Hon Cheung JA (giving the reasons for judgment of the Court):
上訴法庭法官張澤祐頒發上訴法庭判案理由書：

The Applicant was charged with one count of rape, contrary to section 118(1) of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200), and was convicted after trial before Barnes J and a jury.  Barnes J sentenced the Applicant to seven and a half years’ imprisonment.  The Applicant sought leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.  At the conclusion of the hearing, we dismissed the application on conviction but allowed the application on sentence and substituted a sentence of five and a half years’ imprisonment.  What follows are our reasons for judgment.
申請人被控一項「強姦罪」，違反《刑事罪行條例》(香港法例第200章)第118(1)條。案件經高等法院原訟法庭法官張慧玲及陪審團審訊後，申請人被裁定罪名成立。張法官判處申請人入獄七年半。申請人就定罪及刑期提出上訴許可申請。本庭在聆訊後駁回針對定罪的申請，但批准針對刑期的申請，以及將刑期更改為五年半監禁。以下是本庭的判案理由。

Prosecution Case
控方案情

The Complainant, a 16-year-old school girl, met the Applicant on the internet in 2008 and subsequent to that, they had no contact for some time.  They resumed contact via MSN on 15th March 2009.  The Applicant told the Complainant that he was 25 years old, but in fact, he was 35.  The Complainant told the Applicant that she wanted to be a model.  They arranged to meet on 19th April 2009 at the Applicant’s residence for a friend of the Applicant to take photos of the Complainant so that the Complainant would have a chance to take up modelling jobs.
投訴人是一名16歲的女學生。她於2008年在互聯網上認識申請人，雙方其後一度沒有聯絡。2009年3月15日雙方再次以MSN聯絡。申請人告訴投訴人他的年齡是25歲，但他的真實年齡是35歲。投訴人告訴申請人她想當模特兒。雙方相約在2009年4月19日在申請人的住所見面，並由申請人的一位朋友替投訴人拍照，藉此讓投訴人有機會擔當模特兒的工作。

On 19th April 2009, the Complainant visited the Applicant’s residence to have a photo-shoot training session.  The Applicant had told the Complainant prior to their meeting that she would need to have some alcohol on the day of photo shoots.  After the Complainant had arrived at the Applicant’s residence, the Applicant gave her some orange juice mixed with alcohol, saying that the drink would help her loosen up a bit when posing and behave a little more professionally before the camera.  The Applicant then took photos of the Complainant.  Some of the photos taken depicted the Complainant wearing revealing clothing in sexy poses and some showed the Complainant without knickers on, exposing her private parts.   Later, the Complainant became drunk and felt sleepy.  She felt the Applicant fondle her abdomen and breasts.  She asked the Applicant not to do that, but he was “like losing his mind”; thereafter the Complainant cried.  The Applicant walked away, returned 15 minutes later, again told the Complainant to pose and took photos of her.  The Complainant said she was heavily drunk and later felt that the Applicant, with his penis inside her vagina, was having sex with her.  Despite her desire to resist, she lacked the strength to push the Applicant away.  The Applicant stopped the intercourse 15 minutes later, but had sex with the Complainant again after approximately five minutes.
2009年4月19日，投訴人到申請人的住所，接受一次拍照訓練。雙方在會面之前，申請人已經告訴投訴人在拍攝當日需要喝一點酒。當投訴人到達申請人的住所後，申請人將一些混合了酒精的橙汁給她飲，並聲稱這杯飲品可使她在擺姿勢時放鬆一點，令她可以拍得專業一點。接着，申請人替投訴人拍照。在這些照片中，有些是投訴人穿著暴露衣服及擺出性感姿勢的照片,有些是投訴人沒有穿著內褲的下體照片。之後，投訴人喝醉酒及覺得睏倦。她感覺到申請人撫摸她的肚及胸部。她叫申請人不要這樣做，但他卻「好像失卻理智一樣」。接着投訴人哭泣。申請人走開了15分鐘後再回來繼續指示投訴人擺姿勢及替她拍照。投訴人說她當時很酒醉，之後感覺到申請人的陰莖插進了她的陰道內及進行性交，她想反抗，但沒有氣力推開申請人。15分鐘後，申請人中止性行為，但過了約五分鐘，他又再次與投訴人性交。

