Hon Chu JA (giving the judgment of the Court):
由上訴法庭法官朱芬齡頒發上訴法庭判決書：

The appellant applied to the Chief Executive for referral of her case to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s.83P of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 221, Laws of Hong Kong.  The Chief Executive allowed the application and referred the whole case to this Court.  Hence, this Court treated it as the appellant’s appeal against conviction.  On 2 December 2011, this Court handed down judgment allowing the appeal and quashing the appellant’s conviction on charge 10.
上訴人根據《刑事訴訟程序條例》（香港法例第221章）第83P條，向行政長官申請把她的個案轉交上訴法庭。行政長官批准申請，把整宗案件轉交本庭。本庭因而視之為上訴人就其定罪判決向本庭提出的上訴。在2011年12 月2日，本庭頒下判案書，批准上訴，撤銷上訴人就控罪十的定罪判決。

Subsequently, the appellant applied to this Court for costs, such costs being confined to costs of the proceedings following the Chief Executive’s approval to refer the whole case to the Court of Appeal.  The respondent opposed the application.
上訴人其後向本庭申請訟費，有關的訟費只包括在行政長官批准把整宗案件轉交上訴法庭後的訴訟費用。答辯人反對申請。

On 22 December 2011, this Court wrote to the counsel for the appellant and the Department of Justice, requesting both parties to provide further submissions regarding the legal basis of the costs application.
本庭在2011年12月22日去信上訴人的代表律師和律政司，要求雙方就訟費申請的法律基礎提交進一步陳詞。

Section 9 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance
《刑事案件訟費條例》第9條

In her submissions the appellant makes it clear that her costs application is made pursuant to s.9 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance, Cap. 492, Laws of Hong Kong (“CCCO”).  Section 9 provides as follows:
上訴人的陳詞明確表示，她的訟費申請是按《刑事案件訟費條例》（香港法例第492章）第9條提出。第9條內容如下：

“ (1)Where the Court of Appeal allows an appeal to which this section applies, the Court of Appeal may order that costs be awarded to the defendant.
「(1)凡上訴法庭判本條所適用的上訴得直，上訴法庭可命令將訟費判給被告人。

(2)This section applies to any appeal -
(2)本條適用於─

(a)under section 82 of the procedural Ordinance against conviction;
(a)不服定罪而根據程序條例第82條提出的上訴；

(b)under section 83G or 83H of the procedural Ordinance against sentence, if and only if, the Court of Appeal quashes the sentence and in place of it imposes a less severe punishment than that imposed by the court below, under section 83I(4) of that Ordinance;
(b)不服判處而根據程序條例第83G或83H條提出的上訴，但只有當上訴法庭根據該條例第83I(4)條撤銷該項判處而以較下級法院所判處的懲罰為輕的另一項懲罰取代時方適用；

(c)under section 83J of the procedural Ordinance against verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, except where the Court of Appeal deals with the appeal under section 83K(4)(a) of that Ordinance;
(c)不服以精神紊亂為理由而判無罪的裁決而根據程序條例第83J條提出的上訴，但若上訴法庭根據該條例第83K(4)(a)條處理該上訴則除外；

(d)under section 83M of the procedural Ordinance against a finding under section 75 of that Ordinance that the defendant is under a disability, except where the Court of Appeal deals with the appeal under section 83N(3) of that Ordinance.”
(d)不服根據程序條例第75條判被告人無行為能力的裁斷而根據該條例第83M條提出的上訴，但若上訴法庭根據該條例第83N(3)條處理該上訴則除外。」

The respondent submits that s.9 exhaustively sets out all situations to which the section applies and that, accordingly, this Court has no power to award costs in situations not expressly covered by the provision.  The appellant has not suggested that, apart from s.9, this Court also has any inherent power or other power to make costs orders.  We agree with the respondent’s submission that the power of the Court of Appeal to award costs to a defendant in a criminal case is derived from s.9.  Therefore, except in the circumstances set out in s.9(2), the Court of Appeal has no power to award costs to a defendant.
答辯人的陳詞提出第9條已經盡列該條文適用的情況，因此如遇到條文沒有提及的情況，法庭沒有權力判給訟費。上訴人的陳詞沒有提出本庭除第9條外，還享有固有權力或其他權力可作出訟費命令。本庭同意答辯人的陳詞，即上訴法庭在刑事案件中把訟費判給被告人的權力源自第9條，因此即除卻第9（2）條所臚列的適用情況外，上訴法庭在其他情況沒有權力將訟費判給被告人。

