專家證供可靠？法官提問恰當？？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 Y.H.M. - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：楊振權副庭長、張澤祐法官、潘兆初法官 - 判決日期：2017年3月23日 ### 案情摘要 申請人Y.H.M.被控兩項非禮罪，涉及兩名年幼的姨甥女X（姊姊）和Y（妹妹）。控方指申請人分別在2002年至2004年間非禮當時約5歲的妹妹和約12歲的姊姊。兩名受害人均指控申請人有猥褻行為，並向家人投訴。申請人否認控罪，辯稱身體接觸屬意外，並指兩名受害人患有「共有性妄想症」，其證供不可靠。辯方傳召精神科醫生黃重光作專家證人，黃醫生在未檢驗受害人的情況下，根據資料判斷她們患有妄想症。原審法官裁定申請人兩項罪名成立，判處監禁33個月。申請人不服定罪及判刑，提出上訴。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議包括：妹妹的「新近投訴」(recent complaint)證據是否可呈堂；控方專家證人黎醫生作供次序是否恰當；原審法官在黃醫生作供時是否過度參與詢問，導致審訊不公；原審法官否定黃醫生精神科專家證供的裁決是否合理；以及姊姊和妹妹的證供是否誠實可靠。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭維持原審法官的裁決。法庭認為，辯方在原審時未有反對妹妹的「新近投訴」呈堂，且承認其投訴，故上訴理由不成立。關於專家證人作供次序，法庭認為控方在無合理基礎預見證人患精神病的情況下，待辯方專家作供後才傳召反駁證人是合理且公平的。法庭亦認為原審法官對黃醫生的詢問旨在理解其意見基礎及測試其可靠性，並無失中立。原審法官否定黃醫生證供是基於其診斷方法粗疏、不客觀且缺乏足夠理據，此裁決獲上訴庭認同。最終，法庭認定兩名受害人證供誠實可靠，定罪穩妥。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多個案例，包括： - White v The Queen [1991] 1 AC 210 及 Leung Chi Keung v HKSAR (2004) 7 HKCFAR 526，確立「新近投訴」證據只與受害人可信性有關，不構成支持罪行的證據。 - R v Scott [1984] 79 Cr App R 49，關於控方舉證次序的原則。 - Toohey v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1965] AC 595，確立醫療證據可呈堂以顯示證人精神狀況影響其證供可靠性。 - R v Robinson [1994] 3 All ER 346，關於控方傳召專家證人反駁辯方專家證人的權利。 - R v Yeung Mau Lam [1991] 2 HKLR 468，關於法官詢問證人是否恰當的原則。 - Anderson v R [1972] AC 100、Taylor v R (1978) 22 ALR 599 及 Walton v R [1978] AC 788，關於法庭處理專家證供的原則。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回申請人就定罪及判刑提出的上訴許可申請，維持原審法官的定罪及33個月監禁的判刑。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了專家證人應保持客觀中立，不應扮演訴訟律師的角色，其診斷應基於全面、準確和客觀的資料。法庭對黃醫生在未檢驗受害人情況下作出診斷，並指控姑婆和姑丈公對受害人施加不當影響的行為表示遺憾，認為其表現未能達到法庭對專家證人的專業要求。這對未來涉及精神科專家證供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 Y.H.M. - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Yeung VP, Hon Cheung JA, Hon Poon JA - Date of Judgment: 23 March 2017 ### Factual Background The applicant, Y.H.M., was charged with two counts of indecent assault involving his two young nieces, X (elder sister) and Y (younger sister). The prosecution alleged that the applicant indecently assaulted the younger sister, then aged about 5, and the elder sister, then aged about 12, between 2002 and 2004. Both victims accused the applicant of indecent acts and reported them to family members. The applicant denied the charges, claiming the physical contact was accidental and that the victims suffered from "folie à deux" (shared delusional disorder), rendering their testimony unreliable. The defence called psychiatrist Dr. Wong Chung Kwong as an expert witness, who, without examining the victims, concluded they suffered from delusional disorder based on available information. The trial judge convicted the applicant on both counts and sentenced him to 33 months' imprisonment. The applicant appealed against conviction and sentence. ### Key Legal Issues The key legal issues included: whether the younger sister's "recent complaint" evidence was admissible; the appropriateness of the prosecution's expert witness, Dr. Lai, testifying after the defence's expert; whether the trial judge's extensive questioning of Dr. Wong during his testimony led to an unfair trial; the reasonableness of the trial judge's rejection of Dr. Wong's psychiatric expert evidence; and the honesty and reliability of the elder and younger sisters' testimonies. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision. The court found that the defence had not objected to the admission of the younger sister's "recent complaint" evidence at trial and had conceded her complaint, thus dismissing this ground of appeal. Regarding the order of expert testimony, the court ruled it was reasonable and fair for the prosecution to call a rebuttal expert after the defence's expert, given no reasonable basis to foresee the victims' mental illness. The court also found the trial judge's questioning of Dr. Wong was aimed at understanding the basis of his opinions and testing their reliability, not demonstrating bias. The trial judge's rejection of Dr. Wong's evidence was affirmed, citing his superficial, unobjective diagnostic methods and lack of sufficient grounds. Ultimately, the court found the victims' testimonies to be honest and reliable, confirming the safety of the convictions. ### Key Precedents & Statutes Several precedents were cited: White v The Queen [1991] 1 AC 210 and Leung Chi Keung v HKSAR (2004) 7 HKCFAR 526, establishing that "recent complaint" evidence relates only to the victim's credibility, not proof of the offence. R v Scott [1984] 79 Cr App R 49, concerning the order of prosecution evidence. Toohey v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1965] AC 595, on the admissibility of medical evidence to show a witness's mental condition affecting reliability. R v Robinson [1994] 3 All ER 346, on the prosecution's right to call rebuttal expert witnesses. R v Yeung Mau Lam [1991] 2 HKLR 468, on the appropriateness of judicial questioning. Anderson v R [1972] AC 100, Taylor v R (1978) 22 ALR 599, and Walton v R [1978] AC 788, on principles for courts to assess expert evidence. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, upholding the trial judge's convictions and the 33-month imprisonment sentence. ### Key Takeaways This case reaffirms that expert witnesses must remain objective and neutral, not acting as advocates. Their diagnoses should be based on comprehensive, accurate, and objective information. The court expressed regret over Dr. Wong's unprofessional and unreliable conduct, particularly his diagnosis without examining the victims and his unsubstantiated accusations against other family members. This judgment provides important guidance for future cases involving psychiatric expert testimony. --- ### 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.