The applicant was charged with one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.  The particulars of offence stated that the applicant, on the 7th day of August, 2012, at the 1st floor staircase, Orchid House, 167-173A Sai Yeung Choi Street North, Mongkok, Kowloon, Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 26.72 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 25.29 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
申請人被控一項「販運危險藥物」罪，違反香港法例第 134 章「危險藥物條例」第 4 (1)(a) 及 (3) 條。罪行詳情指申請人於2012 年8 月7 日，在香港九龍旺角西洋菜北街167至173A號芝蘭樓1樓梯間，非法販運危險藥物，即內含25.29克甲基苯丙胺鹽酸鹽的26.72克晶狀固體。

The applicant was tried before M Poon J (the judge) and a jury.  On 15th August, 2014，the jury found the applicant guilty of the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug.  On the same day, the judge sentenced the applicant to 7 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
申請人在高等法院原訟法庭法官潘‍敏‍琦 (原審法官) 會同陪審團席前受審。2014年8月15日，陪審團裁定申請人「販運危險藥物」罪罪名成立；同日，原審法官判申請人監禁7年6個月。

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against conviction.
申請人不服定罪，現提出上訴許可申請。

On 14th May, 2015, we granted leave to appeal at the conclusion of the hearing, treated it as the hearing of the appeal, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered a re-trial.  We now hand down these reasons for judgment.
2015年5月14日，本庭經聆訊後批准上訴許可，視之為正式上訴，判上訴得直，撤銷有關控罪及刑期，並下令重審。本庭現頒下判案理由書。

The prosecution case
控方案情

Around 9:35pm on 7th August, 2012，PC11712 (PW1) saw the applicant in Sai Yeung Choi Street North.  At the material time, the applicant was holding a helmet in his hand.  He appeared nervous and looked around from time to time.  Thereafter, PW1 intercepted the applicant on the pavement outside Orchid House, where he revealed his identity and demanded a search.  PC34970, PC11761 (PW2), WPC9654 (PW3) and Sergeant 52703 (PW4) arrived at the scene at different stages.
2012年8月7日晚上大約9時35分，警員 11712 (控方第一證人) 在西洋菜北街看到申請人，當時申請人手持一個頭盔，神色慌張，不時四周張望。之後，控方第一證人在芝蘭樓外行人路上截停申請人，向其表露身份並要求搜查。警員 34970，警員 11761 (控方第二證人)，女警 9654 (控方第三證人) 及警長 52703 (控方第四證人) 亦先後到達現場。

As the applicant requested not to be searched in the street, PW1 and PW2 then took him to the staircase of the Orchid House, where the search was conducted while PW3 and PW4 were on guard at a higher position.  PC34970 did not follow the other officers in entering the staircase of the Orchid House with the applicant, nor did he take part in the search and arrest.  During the search, PW1 found from the applicant’s person 3 packets of dangerous drug, one hidden underneath his belt around his waist region, the other one hidden in the helmet’s secret compartment for comb and the last one hidden between the layers of the helmet.  PW1 cautioned the applicant, who replied under caution, ‘I have nothing to say.
因為申請人要求不要在街上搜身，控方第一及第二證人便帶他進入芝蘭樓梯間進行搜身；而控方第三及第四證人則在樓梯較高位置戒備。警員 34970 沒有跟隨其他警員與申請人進入芝蘭樓梯間，也沒有參與搜查和拘捕工作。搜身期間，控方第一證人在申請人身上搜到涉案的3包毒品，一包藏於他腰間皮帶位置、一包藏於他電單車頭盔內之梳的暗格內、一包藏於頭盔夾層內。控方第一證人警誡申請人，申請人在警誡下回答：「我無嘢講」。

Thereafter, the applicant was taken back to police station for a second search.  The police seized from his person 4 mobile phones, and cash of HK$2,536.00 and RMB100.00.
之後，申請人被帶返旺角警署進行第二次搜身。警方在他身上檢獲四部手提電話、現金2,536.00港元和100.00元人民幣。

Defence case
辯方案情

The applicant elected to give evidence.  His main defence was that he was not in possession of any dangerous drug at the material time but was framed by the police by way of planting instead.
申請人選擇作供，其主要案情是案發時他並沒管有任何毒品，他是被警方插贓嫁禍的。

