香港特別行政區 訴 呂麗林

HCMA1338/2001

香港特別行政區

高等法院原訟法庭

刑事上訴司法管轄權

定罪上訴

案件編號：裁判法院上訴案件2001年第1338號

（原官塘裁判法院案件2001年第6148號）

----------------------

----------------------

_____________

判 案 書

_____________

1. 上訴人在裁判法院被裁定一項盗竊罪罪名成立，被判罰款3,000元，她不服定罪原判，提出上訴。

2. 控罪指上訴人於二零零一年九月十七日，在香港九龍將軍澳厚德邨商場123號舖百佳超級市場偷竊一袋北京菜心苗、兩包超霸環保電芯兩粒裝、兩包ALKALINE鹼性電芯兩粒裝、一卷SCOTCH牌透明膠紙、一樽雀巢牛奶公司鮮牛奶、一樽TROPICANA純鮮榨蘋果汁、一樽菓汁先生提子汁、兩盒灣仔碼頭北京水餃、兩盒春夏秋冬鰻魚粽、兩支高露潔牙刷、一袋1.52磅雞翼、一袋肉蟹、一條石蚌魚、一條釣中木棉魚、兩盒名古屋牌雙黃白連蓉月餅、兩盒名古屋牌綠茶冰皮雙黃月餅、一包名古屋牌迷你山竽月餅、一包名古屋牌迷你綠茶月餅、總值港幣五百五十九元二角，而上述物品為百佳超級市場的財產。

3. 在審訊時，上訴人否認控罪，並由一位由當值律師服務延聘的譚光德大律師代表辯護。控方傳召和倚賴唯一的証人謝鳳英的証供，謝女士當時是案發的「百佳超級市場」的收銀員。她的証供在裁判官的裁斷陳述書作了詳細的叙述，原文如下：

「第一証人於2001年9月17日在案發的『百佳超級市場』內當值。大約在下午6時左右，她於售賣蔬菜的範圍內理貨時，看見被告人在7至8呎距離，推着一輛購物車，購物車內近手推橫杆位置，坐有一名小孩。他是被告人的兒子，年約3至4歲，面向被告人。當被告人行到售賣飲品處時，選購了很多東西。當時超級市場內是有較大型的購物車，但被告人所選用的購物車是較細小的一種，所以當時被告人的購物車是大半滿的。第一証人發覺被告人神色慌張，形跡可疑。當被告人多次四周張望後，便從那購物車內拿起菜、魚、蟹和一包雞翼，快速地放入一個從『百佳超級市場』蔬菜部拿取的一個奶白色膠袋內，並將該膠袋掛在購物車近手推橫杆的鐵鈎上，即是在那小孩所坐位置兩腿中間。

第一証人見此情況，由於不肯定被告人會否就該奶白色膠袋內之貨品付款，她向上級報告後便返回自己在收銀處的工作崗位。大約4分鐘後，被告人推着那購物車，剛巧走到第一証人所工作的收銀櫃位，第一証人協助被告人處理購物車內的貨品，即是控方証物(P5)收據內所列之貨品，被告人用『易辦事』咭付款，合共港幣$458.20元，被告人將購物車內所有貨品安排送貨，只剩一項散裝甘筍及一項萍果汁自取。在填寫了送貨表格(即辯方証物D1)後，被告人便推著那購物車離開。

當被告人行了大約3至4呎，第一証人從後看見購物車近手推橫杆的鐵鈎上，掛有3個奶白色膠袋。第一証人便問被告人有否東西未付款，被告人回答沒有，第一証人便指著那掛在購物車手推橫杆鐵鈎上的那3個奶白色膠袋，再次詢問被告人有否東西尚未付款，被告人再次回答沒有。第一証人要求被告人到經理室，第一証人經檢視那3個奶白色膠袋後，發現部分貨品貼有百佳標簽，是『百佳超級市場』貨品，亦証實尚未付款，總值港幣$559.20元，第一証人於是報警 。」

4. 在圖片展示物品是屬於百佳超級市場的財物和未有付款是控辯雙方都沒有爭議的。

5. 本上訴的關鍵就是在原審代表上訴人的大律師未有向上訴人（就上訴人應否上証人台作供）作出一個適當的法律意見，而令到上訴人之極具說服力的抗辯証供未能被法庭考慮。對於這些指控，譚大律師於2002年3月15日去函上訴人的律師，函件是以英文書寫，為了準確起見，英文原本是這樣的：

"To the best of my recollection, before I told the Court that Madam Lui elected not to give evidence, I advised lay client as follows :

1) I advised Madam Lui that she had the right to give or not to give evidence before the Court;

2) I further advised Madam Lui that if she chose not to give evidence although the Court could not take her silence as an inference of admission and guilt, the Court would not have the benefit of hearing her version of the facts;

3) I also advised Madam Lui that if she chose to give evidence she would be subjected to cross-examination by the Prosecution like the prosecution witnesses had been subjected to my cross-examination;

4) I further advised Madam Lui that before deciding whether or not to give evidence she should make her self-evaluation on her ability to give good and clear evidence taking into account her self-admitted nervousness and her visible emotional state at the time;

5) I also advised Madam Lui and her husband that it was for her and only her only to decide whether or not to give evidence and I could not make such decision for her.

