香港特別行政區 訴 梁志源

HCMA435/2008

香港特別行政區

高等法院原訟法庭

刑事上訴司法管轄權

不服命令上訴

案件編號：裁判法院上訴案件2008年第435號

(原粉嶺裁判法院案件2008年91號)

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

判 案 書

1. 上訴人承認一項「輸入未列艙單貨物」罪，判處140 小時社會服務令。海關關長根據香港法例第 60 章《進出口條例》第28 條，申請充公傳票上的物品，包括一部拖頭、一個拖架及兩條車匙。上訴人不服裁判官作出的「充公令」，提出上訴。

2. 上訴人今天力陳他是被人利用在疏忽的情况下沒有檢查貨物，非明知故犯。他又指他任職中港車司機達 17至18 年之久，在本案之前，沒有任何刑事紀錄。他是拖頭及拖架之登記車主。拖頭尙欠 5 至6 期、每期供款5,975 元的供款，而拖頭及拖架因被海關扣留，導致他欠下租櫃費用達至港幣70,000至80,000元。上訴人指其生財工具被充公，經濟的壓力實難以言喻。

3. 答辯人指上訴人既是拖頭和拖架車主，在刑事程序中已認罪，裁判官正確行使酌情權發出「充公令」。

4. R. v. CEC Finance Ltd[1993] 1 HKC 127一案就沒收法律程序中的的法律原則，在較後的案件廣被引用。在R. v. Kam Shek Kwong, HCMA140/1994一案中，Kaplan J説：

“Although a Magistrate’s discretion to forfeit under s.28 of Cap. 60 was unfettered (R v CRC Finanace), there had to be something in the facts of the case involving an innocent owner that could justify the exercise of this discretion and the making of a draconian order depriving the rightful owner of his property.  Forfeiture of items belonging to those involved in a crime and used in a crime was one thing and could be seen as part of society’s determination to be ruthless with criminals.  Forfeiture of property belonging to innocent parties was quite another and the discretion to exercise that power had to be exercised judicially and with great care…”

5. 在該案中他指：

“Applicant was an innocent owner in that neither he, nor his driver, was charged with or convicted of the smuggling offence…”

6. 本案裁判官曾分析並作出上訴人並不是無辜者的裁決，他說：

「他任職中港車司機達17至18年之久，中港走私倡厥，必是已知之事。在本案中聲稱人沒有檢查貨物，也沒有阻止走私事情發生，聲稱人明顯地忽視這些風險。」

7. 上訴人已在刑事程序中被檢控及懲處，即使他是因疏忽而犯罪，亦不屬上述案例所指的無辜者。

8. De Basto J在A.G. v. So Lo Kam [1986] HKLR 564 一案中裁定，就算充公物品會對一被告人做成極度經濟天地力，亦不等如法庭應行使酌情權，不發出充公令。該案有以下因素考慮：

“(1) The purpose for which the forfeiture provisions were enacted was to enforce the Ordinance and to serve as a deterrent against its contravention, that is that forfeiture provisions are penal and deterrent in nature;

(5)   Good faith or innocence based on ignorance, do not entitle the claimant to have the article, vessel or vehicle restored to him;

(6)   Thesentence passed on a claimant in the prior criminal proceedings is irrelevant;

(7)   Considerable financial loss, even for a claimant not of substantial wealth is a hardship but not an undue hardship;

(8)    The mere fact that forfeiture would cause undue hardship on a claimant does not, of itself, mean that a forfeiture order should be refused.”

9. 上訴人今日提出的實際全是裁判官席前已提出並已為裁判官考慮的事項。

10. 裁判官正確運用酌情權批准申請人將傳票上的物品沒收歸政府所有，上訴駁回，維持原判。