Hon Yeung JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
上訴法庭法官楊振權頒發上訴法庭判案書：

The applicant Lam Yung-yung and 8 other defendants were charged with one count of conspiracy to defraud before Deputy District Judge A. Yuen. The prosecution alleged that the applicant and her conspirators conspired to defraud a number of finance companies of loans by means of some false documents in the period between May and November 2006.
申請人林容容和其他8名被告人在區域法院暫委法官阮偉明席前被控一項串謀詐騙罪。控方指申請人和其同謀在2006年5月至11月期間，串謀以一些虛假文件詐騙多間財務公司以獲得貸款。

The applicant pleaded not guilty but was convicted of the charge after trial. The applicant now applies to this court for leave to appeal against conviction.
申請人否認控罪，但經審訊後遭裁定罪名成立。申請人不服定罪，現向本庭提出上訴許可申請，希望能獲准就定罪上訴。

Facts not disputed
無爭議的案情

At the material times, a number of people applied for loans from various finance companies on numerous occasions by means of false documents. The applicant was involved in one of them. The evidence shows that the applicant successfully obtained a loan of $8,000 from Public Finance Limited on 8 November 2006. The applicant provided to Public Finance Limited a false proof of employment, which showed that she was employed as a saleslady by Digital Crown Holdings (HK) Ltd. at a monthly salary of $7,500. At the same time, the applicant provided her correct residential address at San Po Kong in support of her application for a loan. In fact, Digital Crown Holdings (HK) Ltd. had never employed her as a saleslady. And the employment record supplied by the applicant, which showed that she was in the employ of Digital Crown Holdings (HK) Ltd., was also a forged document.
在案發時段，有多人多次以虛假文件向不同財務公司貸款，其中一宗涉及申請人。證據顯示，2006年11月8日，申請人成功向大眾財務取得8,000元貸款。申請人向大眾財務提交了一份虛假工作證明，顯示她在一間名為亮碧思集團有限公司任職售貨員，月薪7,500元。申請人同時提供了其新蒲崗的正確住址支持貸款申請。事實上亮碧思集團沒有聘請過她為售貨員，而申請人提供的僱傭記錄顯示她受僱於亮碧思集團亦是偽造的。

With the exception of the applicant, all the other 8 defendants in the case pleaded guilty to the charge. Some of the defendants claimed that the 9th defendant Ng Fei-tat was the mastermind. They also claimed that he not only arranged for the other defendants to apply for loans from financial institutions by means of false documents, but also subjected the 2nd defendant (Ma Pui-man), the 4th defendant (Chu Pui-yin), the 5th defendant (Lau Oi-ying) and the 6th defendant (Lee Ka-yan) in the case to threats in order to get their cooperation.
除了申請人外，案件的其餘8名被告人都承認控罪。部份被告人指第9被告人伍飛達是案件的主腦，他不但安排各其他被告人以虛假文件向財務機構申請貸款，更曾威嚇案件中的第二被告人（馬佩雯）、第四被告人（朱沛賢）、第五被告人（劉藹瑩）和第六名被告人（李家恩），以取得她們的合作。

Despite his plea, Ng Fei-tat denied having ever threatened any of the defendants. As a result, the trial judge had to hear evidence from them and make relevant findings before passing sentence. In the end, the trial judge found that the prosecution had failed to prove that Ng Fei-tat had in fact threatened Ma Pui-man, Chu Pui-yin, Lau Oi-ying or Lee Ka-yan.
雖然伍飛達承認控罪，但他否認曾威嚇任何被告人，故原審法官要聆聽她們的證供，作出有關裁決後才判刑。最終原審法官裁定控方未能證明伍飛達確有威嚇過馬佩雯、朱沛賢、劉藹瑩或李家恩。

The applicant pleaded not guilty to the charge on the basis that she did not cooperate with Ng Fei-tat voluntarily in obtaining a loan from Public Finance Limited by means of a false document. She claimed that she committed the offence because she had been put under duress exerted by Ng Fei-tat. Therefore, she should not be convicted.
申請人否認控罪的基礎是她並非是自願和伍飛達合作，以虛假文件向大眾財務取得貸款。她指是受到伍飛達的威嚇，才作出犯罪行為，因此她不應遭判罪名成立。