I did not advise Madam Lui not to give evidence as now claimed by Madam Lui.

Further I enclose a copy of the declaration made by Madam Lui on 15th November 2001 immediately after I gave to Madam Lui the above advice at the Duty Lawyer's Office for your reference."

6. 上訴人對信件的內容並沒有爭議，承認譚大律師的確提出這些法律意見，代表上訴人上訴的胡世民大律師卻認為這些法律意見是不足夠的，因為譚大律師應該告訴上訴人如果她不上証人台作出解釋，她肯定是會被裁定有罪，胡大律師提出女皇訴何陵（譯音）（R. v. Ho Ling & Another [1996] 3 HKC 116）以支持他的論點。何陵一案涉及以欺騙手段取得財物，案中事實與本案不同，亦比較複雜。在這案件的報告第116頁G-H有如下的一段：

"At the hearing of the application, counsel for the applicants submitted that in the present case, evidence from the applicants themselves was essential and without such evidence their convictions were inevitable. There was a failure by trial counsel to give the proper advice that should the applicants elect not to give evidence, conviction would necessarily follow."

第118頁A-B，代表兩位上訴人的大律師在他呈給法庭的誓章這樣說：

"I advised the appellants again of their rights and reminded them that the evidence that goods were actually sold to foreign customers and that they did not know the credit cards were forged could only come from them. However, I also advised them that they might give unfavourable evidence against themselves under cross-examination and remove some doubts which I sought to create in my cross-examination. In particular, I told them that I would not be able to lead them on evidence concerning the rejected credit card slips as they had not given me instructions; and that they should be prepared to be cross-examined on that should they decide on giving evidence."

最重要的是楊鐵樑首席大法官在第120頁C-D所說的兩句說話：

"We think it important to stress that in reaching our decision we have relied upon the words of counsel in his affidavit as to the advice he gave. In the circumstances of this prosecution the way in which he qualified his advice might well have left the applicants in doubt, as they contend, as to the crucial importance of their evidence."

7. 本案與何陵一案所給的法律意見明顯有不同的地方，譚大律師所給的法律意見是清楚和正確，沒有誤導上訴人的可能。反過來說，如果譚大師提示上訴人作供而最終裁判官還是不相信她，後果可能是另一種投訴。上訴人呈交一份誓章，雖然並沒有符合《刑事檢控程序條例》第83V條，本庭亦詳細閱讀和考慮。在她的誓章第二段她這樣解釋：

「本人早在2001年9月17日已向警方提供一份警誡供詞。本人清楚聲明未有觸犯任何盜竊罪行。本人解釋於2001年9月17日下午5時30分左右帶同3歲小兒子往將軍澳厚德村商場百佳超級市場購物。一些物品放在購物車內，一些放在三個膠袋裡。三個膠袋掛在車，而小兒則在車裡。在付款後，超市收銀員問我有沒有物品未付錢，本人當時因要照顧小兒而分了神，便沒有留心收銀員的問題，所以答了沒有。當收銀員對我指出有物品倘未付款，但為時已晚，因為職員已報警。其後本人被指控上述罪項。」

這也是上訴人在原審時辯護理由，譚大律師在盤問控方証人和最後結案陳詞都是環繞這個問題。但是這個解釋是完全不理智，不合情不合理的，三袋貨物面積相當，容易看見，同時經過控方証人謝女士兩次追問，上訴人是沒有道理不知道或不發覺這三袋貨物是未付款的，就算上訴人真的上証人台作供，我肯定沒有一個合理的陪審團會相信上訴人的証供。正如陳兆愷大法官在上訴庭女皇訴張偉光及林國安（譯音）（1996 No.7 Criminal）一案說過：

"We have carefully considered the written and oral submissions presented to us. In our view, this is a typical case where the applicants have no other ground of appeal except to try to put the blame on trial counsel. This is not a case where due to the flagrant incompetence or totally insupportable advice of counsel, the defence had not been put before the jury giving rise to a doubt whether the applicants had a fair trial or not."

8. 這段說話對本上訴最適用不過，上訴毫無實質或任何理據，因此駁回上訴。