香港刑事傷人 傷者有索償期限嗎?

The answer is yes - 6 years.

The criminal offense usually carries no statute of limitation. But the civil damage does carry one.

2014-05-15 18:24:11 補充：
Alfred Yiu:

Section 27 only applies for negligence, nuisance or breach of duty (like traffic accidents).

Assault is an intentional tort. So Section 4 applies.

2014-05-20 13:11:43 補充：
1. Don't ask me why it has been removed, as I did not do anything about it.

2. If you have read A v Hoare [2008] UKHL 6 carefully again, the case actually works against your answer. The decision of the House of Lords in fact allows the cases to go forward to waive the statute of limitation.

2014-05-20 13:13:58 補充：
In other word, under Chapter 347 Section 30, the Court has its discretions to extend the statute of limitation for intentional tort.

So basically, it will not be 3 years for sure.

2014-05-20 13:15:07 補充：
3. This decision is published in 2008. Hong Kong is under Chinese control since 1997. So this decision is not binding in Hong Kong. Judiciary in Hong Kong is welcome to consider this ruling.

2014-05-20 16:21:22 補充：
I have read the whole case of DCPI 874/2011.

It is inconclusive.

1. The court has not explicitly express any opinion regarding A v Hoare. The court simply address that Defendants rely on A v Hoare.

2014-05-20 16:23:12 補充：
2. CAPO's opinion expresses that the police owe Plaintiff a duty of a proper investigation. Since there is a duty to care, this indicates negligence (the focus of this question is intentional tort, not negligence), which makes Section 27 applies.

2014-05-20 16:26:08 補充：
3. Plaintiff fails to explain why she thought 6 years of statute of limitation. As the Plaintiff holds the burden of proof, she fails.

2014-05-20 16:27:21 補充：
You are correc that if the case is proceeded as negligence. But in this case of intentional tort, especially assult, I don't think Section 27 applies at all.

2014-05-21 05:15:24 補充：
1. I agree what you have said for DCPI 874/2011. But you made 2 mistakes.

a. Plaintiff holds the burden of proof for using 6 years of statute of limitation. She fails to do so.

b. The District Court has not ruled on the application of A v Hoare.

2014-05-21 05:18:04 補充：
In fact, the District Court explicitly says the Court avoid applying in favour of the Plaintiff as she appear in pro per.

2. I don't agree with your analysis for A v Hoare:

2014-05-21 05:19:41 補充：
a. A v Hoare is a 2008 case. Hong Kong is a Chinese sovereignty since 1997. Hong Kong has its own independent authority to apply its own statute of limitation. A v Hoare is a reference precedent, not a binding precedent.

2014-05-21 05:21:05 補充：
b. Even A v Hoare applies in Hong Kong, even you deed you are correct on the 3-year statute of limitation, A v Hoare in fact extends the statute of limitation for the claimants for the suit to be continue. So the Court has the right to override.

2014-05-21 05:22:01 補充：
Based on all these, even I agree you are right Section 27 applies, the Court will never apply a 3-year statute of limitation on intentional tort cases.

2014-05-21 05:22:48 補充：
By the way - lawyers do not express the Court's opinion. In this case, the Court has the final say.

根據本港法例，只有民事案件設有追溯期限，如錢債案追溯期為六年，意外傷亡索償為三年，土地業權為十二年；至於刑事案則沒有追溯期限，換言之，只要一日未破案，一日也可追查。

That's great ! 本人的答案被視作達規及移除了 !!!

Section 27 also apply to intentional trespass to peronsal injuries !

2014-05-20 11:33:52 補充：
A v Hoare [2008] UKHL 6
House of Lords, 30 January 2008


check it out !

