Hon D Pang JA (giving the Reasons for Judgment of the court):
上訴法庭法官彭偉昌頒發上訴法庭判案理由書：

This case was originally heard in the Court of First Instance of the High Court where the applicant was convicted after trial of one count of “trafficking in a dangerous drug” (the 3rd charge in the indictment), involving a net narcotic weight of 5.76 kilograms of “ice”. He was sentenced to 30 years and 6 months’ imprisonment by the trial judge (DHCJ Poon).  The applicant applied for leave to appeal against conviction.
本案源於高等法院原訟法庭。申請人在審訊後被裁定一項販運危險藥物罪（公訴書上的控罪（三））成立，控罪涉及以淨含毒量計5.76公斤的‘冰’。原審法官（潘兆童暫委法官）把他判囚30年6個月。申請人不服，就定罪提出上訴許可申請。

A. The Charges
A.控罪

Below are the three charges originally faced by the applicant:
以下是申請人原本面對的三項控罪：

Charge (1) alleged that between 1 July 2012 and 25 July 2012 he conspired with Wong Chi Chiu (“Wong”), Chan Ming Kei (“Chan A”), Chan Kam Fai (“Chan B”), Fan Chi Shing (“Fan”) and other persons unknown to traffic in heroin.
控罪（一）指他在2012年7月1日至2012年7月25日期間與黃志超（‘黃’）、陳銘基（‘陳甲’）、陳淦輝（‘陳乙’）、范志成（‘范’）及其他身分不詳的人士串謀販運海洛英。

Charge (2) alleged that on a day unknown in February 2013 he conspired with Lee Hok Leung (“Lee”) and other persons unknown to traffic in “ice”.
控罪（二）指他在2013年2月某日與李學樑（‘李’）及其他身分不詳的人士串謀販運冰毒。

Charge (3) alleged that on 23 May 2013 he, together with “Wong”, So Pui Ying (“So”) and “Lee”, trafficked in “ice”.
控罪（三）指他在2013年5月23日連同‘黃’、蘇佩盈（‘蘇’）及‘李’販運冰毒。

B. The trial
B.原審情況

The applicant was the only defendant in this case as “Wong”, “Chan B”, “Fan”, “Lee” and “So” pleaded guilty at various times to their respective charges.
申請人是本案唯一一名被告，‘黃’、‘陳乙’、‘范’、‘李’及‘蘇’等人則先後就相關的控罪認罪。

After pleading guilty, “Wong” and “Lee” turned from accomplices to become prosecution witnesses.
認罪後的‘黃’和‘李’由共犯轉為控方證人。

As can be seen from the terms of the charge, “Lee” was the only witness who could offer evidence against the applicant in respect of Charge (2) and his testimony was the only evidence on which the prosecution relied against the applicant on Charge (2). However, “Lee” refused to give evidence after arriving at court and as a result, the prosecution had to abandon calling evidence in respect of Charge (2). As regards Charge (3) in which “Lee” had participated it would be for “Wong” to offer evidence. “Wong” of course had to testify also on Charge (1).
從控罪的內容可見，‘李’是唯一能夠就控罪（二）頂證申請人的證人，他的證供也是控方賴以指證申請人控罪（二）的唯一證據。然而，‘李’在到庭之後卻拒絕作供，以致控方須就控罪（二）放棄舉證，‘李’有分參與的控罪（三）則留待‘黃’來作證。‘黃’當然也須就控罪（一）作證。

In the end, after hearing all testimonies and considering all evidence, the jury unanimously found the applicant not guilty on Charge (1), and by a majority of 6:1 found the applicant guilty on Charge (3).
結果，陪審團在聽畢所有證供、證據後一致裁定申請人控罪（一）無罪，另外又以6對1的比數裁定申請人控罪（三）有罪。

C.Particulars of the case
C.案情

In his “summing-up” the trial judge provided a summary of the circumstances of the offence in respect of Charge (1) and Charge (3), which is adequate for understanding the facts and background of the present application:
原審法官曾在他的《導詞》裡較概括性地指出了控罪（一）和控罪（三）的犯案情節，這對於理解是次申請的事實背景已經足夠：

“Charge (1) alleged the trafficking of dangerous drugs to Australia on 25 July 2012. The prosecution alleged that the [applicant] conspired with [‘Wong’], [‘Chan B’], [‘Fan’], [‘Chan A’] who was mentioned in the indictment and other persons unknown to traffic heroin from Hong Kong to Australia. The prosecution relied on [‘Wong’s’] evidence that the [applicant] instigated him to arrange for the booking of air tickets to Australia and hotel accommodation for the four persons, and also instructed him and another person to rent and use a hotel room in Hong Kong as a place for concealing the dangerous drugs on their persons. He also promised them rewards. In the end [‘Chan B’] and [‘Fan’] were arrested at Hong Kong Airport while the [applicant] and [‘Wong’] succeeded in bringing dangerous drugs to Australia and passing them to the buyer.
「第一項控罪嘅指控係有關發生喺2012年7月25日嘅販運危險藥物去澳洲嘅呢一個行動。控方指 [申請人] 同埋 [‘黃’]、[‘陳乙’]、[‘范’] 同埋控罪書裡面提及嘅 [‘陳甲’]，仲有一啲不知名嘅人士，係串謀從香港販運海洛英去澳洲。控方係倚賴 [‘黃’] 嘅證供，指 [申請人] 係指使佢安排預訂四個人去澳洲嘅機票同埋酒店，並且係吩咐佢同另一個人喺香港租用酒店房間，作為收藏毒品喺身上嘅地方，並且係答應給予佢哋酬勞。最後 [‘陳乙’] 同埋 [‘范’] 喺香港機場被捕，而 [申請人] 同 [‘黃’] 就成功將毒品係帶入澳洲交畀買家。

……….
……….