Evidence from prosecution witnesses
控方證人的證供

There were four witnesses, namely Ma Pui-man, Chu Pui-yin, Lau Oi-ying and Lee Ka-yan, whose evidence was directly concerned with the applicant.
和申請人直接有關的證人有四位，即馬佩雯、朱沛賢、劉藹瑩和李家恩。

Ma Pui-man said that after making the acquaintance of Ng Fei-tat in early 2006, Ng Fei-tat asked her to introduce some friends to him in order to help him borrow money from finance companies. Ma Pui-man stated that she had introduced the 4th, 5th and 6th defendants and the applicant to Ng Fei-tat. Ma Pui-man agreed to call the applicant and arrange for a meeting in early November 2006. At the meeting, Ng Fei-tat gave some documents to the applicant and asked her to approach Public Finance Limited for loans. Ma Pui-man denied ever threatening the applicant. Nor did she hear Ng Fei-tat making threats to the applicant.
馬佩雯指在2006年初認識了伍飛達後，伍飛達要她介紹一些朋友給他以幫他向財務公司借錢。馬佩雯表示曾介紹過第四、五、六被告人和申請人給伍飛達認識。馬佩雯同意在2006年11月初致電申請人並安排會面。會面時，伍飛達交了一些文件給申請人，叫她到大眾財務借錢。馬佩雯否認有威嚇申請人，亦表示沒有聽到伍飛達有威嚇申請人。

Chu Pui-yin stated that she agreed to cooperate with Ng Fei-tat because the latter had threatened her that he would get someone to splash her home with red paint if she did not agree to cooperate.
朱沛賢指她答應和伍飛達合作，原因是伍飛達恐嚇她，如她不同意，伍飛達會找人到她的家淋紅油。

Lau Oi-ying also came to know Ng Fei-tat through Ma Pui-man. Subsequently, Ng Fei-tat asked her to take out loans from finance companies and if she succeeded, she would get 50% of the loan as her reward. Lau Oi-ying stated that she refused to cooperate at the beginning but she later agreed to cooperate because Ng Fei-tat threatened her that he would get someone to splash her home with red paint.
劉藹瑩亦是透過馬佩雯認識伍飛達。其後伍飛達要她向財務公司借錢，成功後她會得到貸款50% 為報酬。劉藹瑩表示當初拒絕合作，但伍飛達威嚇會找人到她家淋紅油，所以才答應和他合作。

指伍飛達威嚇各人後，一些被告人才同意和伍飛達合作。	Lau Oi-ying was acquainted with the applicant. She agreed that she met Ng Fei-tat and several defendants including the applicant at Mongkok in early November 2006. At that time, Ng Fei-tat asked them to take out loans for him from finance companies by using false documents. But all of them refused. Lau Oi-ying stated that some of the defendants agreed to cooperate with Ng Fei-tat only after Ng Fei-tat had threatened them.
劉藹瑩認識申請人，她同意在2006年11月初在旺角和伍飛達和數名被告，包括申請人會面。當時伍飛達要求各人替他到財務公司以虛假文件貸款，但各人都拒絕。劉藹瑩

Lee Ka-yan also made similar allegations. She emphasized that she agreed to cooperate with Ng Fei-tat to take out loans from finance companies using false documents only because he had threatened her. She stated that the applicant did refuse Ng Fei-tat’s request but she did not notice whether or not Ng Fei-tat had threatened the applicant.
李家恩亦有作出同類的指控，她強調曾遭伍飛達威嚇，才同意和他合作用虛假文件向財務公司借錢。李家恩表示申請人有拒絕伍飛達的要求，但沒有留意到伍飛達是否有威嚇申請人。

Defence
答辯理由

The applicant did not give evidence for her defence. Nor did she call any witness. She agreed that she did in fact, at the request of Ng Fei-tat, take out a loan from Public Finance Limited by using a false document and did get part of the loan as her reward.
申請人沒有作供自辯，亦沒有傳召證人為她作供。申請人同意確有應伍飛達的要求以虛假文件成功向大眾財務貸款，並有收取部份貸款作為酬勞。

However, the applicant pointed out that there was evidence to show that she did not cooperate with Ng Fei-tat voluntarily but succumbed because Ng Fei-tat had subjected her to duress. The applicant’s stance was that in the circumstances, as she did not take part in the conspiracy to defraud voluntarily and she was not dishonest, she should not be held liable for the crime.
但申請人指出有證供顯示她並非自願和伍飛達合作，而是因曾受伍飛達威嚇才屈服。申請人的立場是在上述情況下，她並非自願參與串謀詐騙，亦非不誠實，故不應負上刑責。

