Compare commits
No commits in common. "14c85787ba64f6865202baa7547379c46c6d5308" and "d3cba48e120fd5ee96197ef6a626d3fb460d8949" have entirely different histories.
14c85787ba
...
d3cba48e12
|
|
@ -1,16 +0,0 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"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
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,66 +0,0 @@
|
|||
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.
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,16 +0,0 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"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
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,38 +0,0 @@
|
|||
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.
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,16 +0,0 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"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
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,52 +0,0 @@
|
|||
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.
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,16 +0,0 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"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
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,51 +0,0 @@
|
|||
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.
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,16 +0,0 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"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
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,54 +0,0 @@
|
|||
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.
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,16 +0,0 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"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
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,53 +0,0 @@
|
|||
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.
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,16 +0,0 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"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
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,138 +0,0 @@
|
|||
# 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。
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,55 +0,0 @@
|
|||
plaintiff:
|
||||
- HKSAR
|
||||
defendant:
|
||||
- MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀)
|
||||
- CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒)
|
||||
- WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安)
|
||||
- LEE YICK MING (李易明)
|
||||
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: >-
|
||||
HKSAR appeals against the convictions of defendants for conspiracy to conceal connected transactions
|
||||
under the Listing Rules.
|
||||
case_object:
|
||||
- conviction
|
||||
judgment_result:
|
||||
- charge: Conspiracy to conceal connected transaction (liability issue)
|
||||
result: "Allowed. Court restored defendants' convictions, finding concealment of CISL's role as actual\
|
||||
\ placing agent constituted unlawful scheme. Key reasons: (1) CISL's connection to CFHL made its agency\
|
||||
\ a connected transaction requiring disclosure; (2) defendants' use of Gransing as a front obscured\
|
||||
\ this conflict of interest; (3) failure to subject arrangement to Exchange scrutiny violated Listing\
|
||||
\ Rules."
|
||||
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||
HKSAR appealed defendants' convictions for conspiring to conceal connected transactions under Listing
|
||||
Rules. Core issue: Whether defendants' use of Gransing as a front obscured CISL's role as placing agent,
|
||||
violating disclosure obligations. Court rejected sham defense, citing Adams v The Queen, finding concealment
|
||||
of fiduciary breach constituted criminal conspiracy. Evidence showed composite scheme to evade Exchange
|
||||
scrutiny, breaching Listing Rules. Convictions upheld; defendants ordered to serve original sentences.
|
||||
involved_entities:
|
||||
- entity_name: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
|
||||
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||
- entity_name: Mr Justice Fok PJ
|
||||
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||
- entity_name: Mr Justice Lam PJ
|
||||
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||
- entity_name: Mr Justice Stock NPJ
|
||||
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||
- entity_name: Sir William Young NPJ
|
||||
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||
- entity_name: HKSAR
|
||||
reason: Appellant in this case, representing the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
|
||||
- entity_name: CISL
|
||||
reason: Corporate entity involved as a placing agent in the conspiracy charges.
|
||||
- entity_name: CFHL
|
||||
reason: Corporate entity involved in connected transactions and placing agreements.
|
||||
- entity_name: Stock Exchange
|
||||
reason: Regulatory institution overseeing connected transactions and corporate disclosures.
|
||||
- entity_name: Diplock LJ
|
||||
reason: Served as judge in Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd [4], articulated test for
|
||||
determining sham transactions.
|
||||
- entity_name: Privy Council
|
||||
reason: Served as judicial body in Adams v The Queen [5], articulated legal principles for conspiracy
|
||||
to defraud.
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,16 +0,0 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"config_name": "ollama-qwen3-8b",
|
||||
"source": "local",
|
||||
"model": "qwen3:8b",
|
||||
"elapsed_seconds": 140.299,
|
||||
"num_api_calls": 10,
|
||||
"input_tokens": 26861,
|
||||
"output_tokens": 5122,
|
||||
"total_tokens": 31983,
|
||||
"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
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,90 +0,0 @@
|
|||
plaintiff:
|
||||
- HKSAR
|
||||
defendant:
|
||||
- MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀)
|
||||
- CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒)
|
||||
- WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安)
|
||||
- LEE YICK MING (李易明)
|
||||
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: >-
|
||||
HKSAR appeals against Court of Appeal's decision quashing convictions of four respondents for conspiracy
|
||||
to defraud in relation to concealment of connected transactions under Listing Rules.
|
||||
case_object:
|
||||
- criminal convictions
|
||||
- conspiracy to defraud charges
|
||||
judgment_result:
|
||||
- charge: Conspiracy to defraud charges against D1, D2, D3, and D4 (liability issue)
|
||||
result: "Appeal allowed, convictions restored. The Court of Final Appeal held that the Court of Appeal\
|
||||
\ erred in applying the Snook sham transaction test. The proper approach is to determine whether CISL's\
|
||||
\ appointment as placing agent would constitute a connected transaction requiring disclosure under\
|
||||
\ the Listing Rules. Since CISL was a connected person to CFHL through Quincy Wong's indirect interest,\
|
||||
\ the interposition of Gransing as a front to conceal CISL's actual role constituted unlawful concealment.\
|
||||
\ The trial judge's finding that Gransing was a mere disguise was upheld as a proper factual determination.\
|
||||
\ The concealment had two objectionable aspects: (1) conflict of interest of the directors involved,\
|
||||
\ and (2) avoidance of scrutiny by independent non-executive directors and the Stock Exchange under\
|
||||
\ the connected transaction regime. WeChat messages between defendants showed deliberate arrangement\
|
||||
\ to use Gransing as a buffer to avoid connected transaction disclosure requirements."
