虛假聲明罪的犯罪意圖與法律錯誤？撤銷定罪

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v SHUM WAI KEE (岑偉基) - 法院：終審法院 (Court of Final Appeal, CFA) - 法官：馬道立首席法官、列顯倫常任法官、霍兆剛常任法官、張舉能常任法官及賀輔明非常任法官 - 判決日期：2019年1月10日 ### 案情摘要 上訴人岑偉基於2007年因欺詐罪被判監禁。2013年，他申請註冊成為登記護士，並在聲明書中勾選「未曾」被判處監禁式罪行。然而，根據《罪行條例》第37(a)條，他被控作出虛假聲明以獲取註冊。上訴人辯稱，他真誠相信根據《罪犯自新條例》(Rehabilitation of Offenders Ordinance, ROO) 的規定，他無需披露其過往定罪記錄，此信念是基於他前妻范小姐代表他向當值律師服務的免費法律諮詢計劃尋求的法律意見。初審裁判官和原訟法庭暫委法官均不接納上訴人的解釋，認為他明知故犯，因此裁定他罪名成立。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於《罪行條例》第37(a)條所訂罪行的犯罪意圖 (mens rea) 為何，特別是條文中的「明知虛假或具欺詐性」應如何詮釋。控方認為，只要上訴人知道自己有前科卻聲明沒有，其聲稱的錯誤信念與此無關。上訴人則爭辯，控方必須證明他理解其聲明的虛假性質，並在明知其虛假的情況下作出聲明。此外，上訴人亦爭議下級法院在評估其法律意見證據時存在重大誤解，導致判決不公。 ### 判決理由 終審法院裁定，《罪行條例》第37(a)條的犯罪意圖要求控方證明被告人理解其所作聲明的虛假性。如果被告人真誠相信其聲明並非虛假，即使該信念是源於對法律的錯誤理解，亦不構成所需的犯罪意圖。法院強調，法律錯誤在某些情況下可構成抗辯理由，尤其當法律條文的解釋直接影響聲明是否「虛假」的事實判斷時。本案中，由於《罪犯自新條例》的適用性直接影響上訴人是否需要披露其定罪記錄，因此他對該條例的理解至關重要。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用。 ### 裁決與命令 終審法院裁定上訴得直，撤銷上訴人的定罪。法院命令答辯人支付上訴人在初審和本上訴中的訟費，如未能達成協議則須評定。法院認為，下級法院對上訴人所獲法律意見的證據存在重大誤解，導致對其真誠信念的錯誤判斷。 ### 判決啟示 本判決澄清了《罪行條例》第37(a)條中「明知虛假或具欺詐性」的犯罪意圖，指出被告人對聲明虛假性的理解至關重要，即使是法律錯誤導致的真誠信念，亦可構成抗辯理由。這對涉及專業註冊申請中披露義務的案件具有重要意義，強調了對法律條文的正確理解和法律意見的重要性。 --- ### 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 SHUM WAI KEE - Court: Court of Final Appeal (CFA) - Judge: Chief Justice Ma, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Fok PJ, Mr Justice Cheung PJ and Lord Hoffmann NPJ - Date of Judgment: 10 January 2019 ### Factual Background The appellant, Shum Wai Kee, was convicted of deception in 2007. In 2013, he applied for enrolment as an enrolled nurse and declared in the application form that he had "not been" convicted of any imprisonable offence. He was subsequently charged under section 37(a) of the Crimes Ordinance for making a false declaration to obtain registration. The appellant contended that he genuinely believed he was not required to disclose his previous convictions due to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Ordinance (ROO), based on legal advice sought by his ex-wife from the Free Legal Advice Scheme. Both the Deputy Magistrate and the Deputy Judge of the Court of First Instance disbelieved the appellant's explanation, finding him to have wilfully made a false declaration, and thus convicted him. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question in dispute is the mental element (mens rea) of the offence under section 37(a) of the Crimes Ordinance, specifically the interpretation of "knows to be false or fraudulent." The prosecution argued that the appellant's knowledge of his previous convictions, despite his declaration, was sufficient, and his claimed mistaken belief was irrelevant. The appellant contended that the prosecution must prove he appreciated the false character of his declaration and made it knowing its falsity. Additionally, the appellant argued that the lower courts materially misapprehended the evidence regarding the legal advice he received, leading to a miscarriage of justice. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Final Appeal held that the mental element of the offence under section 37(a) requires the prosecution to prove that the defendant had an appreciation of the falsity of the declaration. If the defendant honestly believed that the declaration was not false, even if this belief resulted from a mistake of law, the necessary mental element for the offence would not be established. The Court emphasized that a mistake of law can provide a defence when the interpretation of a legal provision directly impacts the factual determination of whether a statement is "false." In this case, the applicability of the ROO directly affected whether the appellant was required to disclose his convictions, making his understanding of the ordinance crucial. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Final Appeal allowed the appellant's appeal and quashed his conviction. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of trial and of this appeal, to be taxed if not agreed. The Court found that the lower courts materially misapprehended the evidence concerning the legal advice obtained by the appellant, leading to a flawed assessment of his genuine belief. ### Key Takeaways This judgment clarifies the mens rea of "knows to be false or fraudulent" under section 37(a) of the Crimes Ordinance, stating that a defendant's appreciation of the falsity of the declaration is essential. An honest and genuine belief, even if based on a mistake of law, can constitute a defence. This has significant implications for cases involving disclosure obligations in professional registration applications, highlighting the importance of correct legal interpretation and legal advice. --- ### 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.