模型输出对比分析：2007_HKCFA_6 v3
parent
0806b7c621
commit
14c85787ba
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
|
||||||
|
{
|
||||||
|
"config_name": "mm-minimax-m2.7",
|
||||||
|
"source": "Minimax",
|
||||||
|
"model": "MiniMax-M2.7",
|
||||||
|
"elapsed_seconds": 91.698,
|
||||||
|
"num_api_calls": 8,
|
||||||
|
"input_tokens": 15726,
|
||||||
|
"output_tokens": 4798,
|
||||||
|
"total_tokens": 20524,
|
||||||
|
"input_price_per_million": 0.29,
|
||||||
|
"output_price_per_million": 1.16,
|
||||||
|
"price_unit": "USD",
|
||||||
|
"input_cost": 0.004561,
|
||||||
|
"output_cost": 0.005566,
|
||||||
|
"total_cost": 0.010127
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- MO YUK PING
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
|
||||||
|
case_location:
|
||||||
|
- 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
|
||||||
|
case_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Applicant Mo Yuk Ping seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against her convictions for
|
||||||
|
conspiracy to defraud (Charge 2) and conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice (Charge 3),
|
||||||
|
with the Court of Appeal having certified a question regarding whether the elements of conspiracy to
|
||||||
|
defraud are sufficiently precise to satisfy the constitutional requirement of legal certainty.
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- leave to appeal against conviction for conspiracy to defraud
|
||||||
|
- leave to appeal against conviction for conspiracy to pervert course of public justice
|
||||||
|
- certified question on legal certainty of conspiracy to defraud offence
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Leave to appeal against conviction for conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice (Charge
|
||||||
|
3) (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Dismissed. Court held the applicant does not have leave to appeal against this conviction; no
|
||||||
|
basis found for leave to appeal on the 'substantial and grave injustice' ground.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Leave to appeal against conviction for conspiracy to defraud (Charge 2) (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed in part. Court granted leave to appeal limited to the question of whether the elements
|
||||||
|
of conspiracy to defraud are sufficiently precise to satisfy the constitutional requirement of legal
|
||||||
|
certainty; time extended for pursuing this certified point.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Certification of Points 2-4 (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Dismissed. Court of Appeal's refusal to certify these points was upheld; context was plain for
|
||||||
|
point 2, point 3 did not arise on the evidence relied upon, and point 4 did not arise as the trial
|
||||||
|
judge made the relevant findings.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Leave to appeal on 'substantial and grave injustice' ground for pursuing substance of complaint
|
||||||
|
under Point 4 (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Dismissed. No basis found for leave to appeal in this case on the 'substantial and grave injustice'
|
||||||
|
ground.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Leave to appeal on 'substantial and grave injustice' ground for pursuing complaints regarding
|
||||||
|
trial judge's reasons and Court of Appeal's inference methodology (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Dismissed. Court declined to grant leave to appeal on this ground; point 5 was considered obvious
|
||||||
|
and merely went to an alleged error in analysis of trial judge's reasoning.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
Mo Yuk Ping sought leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against convictions for conspiracy to
|
||||||
|
defraud and conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice. The core issues were whether the offence
|
||||||
|
of conspiracy to defraud satisfies the constitutional requirement of legal certainty (certified question),
|
||||||
|
and whether points 2-4 regarding admissibility of co-conspirator evidence, judicial directions, and
|
||||||
|
appellate inference methodology should be certified. The Court found point 2's context was plain and
|
||||||
|
straightforward, point 3 did not arise on the evidence relied upon, and point 4 did not arise as the
|
||||||
|
trial judge made the relevant findings. Point 5 was obvious and merely addressed an alleged error in
|
||||||
|
analysis. Leave to appeal was granted limited to the certified legal certainty question; time was extended
|
||||||
|
accordingly. All other applications including the 'substantial and grave injustice' grounds were dismissed.
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Chief Justice Li
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding as member of the Appeal Committee in this Court of Final Appeal case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding Permanent Judge who delivered the determination in this case, articulating the Court's
|
||||||
|
reasoning on the certified point and points 2 to 5.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Chan PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding as member of the Appeal Committee in this Court of Final Appeal case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: MO YUK PING
|
||||||
|
reason: Applicant in these proceedings, seeking leave to appeal against convictions for conspiracy to
|
||||||
|
defraud and conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
|
||||||
|
reason: Respondent in these criminal proceedings, opposing the applicant's application for leave to
|
||||||
|
appeal.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Court of Appeal
|
||||||
|
reason: Lower court whose judgment resulted in the applicant retaining two convictions, and which certified
|
||||||
|
one point regarding the constitutional requirement of legal certainty for conspiracy to defraud.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
|
||||||
|
{
|
||||||
|
"config_name": "mm-minimax-m2.7",
|
||||||
|
"source": "Minimax",
|
||||||
|
"model": "MiniMax-M2.7",
|
||||||
|
"elapsed_seconds": 213.27,
|
||||||
|
"num_api_calls": 10,
|
||||||
|
"input_tokens": 18453,
|
||||||
|
"output_tokens": 6458,
|
||||||
|
"total_tokens": 24911,
|
||||||
|
"input_price_per_million": 0.29,
|
||||||
|
"output_price_per_million": 1.16,
|
||||||
|
"price_unit": "USD",
|
||||||
|
"input_cost": 0.005351,
|
||||||
|
"output_cost": 0.007491,
|
||||||
|
"total_cost": 0.012842
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- MO YUK PING
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
|
||||||
|
case_location:
|
||||||
|
- 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
|
||||||
|
case_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Plaintiff seeks leave to appeal against conviction for conspiracy to defraud, challenging sufficiency
|
||||||
|
of charge elements to meet legal certainty.
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- right to appeal against conviction for conspiracy to defraud
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Conviction for conspiracy to defraud (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. Court found the elements of the offence of conspiracy to defraud insufficiently precise
|
||||||
|
to satisfy the constitutional requirement of legal certainty, warranting leave to appeal.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Certification of points 2-5 (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Dismissed. Court held the context was plain and straightforward, points 2-5 did not require
|
||||||
|
certification as they lacked merit or called for no further judicial review.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Leave to appeal on 'substantial and grave injustice' ground (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Dismissed. Court found no basis for granting leave on this ground, as the applicant failed to
|
||||||
|
demonstrate exceptional circumstances requiring intervention.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
Mo Yuk Ping appealed her conspiracy to defraud conviction, challenging charge sufficiency. Court found
|
||||||
|
elements of conspiracy to defraud lacked legal certainty, granting appeal leave. Points 2-5 certification
|
||||||
|
dismissed as context was plain; 'substantial and grave injustice' ground rejected due to insufficient
|
||||||
|
exceptional circumstances. Orders: allow appeal on liability issue, dismiss other claims.