|
||||
- charge: Convictions quashed by Court of Appeal (quantum issue)
|
||||
result: Court of Appeal's decision quashed and set aside. The Court of Final Appeal unanimously allowed
|
||||
the prosecution's appeal and restored the original convictions entered by the trial judge. The Court
|
||||
held that it was not necessary to prove that the arrangement adopted (using Gransing) itself fell
|
||||
within the definition of connected transaction, only that there was concealment of CISL's role which
|
||||
would have triggered connected transaction requirements. The trial judge's Reasons for Verdict properly
|
||||
addressed the connected transaction issue and made appropriate findings of fact regarding the disguise
|
||||
arrangement.
|
||||
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||
HKSAR appealed against the Court of Appeal's decision quashing conspiracy to defraud convictions of
|
||||
four defendants who concealed CISL's role as placing agent through interposing Gransing as a front,
|
||||
avoiding connected transaction disclosure under Listing Rules. The Court of Final Appeal held the lower
|
||||
court erred by applying the Snook sham test. The proper inquiry was whether CISL's appointment would
|
||||
trigger connected transaction requirements due to Quincy Wong's indirect interest linking CISL to CFHL.
|
||||
The trial judge correctly found Gransing was a mere disguise based on WeChat evidence showing deliberate
|
||||
concealment to avoid scrutiny by independent directors and the Stock Exchange. The concealment constituted
|
||||
dishonest conduct defrauding regulatory oversight. Appeal allowed; convictions restored for all four
|
||||
defendants.
|
||||
involved_entities:
|
||||
- entity_name: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
|
||||
reason: Presiding judge in this case, concurred with the judgment of Sir William Young NPJ and the concurring
|
||||
judgments of Mr Justice Lam PJ and Mr Justice Stock NPJ.
|
||||
- entity_name: Mr Justice Fok PJ
|
||||
reason: Presiding judge in this case, concurred with the judgment of Sir William Young NPJ and the concurring
|
||||
judgments of Mr Justice Lam PJ and Mr Justice Stock NPJ.
|
||||
- entity_name: Mr Justice Lam PJ
|
||||
reason: Presiding judge in this case, delivered concurring judgment providing alternative route for
|
||||
allowing the appeal and restoring convictions.
|
||||
- entity_name: Mr Justice Stock NPJ
|
||||
reason: Presiding judge in this case, delivered concurring judgment on allowing the appeal and restoring
|
||||
convictions of the defendants.
|
||||
- entity_name: Sir William Young NPJ
|
||||
reason: Presiding judge in this case, delivered principal judgment allowing the appeal and restoring
|
||||
convictions of the defendants.
|
||||
- entity_name: MAK KWONG YIU
|
||||
reason: First respondent (D1) in this criminal appeal, defendant convicted in conspiracy charges.
|
||||
- entity_name: CHAN LAI YEE
|
||||
reason: Second respondent (D2) in this criminal appeal, defendant convicted in conspiracy charges.
|
||||
- entity_name: WONG SHUK ON
|
||||
reason: Third respondent (D3) in this criminal appeal, defendant convicted in conspiracy charges.
|
||||
- entity_name: LEE YICK MING
|
||||
reason: Fourth respondent (D4) in this criminal appeal, defendant convicted in conspiracy charges.
|
||||
- entity_name: Diplock LJ
|
||||
reason: Served as judge in Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd, articulated test for determining
|
||||
sham transactions, cited in paragraphs 10 and 13 of this judgment.
|
||||
- entity_name: CISL
|
||||
reason: Corporate entity involved as actual placing agent in the connected transaction, whose appointment
|
||||
was allegedly concealed by the defendants.
|
||||
- entity_name: CFHL
|
||||
reason: Corporate entity involved in the placing agreements, connected person to CISL through Quincy
|
||||
Wong's indirect interest.
|
||||
- entity_name: Gransing
|
||||
reason: Corporate entity allegedly used as front or disguise to conceal CISL's role as actual placing
|
||||
agent in the transaction.
|
||||
- entity_name: Quincy Wong
|
||||
reason: Individual with indirect interest in CISL, whose connection to CFHL formed basis of connected
|
||||
transaction under Listing Rules.
|
||||
- entity_name: Stock Exchange
|
||||
reason: Regulatory institution responsible for scrutiny of connected transactions under the regime governing
|
||||
such transactions, mentioned in paragraph 8.
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,16 +0,0 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"config_name": "or-claude-sonnet-4.5",
|
||||
"source": "openrouter",
|
||||
"model": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5",
|
||||
"elapsed_seconds": 52.312,
|
||||
"num_api_calls": 9,
|
||||
"input_tokens": 20827,
|
||||
"output_tokens": 2203,
|
||||
"total_tokens": 23030,
|
||||
"input_price_per_million": 3.0,
|
||||
"output_price_per_million": 15.0,
|
||||
"price_unit": "USD",
|
||||
"input_cost": 0.062481,
|
||||
"output_cost": 0.033045,
|
||||
"total_cost": 0.095526
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,72 +0,0 @@
|
|||
plaintiff:
|
||||
- HKSAR
|
||||
defendant:
|
||||
- MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀) (D1)
|
||||
- CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒) (D2)
|
||||
- WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安) (D3)
|
||||
- LEE YICK MING (李易明) (D4)
|
||||
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: >-
|
||||
HKSAR appeals against the Court of Appeal's decision (CACC No. 239 of 2021) quashing the convictions
|
||||
of the four respondents, seeking restoration of their convictions.