The trial judge’s verdict
原審法官的裁決

The trial judge pointed out that the 1st to 8th defendants had agreed to cooperate with Ng Fei-tat to take out loans from financial companies by using false documents but only Ma Pui-man, Chu Pui-yin, Lau Oi-ying and Lee Ka-yan claimed that Ng Fei-tat had subjected them to duress. The other defendants including the 1st defendant Tam Man-yee did not claim that Ng Fei-tat had threatened them. The trial judge pointed out that as Ma Pui-man, Chu Pui-yin, Lau Oi-ying and Lee Ka-yan were friends and they made the same allegation, he had reservation over it.
原審法官指出第一至第八名被告人同意和伍飛達合作，以虛假文件向財務公司貸款，但只有馬佩雯、朱沛賢、劉譪瑩和李家恩指曾受伍飛達威嚇。其他被告人包括第一被告人譚敏儀都沒有指伍飛達有威嚇過她們，原審法官指出馬佩雯、朱沛賢、劉藹瑩和李家恩是朋友，她們作出相同指控，所以他對該指控有所保留。

The trial judge was of the view that even if Ng Fei-tat had actually subjected some of the defendants, including the applicant, to duress, the applicant still could not plead duress as her defence in order to exonerate herself from the crime.
原審法官認為即使伍飛達確有對部份被告人，包括申請人作出威嚇，申請人亦不能以受威嚇作為無罪的辯護理由。

The trial judge pointed out that in order to rely on the defence of duress to exonerate oneself, the duress must be so serious that it must be to cause death or serious injury to the defendant or to others. Threats of assault or splashing of red paint would not suffice. The trial judge also stressed that the applicant had the opportunity to seek help from her family, friends or even the police.
原審法官指出要以受威嚇為無罪的辯護理由，威嚇必需嚴重到構成對被告人或其他人造成死亡或嚴重傷害，而非只是毆打或淋紅油等威嚇。原審法官亦強調申請人有機會向家人，朋友甚至警方要求協助。

The trial judge found that the defence of duress was not available to the applicant and convicted her of the offence of conspiracy to defraud accordingly.
原審法官認為申請人不能以受威嚇作為辯護理由，所以裁定申請人串謀詐騙罪罪名成立。

Grounds of appeal
上訴理由

Mr. Peter Chow, counsel for the applicant, raised a number of grounds of appeal and elaborated them in further details in his skeleton written submission.
代表申請人的周柏柱大律師提出多項的上訴理由。在其書面陳詞大綱，周大律師亦詳細地闡述該些理由。

Mr. Chow complained that the trial judge failed to deal with the defence raised by the applicant properly and correctly.
周大律師指原審法官沒有適當及正確地處理申請人的辯護理由。

Mr. Chow pointed out that as revealed by the summary of facts of the prosecution, Tam Man-yee, Ma Pui-man, Chu Pui-yin, Lau Oi-ying and Lee Ka-yan had all alleged that they had been subjected to duress exerted by Ng Fei-tat before they agreed to his request to take out loans from financial institutions by using false documents. Therefore, the trial judge should not have had any reservation over such allegation of theirs.
周大律師指出在控方的案情撮要，譚敏儀、馬佩雯、朱沛賢、劉譪瑩和李家恩都指曾遭伍飛達威嚇才答應他以虛假文件向財務機構貸款，因此原審法官不應對她們的該項指稱有任何保留。

Mr. Chow submitted that the trial judge failed to consider properly whether the applicant had been put under duress. He stressed that the applicant should still be found not guilty even if it was only likely that she had been put under duress.
周大律師指原審法官沒有適當地考慮申請人是否受到威嚇。周大律師強調即使申請人只是可能受到威嚇，亦應被判無罪。

Mr. Chow also emphasized that the mere threats uttered by Ng Fei-tat of splashing red paint at the applicant’s home or assaulting her did not necessarily fail to found the defence of duress. He submitted that the trial judge failed to deal with this issue properly.
周大律師亦強調，伍飛達只是恐嚇會到申請人的家淋紅油或毆打她，不一定不能構成“威嚇”的答辯理由。周大律師指原審法官並沒有適當地處理這個問題。