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Chief Justice Li
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Chan PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
|
||||||
|
reason: Respondent in the case, representing the government entity involved in the legal proceedings.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
|
||||||
|
{
|
||||||
|
"config_name": "ollama-qwen3-8b",
|
||||||
|
"source": "local",
|
||||||
|
"model": "qwen3:8b",
|
||||||
|
"elapsed_seconds": 71.046,
|
||||||
|
"num_api_calls": 7,
|
||||||
|
"input_tokens": 16185,
|
||||||
|
"output_tokens": 660,
|
||||||
|
"total_tokens": 16845,
|
||||||
|
"input_price_per_million": 0.0,
|
||||||
|
"output_price_per_million": 0.0,
|
||||||
|
"price_unit": "USD",
|
||||||
|
"input_cost": 0.0,
|
||||||
|
"output_cost": 0.0,
|
||||||
|
"total_cost": 0.0
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- MO YUK PING
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
|
||||||
|
case_location:
|
||||||
|
- 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
|
||||||
|
case_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Applicant seeks leave to appeal against convictions for conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to pervert
|
||||||
|
the course of public justice from CACC No. 26 of 2006.
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- leave to appeal
|
||||||
|
- conviction for conspiracy to defraud
|
||||||
|
- conviction for conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Application for leave to appeal against conviction for conspiracy to pervert the course of public
|
||||||
|
justice (Charge 3) (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Dismissed. Court of Appeal were right in refusing to certify points 2 to 5; no basis for leave
|
||||||
|
to appeal on the 'substantial and grave injustice' ground. Applicant does not have leave to appeal
|
||||||
|
against this conviction.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Application for leave to appeal against conviction for conspiracy to defraud (Charge 2) on certified
|
||||||
|
point regarding legal certainty (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. Court considered it appropriate to grant leave to appeal for pursuing the certified
|
||||||
|
point; time extended. Appeal limited to the question of whether the elements of the offence of conspiracy
|
||||||
|
to defraud are sufficiently precise to satisfy the constitutional requirement of legal certainty.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
Applicant Mo Yuk Ping sought leave to appeal convictions for conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to
|
||||||
|
pervert public justice. The Court of Appeal certified only one point regarding legal certainty of fraud
|
||||||
|
elements. Core issues: (1) whether to grant leave on the certified point; (2) whether to certify four
|
||||||
|
additional points on evidence and findings; (3) whether substantial injustice warranted leave. The Court
|
||||||
|
granted leave limited to the certified constitutional question on legal certainty of conspiracy to defraud,
|
||||||
|
finding it appropriate for appeal. However, the Court dismissed the application regarding the conspiracy
|
||||||
|
to pervert justice conviction, holding the Court of Appeal correctly refused to certify points 2-5 and
|
||||||
|
finding no basis for leave on substantial injustice grounds. Time for appeal was extended for the certified
|
||||||
|
point only.
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Chief Justice Li
|
||||||
|
reason: Served as member of the Appeal Committee in this case, responsible for determining the application
|
||||||
|
for leave to appeal.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, delivered the determination on behalf of the Appeal Committee.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Chan PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Served as member of the Appeal Committee in this case, responsible for determining the application
|
||||||
|
for leave to appeal.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: MO YUK PING
|
||||||
|
reason: Applicant in this criminal miscellaneous proceeding, seeking leave to appeal against convictions
|
||||||
|
for conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
|
||||||
|
reason: Respondent in this criminal proceeding, represented the prosecution in the case against the
|
||||||
|
applicant.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
|
||||||
|
{
|
||||||
|
"config_name": "or-claude-sonnet-4.5",
|
||||||
|
"source": "openrouter",
|
||||||
|
"model": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5",
|
||||||
|
"elapsed_seconds": 49.64,
|
||||||
|
"num_api_calls": 9,
|
||||||
|
"input_tokens": 17076,
|
||||||
|
"output_tokens": 1451,
|
||||||
|
"total_tokens": 18527,
|
||||||
|
"input_price_per_million": 3.0,
|
||||||
|
"output_price_per_million": 15.0,
|
||||||
|
"price_unit": "USD",
|
||||||
|
"input_cost": 0.051228,
|
||||||
|
"output_cost": 0.021765,
|
||||||
|
"total_cost": 0.072993
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- MO YUK PING
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
|
||||||
|
case_location:
|
||||||
|
- 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
|
||||||
|
case_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Applicant Mo Yuk Ping seeks leave to appeal against her conviction for conspiracy to defraud, challenging
|
||||||
|
its legal certainty under the constitutional requirement, from CACC No. 26 of 2006.
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- conviction for conspiracy to defraud
|
||||||
|
- constitutional certainty of offence elements
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Application for leave to appeal against conviction for conspiracy to defraud (Charge 2) (liability
|
||||||
|
issue)
|
||||||
|
result: "Partially allowed. Leave to appeal granted limited to the certified point: whether the elements\
|
||||||
|
\ of the offence of conspiracy to defraud are sufficiently precise to satisfy the constitutional requirement\
|
||||||
|
\ of legal certainty. Court considered the Court of Appeal's certification appropriate and granted\
|
||||||
|
\ leave for that purpose."
|
||||||
|
- charge: Application for leave to appeal against conviction for conspiracy to pervert the course of public
|
||||||
|
justice (Charge 3) (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Dismissed. Court found no basis for leave on the 'substantial and grave injustice' ground and
|
||||||
|
agreed with the Court of Appeal's refusal to certify points 2 to 5, as the context was straightforward
|
||||||
|
and the points did not arise or were obvious.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
Mo Yuk Ping sought leave to appeal convictions for conspiracy to defraud and perverting justice. The
|
||||||
|
core issue was whether conspiracy to defraud satisfies constitutional legal certainty. The Court granted
|
||||||
|
leave solely on the certified point regarding legal certainty, finding the Court of Appeal's certification
|
||||||
|
appropriate. Other points were dismissed as context was straightforward and points did not arise or
|
||||||
|
were obvious.
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Chief Justice Li
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, serving as a member of the Appeal Committee of the Court of Final
|
||||||
|
Appeal.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, delivering the determination as a member of the Appeal Committee
|
||||||
|
of the Court of Final Appeal.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Chan PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, serving as a member of the Appeal Committee of the Court of Final
|
||||||
|
Appeal.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mo Yuk Ping
|
||||||
|
reason: Applicant in this case, the party seeking leave to appeal against convictions for conspiracy
|
||||||
|
to defraud and conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
|
||||||
|
reason: Respondent in this case, the prosecuting authority represented by the Secretary for Justice.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Court of Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
|
||||||
|
reason: Lower appellate court that certified the first point and refused to certify points 2 to 5, whose
|
||||||
|
judgment is under review in this leave application.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
|
||||||
|
{
|
||||||
|
"config_name": "or-deepseek-v4-flash",
|
||||||
|
"source": "openrouter",
|
||||||
|
"model": "deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash",
|
||||||
|
"elapsed_seconds": 61.447,
|
||||||
|
"num_api_calls": 6,
|
||||||
|
"input_tokens": 10615,
|
||||||
|
"output_tokens": 2292,
|
||||||
|
"total_tokens": 12907,
|
||||||
|
"input_price_per_million": 0.1,
|
||||||
|
"output_price_per_million": 0.2,
|
||||||
|
"price_unit": "USD",
|
||||||
|
"input_cost": 0.001061,
|
||||||
|
"output_cost": 0.000458,
|
||||||
|
"total_cost": 0.001519
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- MO YUK PING
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
|
||||||
|
case_location:
|
||||||
|
- 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
|
||||||
|
case_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Applicant applies for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against her criminal convictions
|
||||||
|
for conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice.