|
||||
case_object:
|
||||
- convictions
|
||||
judgment_result:
|
||||
- charge: Appeal by HKSAR against acquittal for conspiracy to defraud and related offences (D1-D4) (liability
|
||||
issue)
|
||||
result: Allowed. The Court restored the convictions of all four defendants. The Court of Appeal erred
|
||||
in applying the Snook sham test; the concealment of CISL's role as actual placing agent constituted
|
||||
a connected transaction under Listing Rules, and the defendants' dishonest agreement to conceal was
|
||||
sufficient for conspiracy to defraud.
|
||||
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||
HKSAR appealed to restore convictions of M KWONG YIU, CHAN LAI YEE, WONG SHUK ON, LEE YICK MING for
|
||||
conspiracy to defraud. The Court of Final Appeal held the Court of Appeal erred in applying the Snook
|
||||
sham test: concealment of CISL as placing agent was a connected transaction under Listing Rules, and
|
||||
dishonest agreement to conceal sufficed for conspiracy to defraud. All four convictions restored.
|
||||
involved_entities:
|
||||
- entity_name: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
|
||||
reason: Judge in this case, agreed with the principal judgment delivered by Sir William Young NPJ.
|
||||
- entity_name: Mr Justice Fok PJ
|
||||
reason: Judge in this case, agreed with the principal judgment.
|
||||
- entity_name: Mr Justice Lam PJ
|
||||
reason: Judge in this case, delivered a concurring judgment providing additional reasons.
|
||||
- entity_name: Mr Justice Stock NPJ
|
||||
reason: Judge in this case, delivered a concurring judgment.
|
||||
- entity_name: Sir William Young NPJ
|
||||
reason: Presiding judge in this case, delivered the principal judgment allowing the appeal and restoring
|
||||
convictions.
|
||||
- entity_name: HKSAR
|
||||
reason: Appellant in this case, representing the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
|
||||
- entity_name: MAK KWONG YIU (D1)
|
||||
reason: First respondent in this case, one of the defendants convicted of conspiracy to defraud.
|
||||
- entity_name: CHAN LAI YEE (D2)
|
||||
reason: Second respondent in this case.
|
||||
- entity_name: WONG SHUK ON (D3)
|
||||
reason: Third respondent in this case.
|
||||
- entity_name: LEE YICK MING (D4)
|
||||
reason: Fourth respondent in this case.
|
||||
- entity_name: CISL
|
||||
reason: Company involved as the actual placing agent, a connected person to CFHL, central to the conspiracy
|
||||
charges.
|
||||
- entity_name: Gransing
|
||||
reason: Company involved as a front or disguise in the placing arrangement, used to conceal CISL's role.
|
||||
- entity_name: CFHL
|
||||
reason: Company to which CISL is a connected person, relevant to the connected transaction analysis.
|
||||
- entity_name: Quincy Wong
|
||||
reason: Individual with indirect interest in CISL, mentioned in connection with the concealment of CISL's
|
||||
agency.
|
||||
- entity_name: Stock Exchange
|
||||
reason: Institution that would scrutinize connected transactions under the Listing Rules, relevant to
|
||||
the charges.
|
||||
- entity_name: Court of Appeal
|
||||
reason: Lower court that erred in its judgment, leading to the appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
|
||||
- entity_name: Diplock LJ
|
||||
reason: Judge in Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd, articulated the test for determining
|
||||
sham transactions.
|
||||
- entity_name: Privy Council
|
||||
reason: Court in Adams v The Queen, illustrated that conspiracy to defraud can be charged without resorting
|
||||
to the concept of sham.
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,16 +0,0 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"config_name": "or-deepseek-v4-flash",
|
||||
"source": "openrouter",
|
||||
"model": "deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash",
|
||||
"elapsed_seconds": 144.972,
|
||||
"num_api_calls": 8,
|
||||
"input_tokens": 16983,
|
||||
"output_tokens": 6455,
|
||||
"total_tokens": 23438,
|
||||
"input_price_per_million": 0.1,
|
||||
"output_price_per_million": 0.2,
|
||||
"price_unit": "USD",
|
||||
"input_cost": 0.001698,
|
||||
"output_cost": 0.001291,
|
||||
"total_cost": 0.002989
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,71 +0,0 @@
|
|||
plaintiff:
|
||||
- HKSAR
|
||||
defendant:
|
||||
- MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀) (D1)
|
||||
- CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒) (D2)
|
||||
- WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安) (D3)
|
||||
- LEE YICK MING (李易明) (D4)
|
||||
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: >-
|
||||
The HKSAR appeals against the acquittal of four respondents (CACC 239/2021), seeking to restore their
|
||||
convictions for conspiracy to defraud regarding concealed connected transactions.
|
||||
case_object:
|
||||
- criminal convictions for conspiracy to defraud
|
||||
- disclosure of connected transactions
|
||||
- compliance with Listing Rules
|
||||
judgment_result:
|
||||
- charge: Conspiracy to defraud involving the concealment of connected transactions in share placements
|
||||
(liability issue)
|
||||
result: Allowed. The Court of Final Appeal restored the convictions of the defendants, finding that
|
||||
the Court of Appeal erred in requiring the transactions to be 'shams' under the Snook test. The court
|
||||
held that the unlawfulness lay in the dishonest agreement to use a front (Gransing) to conceal the
|
||||
actual role of a connected person (CISL) to avoid regulatory scrutiny and disclosure of conflicts
|
||||
of interest.
