審訊後新證據是否影響定罪穩妥性？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v CHENG WUI YIU (鄭會耀) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal) - 法官：Stuart-Moore VP, Yeung JA and Suffiad J - 判決日期：2007年12月21日 ### 案情摘要 申請人鄭會耀因串謀謀殺罪及串謀協助保留可公訴罪行得益罪被定罪。串謀謀殺罪涉及Tommy Chui To-yan於1995年3月29日在新加坡被謀殺。Tommy Chui原定為廉政公署（ICAC）的證人，將針對Tin Sau-kwong等人作證。控方主要證人Cheung Wai-ming（Cheung）指證申請人策劃了謀殺。申請人及其同夥在新加坡綁架並殺害了Tommy Chui。申請人其後被判處無期徒刑，並須服刑至少22年。申請人現申請上訴，理由是控方主要證人Cheung Wai-ming涉嫌串謀妨礙司法公正的新證據，該證據在審訊結束後才浮現。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於，審訊後出現的新證據是否足以使申請人的定罪變得不穩妥或不滿意。新證據主要來自證人Ng Wai-man（Ng），他聲稱Cheung Wai-ming曾邀請他作偽證，誣告Tin Sau-kwong以換取減刑。上訴法庭需要評估Ng的證供是否可信，以及該證供是否可能導致陪審團作出不同的裁決。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭根據《刑事訴訟條例》（Criminal Procedure Ordinance）第83V條審視了接納新證據的標準，包括證據在審訊時是否無法獲得、是否與爭議點相關、是否可信，以及是否可能導致不同的裁決。法庭詳細評估了Ng Wai-man的證供，發現其證供在多個關鍵點上自相矛盾、迴避，且包含不實陳述。特別是，Ng曾試圖利用其證供獲取經濟利益，並在其他案件中表現出不誠實的行為。法庭裁定Ng的證供完全不可信，其可信度為零，因此不予接納為新證據。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多宗關於接納新證據標準的案例，包括R v Parks [1962] 46 Cr App R 29、Stafford & Luvaglio v DPP (No. 2) [1974] AC 878、R v Pendleton [2002] 1 Cr App R 34、R v Hakala [2002] EWCA Crim 730、R v Ishtiaq Ahmed [2002] EWCA Crim 2781、Dial & Anor v State of Trinidad and Tobago [2005] 1 WLR 1660，以及香港案例R v Cheung Tse-pan & Anor [1991] 2 HKLR 370和R v Tam Chung-shing (No. 1) [1989] 1 HKLR 42。這些案例確立了新證據必須可信且可能影響裁決的原則。此外，判刑部分引用了R v Hodgson [1968] 52 Cr App R 113、R v Cheung Hing-biu [1984] HKLR 87和HKSAR v Cheung Lai-man [2004] 2 HKLRD 473，以確立判處無期徒刑的標準。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回了申請人就定罪和判刑提出的上訴申請。法庭裁定申請人的定罪既不不穩妥也不不滿意。對於判刑，法庭認為原審法官判處無期徒刑並設定22年最低刑期是恰當的，判刑原則上沒有錯誤，也沒有明顯過重。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調了上訴法庭在處理新證據時，對證人可信度的嚴格審查。即使新證據聲稱揭露了控方主要證人的不誠實行為，若新證據本身的證人被發現極度不可信，法庭仍會拒絕接納。判決重申了謀殺證人以妨礙司法公正的行為，對香港刑事司法系統的完整性構成嚴重威脅，因此判處無期徒刑是適當的。 --- ### 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 CHENG WUI YIU (鄭會耀) - Court: Court of Appeal - Judge: Stuart-Moore VP, Yeung JA and Suffiad J - Date of Judgment: 21 December 2007 ### Factual Background The applicant, Cheng Wui Yiu, was convicted of conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to assist a person to retain the proceeds of an indictable offence. The conspiracy to murder involved the killing of Tommy Chui To-yan in Singapore on 29 March 1995. Tommy Chui was due to testify for the ICAC against Tin Sau-kwong and others. The prosecution's key witness, Cheung Wai-ming (Cheung), implicated the applicant in orchestrating the murder. The applicant and his co-conspirators abducted and killed Tommy Chui in Singapore. The applicant was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 22 years. The applicant sought leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, primarily on the basis of new evidence concerning Cheung Wai-ming's alleged involvement in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, which emerged after the trial. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question in dispute was whether newly acquired evidence, which came to light after the trial, rendered the applicant's conviction unsafe or unsatisfactory. The new evidence primarily came from witness Ng Wai-man (Ng), who alleged that Cheung Wai-ming had invited him to commit perjury by falsely accusing Tin Sau-kwong in exchange for a reduced sentence. The Court of Appeal needed to assess the credibility of Ng's testimony and whether it might have led the jury to a different verdict. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal reviewed the criteria for admitting new evidence under Section 83V of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, including its unavailability at trial, relevance, credibility, and potential impact on the verdict. The court meticulously assessed Ng Wai-man's testimony, finding it to be evasive, contradictory, and untruthful on most material issues. Specifically, Ng had sought financial gain for his testimony and demonstrated dishonest conduct in other cases. The court concluded that Ng's evidence lacked any credibility, rendering it inadmissible as fresh evidence. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment cited several authorities on the admission of fresh evidence, including R v Parks [1962] 46 Cr App R 29, Stafford & Luvaglio v DPP (No. 2) [1974] AC 878, R v Pendleton [2002] 1 Cr App R 34, R v Hakala [2002] EWCA Crim 730, R v Ishtiaq Ahmed [2002] EWCA Crim 2781, Dial & Anor v State of Trinidad and Tobago [2005] 1 WLR 1660, and Hong Kong cases R v Cheung Tse-pan & Anor [1991] 2 HKLR 370 and R v Tam Chung-shing (No. 1) [1989] 1 HKLR 42. These cases established the principles that new evidence must be credible and capable of affecting the verdict. For sentencing, R v Hodgson [1968] 52 Cr App R 113, R v Cheung Hing-biu [1984] HKLR 87, and HKSAR v Cheung Lai-man [2004] 2 HKLRD 473 were cited to determine the appropriateness of a life sentence. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence. The court found the applicant's conviction to be neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory. Regarding the sentence, the court upheld the trial judge's decision to impose a life sentence with a minimum term of 22 years, finding it not wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. ### Key Takeaways This case underscores the stringent scrutiny applied by the Court of Appeal to the credibility of witnesses offering fresh evidence. Even when new evidence purports to expose dishonesty by a key prosecution witness, if the witness providing the new evidence is found to be utterly unreliable, the court will refuse to admit it. The judgment reaffirms that murdering a witness to pervert the course of justice is a grave threat to the integrity of the criminal justice system, warranting a life sentence. --- ### 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.