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- conviction for conspiracy to defraud
|
||||||
|
- conviction for conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Application for leave to appeal against conviction for conspiracy to defraud (Charge 2) on the
|
||||||
|
certified point regarding constitutional legal certainty (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The court considered it appropriate to grant leave; time extended. Leave limited to
|
||||||
|
the question of whether the elements of conspiracy to defraud are sufficiently precise to satisfy
|
||||||
|
the constitutional requirement of legal certainty.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Application for leave to appeal against conviction for conspiracy to pervert the course of public
|
||||||
|
justice (Charge 3) (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Refused. The court upheld the Court of Appeal's refusal to certify points; no basis for leave
|
||||||
|
on 'substantial and grave injustice' ground.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Application for certification of points 2-4 and leave to appeal on those points (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Refused. Court found Court of Appeal correctly refused certification; context plain, points
|
||||||
|
did not arise or were obvious.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Application for leave to appeal on 'substantial and grave injustice' ground regarding point
|
||||||
|
4 and other complaints (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Refused. No basis for leave on that ground.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
Mo Yuk Ping sought leave to appeal two convictions. The court granted leave for the point on whether
|
||||||
|
conspiracy to defraud meets legal certainty requirements but refused certification for three other points
|
||||||
|
and declined leave on 'substantial and grave injustice' grounds, finding the Court of Appeal correctly
|
||||||
|
handled evidential and procedural issues.
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: MO YUK PING
|
||||||
|
reason: Applicant in the leave to appeal proceedings, convicted of conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy
|
||||||
|
to pervert the course of public justice.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
|
||||||
|
reason: Respondent in the leave to appeal proceedings, representing the prosecuting authority.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Chief Justice Li
|
||||||
|
reason: Member of the Appeal Committee of the Court of Final Appeal determining the application for
|
||||||
|
leave to appeal.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Member of the Appeal Committee and delivered the determination on the application for leave
|
||||||
|
to appeal.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Chan PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Member of the Appeal Committee of the Court of Final Appeal determining the application for
|
||||||
|
leave to appeal.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Court of Appeal
|
||||||
|
reason: The appellate court whose judgment is under review, certified one point of law and refused to
|
||||||
|
certify other points of appeal.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
|
||||||
|
{
|
||||||
|
"config_name": "or-deepseek-v4-pro",
|
||||||
|
"source": "openrouter",
|
||||||
|
"model": "deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro",
|
||||||
|
"elapsed_seconds": 337.07,
|
||||||
|
"num_api_calls": 7,
|
||||||
|
"input_tokens": 12436,
|
||||||
|
"output_tokens": 12950,
|
||||||
|
"total_tokens": 25386,
|
||||||
|
"input_price_per_million": 0.435,
|
||||||
|
"output_price_per_million": 0.87,
|
||||||
|
"price_unit": "USD",
|
||||||
|
"input_cost": 0.00541,
|
||||||
|
"output_cost": 0.011267,
|
||||||
|
"total_cost": 0.016677
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- MO YUK PING
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
|
||||||
|
case_location:
|
||||||
|
- 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
|
||||||
|
case_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Applicant seeks leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision (CACC 26/2006) regarding her
|
||||||
|
convictions for conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice.
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- leave to appeal against conviction
|
||||||
|
- constitutional challenge to legal certainty of conspiracy to defraud
|
||||||
|
- substantial and grave injustice ground
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Application for leave to appeal against conviction for conspiracy to defraud (Charge 2) (liability
|
||||||
|
issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The Court granted leave to appeal limited to the certified point regarding whether
|
||||||
|
the elements of the offence of conspiracy to defraud satisfy the constitutional requirement of legal
|
||||||
|
certainty. The Court extended time for the application and found it appropriate to allow the pursuit
|
||||||
|
of this specific legal question.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Application for leave to appeal against conviction for conspiracy to pervert the course of public
|
||||||
|
justice (Charge 3) (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Dismissed. The Court refused to certify the applicant's additional points (points 2 to 5) and
|
||||||
|
found no basis for leave to appeal on the 'substantial and grave injustice' ground. The Court agreed
|
||||||
|
with the Court of Appeal's reasons that the points were either straightforward, did not arise on the
|
||||||
|
facts, or were obvious.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
Mo Yuk Ping sought leave to appeal convictions for conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to pervert the
|
||||||
|
course of public justice. The Court focused on whether the elements of conspiracy to defraud satisfy
|
||||||
|
constitutional legal certainty. While granting leave on this certified legal point, the Court rejected
|
||||||
|
other grounds, finding no substantial and grave injustice. It held that remaining points were either
|
||||||
|
obvious or factually inapplicable. Leave to appeal was granted for Charge 2 only.