|
||||
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||
The HKSAR appealed the acquittal of four respondents regarding a conspiracy to conceal connected transactions
|
||||
between CFHL and CISL using Gransing as a front. The core issue was whether concealment required transactions
|
||||
to be 'shams'. The Court of Final Appeal restored the convictions, ruling the Court of Appeal erred
|
||||
by applying the Snook test. Citing Adams v The Queen, the court held that dishonest concealment to bypass
|
||||
regulatory scrutiny constitutes fraud regardless of legal validity.
|
||||
involved_entities:
|
||||
- entity_name: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
|
||||
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for adjudication and delivering the judgment.
|
||||
- entity_name: Mr Justice Fok PJ
|
||||
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for adjudication and delivering the judgment.
|
||||
- entity_name: Mr Justice Lam PJ
|
||||
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for adjudication and delivering a concurring judgment.
|
||||
- entity_name: Mr Justice Stock NPJ
|
||||
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for adjudication and delivering a concurring judgment.
|
||||
- entity_name: Sir William Young NPJ
|
||||
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for adjudication and delivering the lead judgment.
|
||||
- entity_name: HKSAR
|
||||
reason: The Appellant in this criminal appeal representing the prosecution.
|
||||
- entity_name: MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀)
|
||||
reason: The 1st Respondent (D1) in this criminal appeal.
|
||||
- entity_name: CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒)
|
||||
reason: The 2nd Respondent (D2) in this criminal appeal.
|
||||
- entity_name: WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安)
|
||||
reason: The 3rd Respondent (D3) in this criminal appeal.
|
||||
- entity_name: LEE YICK MING (李易明)
|
||||
reason: The 4th Respondent (D4) in this criminal appeal.
|
||||
- entity_name: CISL
|
||||
reason: Legal entity involved in the alleged conspiracy as the actual placing agent and identified as
|
||||
a connected person to CFHL.
|
||||
- entity_name: Gransing
|
||||
reason: Legal entity involved in the alleged conspiracy, described as a front or disguise for CISL.
|
||||
- entity_name: CFHL
|
||||
reason: Legal entity involved in the transaction and the subject of the connected transaction disclosure
|
||||
requirements.
|
||||
- entity_name: Quincy Wong
|
||||
reason: Natural person mentioned as having an indirect interest in CISL, relevant to the determination
|
||||
of connected transactions.
|
||||
- entity_name: The Stock Exchange
|
||||
reason: Regulatory institution responsible for the scrutiny of connected transactions and the recipient
|
||||
of required disclosures.
|
||||
- entity_name: Diplock LJ
|
||||
reason: Served as judge in Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd, articulated the legal test
|
||||
for sham transactions cited in paragraph 10 of this judgment.
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,16 +0,0 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"config_name": "or-gemini-3-flash-preview",
|
||||
"source": "openrouter",
|
||||
"model": "google/gemini-3-flash-preview",
|
||||
"elapsed_seconds": 18.444,
|
||||
"num_api_calls": 6,
|
||||
"input_tokens": 12364,
|
||||
"output_tokens": 1206,
|
||||
"total_tokens": 13570,
|
||||
"input_price_per_million": 0.5,
|
||||
"output_price_per_million": 3.0,
|
||||
"price_unit": "USD",
|
||||
"input_cost": 0.006182,
|
||||
"output_cost": 0.003618,
|
||||
"total_cost": 0.0098
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,88 +0,0 @@
|
|||
plaintiff:
|
||||
- HKSAR
|
||||
defendant:
|
||||
- MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀)
|
||||
- CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒)
|
||||
- WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安)
|
||||
- LEE YICK MING (李易明)
|
||||
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: >-
|
||||
HKSAR appeals against the Court of Appeal's acquittal of the defendants on conspiracy charges concerning
|
||||
concealment of CISL's role as placing agent.
|
||||
case_object:
|
||||
- conspiracy convictions
|
||||
- connected transaction concealment
|
||||
judgment_result:
|
||||
- charge: Conspiracy charges - concealment of CISL's role as actual placing agent with Gransing as front
|
||||
(liability issue)
|
||||
result: "Allowed. Court of Final Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the convictions of all four\
|
||||
\ defendants. The gravamen of the conspiracy charges was the dishonest concealment of CISL's role\
|
||||
\ as placing agent; the proper approach is to ask whether CISL's appointment would constitute a connected\
|
||||
\ transaction under the Listing Rules, which it clearly would as CISL is a connected person to CFHL.\
|
||||
\ The Court of Appeal erred in holding that the placing agreements must be sham transactions under\
|
||||
\ Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd for the prosecution case to succeed. The interposition\
|
||||
\ of Gransing as a mere disguise was a question of fact resolved by the trial judge and there was\
|
||||
\ no basis for disturbing this finding. The concealment had two objectionable aspects: the directors'\
|
||||
\ conflict of interest and the avoidance of scrutiny under the connected transactions regime."
