法官能否因被告緘默而作不利推論？撤銷定罪

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v Jarhia Kuldeep Singh - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Stuart-Moore 署理首席法官, Yeung 上訴法庭法官, Bokhary 高等法院原訟法庭法官 - 判決日期：2006年8月29日 ### 案情摘要 上訴人Jarhia Kuldeep Singh（27歲）於2005年10月11日在深水埗被警員截停搜查，發現其左褲袋藏有6.82克冰毒。警員聲稱上訴人被警誡後承認「攞俾人」（帶給別人）。上訴人否認曾作此供述，並稱自己是冰毒吸食者，當時藏有的冰毒價值1,400港元，可供其吸食兩至三天。他於2006年3月2日被區域法院裁定販運危險藥物罪名成立。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議點在於原審法官在裁決理由中，對上訴人保持緘默權利（right to remain silent）的評論是否構成不當推論。上訴人質疑法官將其在錄影會面中選擇「不回答」視為「不太可能的回應」，並以此質疑其可信性，認為這違反了其緘默權利。控方則認為法官的評論是針對辯方律師的論點，即上訴人的反應支持其未曾招認的說法。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭裁定，原審法官將上訴人在錄影會面中選擇「不回答」視為「不太可能的回應」，並以此質疑其可信性，構成對上訴人緘默權利的不當推論。法庭引用了終審法院在Lee Fuk-hing v HKSAR一案中的判例，強調在香港，不應以任何方式將被告人的緘默作為不利於其的證據。儘管控方辯稱法官的評論是針對辯方論點，但上訴法庭認為法官的言論已超越此範圍，直接影響了對上訴人可信性的判斷，構成法律上的錯誤。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用了終審法院的判例： - Lee Fuk-hing v HKSAR [2004] 7 HKCFAR 600：該判例確立了在香港，不應以任何方式將被告人的緘默作為不利於其的證據，即使是為了質疑其在審訊中首次提出的解釋。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭批准上訴，撤銷上訴人販運危險藥物的定罪，並改判為管有危險藥物罪。法庭命令為上訴人索取戒毒所報告，以便就替代罪行判刑。上訴人將繼續還押候判。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了香港法律中被告人緘默權利的重要性。法官在審訊中，即使是為了評估被告人可信性，也不得將被告人保持緘默或選擇「不回答」的行為作為不利推論的基礎。任何暗示被告人緘默可被用作不利證據的言論，均構成法律上的錯誤，可能導致定罪被推翻。 --- ### 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 Jarhia Kuldeep Singh - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Stuart-Moore Ag CJHC, Yeung JA, Bokhary J - Date of Judgment: 29 August 2006 ### Factual Background The appellant, Jarhia Kuldeep Singh, aged 27, was stopped and searched by police in Shamshuipo on 11 October 2005. A crystalline solid containing 6.82 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride ('ice') was found in his left trouser pocket. The police officer claimed the appellant admitted "taking it to someone" after caution. The appellant denied making this admission, stating he was an 'ice' user and the drugs found, valued at HK$1,400, would last him two to three days. He was convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs by the District Court on 2 March 2006. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was whether the trial judge's comments in her Reasons for Verdict regarding the appellant's right to remain silent constituted an impermissible adverse inference. The appellant argued that the judge's characterization of his choice to say "Not answer" during a video-recorded interview as an "unlikely reaction" to a false accusation, and her use of this to question his credibility, infringed his right to silence. The prosecution contended the judge's remarks were made in response to the defence counsel's argument that the appellant's reactions supported his denial of the confession. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal ruled that the trial judge's inference, drawing adverse conclusions from the appellant's silence (his choice to say "Not answer" during the video interview) to assess his credibility, was an impermissible infringement of his right to remain silent. The court cited the Court of Final Appeal's decision in Lee Fuk-hing v HKSAR, which unequivocally states that it is inappropriate in Hong Kong to use a person's silence against them in any way. Despite the prosecution's argument that the judge's comments were merely a rejection of the defence's submission, the Court of Appeal found that the judge's remarks went further, directly impacting her assessment of the appellant's credibility and constituting a misdirection in law. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The primary precedent cited was: - Lee Fuk-hing v HKSAR [2004] 7 HKCFAR 600: This Court of Final Appeal case established that in Hong Kong, a person's silence cannot be used against them in any way, even to attack the weight of an explanation given for the first time at trial. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and quashed the conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs. A conviction for possession of dangerous drugs was substituted. The court ordered a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre report before sentencing for the substituted offence. The appellant remains in custody pending sentencing. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the fundamental importance of the right to remain silent in Hong Kong. Judges, even when assessing credibility, must not draw adverse inferences from a defendant's exercise of their right to silence or their choice to say "Not answer." Any judicial comment implying that silence can be used as evidence against an accused constitutes a legal error and may lead to a conviction being overturned. --- ### 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.