Charge (3) alleged the trafficking of dangerous drugs to Australia on 23 May 2013. The prosecution alleged that the [applicant] together with [‘Wong’], [‘Lee’] and [‘So’] trafficked heroin [should have been “ice”] from Hong Kong to Australia. Similarly, the prosecution also relied on [‘Wong’s’] evidence, alleging the [applicant] instigated him to arrange for the booking of air tickets to Australia and hotel accommodation for four persons, and instructed him to rent a hotel room in Hong Kong for concealing the dangerous drugs on their persons. He also promised them rewards. In the end, on 23 May 2013, the four of them carried out this plan to traffic in dangerous drugs and were arrested together at Hong Kong Airport.”
第三項控罪嘅指控，係有關發生喺2013年5月23日嘅販運危險藥物去澳洲嘅行動。控方指 [申請人] 連同 [‘黃’]、[‘李’] 以及 [‘蘇’] 從香港販運海洛英 [應該是冰] 去澳洲。同樣地，控方係倚賴 [‘黃’] 嘅證供，指 [申請人] 指使佢安排預訂四個人去澳洲嘅機票同埋酒店，並且吩咐佢喺香港租用酒店房間，作為收藏毒品喺身上嘅地方，而亦都答應畀佢哋酬勞，最後四個人喺2013年5月23日當天一齊實行呢個販運毒品嘅計劃，而一起喺香港機場係被拘捕。」

The “admitted facts” of the case also confirmed:
案中的《承認事實》亦確認：

When ‘Chan B’ and ‘Fan’ were arrested at the airport for Charge (1), 1 kg and 1.02 kg of heroin were respectively found on their persons; at the corresponding time on the same day, the applicant and ‘Wong’ left via the airport and returned to Hong Kong after a few days.
因控罪（一）在機場被捕時，‘陳乙’和‘范’被分別搜出身繫1公斤和1.02公斤海洛英；在同一天的相約時間，申請人和‘黃’經機場離開，在幾天後返港。

When ‘Wong’, ‘Lee’ and ‘So’ were arrested at the airport for Charge (3), 1.84 kg, 2.12 kg and 1.80 kg of “ice” were respectively found on their persons while the applicant was not found to be carrying any contraband on his person. About one week before the incident, ‘Wong’ had gone to the travel agent to book return tickets to Sydney for himself, ‘Lee’, ‘So’ and the applicant.
因控罪（三）在機場被捕時，‘黃’、‘李’和‘蘇’被分別搜出身繫1.84公斤、2.12公斤和1.80公斤冰毒而申請人則沒有攜帶任何違禁品；事發前約一星期，‘黃’曾替自己、‘李’、‘蘇’和申請人到旅行公司預定香港至悉尼的來回機票。

D.Defence’s Version
D.辯方說法

The applicant said after arrest and having been cautioned for the first time, “I didn’t traffic in dangerous drugs. I just knew Ah Chiu [i.e., ‘Wong’], it’s Ah Chiu who booked the ticket for me as I don’t know how to book tickets. I merely thought about going together with Ah Chiu to Australia for fun.”
申請人在被捕及首次警誡下說：「我冇販毒。我只係識得阿超 [即‘黃’]，係阿超幫我訂機票，因為我唔識訂機票。我只係諗住同阿超一齊去澳洲玩。」

He said further in the subsequent cautioned video interview: He had known [Ah Chiu] for one and a half years and they had seen each other during that time. At the time of the incident, he was preparing to tour Australia with a friend who was working there. Ah Chiu, who had helped him book tickets previously agreed to accompany him. On that day, he went alone to the airport. It was at the airport that he saw Ah Chiu and the other man and woman who were also involved in the case. He did not know the man and the woman. They had never met before. On Ah Chiu’s advice he went with the group to check in.
他在其後的錄影警誡會面進一步表示：他認識了「阿超」一年半，期間有見面；事發時他正準備前往澳洲找在那邊工作的朋友遊玩；他拜託之前也幫過他的阿超訂機票，阿超表示會同行；當日他是獨自一人去機場；他在機場才見到阿超和涉案的另外一男一女；他不認識這一男一女，雙方之前從未見過面；他是聽從阿超的提議跟大家一起到櫃檯辦理登機手續。

The two cautioned statements above were admitted without any objection from the defence.
上述兩份警誡供詞在辯方沒有爭議下呈堂。

Although the applicant chose not to give evidence or call any witnesses, his defence was obviously that he had nothing to do with trafficking in dangerous drugs and he had no knowledge of the incident.
雖然申請人選擇不作供和不傳召證人，他的辯護理由卻明顯是：他和運毒的事無關，他對事件毫不知情。

E.Core Issues
E.核心議題

After ‘Lee’ changed his mind, ‘Wong’ became the only accomplice-turned prosecution witness who was willing to offer evidence against the applicant in respect of Charge (1) and Charge (3). His importance can be clearly seen above at paragraph 7 which quoted one part of the “summing-up”. Besides, the trial judge emphasised many times in other parts of the “summing-up” that the key to this case hinged on the reliability of ‘Wong’s’ evidence. For example, he said:
在‘李’改變初衷之後，‘黃’成為唯一一位願意就控罪（一）和控罪（三）頂證申請人的共犯轉控方證人，他的重要性從上文第7段所節錄的部分《導詞》已清楚可見。此外，原審法官在《導詞》的其他部分亦多次強調，‘黃’的證供可信與否，是本案的關鍵。例如，他說：

“The key witness is the first witness Wong Chi Chiu. The prosecution mainly relies on his evidence to prove that the defendant committed Charge (1) and Charge (3). Without Wong’s evidence, the prosecution has no sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant committed any of the charges.”
「關鍵嘅證人就係第一證人黃志超。控方係主要依賴佢嘅證供嚟到證明被告人係干犯咗第一項同埋第三項控罪嘅。如果撇除咗黃志超嘅證供，控方係冇足夠嘅證據去證明被告人干犯咗任何一項控罪嘅。」

Following this, the trial judge also reminded the jury that at the time of both charges, the applicant was travelling by air (or about to travel by air) with ‘Wong’ to Australia, and that on one of the trips the tickets were booked by ‘Wong’ for all persons involved in the case, however, the suspicious circumstances themselves were insufficient to convict the applicant, the jury had to be satisfied with ‘Wong’s’ evidence in order to find the applicant guilty of the charge.
隨後，原審法官又提醒陪審團，雖然申請人在兩罪案發時皆與‘黃’一同飛到（或準備飛到）澳洲，而且其中一次旅程的機票也是‘黃’替所有涉案人士所訂購，但這個可疑的情況本身卻不足以把申請人定罪，陪審團還是要確信‘黃’的證供才能裁定申請人有罪。

F.‘Wong’s’ Evidence
F.‘黃’的證供

This heading does not refer to ‘Wong’s’ description of the roles and actions of the persons involved in this case, including the applicant. As mentioned above, such details do not help in the determination of this application.
這個標題所指的不是‘黃’對包括申請人在內的涉案者所曾擔當的角色和作出的行為的描述。正如上文提到，這方面的細節對於處理是次申請沒有幫助。

