|
HCMA 385/2022
[2023] HKCFI 2556
香港特別行政區
高等法院原訟法庭
刑事上訴司法管轄權
定罪及判刑上訴
裁判法院上訴案件2022年第385號
(原沙田裁判法院定額罰款(交通違例)傳票案件2022年第53號)
____________________
____________________
| 聆訊日期 ： |
2023年7月21日 |
| 判案書日期： |
2023年10月10日 |
判案書
1. 上訴人在暫委裁判官席前面對一張傳票指控，告發內容指稱他「在2022年2月24日下午4時51分於美環街近燈柱FB5089號，身為在道路上展示登記號碼 SG5627 的私家車的司機，無合理辯解而違反《道路交通（交通管制）規例》（第374G章）122號圖形所示類型的交通標誌所顯示的規定，該交通標誌是：不准右轉」。
2. 上訴人否認指控，審訊後被裁定罪成，罰款2,000，現提出定罪及判刑上訴。上訴人在原審及上訴聆訊均親自行事，在原審時候選擇以英語審訊，獲裁判官接納，因此裁判官的裁斷陳述書以英語撰寫。上訴人在上訴聆訊前傳檔的上訴文件均以中文撰寫，在庭上確認可以透過粵語口譯員以普通話陳詞，因此本判案書以中文撰寫。上訴人能操流利英語，本席在引述裁判官判詞時將不作翻譯。
案情
3. 案發路段單線雙程行車，即對頭車輛各自有一條行車線。南面行車路左方是愉景新城商場停車場出入口，北面行車路左方行人道停車場出入口對出豎立了一個「不准右轉」交通標誌。此外，在南面行車線旁的行人道上，面對著北行車線也有一個「不准右轉」標誌。
4. 兩條行車線間停車場對出段落由一段雙白線分隔，長度約為停車場出入口大部份闊度（見原審控方證物P5草圖及辯方證物D1文件中「圖二」，彩色版本由上訴人在上訴聆訊中提供）。上訴人涉嫌在案發日下午4時許駕駛車輛從北行線違反標誌右轉進入停車場出入口。
5. 控方只傳召一名證人，裁判官如下撮述其供詞：
「4. Prosecution called 1 witness, police officer PC24747 (“PW1”). PW1 joined police force in march 2017, attached to new territories south region traffic control unit, on 24/2/2022 he was on duty; 4:51pm at mei wan street discovery park carpark; PW1 was with his colleague PC23605; PW1 was conducting traffic control operation at security stand of carpark at the address above; that was to observe and combat any traffic violation; traffic violation occurs at the entrance of discovery carpark; PW 1 was observing traffic traveling along mei wan street towards Kowloon direction; mei wan street is two lanes two way road; PW1 observed at that time he saw a BMW private car traveling mei wan street towards Kowloon then turned right into the entrance of discovery park; on both side of pavement at the entrance of discovery bay carpark, there are two traffic signs no right turn erected there; after the vehicle went past these 2 traffic signs it turned right immediately and committed traffic violation; One side of mei wan street is Kowloon bound, the other side towards tseun wan police station new territories bound; PW1’s observation point is closer to new territories side; in the middle of the road there was a continues double white line in between; PW1 walked from security guard to the gate to intercept the vehicle; after intercepting, PW1 indicated the driver that it should head to carriageway leading to off-loading area and stopped. The purpose was to not block other users going in and out; PW1 was wearing uniform; The driver did drive following PW1’s instruction; the driver stopped at the carriageway leading to the off-loading area, PW1 told the driver about the violation - his failing to comply with traffic sign; the driver replied he couldn’t see the traffic sign; PW1 then brought this driver to mei wan street entrance of discovery carpark to have a look at the two no right turn traffic signs; they are located both side of pavement of mei wan street; before PW1 brought the driver to have a look at traffic sign, PW1 requested him to produce his driving license and issued him a fixed penalty ticket; that is 570 is booklet of ticket for traffic contravention; PW1 issued that 570 to driver; code 26 means failing to comply traffic sign; that is a no right turn traffic sign;…」(原文)
6. 上訴人選擇出庭作供自辯，裁判官如下撮述他的供詞：
「9. On the material time, the defendant testified that he was trying to enter discovery park carpark, he was trying to pick up something from nan fung center, he just finished his shopping from tseun wan plaza, he was traveling mei wan street that he needed to turn right to carpark.