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Chief Justice Li
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge on the Appeal Committee of the Court of Final Appeal responsible for determining
|
||||||
|
the application for leave to appeal.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge on the Appeal Committee of the Court of Final Appeal who delivered the determination
|
||||||
|
of the court.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Chan PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge on the Appeal Committee of the Court of Final Appeal responsible for determining
|
||||||
|
the application for leave to appeal.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mo Yuk Ping
|
||||||
|
reason: The applicant in this criminal proceeding seeking leave to appeal against convictions of conspiracy
|
||||||
|
to defraud and conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
|
||||||
|
reason: The respondent in this criminal proceeding, representing the prosecution.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Court of Appeal
|
||||||
|
reason: The lower appellate court that upheld the applicant's convictions and certified one point of
|
||||||
|
law while refusing others, whose judgment is the subject of this leave application.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
|
||||||
|
{
|
||||||
|
"config_name": "or-gemini-3-flash-preview",
|
||||||
|
"source": "openrouter",
|
||||||
|
"model": "google/gemini-3-flash-preview",
|
||||||
|
"elapsed_seconds": 18.014,
|
||||||
|
"num_api_calls": 6,
|
||||||
|
"input_tokens": 10930,
|
||||||
|
"output_tokens": 893,
|
||||||
|
"total_tokens": 11823,
|
||||||
|
"input_price_per_million": 0.5,
|
||||||
|
"output_price_per_million": 3.0,
|
||||||
|
"price_unit": "USD",
|
||||||
|
"input_cost": 0.005465,
|
||||||
|
"output_cost": 0.002679,
|
||||||
|
"total_cost": 0.008144
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,138 @@
|
||||||
|
# 模型输出对比分析：2007_HKCFA_6 v3
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 评估基准
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
案件原文要点：本案为 Mo Yuk Ping 向香港终审法院申请刑事上诉许可。申请人经上诉庭判决后仍有两项定罪：第 2 项串谋诈骗，以及第 3 项串谋妨碍司法公正。上诉庭只认证了第 1 个法律点，即“串谋诈骗罪的构成要素是否足够明确，以满足宪法上的法律确定性要求”；拒绝认证第 2 至第 5 点。申请人在终审法院要求：准许就已认证点上诉；认证第 2 至第 4 点并准许上诉；如不认证第 4 点，则以“重大及严重不公”为由准许上诉；并就审判法官理由不足、上诉庭以推论解释理由等投诉，以“重大及严重不公”为由准许上诉。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
终审法院结果：延长时间，并只准许申请人就已认证的法律确定性问题上诉。因此，申请人获准就串谋诈骗定罪提出有限范围上诉；但没有获准就串谋妨碍司法公正定罪上诉。终审法院同意上诉庭拒绝认证其他点，并认为不存在以“重大及严重不公”为由给予上诉许可的基础。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
评分采用 10.0 分制，综合考虑：
|
||||||
|
- 准确度：当事人、法院、程序性质、定罪项目、认证点、上诉许可范围和驳回事项是否正确。
|
||||||
|
- 完整度：是否覆盖两项定罪、已认证法律点、被拒认证点、重大及严重不公理由、最终有限准许上诉的效果。
|
||||||
|
- 输出可靠性：是否把“准许上诉许可”误写成“实体上判定法律点成立”，是否有事实添加、过度概括、字段遗漏或乱码。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 总览排名
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
| 排名 | 模型 | 准确度与完整度评分 | 主要结论 |
|
||||||
|
|---:|---|---:|---|
|
||||||
|
| 1 | or-claude-sonnet-4.5 | 9.4/10 | 最准确、最稳健，清楚区分串谋诈骗获有限上诉许可与串谋妨碍司法公正不获许可。 |
|
||||||
|
| 2 | mm-minimax-m2.7 | 9.2/10 | 覆盖面很完整，特别是对认证点 2-5 和“重大及严重不公”理由的处理较细。 |
|
||||||
|
| 3 | or-deepseek-v4-pro | 9.0/10 | 结构清楚、结果准确，覆盖多个申请事项；个别概括略压缩。 |
|
||||||
|
| 4 | or-gemini-3-flash-preview | 8.7/10 | 速度最快且结果基本正确，但对被拒认证点和具体理由展开不足。 |
|
||||||
|
| 5 | or-deepseek-v4-flash | 8.5/10 | 核心结论正确，成本最低；但 case_reason 和 case_object 对第 3 项定罪及其他申请事项覆盖偏少。 |
|
||||||
|
| 6 | ollama-qwen3-8b | 5.2/10 | 存在关键法律结果误判：把准许就法律点上诉误写成法院已认定串谋诈骗罪构成要素不符合法律确定性。 |
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 耗时与费用
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
| 模型 | 来源 | API 调用 | 输入 tokens | 输出 tokens | 总 tokens | 耗时 | 总费用 |
|
||||||
|
|---|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
|
||||||
|
| mm-minimax-m2.7 | Minimax | 8 | 15,726 | 4,798 | 20,524 | 91.698 秒 | USD 0.010127 |
|
||||||
|
| ollama-qwen3-8b | local | 7 | 16,185 | 660 | 16,845 | 71.046 秒 | USD 0.000000 |
|
||||||
|
| or-claude-sonnet-4.5 | openrouter | 9 | 17,076 | 1,451 | 18,527 | 49.640 秒 | USD 0.072993 |
|
||||||
|
| or-deepseek-v4-flash | openrouter | 6 | 10,615 | 2,292 | 12,907 | 61.447 秒 | USD 0.001519 |
|
||||||
|
| or-deepseek-v4-pro | openrouter | 7 | 12,436 | 12,950 | 25,386 | 337.070 秒 | USD 0.016677 |
|
||||||
|
| or-gemini-3-flash-preview | openrouter | 6 | 10,930 | 893 | 11,823 | 18.014 秒 | USD 0.008144 |
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 单模型分析
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 1. or-claude-sonnet-4.5：9.4/10
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
优点：
|
||||||
|
- 准确识别本案是申请上诉许可，而不是终局实体上诉判决。
|
||||||
