「室內」「室外」怎界定 官司打到終院

孤寂如雲

       食肆實行室內禁煙已有一段日子，但煙民怎樣界定「室內」和「室外」？煙民在食肆門外吞雲吐霧，亦分分鐘跌入禁煙陷阱。一名小販管理主任早前在深井一家茶餐廳外的枱櫈吸煙，結果被衞生署控煙辦公室人員票控在室內吸煙罪名，裁判法院前以該處有簷篷及膠簾覆蓋，屬室內禁煙範圍而裁定其罪名成立。該名販管主任不服，向高等法院提出上訴，認為案發茶餐廳舖外圍封的膠簾沒有覆蓋四邊，不屬室內範圍，最後獲判上訴得直。但控煙辦不服判決，認為「室內」的法律定義重大，要求申請上訴至終審法院，以釐清有關爭議，高院明日會就申請作出判決。 (記者陳超銓報道)

        被告是販管主任何鈾然，原被票控去年中在深井村傅記粥麵茶餐廳的禁煙區持有點着香煙，而原審荃灣法院裁定何持煙的位置，是茶餐廳舖位外建有簷篷的伸延範圍，案發時該延伸範圍的三邊外圍，有兩邊也設有膠簾從簷篷垂下，合計覆蓋四邊總面積的一半， 故已屬於「室內」，故判其罪成。何鈾然不服， 最後獲判處得直，高院原訟法庭法官湯寶臣裁定，一個範圍需要四邊圍封，才符合禁煙例中的「室內」定義，但被告吸煙的地點，有一邊並沒有封住，法官並指出，「圍封」應該是指四邊都被包圍，而遮擋兩邊三邊都不算「圍封」，即茶餐廳舖外圍封的膠簾，應覆蓋四邊，每邊要覆蓋一半以上，才算是「室內」，因此推翻原審裁判法院的判決。

煙民得直控煙辦不服

        控煙辦代表律師昨日向高院法官湯寶臣指出，本案牽連甚廣，並牽涉重大的法律觀點，又指由07 年起，共有198 宗檢控個案等候判決，高院推翻原審裁判法院及控煙辦對「室內」的定義，指要四邊每邊都封閉五成才算是「室內」，但控煙辦認為覆蓋四邊合計總面積的一半已屬「室內」，若本案舖外延伸地方一半以上面積，有物料作垂直圍封，便即屬「室內」，故要求將案件提交終審法院審理，釐清如何計算圍封面積等有關爭議。
        法官明日會作出判決。198 宗檢控個案候判涉案的地點是荃灣深井村56 號地下的傅記粥麵茶餐廳，傅記是相連的室內地舖位，舖外有覆蓋簷篷的外延空間，放置枱椅，入口和左邊也有垂下的透明膠簾，昨日所見，膠簾已被捲起。去年中案發當日中午時分，控煙辦人員到達傅記執行任務，看見被告在膠簾內，手上持有燃點的香煙，控煙辦人員指該地方是禁煙區，向被告控以違反《吸煙（公眾衞生）條例》。
        根據新修訂的《吸煙（公眾衞生）條例》（第371章）規定，07 年1 月1 日起，法定禁煙區範圍已擴大至所有食肆處所的室內地方、室內工作間，公眾場所內的室內地方及部分戶外地方，任何人不得於禁煙區內吸煙或者攜帶燃點着的香煙、雪茄或煙斗，違例者定額罰款1500 元。

案件編號：HCMA 180/09

「圍封程度」存灰色地帶 煙民隨時中招

根據現行法例，只要任何地方有暫時性或永久性的天花板或上蓋封蓋，以及除任何窗戶或門戶外，其圍封程度（不論是暫時性或永久性）至少達各邊總面積的五成，均可被界定為「室內」，因而需要實施禁煙措施。         簡單而言，圍封程度達總面積五成的有蓋地方，便即屬室內範圍，但由於「圍封程度達五成」難以清晰辨別，故早在法例07 年實施時已惹起爭議，認為存在太多的灰色地帶，當中尤以是次案件中的開放式食肆，如大牌檔等的露天或半露天座位，最令人容易混淆。         根據現時高院法官指出，法例「圍封」的意思，應是包括四邊，「室內」範圍應是四邊都有圍封，而每邊的圍封要達到該邊的50%以上，才算是「室內」。因此，只圍封兩或三邊範圍的食肆，並不會列入室內範圍，即不受室內禁煙法例規管。行人天橋最易混淆除開放式食肆出現灰色地帶外，行人天橋亦同樣易令人混淆。根據衞生署控煙辦公室的指引，「圍封程度逾五成的行人天橋」都要禁煙，但法例並沒有要求所有法定禁煙區設置禁煙標誌，場所管理人可因應實際情況，決定是否貼上標誌，令一般市民難以判斷。         根據控煙辦解釋，若是兩旁只有鐵欄圍繞、「疏窿」的天橋，則不屬禁煙區，相反天橋兩旁是石屎牆或玻璃，而高度又多於一半，就屬於禁煙範圍，如連接遮打大廈和怡和大廈的行人天橋，以及連接太子大廈和置地廣場的行人天橋，均屬室內禁煙範圍。 記者莊菀婷

