藐視法庭，少年犯能判監？？申請獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：律政司司長 訴 周蘊瑩 及 其他 (SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v CHAU WAN YING AND OTHERS) - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：陳慶偉法官 (Hon Andrew Chan J) - 判決日期：2018年1月17日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及2014年「佔領運動」期間，多名被告因違反禁制令，阻礙旺角清場行動而被控藐視法庭 (contempt of court)。律政司司長 (Secretary for Justice) 申請對他們發出羈押令 (Order of Committal)。部分被告承認責任，部分則經審訊後被裁定罪成。法庭需就各被告的參與程度、個人情況及法律爭議（特別是《刑事訴訟程序條例》第109A條的適用性）作出判刑。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於《刑事訴訟程序條例》第109A條（關於對16至21歲年輕人判處監禁的限制）是否適用於刑事藐視法庭 (criminal contempt) 的判刑。被告方爭辯該條例適用，並引用《香港人權法案》第6(3)及11(3)條支持其論點，認為應盡量避免對年輕被告判處監禁。律政司司長則認為該條例不適用於藐視法庭程序。 ### 判決理由 法官裁定《刑事訴訟程序條例》第109A條不適用於本案的藐視法庭程序。法官援引上訴法庭在 Secretary for Justice v Cheung Kai Yin [2016] 4 HKLRD 367 (CA) 一案中的判決，該判決明確指出，源於民事訴訟禁制令執行的藐視法庭程序，即使屬刑事藐視法庭，仍屬民事性質。由於第109A條僅適用於原訟法庭行使其刑事司法管轄權 (criminal jurisdiction) 的情況，因此不適用於本案。法官亦駁回了被告方引用《香港人權法案》的論點，認為其主要目的在於懲教制度和處理青少年罪犯的程序，而非限制法官的判刑權力。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用了以下案例： - Secretary for Justice v Cheung Kai Yin [2016] 4 HKLRD 367 (CA)：上訴法庭的判決，確立了源於民事禁制令的藐視法庭程序屬民事性質，對本案具約束力。 - Morris and Others v Crown Office [1970] 2 QB 114：英國案例，指出與《刑事訴訟程序條例》第109A條類似的條文不適用於刑事藐視法庭程序。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭對各被告作出了不同判決： - 承認責任的被告（周蘊瑩、朱緯圇、張啟康、蔡達誠）：判處1個月監禁，緩刑12個月，部分人另罰款10,000港元。 - 經審訊後罪成的被告（朱佩欣、郭陽煜、關兆宏、熊卓倫、馮啟禧、麥盈湘）：判處6星期監禁，緩刑12個月，部分人另罰款15,000港元。 - 司徒子朗：判處6星期監禁，緩刑18個月，罰款10,000港元。 - 趙志深、陳寶瑩：判處2個月監禁，緩刑18個月，罰款15,000港元。 - 黃之鋒：判處3個月即時監禁。 - 黃浩銘：判處4個月15天即時監禁。 所有被告須向律政司司長支付訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了香港法律中刑事藐視法庭程序的性質，即使涉及刑事元素，若源於民事禁制令，其本質仍屬民事。這對《刑事訴訟程序條例》中某些僅適用於刑事司法管轄權的條文（如第109A條）的適用性產生重要影響。判決亦強調了法庭在政治運動中維護公共秩序和市民權利的職責，即使這可能涉及對年輕示威者判處監禁。 --- ### 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: SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v CHAU WAN YING AND OTHERS - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Andrew Chan J - Date of Judgment: 17 January 2018 ### Factual Background This case concerns multiple defendants charged with contempt of court for obstructing the clearance operation in Mong Kok during the 2014 "Occupy Movement," in violation of an injunction order. The Secretary for Justice applied for an Order of Committal against them. Some defendants admitted liability, while others were found guilty after trial. The court had to determine sentencing based on each defendant's level of involvement, personal circumstances, and legal arguments, particularly regarding the applicability of Section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue in this case was whether Section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (which restricts imprisonment for young persons aged 16 to 21) applies to sentencing for criminal contempt of court. The defence argued for its applicability, citing Articles 6(3) and 11(3) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, contending that imprisonment should be avoided for young defendants. The Secretary for Justice argued that the section does not apply to contempt proceedings. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge ruled that Section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance does not apply to the contempt proceedings in this case. The judge relied on the Court of Appeal's decision in Secretary for Justice v Cheung Kai Yin [2016] 4 HKLRD 367 (CA), which held that contempt proceedings stemming from the execution of injunction orders granted in civil proceedings remain civil in nature, even if they are for criminal contempt. Since Section 109A applies only when the Court of First Instance exercises its criminal jurisdiction, it was deemed inapplicable. The judge also dismissed arguments based on the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, stating their primary objectives relate to the correctional system and procedures for juvenile offenders, not restricting judicial sentencing powers. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The key precedents cited in this case were: - Secretary for Justice v Cheung Kai Yin [2016] 4 HKLRD 367 (CA): A Court of Appeal decision binding on this court, establishing that contempt proceedings arising from civil injunctions are civil in nature. - Morris and Others v Crown Office [1970] 2 QB 114: An English case indicating that a provision similar to Section 109A does not apply to criminal contempt proceedings. ### Decision & Orders The court issued various orders for the defendants: - Defendants who admitted liability (Chau Wan Ying, Chu Wai Lun, Cheung Kai Hong, Choi Tat Shing): Sentenced to 1 month imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, with some also fined HK$10,000. - Defendants found guilty after trial (Chu Pui Yan, Kwok Yeung Yuk, Kwan Siu Wang, Hung Cheuk Lun, Fung Kai Hei, Mak Ying Sheung): Sentenced to 6 weeks imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, with some also fined HK$15,000. - Szeto Tze Long Jason: Sentenced to 6 weeks imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, and fined HK$10,000. - Chiu Chi Sum, Chan Po Ying: Sentenced to 2 months imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, and fined HK$15,000. - Wong Chi Fung: Sentenced to 3 months immediate imprisonment. - Wong Ho Ming: Sentenced to 4 months and 15 days immediate imprisonment. All defendants were ordered to pay costs to the Secretary for Justice. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the civil nature of criminal contempt proceedings in Hong Kong when they arise from civil injunctions, even with criminal elements. This has significant implications for the applicability of statutory provisions, like Section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, which are limited to criminal jurisdiction. The ruling also underscores the court's role in upholding public order and citizens' rights during political movements, even if it entails imposing custodial sentences on young protesters. --- ### 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.