There was evidence in the case that a few days prior to 19th April 2009 (i.e. on 12th April 2009), the Complainant had visited the Applicant’s residence and that the Complainant visited the Applicant’s residence again for photographs to be taken of her by the Applicant after alleging that she was raped by the Applicant on 19th April 2009 (i.e. on 26th April 2009).
案件有證據顯示投訴人在2009年4月19日之前的數天(即2009年4月12日)曾經到過申請人的住所，而投訴人聲稱在2009年4月19日被申請人強姦之後(即2009年4月26日)也再次前往申請人的住所及讓申請人替她拍照。

The Applicant’s admission of having sex
申請人承認性交

It was an undisputed fact that they had sexual intercourse.  According to the admitted facts, the Applicant and the Complainant had sexual intercourse on the day in question.  It was the Applicant’s evidence that he had consensual sex with the Complainant twice on the day in question.
雙方曾經發生性行為是一項不受爭議的事實。根據雙方承認的事實，申請人與投訴人當日曾經進行性行為。根據申請人本人的證供，他當日曾兩次與投訴人性交，但都是得到她的同意的。

Grounds of appeal
上訴理由

While the issue at trial was whether the Complainant consented to the sexual intercourse with the Applicant, this was not the issue pertinent to the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal against conviction.  The jury, in our view, could find on the Complainant’s evidence that she did not consent to it when they were having sex; however, her state of intoxication rendered her incapable of resisting.  Mr. Sewlyn Yu, Senior Counsel, and Ms. Jolie Chao representing the Applicant accepted that the direction given by Barnes J was fair and that she had directed the jury to give full consideration to the evidence upon which doubts, favourable to the Applicant, arose.
雖然原審時的爭議點是投訴人是否同意與申請人性交，但申請人針對定罪的上訴許可申請並不是與這項議題有關。本庭認為陪審團根據投訴人的証供是可以裁定雙方性交時她是不同意的，但因酒醉而無能力反抗。代表申請人的余承章資深大律師及趙芷荺大律師接受，張法官的指引是持平的，及她引導陪審團就針對申請人有利的證供疑點作出全面的考慮。

The Applicant’s ground of appeal was that reliance was placed by the prosecution on two acts of sexual intercourse as the basis of the allegation against him notwithstanding the fact that there was only one count of rape against him.  The prosecution never made it clear which act of sexual intercourse was the one with which he was charged and which was the “uncharged act”.  The Applicant submitted that Barnes J was wrong in proceeding with the single count of rape charging two acts of rape.  It was the Applicant’s submission that Barnes J, when directing the jury, erred in (1) failing to identify which of the two acts of sexual intercourse between the Complainant and the Applicant was the one alleged in the charge and which was the “uncharged act”; and (2) failing to sufficiently and properly direct the jury in respect of the “uncharged act”, including the criteria of admissibility, use and nature of such “uncharged act”.
申請人的上訴理由是雖然他被控一項「強姦罪」，但控方卻依賴兩次的性行為來作為針對他的指控基礎。控方從沒有清楚指出哪一次的性行為才是控告他的罪行，而哪一次的性行為是「不被控告的行為」。申請人指張法官將兩次的強姦行為的指控以一項「強姦罪」來合併處理是錯誤的做法。申請人指張法官向陪審團作出指引時錯誤地(一)未有清楚辨別投訴人與申請人所發生的兩次性行為中哪一次是控罪所指的罪行；哪一次是「不被控告的行為」及(二)未有就該次「不被控告的行為」的證供向陪審團作出充分及適當的指引，這包括該次「不被控告的行為」的證供取證準則、用途和性質。

Legal principles
法律原則

The two legal principles concerning a “count” in an indictment are as follows:
涉及公訴書內「罪名」的法律原則有以下兩點：

(1)A count on an indictment must not allege two or more separate offences against the defendant (see Archbold Hong Kong 2011, paragraph 1-123).  Section 2(2) of the Indictment Rules (Cap. 221, sub. leg. C) provides: “Where more than one offence is charged in an indictment, the statement and particulars of each offence shall be set out in a separate paragraph called a count”.  If a “count” on an indictment is “duplicitous”, it may be quashed by the court.
(1)公訴書不可以一項「罪名」控告被告人干犯了兩項或以上的不同罪行(見Archbold Hong Kong 2011第1-123段)。《公訴書規則》(香港法例第221章附屬法例C)第2(2)條指「凡公訴書內控告的罪行多於一項，則每項罪行的陳述及詳情，須以獨立段落列出，每一段落稱為一項罪名」。若果公訴書所列的「罪名」存有「重複的罪行」，它是會有可能被法庭撤銷的。