Mr. Chow argued that the trial judge should have firstly found whether or not the applicant had been subjected to threats uttered by Ng Fei-tat of splashing red paint at her home or assaulting her, and then determined whether those threats (if any) could have founded the defence of duress. Mr. Chow stressed that the trial judge should have still found the applicant not guilty if he could not be sure whether or not she had been put under duress. He also said that the trial judge had failed to consider the personal background of the applicant including factors like her youth and immaturity. As a result, the trial judge reached a verdict which was unfair to the applicant.
周大律師認為原審法官應先裁定申請人是否有受伍飛達恐嚇會到她的家淋紅油或毆打她，再裁定該些恐嚇（如有的話）能否構成“威嚇”的答辯理由。周大律師強調如原審法官不能肯定申請人是否曾被威嚇，亦應裁定她罪名不成立。周大律師亦指原審法官沒有將申請人的個人背景包括她年紀輕，不成熟等因素考慮在內，達致一項對申請人不公平的裁決。

Mr. Chow stressed the point strongly that the applicant only received a reward of $1,200 in the incident and she fully repaid the loan two months after the granting of it. Coupled with the fact that she had supplied her correct address to Public Finance Limited, all these showed that the applicant had not acted dishonestly.
周大律師力稱申請人在事件中只獲得1,200元酬勞，而她亦在獲得貸款後兩個月內便清還貸款，加上她有向大眾財務提交正確地址等等因素都顯示申請人並非不誠實行事。

Mr. Chow argued strongly that the applicant in fact did not have the mens rea in the incident. But the trial judge failed to assess the evidence properly nor give sufficient reasons for his verdict. Therefore, the conviction of the applicant was unsafe.
周大律師力稱事件中申請人其實並沒有犯罪的意圖，而原審法官卻沒有適當地評估證供，亦沒有就其裁決給予充份的理由，因此裁定申請人罪名成立是不穩妥的。

Discussion
討論

The evidence adduced by the prosecution against the applicant was very simple and also undisputed. The applicant made use of the false document and information provided to her by Ng Fei-tat to falsely claim that she was employed as a saleslady by Digital Crown Holdings (HK) Ltd. at a monthly salary of $7,500 and successfully obtained a loan of $8,000 from Public Finance Limited. The applicant gave Ng Fei-tat $6,800 and kept $1,200 as the reward for herself.
控方指控申請人的證據是非常簡單，亦是沒有爭議的。申請人利用伍飛達向她提供的虛假文件及資料訛稱自己受僱於亮碧思集團為售貨員，月薪7,500元，成功向大眾財務取得8,000元的貸款。申請人將6,800元交了給伍飛達，自己則保留1,200元作為酬勞。

The above undisputed facts showed that there was an agreement between the applicant and Ng Fei-tat to defraud Public Finance Limited. Any reasonable person would have certainly found that the acts of the applicant were improper and dishonest. The applicant herself also would have certainly thought that such acts were improper and dishonest. Otherwise she would not have claimed that she had acted under duress.
上述無爭議的案情顯示申請人和伍飛達有協議詐騙大眾財務。任何合情合理的人士都必然認為申請人的行為不當，亦是不誠實。申請人本人亦必然認為該行為不當及不誠實，否則她不會指自己是在別人威嚇下行事。

The argument advanced by Mr. Chow that the applicant did not have the mens rea and had not acted dishonestly was not at all convincing. The fact that the applicant had supplied her true address and made full repayment of the loan to Public Finance Limited afterwards could not refute that the applicant had the mens rea and had acted dishonestly.
周大律師指申請人不具犯罪意圖及並非不誠實行事根本不具任何說服力。申請人有填報真確地址及在事後向大眾財務清還貸款都不能推反申請人具有犯罪意圖及是不誠實行事。

The only important point in this case is whether the defence of duress raised by the applicant can be established.
案件的重點只是申請人提出“受威嚇”辯護理由能否成立。

Ma Pui-man, Chu Pui-yin, Lau Oi-ying and Lee Ka-yan all claimed that they agreed to cooperate with Ng Fei-tat to defraud finance companies of money because they had been threatened by him. It was also mentioned in the prosecution’s summary of facts that under caution, Ma Pui-man, Chu Pui-yin, Lau Oi-ying and Lee Ka-yan had claimed that they all had been threatened by Ng Fei-tat. But the trial judge and the prosecution did not necessarily have to accept such claims.
馬佩雯、朱沛賢、劉譪瑩和李家恩都指曾受伍飛達恐嚇才答應和他合作騙取財務公司金錢。控方的案情撮要亦有提及在警誡下馬佩雯、朱沛賢、劉譪瑩和李家恩都指曾受伍飛達的恐嚇，但主審法官及控方不一定接納她們的指稱。