|
- 明确区分第 2 项串谋诈骗获准就认证点上诉，第 3 项串谋妨碍司法公正不获上诉许可。
|
||||||
|
- judgment_summary 覆盖已认证点、额外认证点、重大及严重不公理由、延长时间和有限上诉范围。
|
||||||
|
- involved_entities 包含申请人、答辩方、三名终审法院法官，角色描述基本准确。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
不足：
|
||||||
|
- `case_location` 同其他模型一样含有“香港特别行政区”的乱码版本。
|
||||||
|
- 对第 2 至第 5 点被拒认证的具体理由没有像 MiniMax 那样逐点展开。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
总体评价：最适合作为最终结构化抽取基础。它没有把“准许就法律问题上诉”误判为“法律问题已经胜诉”，这是本案最关键的准确性要求。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 2. mm-minimax-m2.7：9.2/10
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
优点：
|
||||||
|
- 对本案程序姿态和最终结果把握准确：延长时间、准许就串谋诈骗法律确定性认证点上诉，驳回其他认证和重大及严重不公理由。
|
||||||
|
- 对上诉庭拒绝认证第 2 至第 5 点的理由展开最完整，包括 point 2 无实际影响、point 3 不发生、point 4 审判法官已有相关认定、point 5 显然且只是针对上诉庭分析的投诉。
|
||||||
|
- case_object 覆盖两项定罪和上诉权，judgment_result 分层较清楚。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
不足：
|
||||||
|
- `case_location` 出现乱码。
|
||||||
|
- judgment_result 中将“points 2 to 5 certification”作为一项整体处理，和申请人在终审法院实际要求认证第 2 至第 4 点之间略有混合；不过原文确实也说明上诉庭拒绝认证第 2 至第 5 点，因此影响有限。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
总体评价：完整度非常高，仅略逊于 Claude 的原因是表达上稍有混合，但法律结果没有实质错误。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 3. or-deepseek-v4-pro：9.0/10
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
优点：
|
||||||
|
- 当事人、法院、两项定罪、上诉许可范围和驳回结果均正确。
|
||||||
|
- judgment_result 拆分为已认证点、串谋妨碍司法公正、额外认证点、重大及严重不公理由，结构对人工复核友好。
|
||||||
|
- involved_entities 完整，包含 Court of Appeal 这一关键程序实体。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
不足：
|
||||||
|
- summary 中称“three other points”略不严谨；原文背景涉及上诉庭拒绝认证第 2 至第 5 点，申请人在终审法院则要求认证第 2 至第 4 点。
|
||||||
|
- 输出 tokens 很高，耗时显著最长，但质量提升相对有限。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
总体评价：质量高，但性价比不如 Claude、MiniMax 或 DeepSeek Flash。若需要更细的程序事项拆分，它是可靠候选。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 4. or-gemini-3-flash-preview：8.7/10
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
优点：
|
||||||
|
- 速度最快，仅 18.014 秒。
|
||||||
|
- 核心结论正确：只准许就串谋诈骗法律确定性认证点上诉，拒绝串谋妨碍司法公正相关上诉许可和重大及严重不公理由。
|
||||||
|
- case_object 能概括“上诉许可”“法律确定性挑战”“重大及严重不公理由”三个关键对象。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
不足：
|
||||||
|
- 对第 2 至第 5 点的具体内容和被拒理由展开不足。
|
||||||
|
- judgment_result 只有两项，信息密度尚可，但不如 MiniMax 或 DeepSeek Pro 便于逐项核对。
|
||||||
|
- `case_location` 含乱码。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
总体评价：适合快速低延迟抽取。作为最终法律信息入库结果仍建议人工补充被拒认证点的细节。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 5. or-deepseek-v4-flash：8.5/10
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
优点：
|
||||||
|
- 准确识别“Partially allowed”：只就串谋诈骗法律确定性问题准许上诉许可，其余驳回。
|
||||||
|
- 对第 3 项串谋妨碍司法公正不获上诉许可的结论正确。
|
||||||
|
- 成本最低，付费模型中总费用仅 USD 0.001519。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
不足：
|
||||||
|
- case_reason 主要写成串谋诈骗和法律确定性挑战，弱化了申请还涉及串谋妨碍司法公正定罪和多个被拒认证点。
|
||||||
|
- case_object 只列串谋诈骗和法律确定性，遗漏第 3 项定罪、额外认证点和重大及严重不公理由。
|
||||||
|
- 细节展开比 Pro、Claude 和 MiniMax 少。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
总体评价：性价比很高，适合批量初筛；若用于严肃法律结构化抽取，需要补全程序对象和驳回事项。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 6. ollama-qwen3-8b：5.2/10
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
优点：
|
||||||
|
- 当事人、法院和基本程序方向大致可识别。
|
||||||
|
- 能提到认证点 2-5 被驳回以及重大及严重不公理由被拒。
|
||||||
|
- 本地运行，无 API 费用。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
不足：
|
||||||
|
- 关键错误：judgment_result 和 summary 写成法院“认为串谋诈骗罪构成要素不够明确，因此准许上诉许可”。原文只是在上诉庭已认证该问题的基础上，终审法院准许就该问题上诉；并未实体裁定该法律点成立。
|
||||||
|
- case_reason 和 case_object 基本遗漏串谋妨碍司法公正定罪，完整度不足。
|
||||||
|
- involved_entities 没有列申请人 Mo Yuk Ping，且称法官负责 fact-finding，不符合本案终审法院处理上诉许可申请的程序性质。
|
||||||
|
- `case_location` 含乱码。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
总体评价：不宜直接入库。它抓到了一些表层结构，但在本案最重要的法律结果上出现实质误判。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 性价比分析
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
| 模型 | 质量 | 速度 | 成本 | 性价比判断 |
|
||||||
|
|---|---:|---:|---:|---|
|
||||||
|
| or-claude-sonnet-4.5 | 最高 | 快 | 最高 | 适合高准确要求的最终抽取，但成本最高。 |
|
||||||
|
| mm-minimax-m2.7 | 很高 | 中等 | 低 | 质量接近 Claude，费用低很多，适合作为主力候选。 |
|
||||||
|
| or-deepseek-v4-pro | 高 | 最慢 | 中低 | 结构细，但耗时过长，性价比一般。 |
|
||||||
|
| or-gemini-3-flash-preview | 中高 | 最快 | 低 | 快速预处理最佳，但需要补充细节。 |
|
||||||
|
| or-deepseek-v4-flash | 中高 | 较快 | 最低 | 批量低成本抽取很有优势，但完整度需增强。 |
|
||||||
|
| ollama-qwen3-8b | 较低 | 中等 | 免费 | 免费但关键法律结论错误，只适合实验或辅助草稿。 |
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 结论
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
若以信息提取的准确度和完整度为第一目标，推荐 `or-claude-sonnet-4.5`，其次是 `mm-minimax-m2.7`。Claude 对程序姿态和最终许可范围把握最稳；MiniMax 对被拒认证点的理由展开更完整，且成本明显更低。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