The focus here is on certain procedures and contents at the time ‘Wong’ gave evidence. We now list them below.
這裡聚焦的是‘黃’作供時的某些程序和內容，現在由本庭臚列如下。

The prosecution did not know at the start of the trial that ‘Lee’ would change his mind and be unwilling to give evidence.  Counsel on fiat mentioned in his opening submission in some detail that he anticipated what the contents of ‘Wong’s’ and ‘Lee’s’ evidence would be, including ‘Lee’s’ allegation that after the arrest, the applicant mentioned in the detention room at the airport providing $300,000  “settlement money” as consideration for ‘Lee’ not to testify that the applicant was the “mastermind”.
控方在案件開審時不知道‘李’會改變主意不肯作供，外聘主控官在開案陳詞裡詳細提到他預期‘黃’、‘李’二人的證供將會有甚麼內容，這包括‘李’指申請人被捕後於機場的扣留室內提出以30萬元「安家費」作為換取‘李’不把申請人供出和指證他為「主腦」的代價。

Counsel on fiat did not mention in his opening submission that ‘Wong’ was making the same allegation. Until that stage, ‘Wong’ as prosecution witness had never made the same or similar claim in his written statement.
外聘主控官沒有在開案時提到‘黃’有同一指控。直至那個階段為止，作為控方證人的‘黃’從未在他的筆錄裡作過同一或類似的聲稱。

According to the original arrangement, ‘Wong’ would appear in court before ‘Lee’. However, ‘Wong’ indicated after affirming to give evidence that he had new evidence, so that his testimony had to be adjourned for him to give a new written statement (‘new written statement’).
按照原本的安排，‘黃’要先於‘李’出庭，不過‘黃’在宣誓作供後即表示自己有新證據，以致他的證供需押後，讓他進行新一份的筆錄（‘新筆錄’）。

The prosecution and defence both agreed to the trial judge’s suggestion to let ‘Lee’ into the witness box pending ‘Wong’s’ ‘new written statement’. However, as mentioned above, ‘Lee’ refused to give evidence and the trial had to be adjourned.
在等候‘黃’的‘新筆錄’期間，控辯雙方同意原審法官的建議讓‘李’先上證人台。然而，正如上文所述，‘李’拒絕作供而審訊需繼續押後。

This Court does not have a copy of the ‘new written statement’, however, from the conversation between the prosecution, defence and the trial judge, the ‘new written statement’ mentioned that ‘Wong’ had received several [chits] (i.e., chits used in communication by detainees) sent by the applicant showing that the applicant had attempted to contact and influence ‘Wong’ in relation to his giving evidence while the case was pending trial .
本庭沒有‘新筆錄’的副本。但從控辯雙方和原審法官的對話可知，‘新筆錄’提到‘黃’曾接獲數張由申請人發來的「chits」（即在押人士用作通訊的所謂「朵紙」），可顯示申請人於候審期間試圖接觸和影響‘黃’作證。

Upon enquiry by the trial judge, counsel on fiat indicated that he would not rely on the contents of the ‘new written statement’ as evidence. Defence counsel also indicated that unless ‘Wong’ brought up the relevant contents in examination-in-chief, the defence would not touch on the topic.
外聘主控官在原審法官的垂詢下表示他不會依賴‘新筆錄’的內容作證據。辯方大律師亦表示，除非‘黃’在主問中主動提到有關的內容，否則辯方也不會無故觸及。

‘Wong’ resumed giving evidence. He did not mention the applicant’s attempt to contact him in detention. Defence counsel at the beginning of cross-examination only focused on the difference between the evidence given by ‘Wong’ in court and in his written statement.
‘黃’恢復作供，他在主問時沒有提及申請人在獄中試圖接觸他，辯方大律師在盤問的初段亦只是集中於‘黃’庭上的證供與他舊筆錄之間的差異。

At a certain stage, defence counsel suddenly asked ‘Wong’ if he had, out of suspicion of being betrayed, made attempts to “communicate” in writing with the applicant. ‘Wong’ replied that, “It’s  he who wrote to me”.
及至某個階段，辯方大律師突然問‘黃’是否曾因懷疑自己被出賣而嘗試用文字和申請人「溝通」。‘黃’答「係佢主動寫畀我」。

In order to prove that ‘Wong’ was the initiator of these communications, defence counsel, in the following twenty pages of cross-examination, questioned ‘Wong’ on the fifteen pages of [chits] (defence exhibits D1 to D5) one by one by reading out all of the contents therein.
為了證明‘黃’才是這些通訊的發起人，辯方大律師在緊接著的二十頁盤問裡把十五張「朵紙」（辯方證物D1至D15）逐張盤問‘黃’，盤問的方式是把裡面的內容全部讀出。

D1 to D15 clearly showed that the applicant had knowledge of Charge (1) and Charge (3) in which ‘Wong’ was involved. It was most prominent in D1 (i.e, the first “chit” of the series of communications started by ‘Wong’). ‘Wong’ also stated with certainty during re-examination that he was referring to the two offences in D1:
D1至D15明顯顯示申請人對‘黃’所涉及的控罪（一）和控罪（三）知情。這個情況在D1（即‘黃’開始這一連串通訊的第一張「朵紙」）最為明顯。‘黃’在覆問時亦明確表示他在D1所指的是該兩項罪行：

“I want to ask you, what wrong have I done to you? I asked myself I have not treated you badly, you requited kindness with ingratitude, why do you have to set me up? Earlier Fai Tau’s case was also you, only you clearly knew in advance the time of the flight of the two cases. Trips as secretive as these could leak, and you thought you were clean, just listened to the police and you would be alright, okay I have waited almost two years now, waited till you were in, you have to face probably several trafficking [charges] and 26-30 years of imprisonment, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, taking so much informer fee to feed the rest of your life……[ellipsis] I am telling you, you have to account to and give me an explanation, or come over to this side of mine and chat, wait for your reply?”
「我要問你，我有乜嘢對你唔住？自問對你唔差，你可以恩將仇報點解要擺我呀？先前輝頭嗰單都係你，只有你清楚預先知道兩單嘢係幾時起飛，咁秘密嘅行程可以爆得，仲有你以為身上冇嘢，聽啲差人話就可以冇事，好嘞家陣我足足等左接近兩年，等到你入嚟，你要面對嘅相信係幾條販運同26–30年刑期，你點嚟我點去，收咁多線人費食過世咩 …… [省略] 我同你講你必須要交代同畀個說法解釋我，再唔係就過嚟我呢邊傾偈，等你回覆？」

By the use of “chits”, ‘Wong’ repeatedly requested to see the applicant, the purpose of which was clearly to seek by doing a certain act or not doing a certain act, in exchange for the applicant providing certain things – although ‘Wong’ did not say it clearly what they were. D3 was a very good example:
‘黃’用「朵紙」再三要求和申請人見面，目的明顯是想藉著某個作為或不作為來換取申請人提供某些東西 – 雖然兩者是甚麼‘黃’都沒有言明。D3就是一個很好的例子：

“I have found out a long time ago that you are to attend Eastern Court No. 7 on the 24th, there are two outcomes, either adjourned or committed to the High Court, I have been taking notice of your movements, if you change your status after attending Eastern 7, you will come to the old wing, you will eat privately provided meals at Long Ching Hin, at the old wing you can ask the staff (if you want) to go to DM5 where a friend, Fei Chung, told me that you are willing to talk to me; I now guarantee I will not threaten your life or safety. If further adjourned, the quickest way is to write a note to inform me and I’ll then instruct you what to do. I emphasise again I will attend High Court on 29 May with another co-accused, by that time we will apply to the court to carry out the second part of our plan, which will be even more to your disadvantage, I am not scaring you, if you want to talk, it depends on your fate and sincerity, Wa Tsai, Sing Tsai and Wong Mei San have received my letter, I have already explained clearly in full. Kid, I lost the first part to you, now that you have come in, I won the latter part, if you really want to talk we can meet and talk, whatever the situation is, there is a way to resolve it, the foremost is to leave this damn place. Hope you understand after I go to court I will move and do accordingly, each does his job for his master, first friends then enemies, when everything is fixed, there’s no turning back, that’s what I want to say, I don’t have to pretend in front of you! Think over carefully, I don’t give a damn if you reply me or not!!”
「我老早就查到你廿四號上東區七庭，結果有兩個，押後或轉去高院，我一路有留意你動向，若上完東七轉身份，你就會過嚟舊翼，你食私飯郎晴軒，舊翼你大可要求職員落DM5有朋友，肥聰話我知你肯同我傾，現在我亦保証唔會對你有任何人生安全或威脅。如果仲押後，最快方法就立即寫字條通知我，我再教你點做。我再強調我同我另一同案將於5月廿九日上高院，到時我哋嘅第二部份計劃就會向法庭申請實行，呢部份對你更不利，唔係嚇你，你若想傾，就睇你自己造化同誠意，華仔星仔同黃美珊亦已收到我嘅信，我完全交待清楚。細路，雖然我輸頭彩俾你，但你入咗嚟，我贏番尾彩，有心傾就見面再詳談，萬大事，總有解決方案，一切大前題就係離開呢個鬼地方。希望你明白我上庭後就照行照做，各為其主，相識在前得失在後，一切落實，絕無彎轉，我想表達就係咁多，亦無須扮你嘢！你自己三思考慮，覆唔覆我都唔在乎！！」

As defence counsel said, the applicant was passive. However, in the seven “chits” (D5, D7, D9, D10, D12, D13, D15)  in reply to the applicant (sic), there was not one in which he rebutted ‘Wong’s’ allegation, or asked ‘Wong’ what he was referring to. On the contrary, the questions which the applicant asked repeatedly were: how he could meet with ‘Wong’, why ‘Wong’ could not be seen at the arranged place, if ‘Wong’ could give him a bit more time and what ‘Wong’ wanted him to do etc.
正如辯方大律師所說，申請人是被動的。然而，他在回覆申請人的七張「朵紙」（D5、D7、D9、D10、D12、D13、D15）當中沒有一張反駁過‘黃’的指控，又或反問過‘黃’所指的是何事。相反，申請人不斷追問的是：怎樣才能和‘黃’見上面、為何在約定的地方見不到‘黃’、‘黃’能否多給他一點時間，以及‘黃’究竟想他怎樣等問題。

Confronted with D1 to D15, ‘Wong’ eventually admitted that the communication was started by him, however, he still prevaricated about how and what he had been trying to achieve. It was only when defence counsel pointed out it was money he wanted that ‘Wong’ admitted he “had thought about it”, but at the same time he denied obtaining money from the applicant in detention. On the contrary, he said after he and the applicant were arrested and everyone was detained at the airport police station, the applicant had “told us not to testify against him, to say it’s of our own volition, for money, at the beginning that was said rather tentatively.”
面對D1至D15，‘黃’終於承認通訊是由他開始的。但對於想憑甚麼手段達到甚麼目的，他卻仍然支吾以對。及至辯方大律師直指他是想要錢，‘黃’才承認「有諗過」，但他同時又否認曾在獄中當面向申請人索取金錢。相反，他說，他和申請人被捕之後，各人被扣押於機場警署之時，申請人曾經「叫我哋唔好指證佢，話自願，因為要錢，當初係好初步咁講。」

The last sentence in the above paragraph was followed up and clarified by counsel on fiat in re-examination. ‘Wong’ replied to that when the applicant was in the detention room at the airport police station he mentioned giving him $300,000. He said the applicant did not explain “how it was to be paid” and it did not eventually work out.
上述最後一句話，被外聘主控官在覆問時跟進和澄清。‘黃’回答外聘主控官說，當時申請人是在機場警署裡的羈留室提出給錢給他的，數目是三十萬。他說，申請人沒有解釋「點畀法」，後來也沒有成事。

G.How The Trial Judge Handled It
G.原審法官的處理

Regarding ‘Lee’s’ absence, the trial judge explained to the jury at the very beginning before ‘Wong’ resumed giving evidence:
對於‘李’的缺席，原審法官最初是這樣向陪審團解釋的，當時是在‘黃’重新開始作供之前：

