猥褻行為罪是否須證明性滿足意圖？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v F.S.L. - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal) - 法官：Pang JA, M Poon JA and Anthea Pang JA - 判決日期：2025年6月27日 ### 案情摘要 申請人FSL被控四項「對16歲以下兒童作出猥褻行為」(indecent conduct)及三項「煽惑16歲以下兒童作出嚴重猥褻行為」(inciting indecency)等罪名。經審訊後，陪審團裁定FSL其中四項罪名成立，即兩項猥褻行為及兩項煽惑猥褻行為，並判處其四年監禁。FSL就定罪提出上訴，主要針對原審法官在法律指示上的錯誤，以及對事實裁決的質疑。案件涉及四宗事件，其中三宗發生在FSL與受害兒童X的家中，一宗發生在澳門酒店。控方主要依賴X的證供，而辯方則質疑X證供的可信性，並暗示X可能受其母親影響而作出虛假指控。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議點有二： 1. 原審法官對「猥褻行為」罪的法律指示是否錯誤，特別是關於被告人是否必須具有「獲取性滿足」(sexual gratification)的意圖。辯方認為，獲取性滿足的意圖是該罪的必要元素，而原審法官錯誤地指示陪審團這並非控方必須證明的元素。 2. 原審法官對「煽惑猥褻行為」罪的法律指示是否錯誤，因其未有指示陪審團該罪亦要求被告人具有獲取性滿足的意圖。辯方認為，這導致定罪不安全。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭裁定，原審法官在「猥褻行為」罪及「煽惑猥褻行為」罪的法律指示上存在錯誤。法庭分析了英國、澳洲及新西蘭的相關案例，確認「獲取性滿足」的意圖是構成「猥褻行為」罪的必要元素，並非僅為判斷行為是否猥褻的考慮因素。法庭指出，該意圖是將被告行為與兒童聯繫起來的關鍵，否則行為可能僅屬單方面自慰。對於「煽惑猥褻行為」罪，法庭認為其所需意圖應與「猥褻行為」罪相同。儘管原審法官的指示有誤，但上訴法庭運用但書條款（proviso），認為即使陪審團獲得正確指示，亦會得出相同裁決，因為被告未作供，且控方證據顯示其行為與性滿足意圖高度相關，辯方提出的其他解釋（如搔癢）不合理。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用並分析了多個案例，包括英國的R v Francis (1989) 88 Cr App R 127、R v R [1993] Lexis Citation 3119、R v Holmes (Peter) [2023] 4 WLR 13、R v B [2019] WLR 3177，以及香港的The Queen v Jeffrey Savage [1997] HKLRD 428。法庭指出，Savage案中關於「性滿足非必要元素」的說法，是在特定背景下作出，且未經充分辯論，故不應被視為對罪行定義的全面闡述。這些案例共同確立了「獲取性滿足」意圖在相關罪行中的重要性。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回FSL就第四項上訴理由提出的上訴許可申請及相關上訴。對於第一及第二項上訴理由，法庭運用但書條款（proviso）駁回上訴。原審定罪維持不變。 ### 判決啟示 本判決澄清了香港《刑事罪行條例》第146條下「對兒童作出猥褻行為」及「煽惑兒童作出嚴重猥褻行為」兩項罪名中「獲取性滿足」意圖的法律要求。法庭明確指出，該意圖是構成罪行的必要元素，而非僅為判斷行為是否猥褻的考慮因素。這對未來處理類似案件的法律實踐具有指導意義，確保控方在證明這些罪行時，必須證明被告具有此特定意圖。同時，判決也重申了上訴法庭在處理原審法官法律指示錯誤時，運用但書條款的原則。 --- ### 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 F.S.L. - Court: Court of Appeal - Judge: Hon Pang JA, M Poon JA and Anthea Pang JA - Date of Judgment: 27 June 2025 ### Factual Background The applicant, FSL, was charged with four counts of "indecent conduct towards a child under the age of 16 years" and three counts of "inciting a child under the age of 16 years to commit an act of gross indecency," among other charges. After trial, the jury found FSL guilty of four charges (two of indecent conduct and two of inciting indecency) and sentenced him to a total of four years' imprisonment. FSL appealed against conviction, primarily challenging errors in the trial judge's legal directions and questioning the factual findings. The case involved four incidents, three occurring at FSL and the victim X's home, and one in a Macau hotel. The prosecution relied mainly on X's testimony, while the defence questioned X's credibility, suggesting X might have been influenced by his mother to make false accusations. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal questions in dispute were: 1. Whether the trial judge erred in his directions on the law for the offence of "indecent conduct," specifically regarding whether the defendant's intention to obtain "sexual gratification" is a necessary element. The defence argued that this intention is an essential element, which the trial judge incorrectly instructed the jury was not required for the prosecution to prove. 2. Whether the trial judge erred in his directions on the law for the offence of "inciting indecency" by failing to instruct the jury that this offence also requires the defendant to have the intention of obtaining sexual gratification. The defence contended that this rendered the convictions unsafe. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal ruled that the trial judge's directions on the law for both "indecent conduct" and "inciting indecency" were erroneous. The Court analyzed relevant UK, Australian, and New Zealand cases, confirming that the intention to obtain "sexual gratification" is a necessary element for the offence of "indecent conduct," not merely a factor to consider when determining indecency. The Court highlighted that this intention is crucial for establishing a connection between the defendant's actions and the child; otherwise, the act might be mere unilateral self-gratification. For "inciting indecency," the Court held that the required intention should be the same as for "indecent conduct." Despite the trial judge's errors, the Court applied the proviso, concluding that even with correct directions, the jury would inevitably have found FSL guilty, given his failure to testify and the strong evidence linking his actions to an intent for sexual gratification, while the defence's alternative explanations (e.g., scratching an itch) were unreasonable. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment primarily cited and analyzed several cases, including R v Francis (1989) 88 Cr App R 127, R v R [1993] Lexis Citation 3119, R v Holmes (Peter) [2023] 4 WLR 13, and R v B [2019] WLR 3177 from the UK, and The Queen v Jeffrey Savage [1997] HKLRD 428 from Hong Kong. The Court noted that the statement in Savage regarding sexual gratification not being an essential element was made in a specific context and without full argument, thus not a comprehensive definition of the offence. These cases collectively established the importance of the intention to obtain sexual gratification in these offences. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed FSL's application for leave to appeal and the related appeal on Ground 4. For Grounds 1 and 2, the Court dismissed the appeal by applying the proviso. The original convictions were upheld in their entirety. ### Key Takeaways This judgment clarifies the legal requirement of the intention to obtain "sexual gratification" for the offences of "indecent conduct towards a child" and "inciting a child to commit an act of gross indecency" under Section 146 of Hong Kong's Crimes Ordinance. The Court explicitly states that this intention is a necessary element of the offence, not merely a factor for consideration. This provides crucial guidance for future legal practice in similar cases, ensuring that the prosecution must prove this specific intent. The judgment also reaffirms the Court of Appeal's principles for applying the proviso when trial judges make errors in legal directions. --- ### 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.