串謀販毒罪行境外活動的司法管轄權？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v WONG TAK KEUNG (黃得強) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal) - 法官：倫明高副庭長、林文瀚法官、彭偉昌法官 - 判決日期：2014年6月13日 ### 案情摘要 申請人黃得強因串謀販運危險藥物（650克甲基安非他命）被定罪。他申請就其定罪上訴許可被駁回的決定，申請終審法院條例第32(2)條下的證明書，以證明案件涉及具有重大而廣泛重要性的法律論點。申請人參與的行為主要發生在香港境外，涉及追討在澳洲遺失的毒品。控方指控該串謀販運活動橫跨香港和澳洲，並在香港採取了多項重要行動。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於香港法院對涉及境外活動的串謀販運危險藥物罪行是否具有司法管轄權。具體而言，申請人質疑，若其參與的串謀部分完全在香港境外發生，香港法院能否審理並定罪。申請人提出的問題圍繞著「實質活動原則」(substantial measure of the activities)是否擴大了《刑事罪行條例》第159A(3)條的適用範圍，使其涵蓋僅在境外進行的串謀活動，以及此類境外活動與整體串謀的關聯性。 ### 判決理由 法庭重申，香港法院對犯罪活動具有司法管轄權，只要「實質活動」(substantial measure of the activities)發生在香港境內。本案中，串謀販運危險藥物的活動涉及香港和澳洲兩個司法管轄區，且多項重要步驟在香港發生，例如毒品包裝、首次運送失敗、重新包裝及從香港發出指示。法庭認為，這些在香港發生的活動已構成「實質活動」，足以確立香港法院的司法管轄權。因此，即使申請人參與的追討毒品行為發生在境外，但由於該行為是整體串謀的一部分，且該串謀在香港有實質活動，故香港法院有權審理。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多宗案例，確立了香港法院對涉及境外活動的犯罪的司法管轄權原則： - HKSAR v Krieger and Another (CACC 99/2012)：引用了「實質活動原則」。 - R v Smith (Wallace Duncan) [2001] QB 1418：英國上訴法庭的案例，確立了「實質活動原則」。 - Libman v R (1985) 21 DLR (4th) 174：加拿大最高法院的案例，涉及犯罪管轄權的處理方式。 - Liangsiriprasert v Government of the United States of America [1991] 1 AC 225：樞密院案例，認可了「實質活動原則」。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭駁回了申請人就終審法院條例第32(2)條下的證明書的申請。法庭認為，本案不涉及具有重大而廣泛重要性的法律論點，而僅是關於陪審團能否根據控方證據，認定申請人加入了源於香港並由第一被告指揮的串謀。 ### 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 WONG TAK KEUNG (黃得強) - Court: Court of Appeal - Judge: Lunn JA, Line J, Pang J - Date of Judgment: 13 June 2014 ### Factual Background The applicant, Wong Tak Keung, was convicted of conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs (650 grammes of methamphetamine). He sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his application for leave to appeal against conviction, specifically applying for a certificate under section 32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, on the basis that a point of law of great and general importance was involved. The applicant's involvement primarily concerned activities outside Hong Kong, related to recovering lost drugs in Australia. The prosecution alleged the conspiracy spanned Hong Kong and Australia, with significant steps taken in Hong Kong. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was whether Hong Kong courts have jurisdiction over a conspiracy to traffic dangerous drugs where some activities occurred extraterritorially. Specifically, the applicant questioned if he could be tried and convicted in Hong Kong if his participation in the conspiracy was exclusively extraterritorial. The questions raised by the applicant revolved around whether the "substantial measure of the activities" principle extended the ambit of section 159A(3) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200, to cover extraterritorial parts of a conspiracy, and the proximity of such extraterritorial acts to the overall conspiracy. ### Ratio Decidendi The court reiterated that Hong Kong courts have jurisdiction over a crime if a "substantial measure of the activities" constituting the crime took place within the jurisdiction. In this case, the conspiracy to traffic dangerous drugs involved two jurisdictions, Hong Kong and Australia, and many significant steps in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred in Hong Kong, such as the packaging of drugs, an initial failed attempt to transport them, repackaging, and instructions being given from Hong Kong. The court found these activities in Hong Kong constituted a "substantial measure of the activities," establishing jurisdiction. Therefore, even if the applicant's acts of recovering drugs occurred extraterritorially, they were part of an overall conspiracy with substantial activities in Hong Kong, granting the Hong Kong court jurisdiction. ### Key Precedents & Statutes Several cases were cited, establishing the principle of Hong Kong courts' jurisdiction over crimes involving extraterritorial activities: - HKSAR v Krieger and Another (CACC 99/2012): Cited for the "substantial measure of the activities" principle. - R v Smith (Wallace Duncan) [2001] QB 1418: An English Court of Appeal case that established the "substantial measure of the activities" principle. - Libman v R (1985) 21 DLR (4th) 174: A Canadian Supreme Court case concerning the approach to criminal jurisdiction. - Liangsiriprasert v Government of the United States of America [1991] 1 AC 225: A Privy Council case that endorsed the "substantial measure of the activities" principle. ### Decision & Orders The court refused the applicant's application for a certificate under section 32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. The court held that the case did not involve a point of law of great and general importance, but rather a consideration of whether the jury, if they accepted the prosecution's case, could be satisfied that the applicant had joined a conspiracy that originated in Hong Kong and was directed by the first applicant throughout. --- ### 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.