The applicant claimed that he was searched twice by the police.  The first search was conducted in the street outside Orchid House, during which no dangerous drugs were found.  Nonetheless, PW1 took away his waist bag and helmet, and then handed them over to PW3.  Thereafter, PW1, PW2 and PC34970 took him to the staircase of Orchid House for a second search.  The police demanded him to strip off but still no drugs were found.  PW3 and PW4 did not enter the staircase until the second search was completed.  PW4 suddenly announced that 2 packets of dangerous drug were found from applicant’s helmet.  The applicant immediately said, ‘You guys are practically framing me!’  PW4 responded by saying, ‘If you’ve got anything to say, say it to the judge.’
申請人說警方搜了他兩次身：第一次是在街上芝蘭樓外，當時沒有搜出毒品，但控方第一證人取去了他的腰包及頭盔，並交了給控方第三證人；之後，控方第一證人、第二證人及警員 34970 帶他入芝蘭樓樓梯間進行第二次搜身，警員要求他脫光衣服，但仍沒有搜出毒品。第二次搜身完畢後，控方第三及第四證人才進入梯間，控方第四證人突然說在申請人頭盔內搜出兩包毒品。申請人立即說：「你地即係屈我！」控方第四證人回應：「你有咩嘢，同個官講！」。

The applicant further said that he was never cautioned and neither did he say ‘I have nothing to say’ under caution.
申請人又說，自己從沒有被警誡，亦沒有在警誡下說過「我無嘢講」。

Grounds of appeal
上訴理由

The applicant raised 3(sic) grounds of appeal.
申請人提出三個上訴理由。

The first ground of appeal was that the judge ‘forced’ the applicant to forgo his request to the Prosecution to call PC34970 for the defence to cross-examine by reason of such request being made too late.  As such, the applicant was denied of the right and opportunity to cross-examine a crucial witness resulting in an unfair trial.
第一個上訴理由是，原審法官以辯方太遲作出要求為由，「逼使」申請人放棄要求控方傳召警員 34970 給辯方盤問，因此剝奪了申請人盤問關鍵證人的機會及權利，導致審訊不公。

Mr Wong for the applicant submitted that although PW1 denied that PC34970 had entered the Orchid House, none of the prosecution witnesses had ever told the court of his whereabouts.  It seemed that PC34970 suddenly disappeared once the applicant was taken into the Orchid House.  Thus, as to whether the dangerous drug involved in this case was planted by the police officers as alleged by the applicant, PC34970’s testimony would indeed be quite crucial and directly relevant to the defence case.  The Prosecution originally had prepared to call PC34970 for the defence to cross-examine in response to their request.  However, the judge eventually forced the applicant to forgo his request to the Prosecution to call PC34970 for the defence to cross-examine by reason of such request being made so late, which might otherwise lead to the prolongation of the length of trial (since the appellant did not make his request to call PC34970 during the pre-trial review).  As such, the judge denied the applicant of the right and opportunity to cross-examine a crucial witness, which resulted in an unfair trial.
代表申請人的王‍大律師陳詞說，雖然控方第一證人否認警員 34970 有進入芝蘭樓，但從沒有一個控方證人交代過他的去向，當申請人被帶入芝蘭樓時，警員 34970 似乎突然不知所蹤。因此，涉案的毒品，是否如上訴人所說是警員們插贓嫁禍，警員 34970 的證供實對辯方案情是直接有關及具相當關鍵性。當控方應辯方要求原先亦準備傳召警員 34970 給辯方盤問，原審法官卻以辯方太遲作出要求為由 (因上訴人在預審時，並沒有要求傳召警員 34970)，可能導致審訊期延長，最終迫使申請人放棄要求控方傳召警員 34970 給辯方盤問。原審法官此舉剝奪了申請人盤問關鍵證人的機會及權利，導致審訊不公。

