刑事檢控科各律師/高級律政 - Department of Justice

20
brought or an information laid commenced. In R v Yau Hing-ping and
Another [1992] 1 HKCLR 188, Yang CJ held:
The issue here is when it was that the [prosecutor]
first discovered the offence. In other words, when it
was that he was informed of the offence.
In R v Beaconsfield Justices, ex parte Johnson & Sons Limited
(1985) 149 JP 535, Stuart-Smith J adopted the proposition of McNeill
J in the unreported case of John Charles Brookes v Club
Continental Limited, dated 13 October 1981, and held:
I think it is sufficient for the purposes of this case, to
say that the word ‘discover’ means no more in this
context than that all the facts material to found the
relevant charge under the Act were disclosed to the
appropriate officer. The word ‘discovery’ here does
not import any investigation by the officer. It is
simply his knowledge, from disclosure to him in some
way, of the material facts which would found the
offence.
It was argued that the word ‘discovery’ did not infer any investigation,
and that Beaconsfield was therefore authority for the proposition that
knowledge of the material facts should not be confused with
confirmation of those facts and that the time started to run from a date
when the prosecutor had no serious doubts as to the veracity of the
complainant who had produced the relevant documents. It was held
that at that time the prosecution had all the relevant and material facts in
hand for time to commence to run;
(2) In the present case, the original complaint was made prior to 2
November 1997 and thereafter interviews took place with the parties
and relevant witnesses and with the Appellant himself. Trading histories
were provided and the Appellant’s commission rebates had been
provided. Some of the documents related to the dealings of Molly Li
and to the Appellant’s clients. This detail was all included in a report
provided under cover of a letter dated 22 October 1997 from the
Assistant Director of Regulation at the SEHK to the Senior Director of
Enforcement of the SFC. This report concluded that in the view of the
SEHK, there was suspicion that Quest aided unregistered dealings by
Molly Li. The Appellant then faced a charge of aiding and abetting
unregistered dealings by Molly Li. By that time, therefore, the
Appellant was suspected of the offence upon the basis of materials in
the hands of the prosecuting authority rather more concrete than the
claims of the original complainant. And it was from the delivery of the