兒少性侵證詞可信度與新證據？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 林日東 - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：鄧國楨副庭長、楊振權法官、袁家寧法官 - 判決日期：2008年5月14日 ### 案情摘要 申請人林日東被控多項罪名，包括非禮、以威脅手段促使他人作非法性行為及管有兒童色情物品。受害人是一名未滿16歲的中二女學生，透過ICQ認識申請人。申請人以金錢、手機利誘及恐嚇受害人，多次對其進行非禮及性侵犯，並拍攝裸照及上傳至互聯網。事件因受害人上學遲到引起老師懷疑而揭發。警方其後拘捕申請人，並在其物品中搜出相機、安全套及受害人裸照。申請人否認所有控罪，聲稱受害人誣告。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案核心法律爭議在於受害人對申請人的指控是否真確。申請人提出上訴，質疑原審法官接納受害人錄影會面記錄作為證據的程序是否合法，並聲稱受害人證供矛盾、不可靠，且警方未安排正式認人手續。申請人亦試圖提交新證據，包括社工會議記錄、前僱主假期記錄等，以證明其不在場及受害人證供不實。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭駁回申請人的上訴許可申請。法庭裁定，根據《刑事訴訟程序條例》(Criminal Procedure Ordinance)第79A條，受害人在錄影會面及原審時均符合「兒童」定義，故錄影會面記錄獲接納為證據的程序合法。法庭認為受害人沒有誣告申請人的動機，且警方搜獲的物品（相機、安全套、裸照）與受害人指控吻合。對於新證據，法庭認為申請人原審時有機會提出但未提出，且這些證據不會影響司法公正或推翻定罪。法庭強調，原審法官有權接納受害人證供，尤其在申請人選擇不作供反駁的情況下。 ### 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就定罪及判刑提出的上訴許可申請。原審法官裁定申請人三項控罪罪名成立，包括非禮、以威脅手段促使他人作非法性行為，判處總刑期5年監禁。上訴法庭認為原審判刑不屬明顯過重，更屬輕判，無扣減餘地。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了在性罪行案件中，兒童受害人錄影會面記錄作為證據的合法性，並強調了原審法官在評估證供可信性方面的酌情權。同時，法庭對上訴階段提出新證據的嚴格要求，即除非有合理解釋且新證據能影響司法公正，否則不會輕易接納。本案亦強調了對兒童性罪行施加阻嚇性刑罰的重要性。 --- ### 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 Lam Yat Tung - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Tang VP, Hon Yeung JA, Hon Yuan JA - Date of Judgment: 14 May 2008 ### Factual Background The applicant, Lam Yat Tung, was charged with multiple offences including indecent assault, procuring others to commit unlawful sexual acts by threats, and possession of child pornography. The victim, a Form 2 student under 16, met the applicant via ICQ. The applicant enticed her with money and a mobile phone, and threatened her, leading to multiple acts of indecent assault and sexual abuse. He also took nude photos and uploaded them online. The incident was uncovered when the victim's teacher became suspicious due to her lateness. Police arrested the applicant, finding a camera, condoms, and nude photos of the victim among his belongings. The applicant denied all charges, claiming the victim falsely accused him. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the victim's accusations against the applicant were truthful. The applicant appealed, challenging the procedural legality of admitting the victim's video-recorded interview as evidence, arguing that the victim's testimony was contradictory and unreliable, and that the police failed to conduct a proper identification parade. The applicant also sought to introduce new evidence, including social worker meeting records and his former employer's leave records, to support his alibi and discredit the victim's testimony. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal. The court ruled that, under section 79A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, the victim met the definition of a "child" at the time of the video-recorded interview and the original trial, thus the procedure for admitting the video evidence was lawful. The court found no credible motive for the victim to falsely accuse the applicant, and the items seized from the applicant (camera, condoms, nude photos) corroborated the victim's allegations. Regarding the new evidence, the court noted that the applicant had ample opportunity to present it during the original trial but chose not to, and that the new evidence would not affect the fairness of justice or overturn the conviction. The court emphasized the trial judge's prerogative to accept the victim's testimony, especially when the applicant chose not to testify in rebuttal. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence. The trial judge had convicted the applicant on three charges, including indecent assault and procuring unlawful sexual acts by threats, imposing a total sentence of 5 years' imprisonment. The Court of Appeal found the original sentence not to be manifestly excessive, but rather lenient, with no grounds for reduction. ### Key Takeaways This case reaffirms the legality of admitting video-recorded interviews of child victims in sexual offence cases and underscores the trial judge's discretion in assessing witness credibility. It also highlights the strict requirements for introducing new evidence at the appeal stage, which will not be readily accepted unless there is a reasonable explanation and it can impact the fairness of justice. The judgment also emphasized the importance of imposing deterrent sentences for child sexual offences. --- ### 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.