(2)The evidence adduced or facts alleged against a defendant may disclose latent ambiguities in the indictment.  An instance of this is where the prosecution adduces evidence of the defendant’s commission of a number of offences when the defendant is charged with one “count”.  In these circumstances, the charge may be dismissed by the court (see Court of Final Appeal, Chim Hon Man v. HKSAR (1999) 2 HKCFAR 145).
(2)針對被告人的證供或事實可能顯示公訴書內存有潛在的不清晰之處。其中一項例子是控方在控告被告人一項「罪名」時提出被告人干犯多項罪行的證據。在這情況下，控罪可能被法庭撤銷(見：終審法院Chim Hon Man v. HKSAR (1999) 2 HKCFAR 145)。

The spirit underlying these two legal principles is fairness in that a defendant should know what charges he faces (see DPP v Merriman [1973] AC 584).
這兩項原則的背後精神是為了公平，因為被告人是應該知道他被控告的是甚麼控罪(見：DPP v Merriman [1973] AC 584)。

The indictment in the present case only alleged one “count” against the Applicant.  Consequently, the issue of “duplicity” set out in (1) above did not arise with respect to the indictment.
本案的公訴書只是控告申請人一項「罪名」，故此公訴書不存在上述第(1)點提到的「重複罪行」問題。

The issue on appeal related to (2) above.  Mr. Yu, SC, cited the legal principle set out in Chim Hon Man, namely that “in the absence of any act or acts being identified as the subject of an offence charged in an indictment, the prosecution cannot lead evidence that is equally capable of referring to a number of occasions, any one of which might constitute an offence as described in the charge and invite the jury to convict on any one of them”.
本上訴的爭議點是有關上述的第(2)爭議點。余大律師引用Chim Hon Man一案所定的法律原則，即「如不能確定某一項或多項作為是公訴書所指控的罪行，控方不能帶領出多次行為的證供，而其中一次是可構成所指控罪行的，然後促請陪審團根據其中一次而定罪」。

In Chim Hon Man, Sir Anthony Mason NPJ said at page 161I-162B:
終審法院非常任法官梅師賢爵士在Chim Hon Man第161I-162B頁說：

“Knowledge of the particular act, matter or thing which is the foundation of the charge is important in enabling the accused to ascertain and prove what, if any, defence, for example, an alibi, he may have to the offence charged and to subject a Complainant's evidence to searching scrutiny by reference to the surrounding circumstances.  An accused person may be subjected to unfairness and embarrassment if he is called upon to meet a charge of one offence based upon evidence of the commission of multiple offences, more particularly if the evidence is such that it does not enable each such offence to be clearly differentiated from the others.  The degree of unfairness or embarrassment may vary according to the circumstances.  If the prosecution case is based on evidence of many offences in an extended period of time the unfairness may be considerable.”
「獲悉哪個確切的行動或事宜構成控罪的根基，是具重要性的，因為這會令到被告人能夠查明及證明他對控罪有什麼答辯，如有的話：例如他並不在犯罪現場這一個答辯，與及令到被告人能夠就周遭的情況，對投訴人的證據作出徹底的審閱。如果一名被告人面對一項控罪，而支持該項控罪的證據顯示發生了多項罪行，尤其是如果該證據未能夠令人把每一個罪行辨別清楚，該名被告人是會蒙受不公。不公的程度則按情況而定。如果支持控方案情的證據，是一段悠長期間內發生了的多項罪行，那麼其不公的程度是相當高的。」

The Court of Appeal discussed how the court should deal with the evidence of “uncharged acts” in HKSAR v Kwok Hing Tony [2010] 2 HKLRD 761 and the legal principles concerned were affirmed by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Chu Chi Wah (No.1) [2010] HKLRD 675.
上訴法庭在香港特別行政區訴郭慶 [2010] 3 HKLRD 761一案中討論法庭如何處理「不被控告的行為」的證供。有關的法律原則在香港特別行政區訴朱志華 (No. 1) [2010] 4 HKLRD 675一案被上訴法庭確認。

