裁判官對證供差異的處理原則？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：THE QUEEN v KWONG WING ON and CHUNG WAI MAN - 法院：香港最高法院 (上訴司法管轄權) (Supreme Court of Hong Kong, Appellate Jurisdiction) - 法官：Hon Stock, J. - 判決日期：1996年8月9日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及兩名上訴人，即第一被告和第二被告，他們因於1995年5月10日發生的事件而被定罪。第二被告是受害人陳漢林及其家人所租住物業的業主。由於租客拖欠租金，第二被告希望提早收回物業。事發當晚，第二被告與包括第一被告在內的三名男子前往該物業。租客及其兒子聲稱遭到兩名被告的襲擊，並因此受傷。兩名被告均否認襲擊，並提出不同的解釋，例如租客的兒子曾威脅要用刀襲擊他們。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於裁判官對證人證供的評估是否恰當，特別是針對控方證供中的差異、遺漏和不可能性。上訴方認為，裁判官應考慮這些因素，並質疑控方證人的可信性。此外，上訴方亦質疑裁判官未有考慮第二被告的良好品格，以及分開審視兩名被告證供的處理方式。 ### 判決理由 法官指出，裁判官在判詞中無需處理所有細微的差異、遺漏或不可能性，因為即使是誠實的證人也會出現這些情況。關鍵在於是否存在實質且重大的差異，足以令審裁處質疑核心事實的可信性。法官認為，本案中控方證人受傷而被告沒有受傷的事實，以及第二被告帶同三名男子前往租客住所，均支持控方的說法。裁判官已充分考慮了證供中的差異，並正確應用了法律。 ### 引用案例與條文 R. v. Cheng King Ho, Crim. App. No.255 of 1993 (強調除非良好品格被積極提出並有證據支持，否則法官無需考慮是否給予陪審團相關指引)。 ### 裁決與命令 法官駁回了兩名被告的上訴，維持原審裁判官的定罪裁決。法官認為裁判官已充分及仔細地考慮了所有證據，並對差異和不一致之處作出了適當的考量，且正確應用了法律。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了上訴法院在審查裁判官對事實裁斷時的原則，即裁判官無需在判詞中逐一處理所有細微的證供差異。重要的是判斷這些差異是否實質且足以影響核心事實的可信性。此外，良好品格的證據必須在審訊中積極提出並獲證據支持，法庭才會予以考慮。 --- ### 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: THE QUEEN v KWONG WING ON and CHUNG WAI MAN - Court: Supreme Court of Hong Kong (Appellate Jurisdiction) - Judge: Hon Stock, J. - Date of Judgment: 9 August 1996 ### Factual Background This case involves two appellants, the 1st and 2nd defendants, who were convicted of offences arising from an incident on 10 May 1995. The 2nd defendant was the landlord of premises occupied by Mr Chan Hon Lam and his family. Due to rent arrears, the 2nd defendant sought early possession. On the night of the incident, the 2nd defendant, accompanied by three other men including the 1st defendant, went to the premises. The tenant and his son claimed they were assaulted by the defendants and sustained injuries. Both defendants denied the assaults, offering alternative explanations, such as the tenant's son threatening them with a knife. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issues revolved around the Magistrate's assessment of witness testimony, particularly concerning discrepancies, omissions, and improbabilities in the prosecution's evidence. The appellants argued that the Magistrate should have considered these factors and questioned the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Additionally, the appellants challenged the Magistrate's failure to consider the 2nd defendant's good character and the approach of considering the defendants' evidence separately. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge stated that a Magistrate is not expected to address every minor discrepancy, omission, or improbability in their Statement of Findings, as these can occur even with truthful witnesses. The crucial question is whether there are material and significant discrepancies that would lead a tribunal to doubt credibility on central facts. The judge found that the undisputed facts—the prosecution witnesses were injured while the defendants were not, and the 2nd defendant brought three men to the tenant's dwelling—supported the prosecution's case. The Magistrate had adequately considered the discrepancies and correctly applied the law. ### Key Precedents & Statutes R. v. Cheng King Ho, Crim. App. No.255 of 1993 (emphasizing that unless good character is positively advanced and supported by evidence, a judge is not required to give a jury direction on it). ### Decision & Orders The judge dismissed the appeals of both defendants, upholding the Magistrate's convictions. The judge was satisfied that the Magistrate had fully and carefully considered the evidence, made adequate allowance for discrepancies and inconsistencies, and applied the law correctly. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the appellate court's principles for reviewing a Magistrate's factual findings, stating that not every minor discrepancy needs to be explicitly addressed. The focus is on whether discrepancies are material enough to affect the credibility of central facts. Furthermore, evidence of good character must be actively presented and supported during trial for the court to consider it. --- ### 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.