|
||||
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||
HKSAR appealed against Court of Appeal's acquittal of four defendants on conspiracy charges concerning
|
||||
concealment of CISL's role as placing agent through Gransing. CFA allowed the appeal and restored all
|
||||
convictions. The Court of Appeal erred in requiring the placing agreements to be sham transactions under
|
||||
Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd; the proper approach is whether CISL's appointment constituted
|
||||
a connected transaction under Listing Rules, which it clearly did as CISL was connected to CFHL. The
|
||||
concealment had two objectionable aspects: directors' conflict of interest and avoidance of scrutiny
|
||||
under the connected transactions regime. The interposition of Gransing as mere disguise was a factual
|
||||
finding by the trial judge. Dishonesty was properly addressed and proven by the prosecution.
|
||||
involved_entities:
|
||||
- entity_name: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
|
||||
reason: Presiding judge in this Court of Final Appeal case, delivered judgment concurring with Sir William
|
||||
Young NPJ.
|
||||
- entity_name: Mr Justice Fok PJ
|
||||
reason: Presiding judge in this Court of Final Appeal case, delivered judgment concurring with Sir William
|
||||
Young NPJ.
|
||||
- entity_name: Mr Justice Lam PJ
|
||||
reason: Presiding judge in this Court of Final Appeal case, delivered concurring judgment providing
|
||||
alternative route for allowing the appeal and restoring convictions.
|
||||
- entity_name: Mr Justice Stock NPJ
|
||||
reason: Non-permanent judge in this Court of Final Appeal case, delivered judgment in draft which was
|
||||
concurred with by Mr Justice Lam PJ.
|
||||
- entity_name: Sir William Young NPJ
|
||||
reason: Non-permanent judge in this Court of Final Appeal case, delivered lead judgment with which other
|
||||
judges concurred.
|
||||
- entity_name: Lord Diplock
|
||||
reason: Served as judge in Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd, articulated the test for
|
||||
determining whether transactions were sham for purposes of legal proceedings.
|
||||
- entity_name: HKSAR
|
||||
reason: Appellant in this criminal final appeal before the Court of Final Appeal.
|
||||
- entity_name: MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀)
|
||||
reason: First respondent (D1) in this criminal final appeal, convicted defendant in the underlying proceedings.
|
||||
- entity_name: CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒)
|
||||
reason: Second respondent (D2) in this criminal final appeal, convicted defendant in the underlying
|
||||
proceedings.
|
||||
- entity_name: WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安)
|
||||
reason: Third respondent (D3) in this criminal final appeal, convicted defendant in the underlying proceedings.
|
||||
- entity_name: LEE YICK MING (李易明)
|
||||
reason: Fourth respondent (D4) in this criminal final appeal, convicted defendant in the underlying
|
||||
proceedings.
|
||||
- entity_name: CISL
|
||||
reason: Connected person to CFHL, actual placing agent whose role was concealed by the defendants through
|
||||
the interposition of Gransing.
|
||||
- entity_name: CFHL
|
||||
reason: Company involved in the placing agreements, to which CISL was a connected person.
|
||||
- entity_name: Gransing
|
||||
reason: Front company or disguise used to conceal CISL's role as actual placing agent.
|
||||
- entity_name: Quincy Wong
|
||||
reason: Individual with indirect interest in CISL, creating the connected person relationship to CFHL.
|
||||