Our Views
本庭的意見

We disagreed with the Applicant on the presence of an “uncharged act” in the present case.  We agreed with the Respondent’s position that in law, the two acts of sexual intercourse in this instance had satisfied the single sexual intercourse element as set out in the charge and they constituted a single conduct of rape.  In the present case, the two acts of sexual intercourse were separated by an interval of five minutes. Both occurred in a room at the Applicant’s residence.  In the course of the sexual intercourse on both occasions, the Complainant was unable to resist under the influence of alcohol and she did not consent to the sexual intercourse.  In these circumstances, the two acts of sexual intercourse were closely connected in terms of time, location, their nature and purpose.  We were of the view that, taking the evidence of the case as a whole, Mr. Yu’s argument that the Complainant might have consented to the sexual intercourse on the second occasion was not on a safe foundation.  The Applicant’s defence rested on prior consent having been obtained from the Complainant for the sexual intercourse on both occasions and thus there was no difference in the nature of the sexual intercourse on the two occasions.
本庭不同意申請人所說本案涉及另一項「不被控告的行為」。本庭同意答辯人的立場，本案涉及的兩次性行為在法律上是構成控罪所指的單一性交元素及構成單一強姦行為。在本案，兩次性交分隔的時間只是五分鐘。兩次性交均是在申請人居所的房間內進行。在兩次性交時，投訴人都是在酒精的影響下而無法反抗及不同意性交。在這情況下，無論是時間、地點、性質及目的，這兩次的性行為都是有緊密相連性的。雖然余大律師認為投訴人有可能是同意第二次性交，但綜觀整件案的証供，本庭認為他這論點的基礎不穩妥。況且申請人的答辯基礎是兩次性交都是獲得投訴人的同意後才進行的，故此兩次性交的性質是沒有分別的。

In our judgment, the legal principle applicable to the present case is: where an activity involves more than one act, it is legitimate to join these acts in one charge (see: Jemmison v Priddle [1972] 1 Q.B. 489, 495D).  The court, in considering whether an act or acts performed by a defendant constitute commission of an offence or offences, needs to answer the question by applying common sense and deciding what is fair in the circumstances.  When a defendant has committed similar acts that are connected in time and place or by their common purpose, such acts can fairly be viewed as the same criminal activity.  In those circumstances, it is open to the prosecution to lay a single charge against the defendant.
本庭認為本案適用的法律原則是：如果一項活動涉及多於一項的行為，這些行為可以合乎法理地被歸入於同一控罪之中(見：Jemmison v Priddle [1972] 1 Q.B. 489, 495D) 。法庭在考慮被告人所作出的單一行為或者多項行為是否干犯一項或多項罪行時，是需要以常識及當時情況衡量其公平性來解答這提問。當一名被告人干犯了多項類似的行為時，而在時間及地點都是有關連性或有共同目的的話，那麼這些行為可以公平地被視作同一犯罪活動。在這情況下，控方是可以只以一項控罪來起訴被告人。

In Jemmison, an information was preferred against the defendant for “killing game without licence”.  The Court of Appeal found that it was proper to bring a single charge in respect of the defendant’s killing of two deer on the day in question by shooting them separately at the same geographical location in an interval of a few seconds.
在Jemmison一案被告人被控一項「沒有牌照殺死獵物罪」 。他在事發當日在同一地點分別射殺了兩頭鹿，相隔的時間只是幾秒鐘。上訴法庭認為以一項控罪作出起訴並無不當。

In Merriman, the defendant and an accomplice were arraigned on one count of “wounding with intent” for their stabbing of the victim seven times with a knife.  Lord Morris said at page 593:
在Merriman 一案，被告人與另一名同黨被控一項「有意圖傷人罪」。他們用刀刺了受害人七次。Lord Morris法官在593頁說：

“The question arises – what is an offence?  If A attacks B and, in doing so, stabs B five times with a knife, has A committed one offence or five?  If A in the dwelling house of B steals ten different chattels, some perhaps from one room and some from others, has he committed one offence or several?  In many different situations comparable questions could be asked.  In my view, such questions when they arise are best answered by applying common sense and by deciding what is fair in the circumstances.”
「衍生的問題是，何謂一項控罪？若甲攻擊乙，而甲是用刀插乙五次，究竟甲是犯了一項或五項罪行？若甲在乙的住所偷了十件不同的物件，有的是從其中一間房間所取得，而其他則從另外的房間所拿取，究竟甲是犯了一項或多項罪行？在眾多不同的情況中，以上的提問也會出現。以我所見，以常識及相應當時情況衡量其公平性來解答這項提問，最為恰當。」

