控方評論緘默權是否構成不當？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v HUANG Ruifang (黃瑞芳) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Hon Macrae VP, Zervos and M Poon JJA - 判決日期：2024年8月30日 ### 案情摘要 申請人黃瑞芳因販運危險藥物（6,960毫升液體，含4,770克可卡因）被控。她在香港國際機場被捕，當時攜帶一個裝有四個圓柱形罐子的棕色行李箱。試劑測試顯示罐子內含可卡因。申請人在錄影會面中聲稱自己是貨物速遞員，為「Ching Tse」的侄子運送九罐巴西莓汁，並不知道裡面有違禁品。她曾於2018年首次被定罪，後經上訴撤銷定罪並發還重審。在重審中，她於2022年7月12日再次被定罪，判處監禁27年10個月。本案是針對第二次定罪的上訴申請。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議有二。首先，控方律師在結案陳詞中評論申請人未有出庭作證，是否違反《刑事訴訟程序條例》（Criminal Procedure Ordinance）第54(1)(b)條，構成實質性程序不當。其次，法官給予「謊言指示」（lies direction）是否恰當，即使恰當，其指示是否充分處理了控方關於謊言的指控及其對推斷罪行的證據效力。申請人認為控方律師的評論侵犯了其緘默權，且法官的謊言指示不當。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭就兩項上訴理由意見分歧。關於謊言指示，法庭一致認為控方律師意圖利用申請人的謊言來支持控方案情並加強罪行推論，因此法官給予謊言指示是恰當的，且指示內容已充分提醒陪審團須謹慎處理。關於控方律師評論申請人未作證是否構成實質性不當，M Poon JA認為儘管存在技術性違規，但法官在審訊中多次強調申請人有權保持緘默且不應因此作出不利推論，已充分補救。Zervos JA則認為控方律師的評論已超越界線，直接暗示申請人因有罪而未作證，法官的標準指示不足以彌補此實質性不當。Macrae VP同意M Poon JA的觀點，認為控方律師的言論並未構成實質性違規，即使有，法官的強烈指示也足以消除任何偏見。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多個案例來闡述《刑事訴訟程序條例》第54(1)(b)條的解釋和適用，以及法官在處理控方不當評論時的補救措施。主要案例包括：HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437（關於危險藥物販運量刑指引）、Yuen Kwai Choi v HKSAR (2003) 6 HKCFAR 113（關於謊言指示）、R v Yu Yuk Kwong [1979] HKLR 585、R v Wong Wah Chiu [1983] 1 HKC 131、R v Sin Cheong-shing [1984] HKC 131、HKSAR v Ho Siu Hoi, CACC 336/2002（關於控方評論緘默權的演變及補救）、R v L [1996] 1 NZLR 53（新西蘭類似條文的解釋）、Siebel & Waterman v The Queen (1992) 59 A Crim R 105（澳洲類似條文的解釋）。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭批准了針對定罪的上訴許可（僅限第一項理由），但以多數裁定駁回上訴。因此，申請人的定罪維持不變。法庭同時主動提出將重新審視HKSAR v Abdallah中關於販運危險藥物的量刑指引，並為申請人就刑期上訴提供法律援助證書，以確保量刑指引的現實性和一致性。 ### 判決啟示 本案凸顯了香港法院在處理控方評論被告緘默權問題上的演變，從早期的絕對禁止到現在更注重評論的實質影響及法官補救措施的有效性。多數意見認為，即使控方言論存在技術性違規，但若法官的指示足夠清晰和有力，仍可彌補潛在偏見。Zervos JA的異議強調了控方作為「司法官員」（minister of justice）應有的克制，以及對緘默權的嚴格保護。此外，法庭主動提出重新審視危險藥物販運的量刑指引，這對未來的同類案件可能產生重大影響。 --- ### 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 HUANG Ruifang - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Macrae VP, Zervos and M Poon JJA - Date of Judgment: 30 August 2024 ### Factual Background The applicant, HUANG Ruifang, was charged with trafficking in a dangerous drug, specifically 6,960 millilitres of liquid containing 4,770 grammes of cocaine. She was arrested at Hong Kong International Airport in possession of a brown suitcase with four cylindrical cans. A reagent test confirmed the presence of cocaine. In a video-recorded interview, the applicant claimed to be a courier for others, transporting nine cans of Acai juice for a person named 'Ching Tse' and denied knowledge of any illegal contents. She was initially convicted in 2018, but the conviction was quashed on appeal and a retrial ordered. At the retrial, she was again found guilty on 12 July 2022 and sentenced to 27 years and 10 months' imprisonment. This appeal is against the second conviction. ### Key Legal Issues The key legal issues in this case were twofold. First, whether prosecuting counsel's comments on the applicant's failure to give evidence in his closing speech violated section 54(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, constituting a material irregularity. Second, whether the judge's 'lies direction' was appropriate, and if so, whether it adequately addressed the prosecutor's allegations of lies and their evidential effect on the inference of guilt. The applicant argued that the prosecutor's comments infringed her right to silence and that the lies direction was improper. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal was divided on the resolution of this appeal. Regarding the lies direction, the court unanimously agreed that prosecuting counsel intended to use the applicant's alleged lies to support the prosecution's case and strengthen the inference of guilt, making the judge's lies direction appropriate and sufficiently cautionary to the jury. On the issue of the prosecutor's comments on the applicant's failure to testify, M Poon JA found that while there was a technical breach, the judge's repeated and emphatic directions to the jury about the applicant's right to silence and that no adverse inference should be drawn had sufficiently remedied any potential harm. Zervos JA, dissenting, argued that the prosecutor's comments crossed the line, directly implying guilt from the applicant's silence, and the judge's standard directions were insufficient to cure this material irregularity. Macrae VP agreed with M Poon JA, concluding that the prosecutor's remarks did not amount to a material irregularity, and even if they did, the judge's strong directions would have nullified any prejudice. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited several precedents concerning the interpretation and application of section 54(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance and the judge's remedial powers regarding improper prosecutorial comments. Key cases include: HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437 (sentencing guidelines for dangerous drug trafficking), Yuen Kwai Choi v HKSAR (2003) 6 HKCFAR 113 (lies direction), R v Yu Yuk Kwong [1979] HKLR 585, R v Wong Wah Chiu [1983] 1 HKC 131, R v Sin Cheong-shing [1984] HKC 131, HKSAR v Ho Siu Hoi, CACC 336/2002 (evolution and remedy of prosecutorial comments on right to silence), R v L [1996] 1 NZLR 53 (interpretation of similar New Zealand provision), and Siebel & Waterman v The Queen (1992) 59 A Crim R 105 (interpretation of similar Australian provision). ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal against conviction (on Ground 1 only) but, by a majority, dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the applicant's conviction stands. The Court also proactively decided to reconsider the sentencing guidelines for dangerous drug trafficking set out in HKSAR v Abdallah and granted the applicant an appeal aid certificate for a sentence appeal, to ensure the guidelines remain realistic and consistent. ### Key Takeaways This case highlights the evolving approach of Hong Kong courts to prosecutorial comments on a defendant's right to silence, moving from an absolute prohibition to a more nuanced assessment of the comment's actual impact and the effectiveness of judicial remedies. The majority opinion suggests that clear and forceful judicial directions can mitigate technical breaches by the prosecution. Zervos JA's dissent underscores the importance of prosecutorial restraint as a 'minister of justice' and strict protection of the right to silence. Furthermore, the court's proactive decision to review dangerous drug trafficking sentencing guidelines could have significant implications for future cases. --- ### 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.