若以成本和速度为第一目标，`or-gemini-3-flash-preview` 最快，`or-deepseek-v4-flash` 最便宜。Gemini 适合作为快速初筛，DeepSeek Flash 适合大规模低成本处理，但二者都需要补充第 2 至第 5 点和“重大及严重不公”理由的细节。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
`ollama-qwen3-8b` 本次输出存在实质法律误判，不建议直接作为结构化抽取结果使用。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -1524,10 +1524,11 @@ def parse_run_specs(args) -> list[RunSpec]:
|
||||||
def build_out_path(args, input_path: Path, label: str, multi: bool) -> Path | None:
|
def build_out_path(args, input_path: Path, label: str, multi: bool) -> Path | None:
|
||||||
"""推導某個模型的 YAML 輸出路徑。
|
"""推導某個模型的 YAML 輸出路徑。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- 單模型：沿用原行為（--out 指定則用之，否則 None 表示輸出到 stdout）
|
- 單模型：沿用原行為；若使用單個 --config 且指定 --out，則在文件名中插入配置名
|
||||||
- 多模型：在文件名中插入標籤；未給 --out 時用「輸入名_標籤.yaml」
|
- 多模型：在文件名中插入標籤；未給 --out 時用「輸入名_標籤.yaml」
|
||||||
"""
|
"""
|
||||||
if not multi:
|
include_label = multi or bool(args.config and args.out)
|
||||||
|
if not include_label:
|
||||||
return Path(args.out) if args.out else None
|
return Path(args.out) if args.out else None
|
||||||
safe = _safe_label(label)
|
safe = _safe_label(label)
|
||||||
if args.out:
|
if args.out:
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- GA
|
||||||
|
- PA
|
||||||
|
- FI
|
||||||
|
- JA
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- 入境事務處處長
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區終審法院
|
||||||
|
case_location:
|
||||||
|
- 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
case_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
四名經核實难民及酷刑聲請人就入境事務處處長就其工作准許申請的决定向上訴法庭提出上訴，要求確認其享有憲法保障的工作權。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 工作權
|
||||||
|
- 工作准許
|
||||||
|
- 人道及有辱人格待遇之禁止
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 經核實难民及酷刑声请人的宪法保障工作权 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 败诉。终审法院维持下级法院裁决，《人权法案》第14条、《经济、社会与文化权利的国际公约》第6条及《基本法》第33条对各申请人没有帮助。《人权条例》第11条将无权进入及停留香港的人士排除在《人权法案》权利保障之外，英国政府就《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》及《文化公约》第6条订立的保留条文亦适用。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 入境事务处处长的出入境管制酌情权限制 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 部分胜诉。上诉得直。终审法院裁定《人权法案》第3条关于不人道或侮辱之处遇的规定适用于处长在酷刑声请案件上的酌情权，处长在作出拒绝给予工作准许决定时，必须确保不会引致不人道或侮辱之处遇。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 禁止接受雇佣工作是否构成不人道或侮辱之处遇 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 发还重审。终审法院澄清，长时间禁止已确立身份的受保护人士接受雇佣工作，在特定情况下可构成不人道或有辱人格的待遇。如有医学证据证明长期禁止工作已导致或促成严重精神病，不人道之处遇的指控便强而有力，须发还原讼法庭或处长根据正确法律原则重新考虑各申请人情况。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
四名經核實难民及酷刑聲請人就入境事務處處長工作准許申請的决定向終審法院提出上訴，爭議核心有三：(1) 各申請人是否享有憲法保障的工作權；(2) 處長酌情權是否受《人權法案》第3條約束；(3) 長期禁止工作是否構成《人權法案》第3條所禁止的不人道或有辱人格待遇。法院認為《人權條例》第11條將無權居留人士排除於權利保障之外，加上英國政府就《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》及《文化公約》第6條所訂保留條文適用于本案，故《人權法案》第14條、《文化公約》第6條及《基本法》第33條均無法支持工作權主張。然而，法院裁定《人權法案》第3條關於不人道處遇的規定確實制約處長的酌情權。關於不人道待遇，法院澄清長時間禁止已確立身份的受保護人士工作，在特定情況下可構成有辱人格待遇；如醫學證據證明長期禁止工作已導致或促成嚴重精神病，則指控強而有力。終審法院最終裁決：工作權主張敗訴；酌情權受約束之上訴得直；不人道待遇指控發還原審或處長根據正確法律原則重審。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 馬道立
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審終審法院首席法官，負責撰寫判案書導言部分。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 李義
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審終審法院常任法官，參與本案裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 鄧國楨
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審終審法院常任法官，參與本案裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 陳兆愷
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審終審法院非常任法官，參與本案裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 簡嘉麒勳爵
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審終審法院非常任法官，參與本案裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 入境事務處處長
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案答辯人，負責出入境管制及工作准許酌情權決定。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 張舉能法官
|
||||||
|
reason: 原審裁判官，處理五宗合併司法覆核申請，裁定《人權條例》第11條的效果及處長的酌情權範圍。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 霍兆剛法官
|
||||||
|
reason: 上訴法庭法官，在判案書第76段就《權利公約》保障人的尊嚴及不人道處遇作出附帶意見裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 入境事務處
|
||||||
|
reason: 執行入境管制及酷刑聲請審查職能的政府部門，由處長代表。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 入境事務處酷刑聲請審理科
|
||||||
|
reason: 入境事務處現時負責裁定酷刑聲請的部門。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 聯合國难民署香港辦事處
|
||||||
|
reason: 負責處理庇護聲請及認定是否具有难民資格的機構。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
|
||||||
|
{
|
||||||
|
"config_name": "mm-minimax-m2.7",
|
||||||
|
"source": "Minimax",
|
||||||
|
"model": "MiniMax-M2.7",
|
||||||
|
"elapsed_seconds": 91.445,
|
||||||
|
"num_api_calls": 8,
|
||||||
|
"input_tokens": 34477,