In R v Wilson (1979) 69 Cr. App. R. 83, at page 87 of the judgment, the English Court of Appeal acknowledged and applied the legal principles set out in Jemmison and Merriman.  The defendant in that case faced eight counts alleging theft by the defendant in eight different stores, each count concerning one of the eight stores, but including a number of thefts by him at different departments in the same store.  The Court of Appeal held that the charges concerned were not bad for “duplicity” and consequently it was open to the prosecution to bring a charge against the defendant for each activity (that is, the offence of theft in each charge covered a number of acts of theft).
在R v Wilson (1979) 69 Cr. App. R. 83一案中，英國上訴庭在判詞第87頁亦認同及應用了Jemmison 及 Merriman所述的法律原則。在該案被告人被控八項控罪，指他在八間不同的商店內進行偷竊，每一項控罪是針對這八間商店的其中一間，但包括被告人在該間商店內的不同部門進行的多次偷竊。上訴法庭認為有關的控罪並沒有犯上「重複罪行」之弊處，因此就算每一項活動(即每一項控罪的「偷竊罪」包括多項的偷竊行為)，控方也可以一項罪名來控告被告人。

We did not consider any of the cases cited by the Applicant applicable to the present case for the reason that in all the cases concerned, the offences took place over a longer period of time and some of the incidents involved occurred long ago, as a result of which the prosecution was unable to set out details specific to the old offences when presenting their case.
本庭認為申請人所提出的案例皆不適用於本案，因它們均涉及一些為期較長的罪行，當中涉及一些很久以前發生的事，以致控方在舉證時未能清地列出一些陳年罪行的細節。

(1)In Chim Hon Man, the charges concerned what happened in a period of a month five years back.  The prosecution alleged that the victim was repeatedly raped by the defendant in that particular month.  The defendant was only charged with two counts of “rape”.  The “specimen charges” were based on the Complainant’s allegation that she was raped at least once at night in the first 14 days of that particular month and at least once at night in the next 14 days.  The victim in that case stated that she had been repeatedly raped by the defendant but she was unable to be specific as to the date of each rape committed by the defendant and individual incidents.  Nor did she have detailed recollection of the incidents.  The contents of the indictment were improper.
(1)Chim Hon Man 一案的控罪涉及五年前的一個月份內所發生的事，控方指受害人在該個月內曾多次遭被告人強姦。被告人只被控兩項「強姦罪」，而「樣本控罪」是根據受害人稱她最少一次在該月份的首14天晚上和最少一次在其後的14天晚上被人強姦。案中的受害人說她被多次遭被告人強姦，但她未能說出每次遭被告人強姦的日期及個別事件的情況，而且她對事件的記憶並不詳盡，控罪書的內容並不適當。

(2)In Kwok Hing Tony, there were seven sexual offences.  The charges referred to “a day unknown” over a lengthy period of 1½ years (as in charges (a) and (b)) and in the period of a month (as in charges (c), (d), (e) and (g)) (between 1993 and 2006) respectively, the location being a place where the defendant and the complainants were likely to meet often.  It was the evidence of the two complainants that in the period overlapping with the time span specified in the charges, the defendant had sexually violated them on many occasions (ranging from ten-odd to tens of times).  That the defendant was unable to distinguish the acts with which he was charged from those “uncharged acts” and thus unable to present a defence corresponding to the charges would result in unfairness to the defendant.
(2)郭慶 一案涉及七項性罪行，控罪所陳述的日期分別是長達1½ 年(控罪(a)及(b))及一個月(控罪(c)，(d)，(e)及(g))期間內的「某日」(由1993年至2006年)，而地點是被告人和投訴人很可能經常會面的地方。兩名投訴人的證供顯示，在與控罪期間重疊的時段內，被告人曾多次(十多次到數十次不等)對他們作出性侵犯的行為，被告人不能辨別哪項是被控告的行為，而哪項是「不被控告的行為」，因此被告人未能作出相應的答辯，這是會對被告人不公平的。

