未收定額罰款通知書是否因疏忽？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 莊楚海 - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：杜溎峰暫委法官 - 判決日期：2000年7月21日 ### 案情摘要 被告人於1999年9月13日因超速被警員發出定額罰款通知書。其後，警務處處長根據《定額罰款（刑事訴訟）條例》(Cap. 240) 第3條第(3)款，於1999年10月12日向被告人於運輸署的登記地址郵寄繳付定額罰款通知書。被告人未繳付罰款，亦未提出爭議。法庭遂根據該條例第3A條頒令被告人繳付罰款及附加費。被告人於續牌時得悉此頒令，遂根據第3B條申請覆核，聲稱在通知書發出期間他未在登記地址居住，且該地址無人居住，亦無信箱，導致他未收到通知書。原審裁判官拒絕其覆核申請。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於被告人未能收到繳付定額罰款通知書，是否並非由於其疏忽所致。被告人主張他沒有超速，且已於假期返回登記地址查看信件，已符合要求。控方則認為被告人明知登記地址無人居住且無信箱，應採取適當措施確保收到信件，例如更改登記地址或要求轉派服務。 ### 判決理由 法庭分析指出，根據《定額罰款（刑事訴訟）條例》(Cap. 240) 第3B條，申請覆核的關鍵在於被告人須證明其未獲悉通知書並非由於其疏忽所致。雖然舉證標準為民事標準，但要求相當高。本案中，被告人被警員即場發出通知書，應已知悉可能會有後續通知。鑒於其登記地址無人居住、無信箱且遺失信件風險高，被告人應採取如更改地址或要求轉派服務等恰當措施。由於被告人未能證明其未獲悉通知書並非因其疏忽，原審裁判官的裁斷正確。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 高等法院原訟法庭駁回被告人的上訴，維持原審裁判官的裁斷。被告人未能證明其未獲悉通知書並非由於其疏忽所致。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了《定額罰款（刑事訴訟）條例》下，當事人申請覆核定額罰款命令時，須負起證明其未獲悉通知書並非因其疏忽的舉證責任。即使未在登記地址居住，當事人仍有責任採取合理措施確保接收重要法律文件。 --- ### 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 Chong Chu Hoi - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Deputy High Court Judge To Wai Fung - Date of Judgment: 21 July 2000 ### Factual Background The appellant was issued a fixed penalty notice for speeding by a police officer on 13 September 1999. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Police mailed a fixed penalty payment notice to the appellant's registered address with the Transport Department on 12 October 1999, under section 3(3) of the Fixed Penalty (Criminal Proceedings) Ordinance (Cap. 240). The appellant neither paid the fine nor disputed the notice. The court then ordered the appellant to pay the fixed penalty and additional charges under section 3A of the Ordinance. The appellant learned of this order when renewing his license and applied for review under section 3B, claiming he did not reside at the registered address during the relevant period, and there was no one living there or a mailbox, leading to non-receipt of the notice. The trial magistrate rejected his review application. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was whether the appellant's failure to receive the fixed penalty payment notice was not due to his negligence. The appellant argued he did not speed and had checked his mail at the registered address during holidays, fulfilling the requirements. The prosecution contended that the appellant, knowing his registered address was vacant and lacked a mailbox, should have taken appropriate measures to ensure receipt of mail, such as changing his registered address or requesting mail redirection services. ### Ratio Decidendi The court analyzed that under section 3B of the Fixed Penalty (Criminal Proceedings) Ordinance (Cap. 240), the key for a review application is for the applicant to prove that non-receipt of the notice was not due to their negligence. Although the standard of proof is civil, the requirement is high. In this case, the appellant was issued a notice on the spot by a police officer, implying awareness of potential follow-up notices. Given that his registered address was vacant, lacked a mailbox, and had a high risk of mail loss, the appellant should have taken appropriate measures like changing his address or requesting mail redirection. Since the appellant failed to prove that his non-receipt was not due to his negligence, the trial magistrate's decision was upheld. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of First Instance dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding the trial magistrate's decision. The appellant failed to prove that his non-receipt of the notice was not due to his negligence. ### Key Takeaways This case reaffirms that under the Fixed Penalty (Criminal Proceedings) Ordinance, parties applying for review of a fixed penalty order bear the burden of proving that their non-receipt of the notice was not due to their negligence. Even if not residing at the registered address, a party still has a responsibility to take reasonable steps to ensure receipt of important legal documents. --- ### 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.