供定罪需極為謹慎。同時依據《社團條例》第 20(2) 條及《侵害人身罪條例》處理相關控罪。 ### 裁決與命令 大部分被告人被裁定罪名成立： - 第一、第四、第八被告人：聲稱三合會成員罪名成立。 - 第二被告人：三項聲稱三合會成員控罪成立，一項不成立。 - 第三被告人：聲稱三合會成員、普通襲擊及妨礙司法公正罪名成立。 - 第六被告人：聲稱三合會成員及企圖傷人罪名成立。 - 第七被告人：罪名不成立。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調了流水簿 (contemporaneous notes) 在臥底案件中的關鍵作用。即使證人在其他案件中誠信受損，若本案有詳細且一致的書面紀錄支持，法庭仍可能接納其證供。 --- ### 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 Chan Tai Man and 7 Others - Court: District Court - Judge: Yim Shun Yee (Acting Judge) - Date of Judgment: 17 February 2024 ### Factual Background The case arose from an undercover operation codenamed 'Dry Thunder'. An undercover officer (UCO) infiltrated triad circles by working part-time in bars. The prosecution alleged that D1 to D8 claimed to be members of the Sun Yee On triad society. Additionally, a conflict occurred at A INN Club on 17 March 2018, involving D3, D6, and D8, resulting in charges of attempted wounding, common assault, and perverting the course of public justice by D3, who allegedly bribed D8 to avoid identification. ### Key Legal Issues The central legal issue was the credibility and reliability of the UCO's testimony. The defense argued that the UCO was an unreliable witness, citing previous judicial criticisms in other cases where he was accused of lying. The prosecution relied on the UCO's contemporaneous notes and corroborating evidence to prove the triad membership claims and the assault. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge held that while the UCO's credibility had been questioned in other trials, each case must be assessed on its own facts. The judge found the UCO's contemporaneous notes to be consistent, neat, and corroborated by medical records and WhatsApp messages. The judge concluded that the UCO was an honest witness in this specific case and that the defendants' use of triad terminology sufficiently proved their membership claims. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judge referred to HCMA 323/2022 regarding the caution needed when relying on a witness whose credibility is disputed. Statutory provisions from the Societies Ordinance (Cap 151) and Offences Against the Person Ordinance (Cap 212) were applied. ### Decision & Orders Most defendants were convicted: - D1, D4, D8: Guilty of claiming triad membership. - D2: Guilty of three counts of claiming triad membership; one count acquitted. - D3: Guilty of claiming triad membership, common assault, and perverting the course of public justice. - D6: Guilty of claiming triad membership and attempted wounding. - D7: Not guilty. ### Key Takeaways The judgment highlights the evidentiary weight of contemporaneous notes in undercover operations. It demonstrates that a witness's poor track record in other cases does not automatically disqualify their testimony if strong, consistent documentary evidence exists in the current case. --- ### 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.