(3)In Chu Chi Wah, twelve of the charges alleged that the defendant had unlawful sexual intercourse with an underage girl between 2004 and 2006.  The victim in that case gave evidence that she had had sexual intercourse with the defendant of that case on numerous occasions.  It was unfair to the defendant that the trial judge did not properly direct the jury as to the obvious presence of “uncharged acts” in her evidence.
(3)朱志華 一案中，其中十二項控罪涉及被告人於2004年至2006年期間與未成年女童非法性交。案中的受害女童作證指她曾與該案被告人進行過很多次的性行為。她的証供明顯存有「不被控告的行為」，但原審法官沒有對陪審團作出適當的指引，這對被告人是不公平的。

(4)In HKSAR v Tam Kon Chung & Anor [1998] 3 HKC 392, the second defendant was left facing one count of rape in the end.  The victim said that the defendant had raped her twice, once in the toilet of the flat and once on a mattress placed on the floor of the flat.  The appeal against conviction was allowed by the Court of Appeal on the ground that the trial judge of that case should have directed the jury to consider the case in the light of two separate allegations of rape (see 403I of the judgment), and by so doing, the Court of Appeal found that the two rapes in that case could not be considered under the same “activity”.
(4)HKSAR v Tam Kon Chung & Anor [1998] 3 HKC 392一案，第二被告人最終面對一項「強姦罪」。受害人說被告人曾兩次強姦她，分別發生於單位的洗手間內和一張放置於單位地上的床墊上。上訴法庭批准針對定罪的上訴，理由是該案的原審法官應該指引陪審團以兩次獨立的強姦指控來考慮案件，(見判詞403I)，上訴庭因此認為該案中的兩次強姦不能以同一項「活動」來考慮。

In the present case, the two acts of sexual intercourse between the Applicant and the Complainant were both the “charged act” and thus there was no “uncharged act” in the present case.  It followed that it was not necessary for Barnes J to give any direction to the jury on “uncharged act”.
在本案由於申請人與投訴人所發生的兩次性行為均屬於「被控告行為」，故此本案不存在任何「不被控告行為」的情況。張法官亦無須向陪審團作出任何有關「不被控告行為」的指引。

Conclusion (on conviction)
總結(定罪)

For the reasons above, we dismissed the application on conviction.
基於上述原因，本庭駁回針對定罪的申請。

Appeal against sentence
刑期上訴

Barnes J, in sentencing the Applicant to seven and a half years’ imprisonment, had considered the following:
張法官在判處申請人七年半監禁時考慮了以下各點：

(1)The Applicant might not have any premeditated plan to deliberately get the Complainant to drink on 19th April 2009 and make her unable to resist in order to rape the Complainant.
(1)申請人在2009年4月19日未必是處心積慮、特意安排投訴人喝酒，令她沒有能力反抗，從而強姦投訴人。

(2)The Applicant merely took the opportunity when the Complainant was drunk to have sex with her and was reckless as to whether she consented to the sexual intercourse.  It was not the case where the Applicant had sex with the Complainant, knowing that she did not consent to it.
(2)申請人只是利用當時投訴人醉酒的機會而罔顧她是否同意性交而與她發生性行為。申請人不是明知投訴人不同意性交，但仍然與她進行性交。

(3)The Complainant was only 16 years old and the Applicant did not use any condom in the course of the sexual intercourse.
(3)投訴人的年紀只是16歲及申請人當時沒有使用安全套進行性交。

In view of the points considered by Barnes J, we found that the 7½ years’ imprisonment imposed by her was manifestly excessive.  If the Applicant did not have any premeditated plan to deliberately get the Complainant drunk in order to forcibly have sex with her, we found that the appropriate sentence should be one of five and a half years’ imprisonment.
本庭認為根據張法官所考慮的各點，她所裁定的七年半監禁刑期是明顯過高。若果申請人不是處心積慮，刻意灌醉投訴人，從而強行與她性交的話，本庭認為適當的刑期應為五年半監禁。

Conclusion (on sentence)
總結(刑期)

Accordingly, we allowed the application for leave to appeal against sentence and treating the application as the formal appeal, substituted a sentence of five and a half years’ imprisonment.
故此本庭批准針對刑期的上訴許可申請，視申請為正式上訴及將刑期更改為五年半監禁。

Robert Lee, SC, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions and Noelle Chit, Public Prosecutor, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent.
答辯人：由律政司副刑事檢控專員李紹強及戚雅琳檢控官代表。

Selwyn Yu, SC, and Jolie Chao, instructed by Au & Associates, for the Applicant.
申請人：由李炳剛，區紹恩律師行轉聘余承章資深大律師及趙芷筠大律師代表。