The trial judge obviously had doubts about those claims and so he decided to hear evidence from Ma Pui-man, Chu Pui-yin, Lau Oi-ying and Lee Ka-yan before he would determine the said issue.
主審法官明顯對該些指稱抱有懷疑，所以決定先聆聽馬佩雯、朱沛賢、劉藹瑩和李家恩的證供後，才在上述議題作出定奪。

In fact, there was no direct evidence to show that the applicant had been threatened in any manner by Ng Fei-tat or others which resulted in her taking part in defrauding Public Finance Limited.
事實上，亦沒有任何直接證據證明申請人有受過伍飛達或其他人的任何恐嚇導致她參與詐騙大眾財務的罪行。

Ma Pui-man denied having threatened the applicant. Nor did she hear Ng Fei-tat threatening her. Chu Pui-yin did not say that she heard Ng Fei-tat threatening the applicant. Lau Oi-ying said that Ng Fei-tat had threatened to get someone to splash red paint at her home. She also said that in the meeting in early November 2006, Ng Fei-tat requested her and other defendants including the applicant to take out loans with finance companies by making use of false documents. All of them refused. And some defendants agreed to cooperate with Ng Fei-tat only after he had threatened them. Lau Oi-ying did not state clearly that Ng Fei-tat had threatened the applicant or by what means or in what language he had threatened her. Nor did she say that the applicant succumbed to the threats.
馬佩雯否認有威嚇申請人，亦沒有聽到伍飛達有威嚇申請人。朱沛賢沒有說有聽過伍飛達有威嚇過申請人。劉藹瑩指伍飛達威嚇會找人到她家淋紅油，劉藹瑩亦指在2006年11月初的會面時，伍飛達曾要求她和其他被告人包括申請人利用虛假文件向財務公司貸款，各人拒絕而在伍飛達的威嚇下一些被告人才同意和伍飛達合作。劉藹瑩沒有明確指出伍飛達有威嚇申請人或以甚麼方法或語言恐嚇，亦沒有指明申請人有受威嚇而屈服。

Lee Ka-yan stated all the more clearly that she did not notice whether the applicant was put under any duress by Ng Fei-tat.
李家恩更表明並沒有留意到申請人是否有受伍飛達的任何威嚇。

More importantly, the applicant did not give evidence and there was in fact no evidence to show that she had been indeed threatened by anyone, or the nature of the threat, or the influence that the threat (if any) had on her.
更重要的是申請人沒有作供，根本上沒有證據顯示她確有受任何人威嚇及威嚇的性質或威嚇（如有的話）對她的影響。

In the said circumstances, there is in fact no sufficient basis for the applicant to rely on in order to raise the defence that she participated in the crime under duress.
在上述情況下，指申請人受威嚇而參與罪行的答辯理由根本沒有足夠基礎提出。

Rightly as the trial judge pointed out, even if the case was dealt with in the most favourable light to the applicant, the relevant evidence at the most only showed that Ng Fei-tat had indicated to the applicant that her home would be splashed with red paint or she would be assaulted.
誠如原審法官正確指出，即使以對申請人最有利的角度處理案件，有關的證據最多顯示伍飛達有向申請人表示會到她的家淋紅油或毆打她。

In R v Hasan [2005] 2 AC 467, the English Court of Appeal stated clearly that in deciding whether duress could afford a defence to the commission of crime, the court should consider three factors: (1) the nature of the threat; (2) the efficacy of the threat and (3) the offences and characters that the availability of that defence would exclude.
在R v Hasan [2005] 2AC 467案英國上訴法庭                                                                                                                                                       表明，“威嚇”作能否作為犯罪行為的答辯理由，法庭要考慮三項因素（一）威嚇的性質；（二）威嚇的說服力及（三）該答辯理由應排除的罪行和人物。

All the authorities stated clearly that to found a defence of duress to an offence, the threat must be such as to involve death or grievous bodily harm.
所有案例都表明要構成罪行的答辯理由，“威嚇”必需是涉及死亡或嚴重人身傷亡的威嚇。