- entity_name: Hong Kong Stock Exchange
|
||||
reason: Regulatory body whose regime governing connected transactions was to be avoided through the
|
||||
concealment.
|
||||
- entity_name: The learned trial judge
|
||||
reason: Presiding judge at trial who addressed the issue of connected transaction and made factual findings
|
||||
regarding Gransing being a mere disguise.
|
||||
- entity_name: Court of Appeal
|
||||
reason: Lower appellate court whose judgment was under appeal, fell into error by misapplying the Snook
|
||||
test for sham transactions.
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,16 +0,0 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"config_name": "or-minimax-m2.7",
|
||||
"source": "openrouter",
|
||||
"model": "minimax/minimax-m2.7",
|
||||
"elapsed_seconds": 199.008,
|
||||
"num_api_calls": 9,
|
||||
"input_tokens": 19280,
|
||||
"output_tokens": 5253,
|
||||
"total_tokens": 24533,
|
||||
"input_price_per_million": 0.279,
|
||||
"output_price_per_million": 1.2,
|
||||
"price_unit": "USD",
|
||||
"input_cost": 0.005379,
|
||||
"output_cost": 0.006304,
|
||||
"total_cost": 0.011683
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,145 +0,0 @@
|
|||
# 模型输出对比分析：2025_HKCFA_20 v3
|
||||
|
||||
## 评估基准
|
||||
|
||||
案件原文要点如下：香港特区政府就上诉庭撤销四名被告串谋诈骗定罪一事向终审法院上诉。终院一致准许上诉，撤销上诉庭判决，恢复区域法院对各被告的定罪及相关命令。核心事实是 CFHL 与 Gransing 签订配售协议、Gransing 随即与 CISL 签订分配售协议，但 CISL 实际上才是配售代理；Gransing 被用作前置/掩饰，以隐藏 CISL 的角色。法律重点包括：上诉庭错误地以 Snook 的 sham transaction 测试限制控方案情；无需证明文件交易本身是 sham；关键在于是否以不诚实方式隐瞒 CISL 的实际角色、利益冲突和关连交易审查问题。判决还分别讨论了 D1、D2、D3、D4 的知情、参与和不诚实，以及第 1 项控罪针对 CFHL、董事会、股东和潜在投资者，第 3 项控罪针对联交所履行监管职责。
|
||||
|
||||
评分采用 10.0 分制，综合考虑：
|
||||
|
||||
- 准确度：当事人、法院、程序姿态、判决结果、法律争点和事实链是否正确。
|
||||
- 完整度：是否覆盖两项控罪、Snook 错误、CISL/Gransing/CFHL 关系、关连交易、利益冲突、联交所职责、经济损失/风险、各被告责任等关键内容。
|
||||
- 输出可靠性：是否存在乱码、误称、过度概括、事实添加或字段理由模板化问题。
|
||||
|
||||
## 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 | 8.7/10 | 覆盖最完整，抓住 Snook 错误、Gransing 前置、CISL 关连人、恢复定罪等核心；但有少量不准确表述。 |
|
||||
| 2 | or-minimax-m2.7 | 8.4/10 | 摘要扎实、法律争点准确，中文姓名正常；但对具体控罪、D2-D4 个别责任和经济损失风险覆盖不足。 |
|
||||
| 3 | or-deepseek-v4-flash | 8.0/10 | 基本事实和结果准确，中文姓名正常；表达较简略，并出现“related offences”等不严谨扩展。 |
|
||||
| 4 | or-gemini-3-flash-preview | 7.6/10 | 核心结论正确、成本和速度表现好；但误称 acquittal、share placements，且实体说明较模板化。 |
|
||||
| 5 | ollama-qwen3-8b | 6.4/10 | 能识别主要争点和结果，但中文姓名/地点乱码，案由表述偏离为“conspiracy to conceal connected transaction”，完整度明显不足。 |
|
||||
|
||||
## 费用与耗时
|
||||
|
||||
| 模型 | 来源 | API 调用 | 输入 tokens | 输出 tokens | 总 tokens | 耗时 | 总费用 |
|
||||
|---|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
|
||||
| ollama-qwen3-8b | local | 10 | 26,861 | 5,122 | 31,983 | 140.299 秒 | USD 0.000000 |
|
||||
| or-claude-sonnet-4.5 | openrouter | 9 | 20,827 | 2,203 | 23,030 | 52.312 秒 | USD 0.095526 |
|
||||
| or-deepseek-v4-flash | openrouter | 8 | 16,983 | 6,455 | 23,438 | 144.972 秒 | USD 0.002989 |
|
||||
| or-gemini-3-flash-preview | openrouter | 6 | 12,364 | 1,206 | 13,570 | 18.444 秒 | USD 0.009800 |
|
||||
| or-minimax-m2.7 | openrouter | 9 | 19,280 | 5,253 | 24,533 | 199.008 秒 | USD 0.011683 |
|
||||
|
||||
## 单模型分析
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. or-claude-sonnet-4.5：8.7/10
|
||||
|
||||
优点：
|
||||
|
||||
- 程序姿态准确：明确是 HKSAR 上诉，针对上诉庭撤销定罪的判决，终院准许上诉并恢复定罪。
|
||||
- 核心法律争点准确：指出上诉庭错误适用 Snook sham transaction 测试；正确把问题转向 CISL 实际担任配售代理是否触发关连交易和披露审查。
|
||||
- 对事实结构覆盖较完整：提到 Gransing 作为 front/buffer，CISL 是实际 placing agent，Quincy Wong 的间接利益使 CISL 与 CFHL 形成关连关系。
|
||||
- 判决理由较充实：覆盖利益冲突、独立非执行董事和联交所审查、隐瞒行为的不诚实性、恢复原定罪等。
|
||||
- involved_entities 字段较完整，包含四名被告、CISL、CFHL、Gransing、Quincy Wong、Stock Exchange 等关键实体。
|
||||
|
||||
不足：
|
||||
|
||||
