閉路電視辨認證據的可靠性？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v TAGAO SAUDEE ABAD - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Lunn VP, McWalters JA and Pang JA - 判決日期：2017年5月24日 ### 案情摘要 上訴人TAGAO SAUDEE ABAD在「Play」俱樂部擔任高級主管。控方指控上訴人與同謀串謀獲取真實信用卡資料，並將其複製到被盜信用卡上，然後使用這些偽造信用卡購買可轉售的物品。控方證據包括上訴人手機發送給第二被告的WhatsApp訊息，其中包含信用卡資料；閉路電視錄像顯示上訴人出現在涉嫌欺詐交易的Apple Store；以及上訴人的Visa卡在第二被告住所被發現。上訴人否認參與WhatsApp對話，亦否認閉路電視中的人是他，並聲稱其Visa卡已遺失。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於原審法官是否錯誤地依賴閉路電視錄像來認定上訴人參與了串謀。上訴方認為，閉路電視錄像不足以可靠地識別上訴人，即使能識別，也無法證明上訴人在該處的行為或與何人在一起。控方則認為，所有證據（包括WhatsApp訊息、閉路電視錄像中的相似人物以及上訴人Visa卡在第二被告住所被發現）的累積效應，足以證明上訴人參與了串謀。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭裁定，原審法官在認定閉路電視錄像中的人物為上訴人時犯了錯誤。法庭認為，警員的辨認證供不可靠，而原審法官自行辨認亦有缺陷，因為閉路電視錄像的影像質量不足以進行可靠的面部識別，且法官未能詳細說明上訴人外貌的「獨特之處」。由於原審法官的裁決過度依賴此錯誤的事實認定，導致對第二項控罪（串謀使用虛假文書）的定罪不穩妥。然而，對於第一項控罪（串謀製造虛假文書），法庭認為WhatsApp訊息本身已構成足夠證據，故引用但書條款維持定罪。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多宗關於辨認證據的案例，包括英國上訴法庭的 Attorney General’s Reference (No 2 of 2002) 案，該案列出了四種證明被告在照片或錄像中的方法。香港上訴法庭在 HKSAR v Lau Tat Keung Milky [1999] 4 HKC 662 及 HKSAR v Ng Siu Kam (CACC 474/2009) 案中亦採納了這些原則。此外，法庭還引用了 Yuen Kwai Choi v HKSAR (2003) 6 HKCFAR 113 案，闡述了《刑事訴訟程序條例》第83(1)條但書條款的適用標準。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭裁定上訴人就串謀使用虛假文書的第二項控罪上訴得直，撤銷該項定罪。至於串謀製造虛假文書的第一項控罪，上訴法庭運用但書條款，駁回上訴，維持原判。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調了法庭在處理閉路電視辨認證據時的嚴謹性要求，特別是當法官自行進行辨認時，必須詳細說明辨認的依據，並警惕誤認的風險。即使有其他間接證據，若關鍵證據的認定存在嚴重缺陷，仍可能導致定罪不穩妥。同時，本案也重申了但書條款在刑事上訴中的適用原則，即在沒有實際造成司法不公的情況下，即使原審存在錯誤，上訴法庭仍可維持定罪。 --- ### 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 TAGAO SAUDEE ABAD - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Lunn VP, McWalters JA and Pang JA - Date of Judgment: 24 May 2017 ### Factual Background The appellant, TAGAO SAUDEE ABAD, was a senior supervisor at the "Play" Club. The prosecution alleged that the appellant conspired with co-conspirators to obtain genuine credit card details, copy them onto stolen credit cards, and then use these false instruments to purchase items for resale. Prosecution evidence included WhatsApp messages from the appellant's phone to D2 containing credit card data, CCTV footage showing the appellant at the Apple Store during an alleged fraudulent transaction, and the appellant's Visa card found at D2's residence. The appellant denied involvement in the WhatsApp conversations and denied being the person in the CCTV footage, claiming his Visa card was lost. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the trial judge erred in relying on CCTV footage to find the appellant's involvement in the conspiracies. The appellant argued that the CCTV footage was unreliable for identification and, even if reliable, did not conclusively show his actions or associates. The prosecution contended that the cumulative effect of all evidence, including WhatsApp messages, the appellant's resemblance in CCTV, and his Visa card found at D2's residence, provided compelling proof of his participation. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in identifying the appellant from the CCTV footage. The court held that the police officer's recognition evidence was unreliable, and the judge's self-identification was flawed because the CCTV image quality was insufficient for reliable facial recognition, and the judge failed to specify what made the appellant's appearance "distinctive." This erroneous factual finding, heavily relied upon by the judge, rendered the conviction for the second charge (conspiracy to use false instruments) unsafe. However, for the first charge (conspiracy to make false instruments), the court found the WhatsApp messages alone constituted sufficient evidence and applied the proviso to uphold the conviction. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment cited several cases on identification evidence, including the English Court of Appeal's Attorney General’s Reference (No 2 of 2002), which outlined four methods of proving a defendant is pictured in footage or photos. These principles were adopted in Hong Kong in HKSAR v Lau Tat Keung Milky [1999] 4 HKC 662 and HKSAR v Ng Siu Kam (CACC 474/2009). Additionally, Yuen Kwai Choi v HKSAR (2003) 6 HKCFAR 113 was cited regarding the application of the proviso under section 83(1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal for the second charge of conspiracy to use false instruments, quashing that conviction. For the first charge of conspiracy to make false instruments, the court applied the proviso and dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction. ### Key Takeaways This case underscores the stringent requirements for judicial identification from CCTV footage, especially when a judge undertakes self-identification. Judges must clearly articulate the basis for identification and be wary of misidentification risks. Even with other circumstantial evidence, a significant flaw in the identification of key evidence can render a conviction unsafe. The case also reaffirms the application of the proviso in criminal appeals, allowing convictions to stand despite errors if no miscarriage of justice has actually occurred. --- ### 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.