The second ground of appeal was that in directing the jury, the judge made unjust and inappropriate comments on the applicant’s case and testimony by saying, ‘Is what he (the applicant) said that it was a set-up credible?  Is it reasonable?  It is up to you to decide.  Do you consider it a fact, as alleged by the defendant, that the case concerned a bunch of lawless police officers blatantly framing him by way of planting?  What do you think the truth is?  Do take care in making your own judgment and assessment.’
第二個上訴理由是，在引導陪審團時，原審法官對申請人的案情及證供作出以下不當及不公之評論：「佢 (申請人) 話砌生豬肉呢樣嘢可唔可信？合唔合理呢？你哋自己決定喇，你哋認為被告所講，呢個本案嚟講係一班無法無天嘅警員明目張膽插贓嫁禍畀佢呢個講法係咪事實呢？各位認為實情係點呢？你哋小心評估同埋衡量喇。」

Mr Wong pointed out that the judge’s above-mentioned direction was not quoted from the Prosecutor’s final submission since, as a matter of fact, there were no such unfair and unjust remarks in Prosecutor’s final submission.  Mr Wong was of the view that the judge should direct the jury to consider the testimony of all the witnesses in a fair and just manner in order to decide whether they were credible and reliable.  Mr Wong cited the case of HKSAR v Lee Fuk Hing [2004] 7 HKCFAR 600 in support of his argument.  In that case, the judge directed the jury by saying that they should consider that the alleged acts of the police officers involved in the case might cause them to face disciplinary procedures and subject them to criminal prosecution.  The defendant in that case was of the view that such saying amounted to directing the jury that the chances of those police officers telling lies were low as compared with other witnesses.  The defendant raised it as one of the grounds of appeal and had the conviction quashed by the Court of Final Appeal.  See pages 610G-611J in the judgment of Mortimer, Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal.  Mr Wong categorically pointed out that as the applicant’s defence was a set-up by the police by way of planting, so the credibility of the prosecution witnesses’ testimony was quite crucial.  Nevertheless, the judge’s comment was in no way fair and just.  Even though the remark, ‘What do you think the truth is?  Do take care in making your own judgment and assessment’, was added at the end, the harm done could not be undone as the jury might have been misled, which in turn caused unfairness to the applicant.  On top of that, the fact that such inappropriate comments appeared close to the end of the jury direction had much more serious prejudicial effect on the defence case and its testimony.
王大律師指出，原審法官上述的指引並非是引述主控的結案陳詞，因為事實上，主控的結案陳詞從來沒有上述有欠持平公正的措詞。王大律師認為，原審法官理應要求陪審團持平和公正地考慮所有證人的證供，來決定是否可靠和可信。王大律師引援HKSAR v Lee Fuk Hing [2004] 7 HKCFAR 600一案來支持他的論點。在該案中，法官引導陪審團說，他們應考慮到涉案警員被指作出的行為可能令該些警員面對紀律程序和遭受刑事檢控。被告人認為這說法變相是向陪審團表示該些警員撒謊的可能性較其他證人低，並以此為其中一個上訴理由，獲終審法院推翻定罪；見終審法院非常任法官馬天敏在判案書第610G - 611J頁的判詞。王‍大律師力指，申請人的辯護理由正是被警方插贓嫁禍，故控方證人證供的可信性尤為關鍵，而原審法官的評論並不持平公正，即使後加一句「各位認為實情係點呢？你哋小心評估同埋衡量啦」，亦無補於事，令陪審團可能被誤導，使申請人蒙受不公。而這不當評論在引導近尾聲時出現，對辯方案情及證供的傷害性更為嚴重。

In summing up, Mr Wong submitted that the applicant’s conviction of trafficking in a dangerous drug was unsafe and unsatisfactory based on the first and second grounds of appeal.
王大律師總結說，因為第一個及第二個上訴理由，申請人被裁定販運危險藥物罪名成證是不安全及不穩妥。

Respondent’s response
答辯人回應

The respondent was of the view that the judge had made a fair and detailed summing-up and a clear direction to the jury on all issues.
答辯人認為原審法官就本案各項議題已向陪審團作詳細持平的總結和清析的引導。