2014-05-20 14:34:00 補充：
I dont agree with your view

Pls also read para. 15 of this HK Judgment:
http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=90243&QS=%26%2340%3B%E8%A5%B2%E6%93%8A%26%2341%3B&ID=AAAF0TAADAAAKhQAAF&TP=JU

2014-05-20 14:34:26 補充：
代表張和許的李律師提出A v Hoare and other appeals [2008] 2 All ER1，倚賴Lord Hoffmann 的判詞 (第17至27段)，正確地指出《時效條例》第27 條中所指的疏忽、妨擾或違反責任是包括所有故意或疏忽地侵犯人身的權利的行為。

2014-05-20 14:41:23 補充：
In fact I have read some relevant articles concerning the said case, A v Hoare and other appeals [2008] 2 All ER1

2014-05-20 16:51:03 補充：
How about this way,

any legal practictioner should know that the time limitation for recovery of damages for peronsal injuries (ie. Personal Injuries Cases) is 3 years.....you may try to ask one : )

2014-05-20 17:13:10 補充：
BTW,

你睇錯左呢兩個case 既重點,,,,

http://high-court-justice.vlex.co.uk/vid/hq04x04155-52775731

A v Hoare and other appeals [2008] 呢個case其中一個主要特點，講述了法庭同意申索人就遭性侵(intentional assault)而申索賠償的時限應subject to　相等於香港既section 27

2014-05-20 17:13:17 補充：
DCPI 874/2011　呢個case…對方律師反對原告人超過section 27規定既３年的期限並且提述A v Hoare and other appeals [2008]．．．所有第27 條中所指的疏忽、妨擾或違反責任是包括所有故意或疏忽地侵犯人身的權利的行為。（而原告就沒有提出任何支持理據下話有關時候應該是６年（即按照第４條）．．．．咁個官梗係睬原告人都傻ｌａ．．．．

2014-05-21 12:40:57 補充：
長話短說，以下是我最後回應，我英文麻麻地，所以用中文：-

第1，我(被移除的)答案本來是說，一般而言，就人身傷亡案件的入稟索償期限(即區域法院DCPI編號或高等法院HCPI編號)是三年，有關期間是按照時限條例第27條。(呢點所有執業律師或具處理人身傷亡案件的法律從業員均知道)

第2，如有合理理據，該三年期限是法庭可運用酌情權延長(這便是我答案指一般而言的原因。)

2014-05-21 12:41:08 補充：
第3，雖然我本人係律師行工作多年，但冇咩處理人身傷亡案件的經驗，所以於回答呢條問題之前，我便自行case research找答案，亦再向其他有經驗的律師朋友求證後，才作出回答“yes or no”。

第4，事實上，我一直有睇過你的答案，倒有點欣賞你英文不錯，見多識廣，但有多時你的答案過於空泛，而今次你各項legal principle and legal case features理解過於片面。

第5，另外，不要再講咩回歸前後，總之一般讀law既都知，上級法院就同類案件判決(例如當中法庭予以確定的legal principle)對下級法院具約束力。

2014-05-21 12:41:25 補充：
DCPI 874/2011 呢個case雖然不是有關裁定索償期限的leading case / landmark case，但呢個case只是咁岩有提到(第15段)…個官同意被告律師引援A v Hoare and other appeals [2008] 2 All ER1，倚賴Lord Hoffmann 的判詞 (第17至27段)，正確地指出《時效條例》第27 條中所指的疏忽、妨擾或違反責任是包括所有故意或疏忽地侵犯人身的權利的行為。(唯一只有呢點可以供參考究竟27條是否包括所有故意或疏忽地侵犯人身的權利的行為的地方)

2014-05-21 12:41:40 補充：
而且你打呢個A v Hoare and other appeals [2008] case 可以睇返呢類英國有關裁定人身侵害索償案件的歷史。呢個case之所以成為leading case / landmark case，因為呢個case的判決推翻了以往(intention assault 的索償期限是subject to 相對於香港法律《時效條例》第4條的法律原則。)換言之，呢個case確立了日後人身侵害索償案件(包括intentional trespass to personal injury)的索償期限是subject to 相對於香港法律《時效條例》第27條的法律原則。

2014-05-21 12:42:22 補充：
香港法院當然跟從呢個英國案例的法律原則la…(香港與英國分別的《時效條例》的條文幾乎相同。)

2014-05-21 12:53:50 補充：
最後，不如發問者親自求證一下，既然GARY 兄說索償時限是6年(不是3年)，那試試從意外發生後計3年零一天入稟申索，看看是否須要先向法庭申請准許延長申索期限!

(完)

沒有，你有人證物證就可上告。