上訴得直，訟費誰付？？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v PANG HUNG FAI (彭洪輝) - 法院：終審法院 (Court of Final Appeal, CFA) - 法官：馬道立首席法官、李義常任法官、鄧楨常任法官、霍兆剛常任法官、施廣智非常任法官 - 判決日期：2015年1月16日 ### 案情摘要 上訴人因《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》第25(1)及(3)條下的罪行被定罪，其後上訴得直，終審法院撤銷其定罪。終審法院最初頒布了一項臨時訟費命令 (order nisi)，指示答辯人支付上訴人在上訴法庭及終審法院的訟費。上訴人隨後申請更改該臨時命令，要求將原審區域法院的訟費納入其中，並要求為上訴法庭及終審法院的聆訊批予三名大律師的訟費證明書 (certificates for three counsel)。答辯人反對此申請。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於上訴人是否應獲判原審區域法院的訟費，以及上訴法庭和終審法院的聆訊是否應批予三名大律師的訟費證明書。答辯方認為上訴人自身的行為已招致懷疑，不應獲判原審訟費。上訴方則主張案件涉及「前所未有的困難和複雜性」，故應批予三名大律師的訟費證明書。 ### 判決理由 終審法院裁定，雖然一般原則是無罪釋放後訟費歸屬被控人，但若被控人自身的行為招致懷疑，則可偏離此原則。法院認為上訴人的行為確實招致懷疑，因此不應獲判原審訟費。關於三名大律師的訟費證明書，法院指出終審法院的案件通常已具相當重要性和難度，故批予三名大律師證明書需有「特殊情況」。法院認為本案不屬於「前所未有的困難或複雜性」，且案情相對簡單，聆訊時間亦不長，故不批予三名大律師的訟費證明書。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多個案例來確立訟費原則： - R v Kwok Moon-yan & Anor. [1989] 2 HKLR 396：確立了在被控人行為招致懷疑時，可偏離訟費歸屬被控人的原則。 - Tong Cun Lin v HKSAR (1999) 2 HKCFAR 531：重申了上述原則。 - Ting James Henry v HKAR (No.2) (2007) 10 HKCFAR 730：進一步闡述了上述原則。 - HKSAR v Egan (No.2) (2010) 13 HKCFAR 689：確立了終審法院案件通常允許兩名大律師的訟費。 - Hebei Enterprises Ltd v Livasiri & Co, unrep., FACV 23/2007, 5 December 2008：指出要求三名大律師訟費證明書需向法院申請。 - Fu Kor Kuen Patrick v HKSAR, unrep., FACC 4/2011, Judgment on Costs dated 27 August 2012：強調終審法院批予三名大律師證明書需有「特殊情況」。 ### 裁決與命令 終審法院駁回了上訴人更改臨時訟費命令的申請。因此，上訴人未能獲得原審區域法院的訟費，亦未能獲得上訴法庭及終審法院聆訊的三名大律師訟費證明書。原先的臨時訟費命令，即答辯人支付上訴人在上訴法庭及終審法院的訟費，現已轉為最終命令。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了刑事案件中，即使上訴得直，若被控人自身的行為導致懷疑，法院仍可拒絕判給其原審訟費。此外，判決也明確了在終審法院要求三名大律師的訟費證明書需要證明案件具有「特殊」的困難或複雜性，僅僅是重要性或涉及海外大律師並不足夠。 --- ### 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 PANG HUNG FAI (彭洪輝) - Court: Court of Final Appeal (CFA) - Judge: Chief Justice Ma, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Tang PJ, Mr Justice Fok PJ and Mr Justice Spigelman NPJ - Date of Judgment: 16 January 2015 ### Factual Background The appellant was convicted of an offence under sections 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, but his appeal was subsequently allowed, and his conviction was quashed by the Court of Final Appeal. The CFA initially made an order nisi as to costs, directing the respondent to pay the appellant's costs for the appeals to the Court of Appeal and the CFA. The appellant then applied to vary this order to include the costs of the trial in the District Court and for certificates for three counsel for the appeals to the Court of Appeal and the CFA. The respondent resisted this application. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal questions in dispute were whether the appellant should be awarded the costs of the trial in the District Court, and whether certificates for three counsel should be granted for the appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Court of Final Appeal. The respondent argued that the appellant's own conduct had brought suspicion upon himself, thus disentitling him to trial costs. The appellant contended that the case involved "unprecedented difficulty and complexity," warranting three counsel. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Final Appeal held that while the general rule is that costs follow an acquittal, this rule can be departed from if the appellant's own conduct brought suspicion upon himself. The Court found that the appellant's conduct did invite suspicion, thus he should be deprived of his trial costs. Regarding certificates for three counsel, the Court noted that CFA cases are almost always of considerable importance and difficulty, so granting three counsel certificates requires "something exceptional." The Court concluded that this case was not of "unprecedented" difficulty or complexity, the factual background was straightforward, and the hearing length was not exceptional, therefore denying the request for three counsel certificates. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited several precedents to establish the principles governing costs: - R v Kwok Moon-yan & Anor. [1989] 2 HKLR 396: Established that the general rule of costs following acquittal can be departed from if the defendant's conduct invites suspicion. - Tong Cun Lin v HKSAR (1999) 2 HKCFAR 531: Reaffirmed the above principle. - Ting James Henry v HKAR (No.2) (2007) 10 HKCFAR 730: Further elaborated on the principle. - HKSAR v Egan (No.2) (2010) 13 HKCFAR 689: Established that costs for two counsel are generally allowed in CFA cases. - Hebei Enterprises Ltd v Livasiri & Co, unrep., FACV 23/2007, 5 December 2008: Indicated that a party seeking costs for more than two counsel must apply to the Court. - Fu Kor Kuen Patrick v HKSAR, unrep., FACC 4/2011, Judgment on Costs dated 27 August 2012: Emphasized that "something exceptional" is required for three counsel certificates in the CFA. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Final Appeal dismissed the appellant's application to vary the order nisi as to costs. Consequently, the appellant was not awarded the costs of the trial in the District Court, nor were certificates for three counsel granted for the appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Court of Final Appeal. The original order nisi, which directed the respondent to pay the appellant's costs for the appeals to the Court of Appeal and the CFA, was made absolute. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reiterates that in criminal cases, even if an appeal is successful, trial costs may be denied if the defendant's own conduct created suspicion. Furthermore, it clarifies that requesting certificates for three counsel in the Court of Final Appeal requires demonstrating "exceptional" difficulty or complexity, and mere importance or involvement of overseas counsel is insufficient. --- ### 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.