In respect of the applicant’s first ground of appeal, the respondent replied that PC34970 was of no significant role.  The fact that that officer was not called to the court to give evidence did not cause any unfairness or prejudice to the applicant in the trial.  Moreover, the defence just raised in the trial that they ‘might’ need to call one more police officer, ‘349…’, but after the judge gave them time to consider, the defence eventually decided that there was no need to call PC34970 to testify.  The judge did not ‘force’ the applicant to forgo his request to call the relevant police officer.
就申請人第一項上訴理由，答辯人回應警員 34970 並非關鍵角色，該警員沒被傳召上庭作供並沒有對申請人在審訊中造成任何不公平或不利。而且，辯方在原審時只提出過「可能」需要傳召多一名警員「349…」，但在原審法官給予時間考慮後，辯方最終決定不需要傳召警員 34970 作供。原審法官並沒有「逼使」申請人放棄要求傳召有關警員。

As to the second ground of appeal, those relevant passages, of which the applicant complained, were only the judge’s citations from the prosecuting counsel’s reply in his submission to the applicant’s allegation of set-up by way of planting against the police for the jury to consider.
至於第二項上訴理由，申請人投訴的有關段落只是原審法官就申請人警方插贓嫁禍的說法，引述控方大律師陳詞中的回應來給予陪審團考慮。

Discussion
討論

We shall deal with the first ground of appeal.
本庭首先處理第一個上訴理由。

Prior to the jury empanelment, the judge and counsel representing prosecution and defence discussed the matter on case management.  The transcription in connection with the first ground of appeal is as follows:
在輪選陪審團之前，原審法官與代表控辯雙方的大律師討論案件管理的事宜。涉及第一個上訴理由的謄本記錄如下：

Judge:Mr Leung, it wasn’t you who handled the pre-trial review on the last occasion?
「官：梁‍大律師，上次預審嘅時候唔係你做嘅？

MR LEUNG：Yes, that’s right.
MR LEUNG：係，冇錯。

Judge:But in the pre-trial review, Mr Wu (romanization) told me that he would like to have Sergeant 52703 and WPC7654…
官：但係預審嘅時候，胡大律師話畀我聽希望代搵沙展 52703同埋女警 7654...

MR LEUNG:Yes.
MR LEUNG：係。

Judge:… to be identified.  Has the identification been arranged yet?
官：...辨--畀辨認，安排咗辨認未？

MR LEUNG:That will be arranged today.
MR LEUNG：今日會安排。

Judge:When will he be given the chance to do the identification?
官：幾陣時會到畀佢辨認？

MS YEW：We’ve told them to arrive here at 9:30am, I mean those witnesses, but I…perhaps (they) haven’t arrived yet.  (I’ll) call (them) again…
MS YEW：我哋係叫咗佢哋九點半嚟到嘅，嗰啲證人，不過我—或者未到，再叫...

Judge:So, how come (we) will now—(we) will have one more?  If that’s the case, the pre-trial review served no purpose at all, right?
官：咁點解而家會--又會多一個？如果唔係個預審咪完全冇用？

MR LEUNG：Understood, understood.
MR LEUNG：明白，明白。

Judge:since the purpose of pre-trial review is to estimate the number of days required for the trial.
官：因為預審就係要預計個審訊需時幾多日。

MR LEUNG:Understood.
MR LEUNG：明白。

Judge:Well, on that occasion, you told me that 2 more (people) were required to be identified and that has been arranged for him to do so now.  Well, it is now said that there will be one more.
官：咁你嗰陣時話畀我聽要認多兩個，而家都安排咗畀佢聽喇，咁而家又話有多一個添。

MR LEUNG：Right—pardon me, just—as a matter of fact, it mainly concerns with those two.  As a matter of fact, I mean…
MR LEUNG：係--唔係，都係--其實主要都係嗰兩個嘅啫，其實即係...

Judge:Can I wait indefinitely for you (to tell me) how many?
官：我能唔能夠無止境咁等你幾多個？

MR LEUNG:It is not necessary, not necessary, I mean, I think...
MR LEUNG：唔需要嘅，唔需要嘅，即係我諗...

Judge:Are you able to say to me for certain how many more – are required?  On the last occasion, I was told that there would be just those two but the prosecution just now told me that 3 more might have to be called.  So, apart from PW1 and PW2, how many more are required to be called, by you?
官：你而家能唔能夠確實話畀我聽需要--愛多幾多個？上次就話畀我聽係呢兩個咋喎，但係而家控方頭先講畀我聽話可能要叫多三個喎，咁究竟係除咗第一、第二控方證人之外，需要叫多幾多個呢，你哋？

MR LEUNG:Just the two (mentioned) previously and perhaps one more, that is 349…
MR LEUNG：都係之前嗰兩個同埋可能多一個就係349...