|
||||||
|
"output_tokens": 5105,
|
||||||
|
"total_tokens": 39582,
|
||||||
|
"input_price_per_million": 0.29,
|
||||||
|
"output_price_per_million": 1.16,
|
||||||
|
"price_unit": "USD",
|
||||||
|
"input_cost": 0.009998,
|
||||||
|
"output_cost": 0.005922,
|
||||||
|
"total_cost": 0.01592
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
@ -1,74 +1,80 @@
|
||||||
# 模型输出对比分析
|
# v3 模型输出对比分析
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
分析对象：`zh_cases_hkcfa/2014_HKCFA_17/v3` 下 6 个模型的信息提取结果。
|
分析对象：`zh_cases_hkcfa/2014_HKCFA_17/case.json` 及同目录随案判案书。`case.json` 的正文存在编码乱码，因此事实核对以其对应附件判案书内容为准。
|
||||||
校验基准：`case.json` 的案件元数据、正文轮廓，以及同目录 DOCX 原文的可读判案书文本。需注意：`case.json` 与多数 YAML 输出存在繁体中文编码错乱现象，本次评分主要看法律事实与结构提取是否正确，不因展示编码本身重复扣分。
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 原文关键基准
|
## 原文关键信息基准
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- 案件：`[2014] HKCFA 17`，FACV 7、8、9、10/2013，终审法院。
|
- 案件：`GA / PA / FI / JA v 入境事務處處長`，`FACV 7, 8, 9及10/2013`，`[2014] HKCFA 17`，终审法院。
|
||||||
- 当事人：上诉人 GA、PA、FI、JA；答辩人为入境事务处处长。
|
- 日期：聆讯为 2014 年 1 月 8-9 日，判案书日期为 2014 年 2 月 18 日。
|
||||||
- 身份事实：GA、FI、JA 是经核实难民，PA 是获确立酷刑声请人。
|
- 当事人：GA、FI、JA 为经核实难民，PA 为获确立酷刑声请人；答辩人为入境事务处处长。原讼阶段另有 MA，但他不是终审上诉人。
|
||||||
- 核心争议：这些在港滞留较久的受保护人士是否有受宪法或普通法保障的工作权；处长拒绝工作准许的酌情权是否受不人道或侮辱处遇风险限制。
|
- 核心争议：这些长期滞港的经核实难民或酷刑声请人，是否享有宪法或普通法保障的工作权；处长拒绝工作准许的酌情权是否受《人权法案》第 3 条关于不人道处遇的限制。
|
||||||
- 主要裁判：
|
- 终审结论：终审法院一致驳回所有上诉。法院认为没有可使申请人受惠的宪法保障工作权，《人权法案》第 14 条、《文化公约》第 6 条、《基本法》第 33 条及普通法均不能支持其主张。
|
||||||
- 《香港人权法案》第14条、《经济、社会与文化权利国际公约》第6条、《基本法》第33条及普通法均不能确立本案所主张的工作权。
|
- 重要限定：处长的酌情权并非不受限制；如能证明禁止工作会造成不人道处遇，或有重大和迫切风险引致不人道处遇，处长须给予工作准许。但本案没有就个别申请人作出此事实认定。
|
||||||
- 入境事务处处长在出入境管制及工作准许方面有广泛酌情权，但不是无限制。
|
- 讼费：作出暂准命令，不就讼费作出命令；申请人关于不人道处遇的陈词可说有部分成功。
|
||||||
- 《人权法案》第3条关于不人道或侮辱处遇的保障原则上可限制处长酌情权；若存在真正和重大的不人道处遇风险，处长不能单纯以酌情权拒绝。
|
|
||||||
- 本案各申请人未能证明拒绝工作准许会造成真正和重大的不人道处遇风险。
|
|
||||||
- 终院一致驳回所有上诉，并作出暂准命令：不就讼费作出命令；申请人关于不人道处遇的陈词可说有部分成功。
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 总体排名
|
## 总体评分
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
| 排名 | 模型 | 准确度 | 完整度 | 综合评分 | 简评 |
|
| 排名 | 模型输出 | 准确度/完整度 | 耗时 | 费用 USD | 主要评价 |
|
||||||
|---:|---|---:|---:|---:|---|
|
|---:|---|---:|---:|---:|---|
|
||||||
| 1 | or-claude-sonnet-4.5 | 8.6 | 8.4 | 8.5 | 事实框架完整，能覆盖下级法院、工作权及不人道待遇争点；但对终院最终结果与 GA/MA 原讼阶段救济的关系表述略混。 |
|
| 1 | `or-deepseek-v4-pro` | 8.1/10 | 250.701s | 0.026402 | 最准确地抓住“全部上诉被驳回、无工作权”的终审结论，但对第 3 条的“原则上适用/酌情权受限”讲得偏薄。 |
|
||||||
| 2 | or-minimax-m2.7 | 8.2 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 覆盖面较好，成本低于 Claude，能区分三大争点；但把“向终审法院上诉”误写成向上诉法庭，且对最终“败诉/部分成功”的层次不够精确。 |
|
| 2 | `or-claude-sonnet-4.5` | 7.8/10 | 67.418s | 0.220119 | 事实覆盖较完整，能说明原讼、上诉法庭和终审脉络；但把 GA/MA 原讼阶段的局部胜诉列入结果，容易混淆终审结论。 |
|
||||||
| 3 | or-gemini-3-flash-preview | 8.0 | 8.1 | 8.1 | 速度最快，能抓住工作权失败和第3条原则性成功；但将 GA/MA 原讼阶段救济说成终院层面的胜诉，容易误导。 |
|
| 3 | `mm-minimax-m2.7` | 7.2/10 | 91.445s | 0.015920 | 能抓住工作权败诉和第 3 条约束处长这两个核心点，但“发还/重审”式表述与终审结果不符。 |
|
||||||
| 4 | or-deepseek-v4-flash | 7.8 | 7.6 | 7.7 | 关键信息基本正确，尤其能识别第3条原则上适用；但说“各个案须重新考虑/政策部分胜诉”过宽，结果提取偏乐观。 |
|
| 4 | `or-minimax-m2.7` | 7.0/10 | 88.981s | 0.018264 | 结构清楚，成本低；但同样误写为政策或个案需重新考虑，且若干事实表达过度概括。 |
|
||||||
| 5 | or-deepseek-v4-pro | 7.4 | 7.1 | 7.3 | 最终“全部上诉驳回”抓得准，费用也较低；但遗漏或弱化第3条陈词的“部分成功”，完整度不如 flash 版。 |
|
| 5 | `or-gemini-3-flash-preview` | 6.9/10 | 32.713s | 0.028861 | 速度最快，覆盖实体最多；但把 GA/MA 工作准许问题写成终审胜诉/撤销决定，是明显结论错误。 |
|
||||||
| 6 | ollama-qwen3-8b | 5.9 | 6.1 | 6.0 | 当事人和基本争点可用，但混入无关或错误信息，例如 2019 年 Tang Kwok Wah；多个裁判项虚构或错分，结论层次不稳定。 |
|
| 6 | `or-deepseek-v4-flash` | 6.6/10 | 89.997s | 0.003677 | 成本最低且抓住部分法律原则，但输出较粗，错误地称第 3 条部分胜诉并发还重新考虑。 |
|
||||||
|
| 7 | `ollama-qwen3-8b` | 5.8/10 | 105.054s | 0.000000 | 免费本地运行，但遗漏和混淆较多，出现无关案件/年份信息，结果字段还加入了原文无明确支持的损失项目。 |
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 耗时与费用
|
## 逐模型分析
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
| 模型 | 来源 | API 次数 | 输入 tokens | 输出 tokens | 总 tokens | 耗时 | 总费用 |
|
### `or-deepseek-v4-pro`
|
||||||
|---|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
|
|
||||||
| ollama-qwen3-8b | local | 8 | 43,060 | 1,536 | 44,596 | 105.054 秒 | USD 0.000000 |
|
|
||||||
| or-claude-sonnet-4.5 | openrouter | 9 | 57,583 | 3,158 | 60,741 | 67.418 秒 | USD 0.220119 |
|
|
||||||
| or-deepseek-v4-flash | openrouter | 6 | 26,974 | 4,900 | 31,874 | 89.997 秒 | USD 0.003677 |
|
|
||||||
| or-deepseek-v4-pro | openrouter | 9 | 41,782 | 9,456 | 51,238 | 250.701 秒 | USD 0.026402 |
|
|
||||||
| or-gemini-3-flash-preview | openrouter | 9 | 44,252 | 2,245 | 46,497 | 32.713 秒 | USD 0.028861 |
|
|
||||||
| or-minimax-m2.7 | openrouter | 9 | 45,184 | 4,715 | 49,899 | 88.981 秒 | USD 0.018264 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 分模型评价