“Good morning everyone. This morning we will not hear any evidence. In the afternoon we will start to hear the evidence of the first witness Mr Wong. As regards the second witness who was originally summoned yesterday, the prosecution has now decided not to summon him. In that case as regards the second charge, we mm --- you don’t have to concern yourself with it, the second charge, as the chief witness is the second witness, in the absence of the second witness’s evidence, there’s no way to prove the second charge, therefore you don’t have to pay attention to the second charge. At this stage I would like to mention briefly to you, that is you are to consider each charge separately, as such, that is as regards the second charge, it should not be a matter for consideration when you consider about the first, the third charges. Yes, understand? Right, we will only start to hear the evidence of the first witness in the afternoon, I do apologise about wasting your time again but this morning you can take a rest earlier, in the afternoon after finishing -- having lunch, we, I shall then start,  at half past two to hear the second – the first witness’s evidence, thank you.”
「早晨，咁多位。今朝早我哋就都係唔會係聽證供住嘅，咁但係我哋就會係下晝開始就會聽第一證人黃先生嗰個證供㗎喇。咁至於琴日原先傳召嘅第二證人，就而家控方就係決定唔傳召佢㗎喇，咁變咗就住第二項控罪，我哋唔--大家唔需要關注㗎喇，第二項控罪，因為主要證人都係第二證人喇，咁如果冇咗第二證人嘅證供，就唔會證明到有第二項控罪嘅，咁所以大家嗰個注意力毋須要係放喺第二項控罪嗰度。亦都喺呢個階段都同大家略略提一提，即係各項控罪大家應該分開考慮嘅，咁所以，即係就住第二項控罪嗰個情況，大家唔應該係作為係考慮第一、第三項控罪嗰個時候去考慮。係，明白嘛？好，咁我哋就下晝先至開始係會聽第一證人嗰個證供，咁亦都係唔好意思又嘥咗大家嘅時間，咁但係今朝大家可以早啲休息，咁就係下晝係完咗--食完晏，我哋我至開始，兩點半先至聽第二--第一證人嗰個證供，唔該晒。」

And at the stage of giving the “summing-up”, the trial judge then said:
及至作《導詞》階段，原審法官又說：

“You probably remember, at the start of the trial the defendant was facing a total of three charges, but subsequently I reminded you that there’s no need to deal with the second charge in this trial. I now remind you again, you don’t have to reach any verdict in respect of the second charge, and you don’t have to be concerned about why the prosecution does not get on with calling evidence regarding the second charge and why the original second witness Mr Lee does not give evidence in the present trial. You don’t have to care about this. You don’t have to speculate about these things, they are not in any way relevant to whether the defendant committed the first and third charges.”
「你哋應該記得，喺本案開始嘅時候被告人係面對總共三項控罪，但係後來我已經提醒咗你哋，毋須喺呢個審訊中處理第二項控罪。而家我再提醒你哋，你哋毋須就第二項控罪達成任何嘅裁決，而你哋亦都毋須理會控方唔繼續就第二項舉證嘅原因，以及原先嘅第二證人李先生點解冇喺本案中作供，你哋亦都唔需要理會，你哋唔好就呢啲嘅事情作出任何嘅揣測，呢啲事情對於你哋考慮被告人有冇干犯第一同埋第三項控罪係完全沒有相關性嘅。」

We shall come to the question of “chits”. It can be seen from the foregoing that the contents of D1 to D15 and ‘Wong’s’ explanation (if any) on them were all disclosed to the jury. It undoubtedly impelled counsel on fiat to refer to these “chits” in his closing submission. For example, he said, if the applicant had no knowledge of ‘Wong’s’ allegation, why would he ask ‘Wong’ in D15 to name the terms?
接著是「朵紙」的問題。從上文可見，D1至D15的內容，以及‘黃’對這些內容的解釋（若有），都完全暴露於陪審團席前。這無疑促使了外聘主控官在結案陳詞中對這些「朵紙」的引用。例如，他說：如果申請人對‘黃’的指控真的一無所知，他為何會在D15叫‘黃’開條件？

However, counsel on fiat’s submission was stopped by the trial judge who was of the view that ‘Wong’s’ allegations in the “chits” were ‘Wong’s’ ‘previous consistent statements’ and could not be used as evidence. He considered that the applicant having knowledge of the two charges was not the only irresistible inference from the fact that the applicant did not rebut ‘Wong’. The trial judge therefore decided to direct the jury forthwith as follows:
然而，外聘主控官的陳詞卻被原審法官截停。原審法官認為，‘黃’在「朵紙」中的指稱，是‘黃’的‘一致前述’（previous consistent statements），不能用作證據。他認為，申請人對兩項控罪知情，也並非申請人沒有反駁‘黃’這個事實的唯一合理推論。因此，原審法官決定即時指示陪審團：

“Yes, yes. Before you listen to Mr Luk’s submission, I would like to draw your attention to some matters Mr Leung mentioned just now in his submission, including those –  the evidence in respect of the chits, sending the chits, that is in D1 to D15. Mr Leung mentioned that it reflected the fact that the defendant had knowledge. I invite you not to make such an inference, not to make such an inference from the chits, as it cannot be inferred from the contents of the chits that the defendant has knowledge. Of course this would not affect your consideration of other evidence, that is if you can draw such a conclusion from other evidence, it would not be affected, but this inference must not be made from the contents of the chits, understand? Yes.”
「係，係。各位喺聽陸大律師嗰個陳詞之前，我亦都想大家注意有部分頭先梁大律師陳詞裡面所提及嘅一啲事情，咁就包括就係就住嗰啲紙仔，傳紙仔嗰啲--嗰啲證據，即係D1至到D15嗰度，咁就梁大律師提及過話關於係可以反映到被告人係知情呢一樣嘢，我就係請大家係不要作出呢一個嘅推測，不要喺嗰啲紙仔嘅內容裡面係作出呢一個推測，因為係不可以係憑嗰啲紙仔嘅內容係嚟到係引申到被告人當時係知情。咁當然唔影響你哋考慮其他嘅證據嘅，即係如果喺其他嘅證據裡面你係作出咁嘅結論，係唔影響嘅，但係就不能夠喺嗰個紙仔裡面嗰啲內容係去作出呢一個引申，明白嘛？係。」

Later the trial judge in the “summing-up” also said:
後來，原審法官在《導詞》裡又說：

“Members of the jury, you will remember Mr Luk in cross-examination asked Wong Chi Chiu if he had taken the initiative to communicate with the defendant in detention. Wong Chi Chiu said he hadn’t, that it’s the defendant who had taken the initiative. However, when Mr Luk produced to him Wong Chi Chiu’s notes sent to the defendant, Wong Chi Chiu could not but admit that he had taken the initiative to communicate with the defendant. Members of the jury, you can read the notes for yourselves, that is the contents of P1 to P15, obviously Wong Chi Chiu was hoping to be able to negotiate with the defendant but Wong Chi Chiu equivocated when being asked what the plans, proposals referred to in the notes were. Mr Luk’s observation was that Wong Chi Chiu obviously has something to hide. I leave it for you to judge.”
「各位陪審員，你哋會記得陸大律師喺盤問嘅時候呢，問黃志超喺被羈留嘅時候有冇主動同被告人書面通訊，黃志超係話冇嘅，只係被告人係作主動，但係當陸大律師向佢出示黃志超發畀被告人嘅便箋嘅時候，黃志超就不得不承認曾經係主動同被告人溝通。各位陪審員，你哋可以自行閱讀嗰啲便箋，即係證物P1至到P15嘅內容，明顯地，黃志超係希望能夠同被告人係商討去達到一啲目的，但係黃志超當被問及便箋中所指嗰啲計劃、方案等等係咩嘢嘅時候就含糊其詞。陸大律師嘅觀察就係明顯地，黃志超係有所隱瞞，咁大家可以判斷。」

Finally, in relation to the “chits”, is the question of whether the applicant had mentioned giving ‘Wong’ hush money as early as the time of arrest. As this allegation was not recorded in ‘Wong’s’ old written statement and ‘Wong’s’ explanation on this was that police “told me not to write this down”, therefore the trial judge in the “summing- up” directed the jury in this way and nothing further:
最後是和「朵紙」有關的、申請人是否早於被捕時便已提出給‘黃’掩口費的問題。由於這個指稱並未記錄於‘黃’的舊筆錄之內，而‘黃’對此的解釋是警察「叫我唔好寫落去」，所以原審法官在《導詞》內是這樣指示陪審團的，此外再無其他：

“Members of the jury, you will remember that Wong Chi Chiu said the defendant had mentioned in the detention room at the airport police station giving him $300,000 as a reward for not informing on him, but the police told him not to put it in the statement, and the police officer also advised him to write down “unknown” for the telephone number he provided. Wong Chi Chiu’s version was totally denied by the fourth witness the detective in his evidence, Mr Luk accused Wong Chi Chiu of lying, you can judge whether he was lying.”
「各位陪審員，你哋都會記得黃志超話被告人曾經喺機場警署羈留室向佢提出畀$300,000佢喇，係作為唔向警方告發佢嘅報酬，但係警察就叫佢唔好寫喺口供上面，而嗰個警察亦都建議佢喺佢提供嘅一啲人名嘅電話號碼一欄係寫上『不詳』。黃志超嘅呢啲說法呢，第四證人探員係喺佢嘅證供係全部都否認，陸大律師指黃志超係講大話，咁你哋亦都可以作出判斷究竟佢係咪講大話。」

H.The Main Complaints made by the Applicant
H.申請人的主要投訴

Mr Wong who represented the applicant only at the present stage put forward four perfected grounds of appeal and principally relied on appeal ground (1), that is, there were two material irregularities in the trial.
在這個階段才代表申請人的王大律師提出了四項具體上訴理由，其中他最為依賴的是上訴理由（一）即本案原審有兩個‘重大不當之處’（material irregularity）。

Mr Wong was of the view that the applicant was alleged to have offered ‘Wong’ $300,000 on his own initiative (see para. 28 and 29 above), which was an “uncharged act”, but the trial judge did not consider not allowing it to be adduced as evidence, nor did he direct the jury how to deal with an “uncharged act”.
王大律師認為，申請人據稱主動提出要給‘黃’三十萬元（見上文第28和29段），是一個‘未被起訴行為’（uncharged act），但原審法官卻完全沒有考慮不讓它呈證及完全沒有指示陪審團該如何處理‘未被起訴行為’的問題。

Mr Wong pointed out that the claim of hush money by ‘Wong’ coincided with ‘Lee’s’ version (see para. 16 above), but the trial judge only directed on ‘Lee’s’ absence and not giving evidence (see para. 30 and 31 above). Mr Wong opined that the judge’s direction was insufficient to eliminate the bias the jury might have towards the coincidence of the ‘Wong’ and ‘Lee’ versions.
王大律師指出，‘黃’掩口費的聲稱，和‘李’的說法吻合（見上文第16段），可是原審法官卻只就‘李’缺席不作供的事作過指引（見上文第30和31段）。王大律師認為這個指引不足以消弭‘黃’、‘李’二人說法吻合對陪審團所可能造成的偏見。

Discussion
討論

It was alleged that the applicant offered on his own initiative hush money to ‘Wong’, the act itself is not truly an “uncharged act” as such in law. The offer of hush money (perverting the course of justice) and the issue which is to be tried in the present case (trafficking in a dangerous drug) are entirely different in substance. The principles for deciding whether evidence of the “uncharged act” should be adduced and on how to direct the jury after such evidence has been adduced (see HKSAR v Kwok Hing Tony [2010] 3 HKLRD 761) do not apply in this case.
申請人據稱主動提出要給‘黃’掩口費，並不真正屬於法律上的‘未被起訴行為’。掩口費的建議（妨礙司法公正）和本案要審理的議題（販毒），在本質上是完全不同的。決定是否應讓‘未被起訴行為’的證據呈證及呈證後應如何指引陪審團的原則（見香港特別行政區訴郭慶 [2010] 3 HKLRD 761），在本案並不適用。

If this relatively fundamental question is put aside for the time being (see paras. 45 to 49 below), the Court is of the view that the alleged offer of hush money itself is evidence which has probative value and is admissible. The reason is that if the applicant had not trafficked in dangerous drugs, why would he offer money for ‘Wong’ not to testify against him?
如果暫時撇下某個較基本的問題不談（見下文第45至49段），本庭倒認為那個據稱是掩口費的建議，是一項既具舉證價值又能呈堂的證據。理由是，如果申請人沒有販毒，他又為何會把金錢用作換取‘黃’不指證他的代價？

However, to err on the side of caution, the Court would give directions to the jury in respect of certain “post-offence conduct”. The contents of the direction normally are: The jury has to be sure that the defendant carried out the relevant act, and that the act was not carried out for reasons unrelated to the commission of crime, before the jury can regard the act as evidence in support of the allegation made by the prosecution.
然而，為求謹慎，法庭是會就某些‘案後行為’（post-offence conduct）向陪審團發出指引的。指引的常見內容是：陪審團既要肯定被告人作出了相關行為，又要肯定該行為並非出於與犯罪無關的理由，陪審團才可以把該行為視為能支持控方指控的證據。