- “WeChat messages”不准确，原文附录是 D2 与 D3 的 WhatsApp messages。
|
||||
- judgment_result 将“Court of Appeal's decision quashed”标为“quantum issue”不合适，本案主要不是量刑或赔偿数额问题。
|
||||
- 未充分展开 D1、D2、D3、D4 各自责任，尤其 D4 只涉第 1 项控罪、不涉第 3 项控罪这一差异未清楚体现。
|
||||
- 中文姓名来自原始 case.json 的乱码，未修正为正确中文。
|
||||
|
||||
总体评价：最适合作为结构化抽取结果的基础版本。虽然存在少量标签和细节错误，但对案件主线、争点和裁判结果的把握最稳。
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. or-minimax-m2.7：8.4/10
|
||||
|
||||
优点：
|
||||
|
||||
- 当事人、法院、上诉结果和核心争点准确，中文姓名正常。
|
||||
- 对“CISL 实际角色被 Gransing 掩饰”“无需证明 sham”“Snook 测试适用错误”“恢复全部定罪”的表述清楚。
|
||||
- judgment_result 较好地提到两项关键反社会/违法性基础：董事利益冲突，以及规避关连交易审查。
|
||||
- involved_entities 覆盖面较广，包含审级、审判法官、上诉庭、Lord Diplock、联交所等。
|
||||
|
||||
不足：
|
||||
|
||||
- 没有明确区分第 1 项控罪和第 3 项控罪，也没有说明第 3 项控罪只涉及 D1-D3、目标是联交所监管职责。
|
||||
- 对 Sir William Young NPJ 主判决中关于 D1-D4 个别责任、D2/D3 的 WhatsApp 证据、D4 的 Gransing 角色说明不足。
|
||||
- “Court of Appeal's acquittal”表述略粗糙；更准确应为上诉庭撤销定罪/定罪被 set aside，而非一审无罪释放。
|
||||
- 对经济损失或经济利益风险这一要素覆盖不足。
|
||||
|
||||
总体评价：法律主线准确，语言干净，实体质量高；完整度略逊于 Claude，但错误更少、更稳定。
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. or-deepseek-v4-flash：8.0/10
|
||||
|
||||
优点：
|
||||
|
||||
- 基本案件信息准确：HKSAR 为上诉方，四名被告/答辩人为原定罪者，终院恢复定罪。
|
||||
- 中文姓名和地点正常，没有乱码问题。
|
||||
- 能正确指出上诉庭错误适用 Snook 测试、Gransing 是 front/disguise、CISL 是实际配售代理且与 CFHL 存在关连。
|
||||
- involved_entities 覆盖主要实体，并加入 Court of Appeal 和 Privy Council 等相关法源/审级实体。
|
||||
|
||||
不足：
|
||||
|
||||
- “conspiracy to defraud and related offences”不够准确，原文附录列明的是第 1 和第 3 项串谋诈骗控罪。
|
||||
- judgment_summary 过于简短，未充分覆盖利益冲突、独立非执行董事、联交所职责、经济损失风险和各被告责任。
|
||||
- “concealment ... constituted a connected transaction”表述略有逻辑压缩；更准确是 CISL 被任命为配售代理会构成/至少引发关连交易问题，隐瞒该角色构成诈骗性安排。
|
||||
- 对 charges 的对象和范围没有拆分。
|
||||
|
||||
总体评价：高性价比的中等完整结果。若用于检索或初步摘要足够，但若用于法律信息抽取，需要补充控罪和责任层面的细节。
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. or-gemini-3-flash-preview：7.6/10
|
||||
|
||||
优点：
|
||||
|
||||
- 速度最快，总耗时仅 18.444 秒，且费用低。
|
||||
- 当事人、法院、结果和核心法律问题基本正确。
|
||||
- 能抓住 Snook sham 测试错误、Gransing 作为 front、CISL 作为 connected person、恢复定罪等主线。
|
||||
- 中文姓名正常，输出简洁。
|
||||
|
||||
不足：
|
||||
|
||||
- “appeals against the acquittal”不够准确，本案是针对上诉庭撤销定罪的进一步上诉。
|
||||
- “share placements”错误，本案原文主要是债券配售/placement of bonds。
|
||||
- involved_entities 中多名法官的 reason 过于模板化，称“responsible for adjudication and delivering the judgment”，没有准确区分主判、同意和协同判词。
|
||||
- 未覆盖第 1 项与第 3 项控罪的区别，也没有展开 D4 与第 3 项控罪无关、联交所职责、经济损失风险、各被告知识状态等。
|
||||
- 摘要偏短，对复杂法律分析压缩较多。
|
||||
|
||||
总体评价：适合快速、低成本初筛；作为最终法律信息抽取结果则偏薄，且存在一个实质事实错误“share placements”。
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. ollama-qwen3-8b：6.4/10
|
||||
|
||||
优点：
|
||||
|
||||
- 能识别 HKSAR 上诉、终院恢复定罪、CISL/Gransing/CFHL/Stock Exchange、Snook 与 Adams 等主要关键词。
|
||||
- 大方向正确：知道争点是 Gransing 掩饰 CISL 实际配售代理角色，以及规避关连交易披露/审查。
|
||||
- 本地运行无 API 费用。
|
||||
|
||||
不足：
|
||||
|
||||
- 中文姓名和地点出现明显乱码，直接影响实体抽取质量。
|
||||
- case_reason 写成“appeals against the convictions”，方向错误；应为 HKSAR 上诉，要求恢复被上诉庭撤销的定罪。
|
||||
- case_object 仅为“conviction”，过于笼统。
|
||||
- charge 写成“Conspiracy to conceal connected transaction”，不准确；原控罪是 conspiracy to defraud。
|
||||
- judgment_result 和 summary 未区分第 1 项和第 3 项控罪，也未体现四名被告责任差异。
|
||||
- involved_entities 中把终院法官均描述为“responsible for fact-finding”，不准确；终院主要处理法律问题及审查原审事实裁断是否可被干预，事实认定来自审判法官。
|
||||
- 完整度不足，对利益冲突、联交所公共职责、经济损失/风险、WhatsApp 证据、D4 角色等关键内容覆盖很少。
|
||||
|
||||
总体评价：可作为粗略摘要，但不适合作为高质量法律结构化抽取结果。最大问题是编码乱码和若干法律标签不准确。
|
||||
|
||||
## 性价比分析
|
||||
|
||||
| 模型 | 质量 | 速度 | 成本 | 性价比判断 |
|
||||
|---|---:|---:|---:|---|
|
||||
| or-gemini-3-flash-preview | 中上 | 最快 | 低 | 快速批量初筛最佳，但需人工校正事实细节。 |
|
||||
| or-deepseek-v4-flash | 中上 | 较慢 | 最低付费 | 成本极优，适合低成本大规模抽取，但摘要偏简。 |
|
||||