|
优点：准确列出四名上诉人、答辩人、法院和基本争议；能明确写出终审法院驳回所有上诉，并指出《人权法案》第 14 条、《文化公约》第 6 条、《基本法》第 33 条及普通法均不能确立工作权。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### ollama-qwen3-8b
|
不足：对《人权法案》第 3 条的处理略显简单，容易让人以为法院只是“即使适用也证据不足”，而原判更重要的规则是处长酌情权确受第 3 条限制，只是本案没有作出个别事实认定。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
优点是抽出了四名上诉人、答辩人、法院层级、工作权和不人道待遇等主题。主要问题是结果项混乱：把不存在的“医疗费用及精神损害赔偿”“工作准许延期及条件”等作为损失范围列入；把原讼阶段 MA/GA 的处理和终院四名上诉人的最终结果混在一起；还在实体名单中出现与本案无关的 Tang Kwok Wah v HKSAR [2019] HKCFA 23。整体可作粗略摘要，但不宜直接进入结构化案件库。
|
### `or-claude-sonnet-4.5`
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### or-claude-sonnet-4.5
|
优点：完整度较好，能够覆盖下级法院阶段、原讼法庭对 MA/GA 的处理、上诉法庭和终审法院的最终取向；实体识别也比较全面。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
整体最稳。能准确识别四名上诉人身份、主要权利依据、下级法院过程、处长酌情权以及第3条不人道待遇问题。缺点是“未有最终裁定”“GA/MA 部分胜诉”的表述容易让人误以为终院给予实质救济；原文的终局命令是驳回所有上诉，只是在不人道待遇法律论点上承认原则性部分成功。实体列表较完整，但部分理由说明偏长，且受编码问题影响可读性一般。
|
不足：`judgment_result` 中将 GA/MA 的原讼阶段局部胜诉单列为“部分胜诉”，若作为终审信息提取会误导。终审法院的真正结果是所有上诉均被驳回，并未恢复原讼阶段对 GA/MA 的救济。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### or-deepseek-v4-flash
|
### `mm-minimax-m2.7`
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
摘要自然，能抓住“无宪法工作权”和“第3条原则上可适用”两个核心。最大偏差是把第3条问题的后果扩大为“各上诉人的个案决定须重新考虑”，而原文只是说明处长酌情权受第3条限制，本案证据不足，最终仍驳回所有上诉。若用于自动提取，需人工修正 judgment_result。
|
优点：法律争点提炼较完整，包括工作权、处长出入境酌情权、第 3 条不人道处遇限制等。费用较低，耗时中等。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### or-deepseek-v4-pro
|
不足：把不人道处遇部分写成“发还重审/重新考虑”不准确。终审法院只是确认相关法律原则并说明申请人的陈词有部分成功，但最终仍驳回全部上诉。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
对最终结论“驳回所有上诉”把握较好，也清楚列出 BOR 第14条、文化公约第6条、基本法第33条和普通法工作权均失败。但对不人道待遇部分处理偏粗，容易读成完全败诉，未充分呈现终院承认第3条原则上限制处长酌情权以及讼费命令背后的“部分成功”。完整度略低于 flash。
|
### `or-minimax-m2.7`
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### or-gemini-3-flash-preview
|
优点：能以较低费用输出较完整结构，识别出工作许可、宪法保障工作权、不人道处遇和出入境酌情权四类对象。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
速度显著最快，内容覆盖也不错，能分辨工作权、工作准许、不人道待遇和酌情权。主要误差在结果层次：称“撤销 GA 及 MA 的决定并命令重新考虑”虽有原讼阶段依据，但没有清晰说明终院本身最终驳回四名上诉人的上诉；并且把 FI、JA、PA 的其他救济描述得较像终院实体分项裁判。综合来看适合快速初筛，但需要终局命令校验。
|
不足：同样误将 GA/MA 原讼阶段的处理写成终审层面的部分胜诉；当事人来源、法律条文和实体原因有一定概括化，完整度弱于 Claude 和 DeepSeek Pro。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### or-minimax-m2.7
|
### `or-gemini-3-flash-preview`
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
质量接近 Gemini，实体和争点覆盖充分，费用低、速度中等。优点是能把“工作权失败”“第3条限制处长酌情权”“证据不足”三者同时写出。主要问题是 case_reason 中写成“向上诉法院提出上诉”，层级错误；“部分胜诉”的对象和范围也未清楚限定在原讼阶段救济及第3条法律论点，而非终院最终给予上诉人救济。
|
优点：耗时最短，实体覆盖最全，能识别 GA、PA、FI、JA、MA、下级法院法官和联合国难民署香港办事处。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 性价比结论
|
不足：终审结果判断偏离较大，写成“撤销处长拒绝 GA/MA 工作准许的决定并命令重新考虑”，这属于原讼阶段信息，不能作为终审结果。对《基本法》第 33 条和第 41 条的关系也表述得过于确定。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- 最高质量：`or-claude-sonnet-4.5`，但费用最高，约为 MiniMax 的 12 倍、DeepSeek Flash 的 60 倍。
|
### `or-deepseek-v4-flash`
|
||||||
- 最快：`or-gemini-3-flash-preview`，32.713 秒完成，质量也在第一梯队后段。
|
|
||||||
- 最低付费成本：`or-deepseek-v4-flash`，USD 0.003677，质量可用但需重点校正最终裁判结果。
|
|
||||||
- 最佳综合性价比：`or-minimax-m2.7`。它的综合评分接近 Claude，费用仅 USD 0.018264，适合批量案件抽取后再做人工或规则校验。
|
|
||||||
- 本地免费方案：`ollama-qwen3-8b` 无 API 成本，但法律结果误差和幻觉较多，适合低成本预处理，不适合作为最终结构化结果。
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
优点：成本最低，能够抓住“工作权主张失败、第 3 条原则上可适用”的主要方向。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
不足：摘要过短，遗漏法院对《人权条例》第 11 条、两项保留条文、《基本法》第 39/41 条和普通法工作权的较完整论证；“部分胜诉、发还处长重新考虑各人个案”的结论与终审判决不一致。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### `ollama-qwen3-8b`
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
优点：本地模型零费用，基本当事人和法院字段可用，能粗略识别工作权争议。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
不足：准确性明显较弱。输出中出现与本案无关的 `Tang Kwok Wah v HKSAR [2019] HKCFA 23`，并加入“医疗费用及精神损害赔偿”“工作准许延期及条件”等原文没有作为裁判结果处理的项目；对 MA/GA、FI/JA/PA 的阶段性结果也有混淆。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 成本与效率观察
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- 最快：`or-gemini-3-flash-preview`，32.713 秒，但关键结论错误较明显。
|
||||||
|
- 最便宜的远程模型：`or-deepseek-v4-flash`，0.003677 USD，但完整度和终审结论稳定性不足。
|
||||||
|
- 综合性价比：`or-deepseek-v4-pro` 的准确度最高，但耗时最长；若更看重速度和可读性，`or-claude-sonnet-4.5` 表现稳定但成本最高。
|
||||||
|
- 本地免费：`ollama-qwen3-8b` 无 API 费用，但本案复杂法律层级下可靠性不足，不建议作为最终结构化结果来源。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 结论
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
本案最重要的评判点是能否区分“原讼法庭阶段 MA/GA 曾获局部救济”和“终审法院最终一致驳回全部上诉”。在这一点上，`or-deepseek-v4-pro` 表现最好，`or-claude-sonnet-4.5` 信息较全但存在阶段混淆；Gemini、MiniMax 和 DeepSeek Flash 均不同程度把下级法院或原则性讨论误写成终审实体救济。综合准确度、完整度、时间和费用，推荐以 `or-deepseek-v4-pro` 作为本案 v3 输出的主参考，以 `or-claude-sonnet-4.5` 作为补充核对来源。
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue