檢控官評論被告不作供的性質及補救措施？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v Huang Ruifang - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Macrae 署理首席法官、Zervos 上訴法官、M Poon 上訴法官 - 判決日期：2025年5月29日 ### 案情摘要 申請人黃瑞芳早前因販運危險藥物被定罪，其定罪上訴已於2024年8月30日被駁回。儘管申請人最初未就判刑申請上訴許可，但考慮到自2017年4月犯罪以來，涉及大量危險藥物的判刑決定有所更新，上訴法庭主動授予其判刑上訴許可。其後，上訴法庭於2025年3月5日就判刑上訴作出裁決，頒布了新的判刑指引。本案中，申請人現根據《香港終審法院條例》（香港法例第484章）第32(2)條申請證明書，以就其定罪上訴（HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 2)）向終審法院提出上訴，理由是存在三項具有重大而廣泛重要性的法律論點。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要爭議點在於申請人提出的三項法律論點是否具有重大而廣泛的重要性，足以獲發終審法院上訴證明書。第一項爭議涉及《刑事訴訟程序條例》（香港法例第221章）第54(1)(b)條中，檢控官何種言行構成禁止評論被告不作供的行為，以及違反此禁令的適當補救措施。第二項爭議是關於第54(1)(b)條在不同法院（區域法院或裁判法院）的適用範圍是否有差異。第三項爭議則關於上訴法庭在檢控官作出禁止評論後，行使《刑事訴訟程序條例》第83(1)條但書的酌情權時應考慮的因素。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭認為，第二項法律論點並非源於法庭判決中的任何內容，因此不予考慮。至於第三項法律論點，法庭指出，多數法官並未應用《刑事訴訟程序條例》第83(1)(c)條的但書，且有關但書的法律原則在本司法管轄區已確立並廣泛討論，故不認為其具有重大而廣泛的重要性。然而，對於第一項法律論點，法庭內部存在分歧，且本司法管轄區內較舊和較新的上訴法庭判例之間似乎存在意見分歧，終審法院可能需要解決此問題。因此，法庭決定就第一項法律論點發出證明書，並建議補充「違反禁令的適當補救措施」的內容，使其更為完整。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回了申請人就第二和第三項法律論點申請終審法院上訴證明書的請求。法庭批准了申請人就第一項法律論點申請證明書的請求，但對該問題的措辭進行了修改，以包含違反禁令的適當補救措施。 ### 判決啟示 本判決強調了在刑事訴訟中，檢控官評論被告不作供的行為的性質及其補救措施，是一個需要終審法院澄清的重要法律問題。法庭主動修改了申請人提出的問題，以確保其更為全面，這顯示了法庭在處理重要法律原則時的謹慎態度。這對未來涉及《刑事訴訟程序條例》第54(1)(b)條的案件具有指導意義。 --- ### 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 Huang Ruifang - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Macrae Acting CJHC, Zervos JA, M Poon JA - Date of Judgment: 29 May 2025 ### Factual Background The applicant, Huang Ruifang, was previously convicted of drug trafficking, and her appeal against conviction was dismissed on 30 August 2024. Although she did not initially apply for leave to appeal against her sentence, the Court of Appeal, noting updated sentencing decisions for large quantities of dangerous drugs since her offence in April 2017, proactively granted her leave to appeal against sentence. Subsequently, on 5 March 2025, the Court of Appeal issued new sentencing guidelines following her sentence appeal. In the present case, the applicant now seeks a Certificate under section 32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal regarding her conviction appeal (HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 2)), on the basis of three points of law of great and general importance. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal questions were whether the three points of law raised by the applicant were of great and general importance to warrant a Certificate for appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The first point concerned the nature of words or conduct by a prosecutor that constitute a prohibited comment on an accused's failure to give evidence under section 54(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221, and the appropriate remedies for a breach. The second questioned if there was a difference in the nature and scope of prohibited comment under section 54(1)(b) in District Court or magistrate trials. The third point related to the discretion of the Court of Appeal to apply the proviso under section 83(1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance following a prohibited comment. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal found that the second point of law did not arise from anything said in the Court's judgment. Regarding the third point, the Court noted that the majority judges did not apply the proviso to section 83(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, and the law concerning the proviso is well-settled in this jurisdiction, thus it was not considered a point of great and general importance. However, for the first point of law, the Court was divided, and there appeared to be a divergence of opinion between older and more recent Court of Appeal authorities, which the Court of Final Appeal might need to resolve. Therefore, the Court certified the first question, suggesting an addition to include "and what are the appropriate remedies for a breach of the prohibition?" to make it more comprehensive. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's request for a Certificate to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal regarding the second and third points of law. The Court granted the applicant's request for a Certificate concerning the first point of law, but reformulated the question to include the appropriate remedies for a breach of the prohibition. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights that the nature of a prosecutor's prohibited comment on an accused's failure to give evidence and the remedies for such a breach are significant legal issues requiring clarification by the Court of Final Appeal. The Court's proactive reformulation of the applicant's question to ensure its completeness demonstrates its careful approach to fundamental legal principles. This has implications for future cases involving section 54(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance. --- ### 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.