10. The defendant testified that when he was approaching this discovery park, he was distracted by 2 police motorcycles, near the 5-10 metres away FB5089, he was in high alert, at the same time, he was not alert there is a change of sign from U Turn to NO RIGHT TURN, the defendant was in high alert he was distracted because there were 2 police motorcycles, and there used to be a no u turn sign , the defendant noticed something different; it used to be center broken line and they have extended to double white lines.
11. The Defendant testified that at that material time, he was trying driving slowly to avoid the white line, then he took a quasi u turn, mini u turn, 270 degrees and then he drove to carpark, he tapped octopus and entered, police officer appeared he then realized something have happened, he didn’t aware of the sign and questioned when did that the change happen? The Defendant testified that there was no announcement, that he was totally unaware, that there was no consultation from home affairs office, that he lives in Sham Tseng he was unable to know that government has set record.
12. The Defendant described that’s a honeypot for traffic police, the Defendant criticizes police officer has received a very bad training and not qualified and traffic department has not done a proper job.」（原文）
裁判官拒絕接納上訴人供詞的裁斷
7. 裁判官在裁定接納控方證人警員供詞後如下處理上訴人的供詞：
「14. I am aware that the Defendant is a person with a clear record but mistake of law is no defence and I do not accept that the Defendant was honestly and reasonably confused by change of signs at the material time, therefore I rejected his evidence.
15. I found that the Defendant must have known the no right turn sign was there, and what it looked like since it’s been there and always there for 4 years, it is clear, visible but the Defendant chose not to comply with what the sign meant.
16. I found that rather than being honestly and reasonably confused by changes of the sign, the Defendant had willfully neglected the no right turn sign at the material time.
17. I am not satisfied that the evidence adduced by the Defendant could constitute evidence capable of raising a reasonable belief that the circumstances of his conduct were such that if true, liability would not have attached to him.
