DCCC643/2018

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v Tsui Shui Po - 法院：區域法院 (DC) - 法官：D Yau - 判決日期：2019年4月10日 ### 案情摘要 被告是位於楊屋山村的一間分間房房東。租客 Hung 先生及其同伴在2017年11月中旬離開單位數日，返回後發現門鎖被更換且財物被清空。警方在被告家中發現一台屬於 Hung 先生的電視機，而其餘財物則被放置在一個有鎖的公共院子中。被告被指控入屋犯法並盜竊包括現金3萬港元及電子產品在內的財物。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案核心 legal issue 為：(1) 被告進入單位時是否構成 trespasser；(2) 被告是否具有 dishonesty 及 intention to permanently deprive 而構成盜竊。控方主張被告非法強行驅逐租客並盜取財物；被告則辯稱控方未能證明財物確實存在，且其行為缺乏盜竊意圖。 ### 判決理由 法官認為，關於 trespasser 的認定，必須證明被告具有 mens rea，即知道或魯莽地意識到其進入超過了許可範圍。由於租客欠租且失蹤，被告合理相信自己有權清空單位，存在另一種合理推論，故不能認定其為 trespasser。關於盜竊，法官指出 Hung 先生證詞不可信（如3萬現金存放方式極不合理），且被告將電視放在客廳顯眼處及將其餘財物留在安全院內，不符合 thief 的行為邏輯，缺乏 dishonesty 及永久剝奪意圖。 ### 引用案例與條文 引用 Archbold Hong Kong 2019 定義刑事 context 下 "unlawfully" 意指 "without lawful justification or excuse"；引用 R v Christopher Smith John Jones 確立刑事 trespass 必須包含 mens rea。 ### 裁決與命令 被告獲判無罪 (Acquitted)。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調在刑事案件中，若對被告的 state of mind 存在兩種合理推論且其中一種有利於被告，法院不得採取不利推論。同時，房東因欠租而強行清空單位的行為，在缺乏盜竊意圖的情況下，未必構成刑事上的 burglary。 --- ### 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 Tsui Shui Po - Court: District Court (DC) - Judge: D Yau - Date of Judgment: 10 April 2019 ### Factual Background The defendant, a landlord, was charged with burglary after the occupant, Mr. Hung, returned to his rented sub-divided unit to find the locks changed and his belongings removed. Police found a television belonging to the victim in the defendant's living room, while other items were left in a secured courtyard. The prosecution alleged the defendant entered as a trespasser and stole various items, including $30,000 cash. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issues were whether the defendant entered the premises as a trespasser and whether he dishonestly appropriated the property with the intention to permanently deprive the owner. The prosecution argued the eviction was unlawful and the appropriation was theft, while the defense challenged the credibility of the victim and the existence of dishonest intent. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge ruled that for a criminal trespass, the prosecution must prove mens rea—that the defendant knew or was reckless about exceeding his permission. Given the non-payment of rent, the defendant reasonably believed he had the right to clear the unit. Regarding theft, the judge found the victim's testimony regarding the $30,000 cash implausible. Furthermore, leaving stolen goods in plain sight in his own home and in a secured courtyard contradicted the behavior of a thief, negating dishonesty and the intention to permanently deprive. ### Key Precedents & Statutes Cited Archbold Hong Kong 2019 regarding the definition of "unlawfully" as "without lawful justification or excuse," and R v Christopher Smith John Jones regarding the necessity of mens rea for criminal trespass. ### Decision & Orders The defendant was acquitted of the charge. ### Key Takeaways The judgment underscores that where two reasonable inferences can be drawn regarding a defendant's state of mind, the one in favor of the defendant must prevail. It also highlights that a landlord's self-help eviction for rent arrears may not constitute burglary if there is no dishonest intent to steal. --- ### 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.