The issue in this application
本申請的議題

The appellant’s case plainly does not fall within any of the situations set out in s.9(2)(b) to (d).  The issue is whether the appellant can invoke s.9(2)(a) in support of her costs application.
上訴人的個案顯然不符合第9(2)(b)至(d)條所述的情況。本申請的爭議點在於上訴人是否可援引第9(2)(a)條提出訟費申請。

Section 9(2)(a) provides that s.9 applies to any appeal against conviction made under s.82 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (“CPO”).  Section 82 provides as follows:
第9(2)(a)條規定第9條適用於不服定罪而根據《刑事訴訟程序條例》第82條提出的上訴。《刑事訴訟程序條例》第82條規定如下：

“ (1)A person convicted of an offence on indictment may appeal to the Court of Appeal against his conviction.
「(1)循公訟程序被定罪的人可針對其定罪向上訴法庭提出上訴。

(2)The appeal may be-
(2)上訴可基於以下的理由─

(a)on any ground which involves a question of law alone; and
(a)任何僅涉及法律問題的理由；及

(b)with the leave of the Court of Appeal, on any ground which involves a question of fact alone, or a question of mixed law and fact, or on any other ground which appears to the Court of Appeal to be a sufficient ground of appeal;
(b)(經上訴法庭許可)任何僅涉及事實問題的理由，或是涉及法律兼事實問題的理由，或上訴法庭覺得是足夠的上訴理由的任何其他理由；

but if the judge of the court of trial grants a certificate that the case is fit for appeal on a ground which involves a question of fact, or a question of mixed law and fact, an appeal lies under this section without the leave of the Court of Appeal.”
但如主審法庭的法官發給一份證明書，證明該案件適合基於涉及事實問題的理由或涉及法律兼事實問題的理由提出上訴，則可無需經上訴法庭許可而根據本條提出上訴。」

The appellant submits that, although her case was referred to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s.83P of the CPO, s.9(2)(a) is still applicable because, by virtue of  s.83P(1)(a)  which provides that the Chief Executive may refer to the Court of Appeal the whole case which shall then be treated for all purposes as an appeal to the Court of Appeal by the appellant, her case should be treated as an appeal made pursuant to s.82(1) of the CPO.
上訴人認為雖然她的案件是基於《刑事訴訟程序條例》第83P條轉交上訟法庭處理，但第9(2)(a)條仍然適用，原因是第83P(1)(a)條（註） 規定行政長官可將整宗案件轉交上訴法庭，而該案件就所有目的而言，須視為上訴人向上訴法庭提出的上訴，因此她的案件應被視為循《刑事訴訟程序條例》第82（1）條提出的上訴。

The respondent takes issue with the appellant’s argument, relying on two main grounds.  First, the respondent submits that in enacting s.9 of the CCCO, the legislature deliberately excluded s.83P of the CPO from the ambit of s.9.  Second, the respondent points out that although s.83P(1) of the CPO provides that “the case shall then be treated for all purposes as an appeal to the Court of Appeal by that person”, it makes no mention of s.82.  Furthermore, the words “all purposes” under s.83P(1) means that it is not necessary for the appellant to obtain leave to appeal in advance and that, in dealing with the case (including the hearing itself), the Court of Appeal shall treat the case as an appeal as far as the exercise of the powers (such as  the power to admit new evidence) and the making of judgment (including any order for retrial) in relation to the hearing are concerned.
答辯人不同意上訴人的論點，所持的理由主要有兩點。首先，答辯人指出立法機關在通過《刑事案件訟費條例》第9條時，是刻意不把《刑事訴訟程序條例》第83P條涵蓋在內。其次，答辯人提出《刑事訴訟程序條例》第83P（1）條雖提及「該案件就所有目的而言，須視作為該人向上訴法庭提出的上訴」，但當中沒有提及第82條。再者；條文中提及的「所有目的」是指上訴人無須先取得上訴許可，及上訴法庭在處理該案時（包括聆訊本身），與聆訊有關的權力（如接取新證據）及判決（包括命令重審）等，須視作如上訴一般。

Our views
本庭的意見

The CCCO came into effect on 17 January 1997.  Section 9 of the CCCO provides for the award of costs in criminal appeal cases.  That section replaces s.83XX of the CPO and extends the power of the court to award costs to defendants in criminal appeal cases by conferring upon the court the power to award costs to a defendant in his appeal against sentence (s.9(2)(b)) and by repealing the original provision that no appellant would be entitled to costs if a retrial was ordered (see s.83XX(3)(a)).
《刑事案件訟費條例》在1997年1月17日生效，其中第9條是關乎刑事案件上訴的訟費。第9條是取代了《刑事訴訟程序條例》第83XX條（註）。它亦同時擴大了法庭在刑事上訴案件中判給被告人訟費的權力，即賦予法庭權力在判刑上訴時判給被告人訟費（第9(2)(b)條），以及取消被告人在法庭下令重審時不可以獲得上訴訟費的原有規定（見第83XX(3)(a)條）。