Judge:Why would there be one more?  Why wasn’t I told of that back then?
官：點解會有可能多一個，嗰陣時冇講畀我聽嘅？

MR LEUNG:It’s…
MR LEUNG：係...

Judge:Why wasn’t I told of that in the pre-trial review?
官：點解預審唔講畀我聽？

MR LEUNG:Indeed, sorry about that, because—understood.
MR LEUNG：係，唔好意思，因為--明白。

Judge:Will there be further more (witness) required to be called during the trial?
官：仲會唔會審訊期間仲需要叫多幾個㗎？

MR LEUNG:No, there won’t be.  This…
MR LEUNG：唔會嘅，呢個...

Judge:Otherwise, how am I supposed to tell the jury how many days we anticipate to spend in this trial?  I cannot let it get out of hand; otherwise, our pre-trial review was held for nothing, right?
官：如果唔係，我一陣間點同陪審員講我哋預計審訊幾多天？我唔能夠let it get out of hand㗎嘛，如果唔係，我哋嘅預審咪形同虛設？

MR LEUNG:Understood, your Ladyship.
MR LEUNG：明白，法官閣下。

Judge:I also don’t understand why there is all of a sudden a change in counsel.  That said, a change in counsel doesn’t mean that one has the right to increase the number of prosecution witness indefinitely.
官：我亦都唔明白點解突然之間會轉counsel，但係轉咗counsel唔代表有權利不停地要求增加控方證人。

MR LEUNG:Understood.
MR LEUNG：明白。

Judge:I hope that you will bear this in mind.
官：我希望你切記呢樣嘢。

MR LEUNG:Understood.
MR LEUNG：清楚。

…
…

Judge:You are able to tell me for certain how many more prosecution witnesses you require to call, apart from PW1 and PW2.
官：你能夠確確實實講畀我聽，除咗第一、第二控方證人之外，仲需要叫多幾多個控方證人。

MR LEUNG:Understood.
MR LEUNG：清楚。

Judge:Because we now anticipate this trial to last 7 days.  I am going to tell the jury that the trial will last for 7 days accordingly.  I don’t want any delay.
官：因為而家我哋係預計七天審訊，我會照住呢個七天審訊講畀陪審員聽，我唔希望有任何嘅延誤。

MR LEUNG:Understood.
MR LEUNG：明白。

Judge:Case adjourned pending jury empanelment.
官：押後，等待輪選陪審員。

(Transcription for court proceedings between 9:32am and 10:45am spared)
(上午9時32分至10時45分之聆訊毋須謄寫)

Judge:Have we settled the identification issue yet, Mr Leung?
官：我哋解決咗認人嘅問題未呀，梁大律師？

MR LEUNG:It’s been settled, already.
MR LEUNG：解決咗㗎喇，已經。

Judge:How many witnesses are required now, in addition?
官：而家需要幾多個證人呀，額外？

MR LEUNG:just two more.
MR LEUNG：多兩個嘅啫。

Judge:You mean the sergeant…
官：即係個沙展...

MR LEUNG:and another…
MR LEUNG：同埋另...

Judge:...and the woman police officer?
官：...同埋個女警？

MR LEUNG:That’s right.
MR LEUNG：冇錯。

…
…」

(Boldface has been added by this court)
(粗體是本庭加上的。)

It can be clearly seen from the transcript that Mr Leung representing the applicant did not formally apply to call PC34970 at that time, nor did the judge ‘force’ the defence to forgo calling PC34970, as complained by Mr Wong.  The fact that the judge requested Mr Leung to tell the court after the empanelment of jury how many witnesses had to be called can sufficiently prove that the judge by no means made the defence forgo calling PC34970.
從謄本記錄清楚地看得出，當時代表申請人的梁‍大律師並無正式申請要求傳召警員 34970；原審法官亦無如王‍大律師所投訴的，「迫使」辯方放棄傳召警員 34970。而原審法官要求梁‍大律師在輪選陪審員後，告訴法庭需要傳召多少證人，也足以證明原審法官並無任何意思要辯方放棄傳召警員 34970。

