香港特別行政區 訴 杜銘鎮

CACC 151/2021

[2021] HKCA 1279

香港特別行政區

高等法院上訴法庭

刑事司法管轄權

上訴期間申請保釋

刑事上訴案件2021年第151號

(原高等法院刑事案件2020年第102號)

__________________

__________________

判決理由書

1.  申請人被裁定一項‘企圖與21歲以下的女童作出肛交’罪成立，處入獄3年。申請人不服定罪，現欲取得保釋在外等候上訴。

2.  原訟法庭主審法官張慧玲在《導詞》解釋原有兩項控罪和控辯雙方的案情如下：

「 早晨，各位陪審員。被告杜銘鎮，又叫做「杜杜」喇，你哋都聽到，佢而家係面對一項就係與年齡喺21歲以下嘅女童作出肛交罪，即係第一項控罪。咁另外有一個交替控罪嘅，就係話佢企圖同年齡喺16歲以下嘅女童非法性交，咁我首次就話畀大家聽，第一同第二項控罪係交替嘅控罪，即係話你唔可以裁定被告人兩項罪名都成立嘅，明白吖嘛？首先要考慮第一項，因為嗰個係比較嚴重啲嘅，呢個肛交罪。咁如果你哋裁定佢呢項罪名成立，就唔使理第二項㗎喇，但係如果你哋話最後決定咗佢第一項嘅罪名係唔成立嘅，即係你哋唔肯定佢係有罪，就先至考慮第二項嘅控罪，明白吖嘛？咁呢個嘅做法。

咁好大概咁講一講控方嘅案情喇，基本上控方就係話喺2019年3月3號，星期日嚟嘅，Y就唔使返學，X即係佢同學，大家都唔使返學嘅，咁嗰日佢哋兩個就同咗被告人同埋被告個朋友，所謂叫做「倉鬼」嗰個就出街玩嘅，咁跟住X去學琴，咁佢送咗X去學琴，跟住就被告人就送Y返屋企，咁個倉鬼都一齊去嘅，不過倉鬼就冇上到去樓喇，就凈係得被告人同Y就上咗樓嘅。咁你哋都記得，睇到個閉路電視喺架𨋢個情況喇。咁跟住就Y同被告就去咗即係嗰躉大廈嘅後樓梯，咁然後就根據呢個控方嘅講法，就係話喺呢個後樓梯度，被告人就係同呢一個女童進行咗呢一個肛交，咁個女童當時13歲吖嘛，就嚟14歲，咁所以一定係年齡21歲以下喇。基本上呢個就係控方嘅指控喇。

咁而辯方嘅講法，就辯方就唔否認當時係有同佢同一齊喇，真係喺嗰個3月3號嗰日喺後樓梯喇。辯方嘅講法，即係被告人講法就係冇肛交呢件事嘅，佢係想同Y性交，咁都做咗出嚟㗎喇，但係就係做唔成，因為個女仔太細，佢個陰道太窄，咁所以佢就係話佢係企圖去同Y進行性交啫，咁Y當然係一個16歲以下嘅女童喇，所以就係即係基本上佢認第二項喇，即係換句話講，就唔認有肛交嘅。咁所以你哋要去決定就係究竟控方證唔證明到被告人有干犯咗第一控罪，即係話同Y（13歲嘅女童）肛交。

咁如果你哋係肯定佢係干犯咗第一項控罪，咁就裁定佢第一項控罪罪名成立，就唔使理第二項喇，即係頭先講咗喇。如果你哋唔肯定，你哋先再要考慮第二項控罪，我遲啲再提番你哋關於嗰個 嘅詳情嘅。」

3.  換言之，申請人最終被裁定罪成的是《公訴書》上所沒有的控罪。

4.  就此，在保釋聆訊階段還未獲得法援的申請人，希望以原審辯方大律師所初步擬定的上訴理由申請保釋（見附件）。

5.  不過，正如我在聆訊中解釋：一，‘企圖’是適用於任何罪行的交替控罪，無須預先寫進《公訴書》，是否交由陪審團考慮則視乎證據在審訊時的發展；二，直至申請保釋聆訊當日，在我所有的案卷當中，還未包括辯方在這方面的陳詞和原審法官對議題的裁決，亦即根本無從判斷法官的最終決定是否有錯，我不能光看辯方在事後起草的上訴理由而批准申請人保釋；三，視乎受害女童的證供，陪審團可以拒納女童堅稱肛門被侵的說法，但同時又肯定申請人有進入女童肛門的企圖和動作，這絕對是法律所容許的，而且任何辯方律師都會知道，沒有預知與否的問題。

6.  基於以上的原因，我拒絕申請人的保釋申請。我同時向他指出，適時申請法援，是他的責任，否則因延誤而產生的所有後果，只能由他個人來承擔。

附件

Initial grounds of Appeal

1.   The Learned Judge was erred to give a direction to jury about an alternative verdict of “Attempted Buggery” because there was no evidential basis to support such a direction. 

Background:

In the present case, the only issue was whether or not there was actual anal sex as alleged by Y (the girl).

The whole of the prosecution’s case was that Y was forced to have anal sex with D.  According to Y, there was actual penetration of D’s penis into Y’s anus.  This lasted for around 5 minutes, and Y suffered from severe pain which lasted for a week.  Therefore, there could not be any mistake.

When questioned by both the interviewing woman police officer, and when cross-exam by Defence, Y was certain that there was anal sex and she made no mistake at all.

It was on that basis that both the prosecution presented its case and the defence prepared its defence.

Therefore, neither in the closing submissions of the prosecution or defence, nor had the Learned Judge in her summing up, addressed the issue of “attempted buggery” to the jury.

This direction to the jury that they could consider an alternative verdict of “attempted buggery” was only raised when, after the jury had deliberated for some time, they asked a question about what could amount to “anal sex”.

When this issue of giving a direction of an alternative verdict of “attempted buggery” first arose, the defence raised no objection. As a result, the direction was given just before lunch break.

Thereafter, the defence raised an objection to the court about this direction and the court then reconvened right after lunch, and the defence requested the court to withdraw such a direction to jury.  After hearing submissions from the prosecution and defence, the court refused to withdraw the said direction.

Later the same afternoon, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty to the original offence of Buggery, but guilty of “attempted buggery”.

2.   The defence was given no opportunity to address the jury the issue of “attempt” in relation to the offence of buggery.  This caused grave injustice to D.

Note: Since D was sentenced to a total of 4 years in respect of both HCCC102 and 103, and he has already been in custody for 27 months, it’s likely that he would be discharged from prison in 5 months’ time.  If he is minded to appeal against conviction, it’s likely that he would have finished most, if not whole of his term, when his appeal is heard.  Therefore, it’s advisable to assist him in an application for bail pending appeal.