Both s.83XX and s.9 make provisions in respect of various kinds of appeals.  However, regarding appeals against conviction, both sections expressly provide that the provisions only apply to appeals against conviction under s.82 of the CPO, and neither of them covers appeals referred to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s.83P of the CPO.  It is particularly noteworthy that at the time when s.83XX was in force, s.83P was already part of the CPO.  On the other hand, other provisions (such as s.83G and s.83H) which were then part of the CPO were expressly included in s.83XX and s.9 which subsequently replaced it.
雖然第83XX條和第9條都羅列了不同種類的上訴案件，但就針對定罪提出的上訴，它們都明確規範只適用於不服定罪而根據《刑事訴訟程序條例》第82條提出的上訴。而且兩項條文都沒有把根據《刑事訴訟程序條例》第83P條轉交上訴法庭的上訴涵蓋在內。尤其值得注意的是在第83XX條生效時（註），第83P條經已是《刑事訴訟程序條例》的一部分（註），而另一方面，其他當時已是條例一部分的條文（如第83G及第83H條），都明確包括在第83XX 條和其後取代它的第9條之內。

In our view, the legislature deliberately confined the court’s power in awarding costs in appeals against conviction to those appeals made pursuant to s.82 of the CPO.  Moreover, the legislature also deliberately excluded referrals to the Court of Appeal by the Chief Executive at his discretion pursuant to s.83P from the scope of s.9.  In our view, the legislative intent behind s.9 is that the power of the Court of Appeal to award costs to a defendant does not extend to cases referred pursuant to s.83P.
本庭認為，由此可見立法機關是刻意把法庭在定罪上訴案中判給訟費的權力局限於根據《刑事訴訟程序條例》第82條提出的針對定罪的上訴。而且，立法機關亦是刻意不把行政長官根據第83P條酌情轉交上訴法庭的案件納入在第9條的適用範圍。本庭認為，第9條的立法原意是：上訴法庭將訟費判給被告人的權力不適用於根據第83P條轉交的案件。

Although s.83P(1)(a) provides that cases referred to the Court of Appeal by the Chief Executive shall be treated for all purposes as appeals to the Court of Appeal, these cases are not to be equated with the appeals against conviction under s.82 of the CPO and hence fall within  s.9(2)(a).  We also agree with the respondent’s submission that the purpose of the provision in s.83P(1)(a) that “(the case) shall be treated […] as an appeal to the Court of Appeal by that person” is merely to make it clear that, following the Chief Executive’s decision of referral, these cases shall be dealt with as appeals to the Court of Appeal, which shall hear and determine these cases as if they are appeal cases.  In such circumstances, s.83P(1)(a) should not be construed as widening the power of the Court of Appeal to award costs under s.9 of the CCCO.
雖然第83P(1)(a)條提及行政長官轉交上訴法庭的案件就所有目的而言，須視作向上訴法庭提出的上訴，但這不表示這些案件等同根據《刑事訴訟程序條例》第82條而提出的針對定罪的上訴，從而符合第9(2)(a)條的規定。本庭也同意答辯人的陳詞，即第83P(1)(a)條中有關「須視作該人向上訴法庭提出的上訴」的條文，其目的僅在於闡明當行政長官決定把案件轉交後，這些案件須被視為向上訴法庭提出的上訴般處理，而上訴法庭在審理和判決這些案件時，須視它們如上訴案件一樣。是故，第83P(1)(a)條不應被詮釋為擴大上訴法庭在《刑事案件訟費條例》第9條下判給訟費的權力。

Conclusion
總結

Given the above analysis, we are of the view that the appellant’s costs application does not fall within the ambit of s.9(2)(a) of the CCCO.  The appellant’s costs application is dismissed accordingly.
基於上述分析，本庭認為上訴人的訟費申請不屬於《刑事案件訟費條例》第9(2)(a)條的範圍之內。本庭因此不批准上訴人的訟費申請。

Mr Alex Lee, Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent
答辯人：由律政司高級助理刑事檢控專員李運騰代表。

Mr Richard Wong and Mr Danny Chan, instructed by Cheung & Choy, for the Appellant
上訴人：由張世文蔡敏律師事務所轉聘黃達華大律師及陳健强大律師代表。