It was also held in R v Quayle [2005] 1 WLR 3642 that to found a defence to the crime, the threat concerned must be imminent and related to physical injury.
R v Quayle [2005] 1WLR 3642案亦表明要構成罪行的答辯理由，有關威嚇必需是即將發生及和身體損傷有關的。

Lord Bingham identified 7 limitations of the duress defence in R v Z [2005] 2 AC 467 as follows:
Lord Bingham法官在R v Z [2005] 2AC 467案列明“威嚇”作為答辯理由需受到下列7項因素所限：

“威嚇”的答辯理由不適用於謀殺、企圖謀殺或某些叛國罪行；	“(1)		Duress does not afford a defence to charges of murder, attempted murder and some forms of treason;
“（一）

(2)	To found a plea of duress the threat relied on must be to cause death or grievous bodily harm;
（二）   “威嚇”必需和“死亡”或嚴重人身傷亡有關；

“威嚇”必需是針對被告人，其家人或近親；	(3)	The threat must be directed against the defendant or his immediate family or someone close to him;
（三）

有關測試主要是客觀的而非被告人的主觀理解，即“威嚇”所引致的功效之信念客觀上需要是合理及真誠的；	(4)	The relevant tests pertaining to duress have been largely stated objectively and not with reference to the defendant’s subjective perceptions, that is to say, the defendant’s belief in the efficacy of the threat must be reasonable as well as genuine objectively;
（四）

“威嚇”的答辯理由只適用於由該些“威嚇”所直接導致而要獲免責的罪行；	(5)	The defence of duress is available only where the criminal conduct which it is sought to excuse has been directly caused by the threats which are relied upon;
（五）

“威嚇”需是被告人應合理地採取了規避步驟但仍是不能避免的；及	(6)	The threat must be one that the defendant still could not avoid in spite of him having taken evasive actions reasonably; and
（六）

(7)	The defendant may not rely on duress to which he has voluntarily laid himself open.”
（七）   被告人不能自願地接受有關之“威嚇”

We must emphasize that if duress is advanced as a defence to any charges, it must be strictly controlled lest the abuse of it would be giving an excuse to rationalize the criminal conduct of the defendant and exonerate him.
本庭強調“威嚇”作為任何罪行的答辯理由，必須受到嚴謹之約束，否則會遭濫用而導致令犯罪行為合理化之措口，令罪犯脫罪。

Looking from an objective point of view, even if Ng Fei-tat had actually threatened the applicant that her home would be splashed with red paint or she would be assaulted, objectively she should not have reasonably and genuinely believed in the efficacy of Ng Fei-tat’s threat. And as rightly pointed out by the trial judge, the applicant had much opportunity to seek help from her family, friends or even the police. Therefore, the threat was not one that the applicant still could not avoid in spite of her having taken evasive actions reasonably.
從客觀角度觀之，即使伍飛達確有恐嚇申請人指會到她家中淋紅油或毆打她，客觀上，她不應合理及真誠地相信伍飛達的恐嚇確有效力。而誠如原審法官正確指出，申請人是有相當多的機會向家人、朋友，甚至向警方求助，所以有關“威嚇”並非申請人採取了應採取的合理規避步驟後，但仍然是不能避免的。

We agree with the verdict reached by the trial judge. The defence of duress is not available in this case. The applicant cannot avail herself of it to secure an acquittal.
本庭認同原審法官的裁決，本案並沒有構成“威嚇”的辯護理由。申請人不能利用該理由冀求能脫罪。

We do not find the conviction of the applicant unsafe in any respect. In consideration of the background and the relevant issues in this case, the other criticisms that Mr. Chow levelled at the approach adopted by the trial judge in dealing with the case are not well-founded either. We dismiss the application for leave to appeal.
對申請人被裁定罪名成立，本庭不覺有任何不穩妥之處，以本案的背景及有關爭議，周大律師對原審法官處理方法之其他批評亦是不能成立的。本庭不批准申請人就定罪上訴。

由法律援助署委派許天福律師事務所轉聘周柏柱大律師代表。	Mr. Peter Chow, instructed by Messrs. David Hui & Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Applicant.
申請人：

Mr. David Leung, Ag. SADPP of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent.
答辯人：由律政司署理高級助理刑事檢控專員梁卓然代表。