18. I found that the Defendant was actually making a RIGHT TURN, and not a QUSAI U-TURN at the material time because obviously his destination on the material day was going into the carpark of discovery park, if the Defendant was making a U Turn, he should be traveling along mei wan street new territories bound because that’s what a U-TURN meant. The Defendant describing it as a 270 degrees, QUSAI U-TURN is just his way of saying it trying to avoid admitting that he was actually making a RIGHT TURN;
19. I rejected all the criticisms and accusations raised by the defendant regarding the conducts of PW1.」（原文）
8. 裁判官裁定上訴人罪成，考慮到他年紀，初犯，但是審訊後被定罪及沒有悔意，自從2018年失業後依靠與他育有一個4歲女兒的太太工作支持家庭，罰款2,000元。
上訴理據
定罪上訴
9. 上訴人指裁判官錯誤接納警員有關上訴人直接從美環街右轉進入停車場出入口的供詞，及錯誤理解並錯誤拒絕接納上訴人有關他是在超越了雙白線後才掉頭然後左轉進入停車場的供詞。
判刑上訴
10. 上訴人沒有提出具體判刑上訴理據，只是認為裁判官誤判，因此他不應被罰。
討論
11. 裁判官的陳述書中撮述上訴人指自己進行了270度的擬似掉頭(quasi-U-turn)的供詞。
12. 然而，270度即180度掉頭後再繼續向同一方向多轉90度，即等同於上訴人直接在原本行車線左轉90度。事實上，上訴人也在自己的書面陳詞中錯誤形容自己當時是作出了「360度掉頭+90度左轉」。360度掉頭就是返回原位，90度左轉就是向相反於停車場出入口方向轉彎。
13. 本席認為正確理解上訴人的庭上供詞應該是他在向右完成了180度掉頭進入對面行車線後隨即再左轉90度進入停車場進出口，而不是作出了同一方向的270度的掉頭，更不是360度掉頭加90度左轉。
14. 案件以並非上訴人母語的英語進行，上訴檔案中沒有原審時候證人供詞的謄本，裁判官的判詞也沒有提及上訴人有否及如何向控方警員指出他「270度」掉頭的案情。裁判官沒有在陳述書中指出上訴人這部份供詞的繆誤，沒有如本席一般澄清上訴人的庭上供詞。
15. 根據獲裁判官接納為真確的控方證人警員的P5草圖，用來顯示上訴人車輛移動路線的虛線沒有超越雙白線，而警員證人供詞中也沒有提及上訴人車輛曾經跨越雙白線。
16. 此外，裁判官撮述的供詞中只提及警員在卸貨區向上訴人表示他違反了禁止右轉的交通標誌，而警員當時發出的吿票也只紀錄上訴人違反禁止右轉交通標誌。
17. 因此，所有證供均支持上訴人沒有在右轉或掉頭期間跨越雙白線的說法。
18. 上訴人庭上供詞指他在駛向停車場入口途中距離涉案燈柱約5-10米時候已經留意到有警員電單車停泊在附近，也留意到兩條行車線中間的，過去是虛線的分隔線已經變了雙白線。上訴人因此而特別留心不去違反交通條例是人之常情。
19. 雖然裁判官在陳述書第14段中裁定她拒絕接納上訴人的證供，但是以本席所能夠理解，裁判官在以上撮述的陳述書第14至18段中只是在處理上訴人是否有合理辯解去違反不准右轉標誌，而沒有解釋為何不接納上訴人供詞屬實。
20. 裁判官在第18段中指出，上訴人當時目的是要駕駛車輛進入停車場，所以他必定是右轉，因為若他掉頭的話就不可以進入停車場。
21. 然而，裁判官似乎忽略了上訴人目的不是掉頭進入對面行車線後繼續前行，上訴人掉頭的理由是為了在不超越雙白線的情況下進入停車場。
22. 本席認為裁判官沒有正確處理上訴人的供詞，沒有解釋為何不接納上訴人有關他刻意慢駛經過雙白線後掉頭這說法。基於以上提及的事項，本席認為若正確分析證據，上訴人有關說法應該被裁定為屬實或可能屬實。
23. 若接受上訴人在超越了雙白線後才掉頭這說法屬實或可能屬實，下一個需要考慮的議題就是上訴人掉頭的過程中有否違反不准右轉交通標誌，並因而需要進一步考慮標誌管轄範圍這議題。
標誌管轄範圍
24. 根據辯方呈堂的文件中的圖片二，兩個禁止右轉的標誌擺放位置明顯地只是針對涉案停車場入口。
25. 此外，運輸署署長由吳家偉先生代行發出一封日期為2022年9月26日的電郵，確認停車場入口對出北面行人路的「不准右轉」標誌於2018年12月豎立，而南面行人路的「 不准右轉」標誌則於2020年11月豎立，用途是「進一步加強對駕駛人士的提示及警告」，並回覆上訴人查詢「不准右轉」標誌的適用範圍[1]，指出涉案「不准右轉」標誌的適用範圍「就只是進入愉景新城商場停車場的兩條相連行車線」。吳先生也告知上訴人運輸署正就加設交通圓柱筒及延長現有連續雙白線進行地區諮詢。
26. 綜合以上，涉案不准右轉標誌的管轄範圍應被理解為只覆蓋停車場進出口位置。
27. 根據辯方證物中的現場照片圖二所顯示的雙白線長度，在上訴人供詞有可能屬實的基礎下，如要在不跨越雙白線大前提之下掉頭，上訴人的車輛應該已經超越了停車場出口闊度，也因而有可能已經超越了兩個禁止右轉標誌所管轄的停車場進出口位置。
28. 在這事實基礎下，上訴人可以被視為在越過了管轄停車場出入口的不准右轉標誌後才右轉進行掉頭，因而有可能未有違反該不准右轉標誌。
29. 裁判官沒有在陳述書中處理上訴人掉頭或右轉的位置，沒有考慮涉案禁止右轉標誌的覆蓋範圍。若裁判官有機會考慮這議題，裁判官的定罪裁決有可能不同。
30. 裁判法院上訴以重審形式進行，本席在正確理解上訴人供詞及答辯立場後認為上訴人有關在超越了雙白線後才掉頭的說法可能屬實，基於以上分析，若接受涉案不准右轉標誌只管轄停車場入口範圍，而上訴人掉頭的位置可能已經超越入口範圍，則上訴人是否違反了該標誌存有合理疑點。
31. 因此，本席裁定上訴人定罪上訴得直，撤銷定罪及相關罰款。
32. 上訴人在聆訊中表明即使勝訴也不會申請訟費，因此不作訟費命令。
答辯人：由律政司高級檢控官鄧芷琳女士代表。
上訴人：無律師代表，親自應訊。
|