DCCC188/2024

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v Pinder Singh - 法院：區域法院 (DC) - 法官：K K Leung - 判決日期：2026年5月8日 ### 案情摘要 被告被指控違反《入境條例》第37D(1)(a)條，協助未獲授權進境者在香港境內的旅程。案情涉及被告在交通極少的地點預約的士，隨後讓三名陌生男子（兩名印度裔及一名越南裔）共乘前往旺角。被告最終被裁定無罪，隨後申請法律費用及兩名大律師證明書 (Certificate for two Counsel)。 ### 核心法律爭議 核心 legal issue 在於被告在被裁定無罪後，是否應獲頒發 costs。辯方主張除非控方能提出 positive reasons 否決，否則 costs 應隨結果而定 (follow the event)；控方則認為被告的行為令其自身產生懷疑 (brought suspicion on himself)，因此不應獲頒發費用。 ### 判決理由 法官根據《刑事案件費用條例》Cap 492 第5條行使酌情權。雖然被告獲判無罪，但法官認為其行為可疑：被告在偏僻地點等車且與陌生人共乘，且在面談中承認曾質疑該三人的合法身份。考慮到被告本身是 form 8 recognizance 持有人，深知居留權之重要，卻未對共乘者的目的地或車費支付作詢問，構成 suspicion。因此，法官裁定不頒發 costs。 ### 引用案例與條文 引用 Tong Cun Lin v HKSAR (1999) 2 HKCFAR 531 及 Ting James Henry v HKSAR (No 2)(2007) 10 HKCFAR 730 關於費用頒發之原則，以及 Hui Yui Sang v HKSAR (2006) 9 HKCFAR 208 關於被告在調查期間回應方式之分析。 ### 裁決與命令 法官拒絕了被告申請 costs 的請求，同時亦拒絕頒發兩名大律師證明書 (Certificate for two Counsel)，理由是本案事實簡單且不複雜。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調即使被告獲判無罪，若其行為在 objective 角度上令法官感到可疑 (suspicious)，法院仍可行使 discretion 拒絕頒發 costs。 --- ### 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 Pinder Singh - Court: District Court (DC) - Judge: K K Leung - Date of Judgment: 8 May 2026 ### Factual Background The defendant was charged with assisting the passage within Hong Kong of unauthorized entrants under section 37D(1)(a) of the Immigration Ordinance. He was found in a taxi with three unknown males at a location with minimal public traffic. Following his acquittal, the defendant applied for costs and a Certificate for two Counsel. ### Key Legal Issues The primary legal issue was whether the defendant was entitled to costs after acquittal under section 5 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance, Cap 492. The defence argued that costs should follow the event, while the prosecution contended that the defendant's conduct brought suspicion upon himself, justifying the denial of costs. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge exercised discretion to refuse costs. Although the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the judge found the defendant's behavior suspicious. Specifically, the defendant, a form 8 recognizance holder, allowed three strangers into his pre-booked taxi in a secluded area and admitted to questioning their legal status in his mind, yet failed to inquire about their destination or fare. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judge relied on Tong Cun Lin v HKSAR (1999) 2 HKCFAR 531 and Ting James Henry v HKSAR (No 2)(2007) 10 HKCFAR 730 regarding costs, and Hui Yui Sang v HKSAR (2006) 9 HKCFAR 208 regarding the defendant's responses during investigation. ### Decision & Orders The application for costs was dismissed. The application for a Certificate for two Counsel was also refused as the case was deemed neither complex nor lengthy in its proceedings. ### Key Takeaways The judgment reaffirms that acquittal does not automatically guarantee costs; the court may deny them if the defendant's conduct is deemed sufficiently suspicious. --- ### 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.