法律援助署五十周年紀念特刊 | Legal Aid Department 50th Anniversary Commemorative Publication

Court of Final Appeal Judgment ． The issue is whether the decision in Jogee’s case should be adopted in Hong Kong. ． Persons who participated in a criminal joint venture foreseeing that in the course of carrying it out, one of the joint venturers might commit a more serious offence (such as murder) and proceeded with the joint venture with such foresight should be treated as gravely culpable and held liable as an accomplice. ． The abolition of the joint criminal enterprise doctrine would leave a serious gap in the law of criminal complicity. ． The concept of “conditional intent” introduced in the Jogee decision caused conceptual and practical difficulties. ． The Court of Final Appeal concluded that Jogee decision should not be adopted. 終審法院的判決 ． 案件的爭論點是香港法院是否採納英國Jogee案的 裁決。 ． 任何人如參與共同犯罪行動，並預見其中一名共同 犯罪者可能會在行動過程中干犯更嚴重的罪行（例 如謀殺），而仍繼續進行有關行動，便應被視為罪 責極重，並須負上從犯的法律責任。 ． 廢除共同犯罪計劃法則會令刑事同謀關係的法律出 現嚴重缺口。 ． Jogee案的裁決帶出的「有條件的意圖」概念，在 概念及應用上均構成難題。 ． 終審法院裁定不應採納Jogee案的裁決。 The Change of the Doctrine of Joint Enterprise in Criminal Law ． For many years, the doctrine of joint enterprise in criminal law as applied in Hong Kong has been based on the UK Privy Council’s decision in Chan Wing Siu v R in 1985, endorsed by the Court of Final Appeal in Sze Kwan Lung v HKSAR in 2004. ． According to the doctrine, the secondary party’s liability is based on his “foresight” of the accident rather than his “intention” to commit the more serious crime. ． However, in early 2016, the UK Supreme Court in R v Jogee and R v Ruddock held that Chan Wing Siu’s case was wrongly decided and the doctrine of joint enterprise should be abolished. 「共同計劃」刑法法則的改變 ． 多年來，香港的「共同計劃」刑法法則都以英國樞 密院在1985年Chan Wing Siu v R案的判決為基礎， 終審法院也曾在2004年的Sze Kwan Lung v HKSAR 案中表示認同該判決。 ． 根據該法則，次位參與者的刑責不是基於他有沒有 「意圖」干犯更嚴重的罪行，而是基於他是否「預 見」意外發生。 ． 然而，在2016年初，英國最高法院在R v Jogee及R v Ruddock案中裁定Chan Wing Siu案的判決錯誤， 共同計劃法則應予廢除。 Appellant’s Argument ． The appellant relied on Jogee's case and suggested that even though he had foreseen such accident, he did not intend to cause grievous bodily harm to the deceased. 上訴人的理據 ． 上訴人援引Jogee一案，指出儘管他預見到該意外， 但他無意對死者造成嚴重身體傷害。 Going Forward ． Applicability of the decision of Jogee's case is an issue of great and general importance to the development of criminal justice in Hong Kong. ． The judgment showed that Hong Kong holds different view from that of the U.K. in respect of the accomplice liability. ． The joint criminal enterprise doctrine as expounded in Chan Wing Siu's case continues to apply in Hong Kong. ． Four months prior to the judgment of the Court of Final Appeal, for similar reasons, the High Court of Australia declined to follow Jogee’s case in Miller v R [2016] HCA 30. 發展路向 ． Jogee一案的裁決是否適用，是對香港刑事司法發 展具重大而廣泛重要性的爭論點。 ． 此判決代表香港法律在從犯法律責任這一方面與英 國法律持不同觀點。 ． Chan Wing Siu案所闡釋的「共同計劃」刑法法則 在香港仍然適用。 ． 在終審法院宣判的四個月前，澳洲高等法院以相近 理由在Miller v R [2016] HCA 30拒絕遵從Jogee案 的判決。 P.77 法律援助署五十周年紀念特刊