Directions on “flight”, “lies” and “concealment” are typical directions of this kind. Having said that, it does not mean that the judge is only required to give directions in respect of the several established scenarios. Quite on the contrary, the judge does not necessarily have to give directions to the jury for any remotely comparable situations. It depends on the circumstances of each individual case. After all, the aim of this kind of direction is to remind the jury to be cautious about looking at matters superficially.
有關‘潛逃’（flight）、‘撒謊’（lies）和‘滅證’（concealment）的指引，是這一類指引的典型。這樣說並不代表法官只須就某幾個既定的情況作指引。反過來，法官也不一定須要在任何稍微可作類比的情況指引陪審團。這要視乎個別案件本身的案情。始終，這類指引的目的只是要陪審團小心、不要只看事情的表面。

In the present case, it was not even disputed by counsel on fiat that ‘Wong’s’ evidence was not to be believed in its entirety. In his closing submission, he pointed out that ‘Wong’s’ words were “self-contradictory” and that “he was lying”. However, ‘Wong’ was found to be “lying” only when the “chits” revealed that he was the one who took the initiative to contact the applicant. As to what his purpose was and whether he was trying to get money from the applicant, ‘Wong’s’ final version was that it was because in the detention room at the airport police station the latter offered to pay hush money to him. In the other words, he was just thinking of following up on the applicant’s offer.
在本案，‘黃’的證供不可盡信，是連外聘主控官都不爭議的事實。他在結案陳詞中就直指‘黃’「前言不對後語」和「講大話」。然而，‘黃’被揭穿「講大話」，是因為「朵紙」暴露了他才是主動接觸申請人的一方。至於他的目的何在、是否想向申請人要錢，‘黃’最終的說法還是因為後者在機場警署羈留室提出要給他掩口費。換言之，他只是想跟進申請人的提議罷了。

That being the case, the Court is of the view that there was a need for the trial judge to give the jury the two-pronged direction mentioned in para. 41 above. Apart from having to decide the truthfulness of ‘Wong’s’ claim, the jury had to consider if the applicant might have offered ‘Wong’ money out of fear of the latter framing him, the sort of reason which had nothing to do with the commission of crime. No matter how obvious the trial judge might have thought the answers to the two questions above were, he still had a duty to remind the jury but failed to do so.
既然是這樣，本庭認為原審法官實有須要向陪審團發出上文第41段所提到的二元指引。除了‘黃’的聲稱孰真孰假之外，陪審團還須要考慮申請人是否有例如恐防‘黃’會誣告他等與犯罪無關的理由而提出給後者金錢。無論原審法官本身認為上述兩個問題的答案如何明顯也好，他都有責任提醒陪審團，可是他卻未有做到。

After discussing the issues above, the Court has to point out that it is more concerned that the trial judge ought not have allowed matters to develop to such a state in the first place. As mentioned above, at the start of the trial the prosecution did not know that ‘Lee’ would change his mind by not giving evidence, counsel on fiat therefore gave the jury in advance the evidence of ‘Wong’ and ‘Lee’ in detail. Regarding Charge (3) in which both ‘Wong’ and ‘Lee’ participated, it was like inculcating the jury twice with the allegation that the applicant was guilty.
在討論過上述的議題之後，本庭須指出，本庭更關注的是原審法官根本便不應該讓事情發展到如此地步。正如上文提到，控方在開審時不知道‘李’會改變主意不肯作供，所以外聘主控官詳細地向陪審團預告了‘黃’和‘李’的證詞。對於‘黃’、‘李’二人都有份參與的控罪（三）而言，那就是先向陪審團灌輸了兩輪申請人有罪的指控。

Regarding the matter of information prejudicing the interest of the defence being placed before the jury, the Court generally has three ways of handling it. The first would be not to mention it anymore and let things pass in the course of the trial. The second would be to give a clear and strong direction to the jury to disregard such material. The third would be to discharge the jury. The choice would be a matter within the discretion of the judge. Depending on circumstances of each and every case, the appellate court would judge according to the issues involved, the impact of the prejudicial information, the way and process of disclosure of the information, the degree of prejudice to the interests of the defence and the remedy available by way of the judge giving directions, whether the decision of the judge refusing to discharge the jury was appropriate. But the appellate court would not readily interfere (see R v Lawson [2007] 1 Cr App R 20).
對於有損辯方利益的資料被誤置於陪審團席前，法庭一般有三個做法。一是絕口不提，讓事情隨著審訊的展開不了了之；二是清楚有力地指示陪審團要把相關資料從心中剔除；三是解散陪審團：如何選擇則為法官的酌情權。視乎個別案件的具體情況，上訴法庭會根據涉案議題、損害性資料的震撼度、相關資料被披露的方式與過程、辯方利益受到損害的程度，以及法官用指引所能提供的補救等因素來衡量法官拒絕解散陪審團的決定是否恰當，但上訴法庭不會輕易干預（見 R v Lawson [2007] 1 Cr App R 20）。

In the present case, unfortunately, neither the trial judge nor the prosecution or defence noticed that ‘Lee’s’ version had already been disclosed. After ‘Lee’ had left the court, none of the parties raised the matter of or applied for the discharge of the jury. The trial judge’s direction on ‘Lee’ no longer giving evidence was just telling the jury not to speculate but Charge (2) was no longer relevant. How ‘Lee’s’ version on Charge (3) should be dealt with was not touched upon by the trial judge.
不幸的是，在本案，無論原審法官或控辯雙方都沒有注意到‘李’的說法已被披露的問題。在‘李’離開法庭之後沒有任何一方提出或申請要解散陪審團。原審法官就‘李’不再作供的指引，也只是陪審團不應差測其原因及控罪（二）已無關宏旨的指引。‘李’對控罪（三）的說法應如何處理，原審法官則完全沒有觸及。

