怎樣才算是遊蕩？
2007-02-10 9:41 pm
怎樣才算是遊蕩？
回答 (3)
2007-02-10 9:44 pm
✔ 最佳答案
章： 200 標題： 刑事罪行條例
條： 160
條文標題： 遊蕩
版本日期： 30/06/1997
第XIII部
雜項罪行
(1) 任何人在公眾地方或建築物的共用部分遊蕩，意圖犯可逮捕的罪行，即屬犯罪，可處罰款$10000及監禁6個月。(由1992年第74號第3條代替)
(2) 任何人在公眾地方或建築物的共用部分遊蕩，並以任何方式故意妨礙他人使用該公眾地方或該建築物的共用部分，即屬犯罪，一經定罪，可處監禁6個月。
(3) 任何人在公眾地方或建築物的共用部分遊蕩，不論單獨或結伴在該處出現，而導致他人合理地擔心本身的安全或利益，即屬犯罪，一經定罪，可處監禁2年。
(4) 在本條中，就建築物而言，“共用部分”(common parts) 指─
(a) 入口大堂、門廊、通路、走廊、樓梯、樓梯平台、天台、升降機或自動梯；
(b) 建築物佔用人共用的地窖、洗手間、水廁、房、浴室或廚房；
(c) 圍地、車房、停車場、汽車間，或里。
(由1979年第37號第2條增補)
遊蕩的定義，是指並無明確目的的行為。刑事罪行條例 (crimes ordinance) (香港法例第200章)第160條有關遊蕩罪(loitering) 的法例指出，任何人在公眾地方或建築物的共用部分遊蕩，不論單獨或結伴在該處出現，而導致他人合理地擔心本身的安全或利益，即屬犯罪，一經定罪，可處監禁2年。所謂共用部分，包括：入口大堂、門廊、通路、走廊，甚至升降機或自動梯等。 補充時間：2006-07-15 20:45
警方可有權要求任何路人答覆他在公眾地方行動的目的，如警方對他的解釋不滿，可控告該市民觸犯遊蕩罪。但是，當案件提交法庭時，警方必須要合理地說明他基於什麼理由不滿該市民的解釋，才可入罪。
2007-02-11 11:40 pm
香港特別行政區政府 訴 陳文珍 [2004] 1 HKLRD 641
何謂遊蕩
11. 在未處理有關上訴理據前，本席曾要求上訴人及答辯人就何謂遊蕩，及根據本案證供證據上訴人是否在當時遊蕩作陳詞。在聆聽陳詞後，本席認為在本案已有足夠證據證明上訴人曾遊蕩，在達致此裁斷時，本席曾考慮以下案例及有關證據。
12. 在R v Mok Chi-ho [1979] HKLR 118及The Queen v Ng Chun-yip & Others [1985] HKLR 427案件，遊蕩是指‘idling, lingering or hanging about’。雖然在Mok Chi Ho一案中引述的澳洲案例Hogan v Ridley [1948] 50 WALR 112，提及遊蕩的定義是“remaining in or about or in the vicinity of a restricted area but not necessarily defined place without any apparent purpose or reason”，本席在考慮英國樞密院在A-G v Sham Chuen [1986] HKLR 1043中就遊蕩的定義後，認為構成遊蕩無須顯示是「漫無目的地」徘徊或逗留。在Sham Chuen一案中有關的判詞如下：
「 A considerable amount of argument before the Board was directed to the meaning of "loitering" in s. 160(1). Given that the acceptable dictionary meaning of the word was simply "lingering", three possible constructions of the word in its present context were suggested. These were (i) any lingering; (ii) lingering with no apparent purpose at all; and (iii) lingering in circumstances which suggest an unlawful purpose. Counsel for the appellant favoured the third construction and counsel for the respondent the second. Reference was made at some length to the legislative history of this particular enactment and of similar enactments in other Commonwealth jurisdictions, as well as to a number of reported decisions on the interpretation of such enactments. In their Lordships' opinion no helpful guidance is to be obtained from any of them. The word is to be construed in the light of the context in which it appears in this particular enactment. Sub-ss. (2) and (3) of s. 160 are each concerned with loitering of a particular character, the first being loitering which causes an obstruction and the second being loitering which causes reasonable concern to a person for his safety or well-being.」 （節錄原文）
13. 儘管如此，要構成遊蕩必需要有證據顯示上訴人曾“idle, linger or hang about”。在本案雖然無直接證據顯示上訴人曾徘徊或逗留，但根據控方案情，上訴人曾跟隨隊伍走了一會，及後追控方第二證人，一無可置疑的推斷是上訴人曾在學校附近徘徊或逗留等候列隊解散；及在追踪控方第二證人至控方第二證人離開新九龍中心期間曾在附近徘徊或逗留。
何謂遊蕩
11. 在未處理有關上訴理據前，本席曾要求上訴人及答辯人就何謂遊蕩，及根據本案證供證據上訴人是否在當時遊蕩作陳詞。在聆聽陳詞後，本席認為在本案已有足夠證據證明上訴人曾遊蕩，在達致此裁斷時，本席曾考慮以下案例及有關證據。
12. 在R v Mok Chi-ho [1979] HKLR 118及The Queen v Ng Chun-yip & Others [1985] HKLR 427案件，遊蕩是指‘idling, lingering or hanging about’。雖然在Mok Chi Ho一案中引述的澳洲案例Hogan v Ridley [1948] 50 WALR 112，提及遊蕩的定義是“remaining in or about or in the vicinity of a restricted area but not necessarily defined place without any apparent purpose or reason”，本席在考慮英國樞密院在A-G v Sham Chuen [1986] HKLR 1043中就遊蕩的定義後，認為構成遊蕩無須顯示是「漫無目的地」徘徊或逗留。在Sham Chuen一案中有關的判詞如下：
「 A considerable amount of argument before the Board was directed to the meaning of "loitering" in s. 160(1). Given that the acceptable dictionary meaning of the word was simply "lingering", three possible constructions of the word in its present context were suggested. These were (i) any lingering; (ii) lingering with no apparent purpose at all; and (iii) lingering in circumstances which suggest an unlawful purpose. Counsel for the appellant favoured the third construction and counsel for the respondent the second. Reference was made at some length to the legislative history of this particular enactment and of similar enactments in other Commonwealth jurisdictions, as well as to a number of reported decisions on the interpretation of such enactments. In their Lordships' opinion no helpful guidance is to be obtained from any of them. The word is to be construed in the light of the context in which it appears in this particular enactment. Sub-ss. (2) and (3) of s. 160 are each concerned with loitering of a particular character, the first being loitering which causes an obstruction and the second being loitering which causes reasonable concern to a person for his safety or well-being.」 （節錄原文）
13. 儘管如此，要構成遊蕩必需要有證據顯示上訴人曾“idle, linger or hang about”。在本案雖然無直接證據顯示上訴人曾徘徊或逗留，但根據控方案情，上訴人曾跟隨隊伍走了一會，及後追控方第二證人，一無可置疑的推斷是上訴人曾在學校附近徘徊或逗留等候列隊解散；及在追踪控方第二證人至控方第二證人離開新九龍中心期間曾在附近徘徊或逗留。
2007-02-10 9:46 pm
遊蕩是over 10pm don't go back home ,every day 是遊蕩!!!
收錄日期: 2021-04-12 22:03:57
原文連結 [永久失效]:
https://hk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070210000051KK01899