In fact, the judge at that time only reminded Mr Leung that his predecessor did not request to call PC34970 in the pre-trial review and that if he was going to call PC34970, it would have an impact on the length of trial, which in turn would defeat the intended purpose of the pre-trial review and result in delay.  The judge not only did nothing improper here but also appropriately fulfilled her case management duty: for relevant legal principles, see HKSAR v Hon Min Kong (re: case management) [2014] 2 HKLRD 710，paragraphs 6 - 7；and R v Jisl [2004] EWCA Crim 696，paragraphs 114 – 116.
其實，原審法官當時只是提醒梁‍大律師，在預審時他的前任大律師並無要求傳召警員 34970，若他現在才打算傳召警員 34970，這有可能會影響審訊所需要訊的時間，令預審失去原有的意義和引致延誤。原審法官此舉不單只沒有任何不當的地方，更是洽當地履行其管理案件的責任：有關法律原則見HKSAR v Hon Min Kong (re: case management) [2014] 2 HKLRD 710，6 - 7段；及R v Jisl [2004] EWCA Crim 696，第 114 – 116 段。

We found no merit in the first ground of appeal.
本庭認為，第一個上訴理由不能成立。

As to the second ground of appeal, the Court of Final Appeal and the Court of Appeal have all along been emphasizing that a tribunal shall not find a prosecution witness more credible because of him/her being a police officer.  Likewise, in a jury trial, the trial judge shall not give such a direction or a direction to that effect to the jury.  We are of the view that the wording in the judge’s direction to the jury, of which the applicant complained, is worthy of scrutiny.  In directing the jury to consider whether the applicant’s ‘set-up’ allegation was credible or not, the judge added this question, ‘Do you consider it a fact, as alleged by the defendant, that this case concerned a bunch of lawless police officers blatantly setting him up by way of planting?’  Such wording in the question was not only out of line, but also tantamount to inviting the jury to reject the applicant’s suggestion when it was taken in context.  As such, the judge’s direction might indeed have misled the jury into believing that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, being police officers, was more credible than the applicant’s and that they would not lawlessly and blatantly accuse the applicant in a wrongful manner.  That was an erroneous direction and as the issue in the trial involved the credibility of witnesses’ testimony, that was sufficient to render the conviction unsafe and unsatisfactory.
至於第二個上訴理由，終審法院和上訴法庭一直以來都強調，審裁機構不能因為控方證人是警員，就認定他們是較為可信的證人；在陪審團審訊中，主審的法官也不得對陪審團作出這樣或有類似效果的指引。本庭認為，申請人針對原審法官對陪審團的指引，用詞上有可相榷的地方。原審法官在引導陪審員考慮申請人「砌生豬肉」的說法是否可信時，加上「你哋認為被告所講，呢個本案嚟講係一班無法無天嘅警員明目張膽插贓嫁禍畀佢呢個講法係咪事實呢？」這問題，但這問題的用詞不僅過火，用在上下文的文意處境中，更有邀請陪審團否定申請人說法的意味。如此看來，原審法官的指引確有可能令陪審團誤會，因為控方證人是警員，他們的證供比申請人更可信，而他們是不會無法無天及明目張膽地誣陷申請人。這是一個錯誤的指引，而因為案件的爭議點是涉及證人證供的可信性，所以足以令定罪變得不安全及不穩妥。

Therefore, we found that the second ground of appeal was made out.
因此，本庭裁定第二個上訴理由成立。

Conclusion
結論

We granted leave to appeal, treated the hearing as the appeal proper, allowed the appeal, and set aside the conviction and sentence.
本庭批准上訴許可，視之為正式上訴，並判上訴得直，撤銷有關的定罪及刑期。

Since the case was serious and the evidence was sufficient, we thus ordered a re-trial.  The applicant was denied bail pending re-trial.
由於案情嚴重，證據亦是充分，故本庭下令重審。而在等候審訊期間，申請人不得保釋。

Ms Winsome Chan, SPP of the Department of Justice, for the respondent
答辯人：由律政司高級檢控官陳淑慧代表

Mr Wong Hay-yiu, instructed by Koo Christine M. & Ip, assigned by Legal Aid Department, for the applicant
申請人：由法律援助署委派顧張文菊、葉成慶律師事務所所轉聘王熙曜大律師代表