The ways of dealing with the matter as mentioned above were inadequate. The trial judge’s standard direction that counsel’s submissions were not evidence could hardly make up for the damage the prosecution’s opening submission had done to the applicant. Besides, as Mr Wong has pointed out, ‘Lee’ alleged that the applicant offered to pay him hush money, the dates, venues and sums were entirely the same as ‘Wong’s’ version. Although ‘Lee’ did not give evidence, by the prosecution’s opening submission, ‘Wong’s’ version had been indirectly confirmed. The damage to the applicant was beyond reckoning. The danger of the jury becoming biased against the applicant was “real” and not just a “real likelihood” (see R v Docherty [1999] 1 Cr App R 274).
以上的處理方法，是不足的。原審法官指大律師說話不是證據的標準指引，也實在難以彌補控方開案陳詞對申請人的損害。再者，正如王大律師指出，‘李’指申請人提出要給他掩口費，無論在日期、地點和數額都和‘黃’聲稱的一樣，所以‘李’雖然沒有作供，卻藉著控方開案陳詞間接印證了‘黃’的證詞，這對申請人的損害是難以估計的。陪審團對申請人產生偏見的「危險」（danger）是「實質」（real）而非僅為「很有機會」（real likelihood）的（見R v Docherty [1999] 1 Cr App R 274）。

The Court is of the view that the trial judge should have discharged the jury after ‘Lee’ refused to give evidence. Doing this would only have wasted a day’s time on the part of the court but the defence’s interests would have been effectively safeguarded. The trial judge never considered or handled it in this manner, which in itself was a ‘material procedural irregularity’. On this basis, the appeal should be allowed.
本庭認為，原審法官應該在‘李’拒絕作供之後解散陪審團。這樣做只會浪費法庭一天的時間，卻能有效保護辯方的利益。原審法官沒有考慮及確實執行這個做法，是程序上的一個‘重大不當之處’。基於這個理由，本上訴便應該得直。

The Issue on the Chits
有關朵紙的問題

The Court considers that there is a need to discuss D1 to D15 here.
在此，本庭認為有需要一談D1至D15的問題。

It was surprising that the defence had chosen to read out the contents of all the “chits” before the jury. As the Court has mentioned, such contents were to the disadvantage of the applicant (see paras. 25-27 above). The trial judge also erred in saying that the contents had no probative value against the applicant (see paras. 33-34 above).  After the defence had adduced the “chits”, the jury would be entitled to consider their contents together with other evidence and the trial judge only had to give the full direction on “inference”.
辯方選擇把這批「朵紙」的內容，悉數在陪審團席前讀出，是叫人驚訝的。正如本庭在早前提到，這些內容對申請人不利（見上文第25至27段）。原審法官指這些內容對申請人沒有頂證力（見上文第33至34段），也是不對的。辯方既然把「朵紙」呈堂，陪審團就有權把裡面的內容和其他證據一併考慮。原審法官只須足本發出有關‘推論’（inference）的指引便可。

The Court understands that the defence was trying to prove through the batch of “chits” that ‘Wong’ was lying, however, the benefit of doing so in this way was much less than the damage it caused, indeed it was entirely disproportionate, particularly given that ‘Wong’s’ credibility had already been questioned (see para. 22 above). Furthermore, to prove that ‘Wong’ had approached the applicant on his own initiative, the defence only had to hand the whole batch of “chits” to ‘Wong’ and let ‘Wong’ confirm their sequence and the person writing and sending out the first “chit”. At most the defence only had to read out the sentences “you have to explain” and “reply me” at the bottom of D1 to achieve the aforesaid purposes.
本庭明白，辯方是想藉著這批「朵紙」來證明‘黃’撒謊，但這樣做的得益要遠比它所帶來的損害少，甚至完全不成比例，更何況‘黃’的可信性已在其他地方受到質疑（見上文第22段）。還有，要證明‘黃’主動接觸申請人，辯方只需要把整疊「朵紙」交給‘黃’，然後由‘黃’確認它們的次序和誰是第一張字條的簽發人。極其量，辯方只需要把D1底部即「你必須交代」和「覆我」等字句讀出，便能達到以上的目的。

Of course ‘Wong’ was not a witness who could be handled easily. Taking the above approach might not be straightforward, however, compared to all the “chits” being read out and submitted, this would have been a much better way and one which should have been tried using best endeavours.
當然，‘黃’不是一個容易處理的證人，上述的過程也未必會很順暢，但相比起把「朵紙」全部讀出和呈堂，那肯定是一個遠為優勝和應該盡力嘗試的辦法。

It was surprising that defence counsel disclosed the contents of the “chits”. If the applicant complained about defence counsel’s handling of the matter in this way, it would undoubtedly be a matter which required careful examination.
辯方大律師主動公開「朵紙」的內容，做法著實令人詫異。若然申請人投訴辯方大律師這個處理方法的話，那無疑是一個須要認真檢視的問題。

I.Other Grounds of Appeal
I.其他上訴理由

The Court does not intend to spend time discussing in detail the other grounds of appeal advanced by the applicant.
本庭不打算花時間詳細討論申請人的其他上訴理由。

To put it simply, the Court considered that the analysis of HKSAR v Chand Gill CACC 219/2014 (11 January 2016) and FAMC 17/2016 (19 August 2016) applied in this case. The fact that the trial judge did not give directions according to the standard wording in Liberato was not sufficient to overturn the conviction in this case: Ground of appeal (2).
簡單而言，本庭認為，HKSAR v Chand Gill CACC 219/2014（2016年1月11日）及FAMC17/2016（2016年8月19日）的分析在本案適用，原審法官沒有按照Liberato案的標準字眼發出指引，並不足以動搖本案的定罪：上訴理由（二）。

The Court considered that the circumstances in Charge (1) and in Charge (3) were truly different. For example, the date of offence of Charge (1) was much earlier than that of Charge (3), ‘Wong’ and the applicant were not caught red-handed at that time. The prosecution’s case was merely based on ‘Wong’s’ statement alleging that the applicant committed the offence. The Court did not consider that the verdicts of the two charges were inconsistent: Grounds of appeal (3) and (4).
本庭認為，和控罪（一）和控罪（三）有關的情況，著實有所分別。例如，控罪（一）的案發日期要比控罪（三）久遠，‘黃’和申請人當時沒有即場被捕，控方指申請人犯案就只憑‘黃’一個人的空述。本庭不認為這兩項控罪的裁決是‘矛盾裁決’（inconsistent verdicts）：上訴理由（三）和（四）。

J.Judgment
J.判決

On the basis of the conclusion at para. 49 above, the Court granted the applicant leave to appeal against his conviction, allowed his appeal and quashed his conviction.
基於上文第49段的結論，本庭批准申請人就他的定罪提出上訴，並裁定他的上訴得直，本案的定罪撤銷。

Wong Hay-yiu, instructed by Cheung & Liu Solictors, for the Applicant
申請人：由張廖律師行轉聘王熙曜大律師代表

Eddie Sean, 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單偉琛先生代表