文章來源:
http://www.singpao.com/NewsArticle.aspx?NewsID=57983&Lang=tc



_______________________________________________________________
11月4日的全部判詞（感謝網友 LL 提供）

HCMA180/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 180 OF 2009

(ON APPEAL FROM TWS 6547 OF 2008)

BETWEEN

HKSAR
Appellant

and

                                                     HO YAU YIN(何鈾然)
Respondent


Before : Hon Tong J in Court
Date of Hearing : 2 November 2009
Date of Judgment : 4 November 2009

-----------------------

J U D G M E N T

-----------------------

1.
This application arises from an appeal against the decision of a magistrate.
I have allowed the appeal by the appellant who was summonsed for the offence of carrying a lighted cigarette in the “indoor” area in a restaurant which was alleged to be designated as a non smoking area under section 3(1) of the Smoking (Public Health) Ordinance, Cap. 371 (“the Ordinance”).


2.
By a Notice of Motion filed on 15 October 2009 , the respondent invites this court to certify 2 questions for the Court of Final Appeal, pursuant to section 32 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484.


3.
These 2 questions are :
(1)
Whether an area of the premises enclosed by plastic curtain is an enclosed area for the purpose of the definition of “indoor” in section 2 of the Ordinance.
(2)
Whether the premises have to be enclosed at least up to 50% of the total area on each and every side in order to constitute “indoor” in section 2 of the Ordinance.


A Chinese version of the questions are included in the Notice.


4.
The original trial and the appeal were conducted in Chinese, but at the request of Mr Cheung, and in order to avoid the inconvenience of translation, I have agreed to prepare this decision in English.
Mr Cheung informed me that the Chinese version of the questions could be ignored.


5.
In support of his application, Mr Cheung submitted that the legislative intent was that premises with enclosure on 3 sides shall be covered in the definition of “indoor” in the Ordinance, and the different interpretation adopted in my judgment will affect the prosecution of many similar cases.
Mr Cheung argued that the issue would satisfy the requirement of great and general importance.


6.
While I tend to agree, in the circumstances, that the second question meets the criteria, I have reservation about the first.
I believe my judgment never said that the material used for the enclosure was a relevant matter; my query was whether the different plastic curtains in this case had clearly and sufficiently constituted any enclosure, as alleged in the oral evidence of the prosecution witness and his sketch.


7.
Mr Cheung stated that they would not be pursuing the issue of sufficiency of the evidence in this particular case, they were not seeking to overturn the result of the appeal, however, he believed this may well be an opportunity to clarify also the relevance of the material used.


8.
While I appreciate Mr Cheung’s interest to have this matter clarified by the Court of Final Appeal, however, I do not think it appropriate for me to certify a question that does not directly raise from my judgment.


9.
Hence, I would certify the second question raised for consideration by the Court of Final Appeal, but not the first one.



(Louis Tong)

Judge of the Court of First Instance

High Court




Mr Cheung Wai Sun, Patrick, SADPP leading Ms Lam Tak Wing, Winnie,

SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
The Respondent in person, present

孤寂如雲

6.    While I tend to agree, in the circumstances, that the second question meets the criteria, I have reservation about the first.  I believe my judgment never said that the material used for the enclosure was a relevant matter; my query was whether the different plastic curtains in this case had clearly and sufficiently constituted any enclosure, as alleged in the oral evidence of the prosecution witness and his sketch.

也就是說，法官認為之前並沒有就此問題作出過裁決，因此是與此案無關的。所以沒有人會有責任回答第一條問題。