上訴至終審法院的法律論點是否具重大而廣泛的重要性？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v OEI HENGKY WIRYO - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Hon Stuart-Moore CJHC (Acting), Stock JA and McMahon J - 判決日期：2006年3月10日 ### 案情摘要 申請人OEI HENGKY WIRYO因串謀非法收受賭注罪（違反《賭博條例》（香港法例第148章）第7(1)(a)條及《刑事罪行條例》（香港法例第200章）第159A條）以及兩項處理已知或相信代表可公訴罪行得益的財產罪（俗稱「洗黑錢」，違反《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》（香港法例第455章）第25(1)及(3)條）被定罪。上訴法庭於2006年1月24日駁回其針對定罪及判刑提出的上訴許可申請。申請人現根據《終審法院條例》（香港法例第484章）第32(2)條申請證明書，以就判決中提出的四項法律論點上訴至終審法院。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於申請人提出的四項法律論點是否具有「重大而廣泛的重要性」（great and general importance），足以獲發上訴至終審法院的證明書。這些論點包括：在同謀者B不在庭的情況下，從B處檢獲但未經證明由B撰寫或指示撰寫的文件，對同謀者A的審訊是否僅限於證明B參與非法活動；同謀者規則是否唯一可將從B處檢獲的文件作為不利於A的證據的途徑；《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》第25(1)條是否要求控方證明相關資金確實是可公訴罪行的得益，還是僅需證明被告知道或有合理理由相信是得益；以及在沒有受害人且被告可合法進行相同活動的情況下，這些因素是否應作為減刑理由。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭裁定，申請人提出的四項法律論點均可透過本司法管轄區既定的法律原則解決，因此不具備「重大而廣泛的重要性」。法庭認為，這些論點並未提出新的、複雜的或對法律發展有深遠影響的問題，而是涉及現有法律原則的應用。因此，法庭拒絕發出上訴至終審法院的證明書。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回申請人根據《終審法院條例》第32(2)條申請證明書的請求。這意味著申請人無法就其提出的四項法律論點上訴至終審法院。 ### 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 OEI HENGKY WIRYO - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Stuart-Moore CJHC (Acting), Stock JA and McMahon J - Date of Judgment: 10 March 2006 ### Factual Background The applicant, OEI HENGKY WIRYO, was convicted of conspiracy to commit bookmaking (contrary to section 7(1)(a) of the Gambling Ordinance, Cap. 148 and section 159A of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200) and two offences of dealing with property known or believed to represent the proceeds of an indictable offence (money laundering, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 455). The Court of Appeal dismissed his applications for leave to appeal against his convictions and sentences on 24 January 2006. The applicant now seeks a certificate under section 32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on four points of law arising from the judgment. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was whether the four points of law raised by the applicant were of "great and general importance" to warrant a certificate for appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. These points included: the admissibility of documentary records seized from a co-conspirator B (not before the court) against co-conspirator A; whether the co-conspirators' rule is the only evidential route for such documents; whether section 25(1) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance requires proof that funds were in fact proceeds of an indictable offence, or merely that the defendant knew or believed them to be; and whether the absence of a victim and the possibility of lawful conduct should be mitigating factors in sentencing. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal ruled that the four points of law raised by the applicant were resolvable by established legal principles within this jurisdiction and therefore could not be said to be of "great and general importance". The court found that these points did not present novel, complex, or far-reaching issues for legal development, but rather involved the application of existing legal principles. Consequently, the court refused to issue a certificate for appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's application for a certificate pursuant to section 32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. This means the applicant cannot appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the four points of law raised. --- ### 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.