審查資料可否用於刑事？？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v Lee Ming-Tee and Tse Chu-Fai, Ronald - 法院：終審法院 (Court of Final Appeal, CFA) - 法官：李國能首席法官、包致金常任法官、陳兆愷常任法官、列顯倫常任法官、梅師賢非常任法官 - 判決日期：2001年3月22日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及兩名答辯人，他們被控串謀詐騙及發布虛假帳目聲明。控罪與1990至1991年間，聯合集團旗下上市公司發行及配售大量股份的四宗交易有關。第一答辯人為聯合集團控股公司AGL的控股股東、主席兼董事，第二答辯人為AGL董事兼財務總監。廉政公署（SFC）主席向財政司建議委任審查員調查聯合集團事務。財政司委任審查員，並成立督導小組監察調查。審查員在調查期間，將取得的資料轉交警方，警方並根據這些資料取得搜查令。財政司其後在刑事訴訟展開前，發布了審查報告，並舉行記者會，導致廣泛的負面報導。原審法官彭鍵基法官裁定永久擱置（permanently stayed）刑事訴訟，理由是審查員濫用權力及審查報告的發布造成審前偏見，導致無法進行公平審訊。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議圍繞公司條例下審查員權力的範圍，特別是審查員能否將強制取得的資料轉交執法機關，以及這些資料能否被檢控機關作衍生用途（derivative use）。此外，爭議點還包括審查報告的發布是否構成濫用程序（abuse of process），導致無法進行公平審訊，以及《香港人權法案》第11(2)(g)條所保障的自證其罪特權（privilege against self-incrimination）的適用範圍。 ### 判決理由 終審法院裁定，根據《公司條例》（香港法例第32章）的正確解釋，財政司（透過督導小組）指示審查員將強制取得的證詞和資料提供給警方，以協助檢控，並未超出其法定目的或濫用權力。法院認為，條例第145(3A)條廢除了自證其罪特權，並以直接使用禁制（direct use prohibition）取而代之，但並未禁止衍生用途。法院強調，普通法中並不存在獨立的衍生用途豁免權（derivative use immunity）。對於審前偏見，法院認為原審法官在判斷是否能進行公平審訊時，未能充分考慮時間流逝的治癒作用以及陪審團指引的有效性，因此錯誤地行使了酌情權。法院重申，只有在極端情況下，當公平審訊確實不可能時，才應擱置訴訟。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多個案例來闡述濫用程序、自證其罪特權及審前偏見的原則。其中，《Connelly v DPP》確立了法院防止濫用程序的固有權力。《R v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, Ex parte Bennett》則說明了即使公平審訊可能，法院仍可在極端濫用權力情況下擱置訴訟。《Re Pergamon Press Ltd》和《Saunders v United Kingdom》闡明了公司審查員的角色及其報告的性質。此外，法院還參考了《Hamilton v Oades》和《Sorby v The Commonwealth》等案例，討論了自證其罪特權被廢除後，衍生證據的使用問題。 ### 裁決與命令 終審法院一致裁定上訴得直，撤銷原審法官永久擱置訴訟的命令，並將案件發回原訟法庭，由另一位法官審理。法院亦頒布了臨時訟費命令，要求答辯人支付上訴人的訟費，並就訟費問題給予各方提交書面陳詞的機會。 ### 判決啟示 本判決明確了香港《公司條例》下公司審查員的權力範圍，特別是強制取得的資料在刑事訴訟中可否被檢控機關作衍生用途。法院強調，在有明確的直接使用禁制條款下，普通法並無獨立的衍生用途豁免權。判決還重申了擱置刑事訴訟的嚴格標準，尤其是在審前偏見的情況下，法院應充分考慮時間流逝和陪審團指引的治癒作用，而非僅憑官方行為不當就擱置訴訟。這對未來涉及公司調查和刑事檢控的案件具有重要指導意義。 --- ### 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 Lee Ming-Tee and Tse Chu-Fai, Ronald - Court: Court of Final Appeal (CFA) - Judge: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ and Sir Anthony Mason NPJ - Date of Judgment: 22 March 2001 ### Factual Background This case involved two respondents charged with conspiracy to defraud and publishing false statements of account. The charges related to four transactions in 1990-1991 involving the issue and placement of shares in listed companies within the Allied Group. The 1st respondent held a controlling interest and was chairman/director of AGL, the holding company, while the 2nd respondent was a director and financial controller. The Financial Secretary appointed an Inspector to investigate the Allied Group's affairs, following a recommendation from the SFC. A Steering Group was formed to monitor the inspection. The Inspector provided materials obtained during the inspection to the police, who then used this information to obtain search warrants. The Financial Secretary subsequently published the Inspector's report and held a press conference, leading to widespread adverse publicity, before criminal proceedings commenced. The trial judge, Pang J, ordered a permanent stay of the criminal proceedings, citing abuse of the Inspector's powers and prejudice from the report's publication, making a fair trial impossible. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal questions in dispute were the scope of an Inspector's powers under the Companies Ordinance, specifically whether an Inspector could properly pass compulsorily obtained materials to prosecuting authorities and whether such materials could be used derivatively. Further issues included whether the publication of the Inspector's report constituted an abuse of process, making a fair trial impossible, and the extent of the privilege against self-incrimination under Article 11(2)(g) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Final Appeal held that, on a proper construction of the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 32), the Financial Secretary (acting through the Steering Group) was within statutory purposes and did not abuse powers by directing the Inspector to provide compulsorily obtained testimony and information to the police for aid in prosecution. The Court found that section 145(3A) abrogated the privilege against self-incrimination, replacing it with a direct use prohibition, but did not prohibit derivative use. It was emphasized that no free-standing derivative use immunity exists at common law. Regarding pre-trial prejudice, the Court found that the trial judge erred in exercising his discretion to stay proceedings by failing to adequately consider the curative effect of the passage of time and the efficacy of jury directions. A stay should only be granted in exceptional circumstances where a fair trial is truly impossible. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment cited several precedents to elaborate on principles of abuse of process, self-incrimination, and pre-trial prejudice. Connelly v DPP established the court's inherent power to prevent abuse of its process. R v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, Ex parte Bennett illustrated that a stay could be granted even if a fair trial was possible, in cases of extreme abuse of power. Re Pergamon Press Ltd and Saunders v United Kingdom clarified the role of company inspectors and the nature of their reports. Additionally, cases like Hamilton v Oades and Sorby v The Commonwealth were referenced in the discussion of derivative use of evidence after the abrogation of the privilege against self-incrimination. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Final Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal, set aside the trial judge's order for a permanent stay, and remitted the matter to the Court of First Instance for the respondents to be tried before a different judge. An order nisi for costs was also made, requiring the respondents to pay the appellant's costs, with leave for parties to make written submissions on costs. ### Key Takeaways This judgment clarifies the scope of powers of company inspectors under the Hong Kong Companies Ordinance, particularly concerning the derivative use of compulsorily obtained materials in criminal proceedings. The Court affirmed that where a clear direct use prohibition exists, there is no independent common law derivative use immunity. The ruling also reinforces the strict standards for granting a stay of criminal proceedings, especially in cases of pre-trial prejudice, emphasizing the curative effects of time and proper jury directions, rather than automatically staying proceedings due to official misconduct. This has significant implications for future cases involving corporate investigations and criminal prosecutions. --- ### 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.