| or-minimax-m2.7 | 高 | 最慢 | 低 | 质量好、成本低，但耗时明显偏高。 |
|
||||
| or-claude-sonnet-4.5 | 最高 | 较快 | 最高 | 最适合要求准确和完整的最终版抽取。 |
|
||||
| ollama-qwen3-8b | 较低 | 中等 | 免费 | 适合本地零成本实验，不适合对中文实体和法律标签有要求的场景。 |
|
||||
|
||||
## 结论
|
||||
|
||||
若以“信息提取准确度和完整度”为第一目标，推荐 `or-claude-sonnet-4.5`，其次是 `or-minimax-m2.7`。Claude 的完整度最好，能较充分呈现案件法律结构；MiniMax 的表达更稳、更少乱码，但缺少控罪拆分和个别被告责任细节。
|
||||
|
||||
若以“成本/速度”为第一目标，`or-gemini-3-flash-preview` 最快，`or-deepseek-v4-flash` 最便宜。Gemini 适合快速预处理，但要重点校正“债券配售”与程序姿态；DeepSeek 成本最低且基本准确，但需要补充摘要深度。
|
||||
|
||||
本地 `ollama-qwen3-8b` 的零费用优势明显，但本次输出存在乱码和法律表述不精确问题，建议仅作为辅助草稿，不宜直接入库。
|
||||
|
|
@ -1524,11 +1524,10 @@ def parse_run_specs(args) -> list[RunSpec]:
|
|||
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。
|
||||
|
||||
- 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
|
||||
- 單模型：沿用原行為（--out 指定則用之，否則 None 表示輸出到 stdout）
|
||||
- 多模型：在文件名中插入標籤；未給 --out 時用「輸入名_標籤.yaml」
|
||||
"""
|
||||
include_label = multi or bool(args.config and args.out)
|
||||
if not include_label:
|
||||
if not multi:
|
||||
return Path(args.out) if args.out else None
|
||||
safe = _safe_label(label)
|
||||
if args.out:
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
21
models.json
21
models.json
|
|
@ -9,17 +9,6 @@
|
|||
"output_price": 1.2,
|
||||
"price_unit": "USD"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Name": "mm-minimax-m2.7",
|
||||
"source": "Minimax",
|
||||
"BaseApiUrl": "https://api.minimaxi.com/v1",
|
||||
"ApiKey": "sk-cp-oNft325LdyjguyhsrNfmhoB52kYfYV1pbDcr-SVFW9u6XddZezOKzonjI7pE8TSN54pL87QgvjOWbHEB9imQaBY3tR3Vv_XUzbfgk_X2LJI6PsYWH0O16wc",
|
||||
"model": "MiniMax-M2.7",
|
||||
"input_price": 0.29,
|
||||
"output_price": 1.16,
|
||||
"price_unit": "USD",
|
||||
"price_page":"https://platform.minimaxi.com/docs/guides/pricing-paygo#语言模型"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Name": "or-claude-sonnet-4.5",
|
||||
"source": "openrouter",
|
||||
|
|
@ -69,5 +58,15 @@
|
|||
"input_price": 0,
|
||||
"output_price": 0,
|
||||
"price_unit": "USD"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Name": "ollama-qwen2.5-7b",
|
||||
"source": "local",
|
||||
"BaseApiUrl": "https://openai.iconsz.com/ollama3090/v1",
|
||||
"ApiKey": "ollama",
|
||||
"model": "qwen2.5:7b-instruct",
|
||||
"input_price": 0,
|
||||
"output_price": 0,
|
||||
"price_unit": "USD"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,49 +0,0 @@
|
|||
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。
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,16 +0,0 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"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
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,47 +0,0 @@
|
|||
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: >-
|
||||
GA、FI、JA及PA就入境事務處處長拒絕給予其工作准許的決定，主張其在香港享有憲法保障的工作權，要求撤銷處長的相關決定以實現該權利。
|
||||
case_object:
|
||||
- 憲法保障的工作權
|
||||
- 不人道處遇的法律救濟
|
||||
- 入境事務處處長的酌情權範圍
|
||||
judgment_result:
|
||||
- charge: 申請人就憲法保障工作權的爭議 (責任問題)
|
||||
result: 敗訴。法庭裁定《人權條例》第11條排除《人權法案》對非入境權人之權利適用，且《文化公約》第6條及《基本法》第33條不適用於本案。
|
||||
- charge: 處長拒絕工作准許的決定 (責任問題)
|
||||
result: 部分勝訴。上訴法庭撤銷處長對MA及GA的決定，要求重新審視其工作准許申請，但駁回其他申請人主張的憲法保障工作權。
|
||||
- charge: 不人道處遇風險的評估 (責任問題)
|
||||
result: 駁回。法庭認為《人權法案》第3條不適用，因《人權條例》第11條排除相關權利，且無證據顯示存在重大不人道處遇風險。
|
||||
- charge: 工作准許的法律依據 (責任問題)
|
||||
result: 維持。法庭確認處長對入境事務的酌情權，並接受相稱性驗證標準，但強調需符合《人權條例》第11條的例外規定。
|
||||
- charge: 醫療費用及精神損害賠償 (損失範圍)
|
||||
result: 無。判決書未提及具體金額或賠償請求，僅涉及法律權利爭議。
|
||||
- charge: 工作准許延續及條件 (損失範圍)
|
||||
result: 無。判決書未涉及具體金額或命令支付內容，僅確認處長酌情權範疇。
|
||||
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||
GA、PA、FI及JA因入境事務處處長拒絕給予工作准許，主張其享有憲法保障的工作權，要求撤銷處長決定。核心爭議為憲法保障工作權的適用性、不人道處遇的法律救濟及酌情權範圍。法庭評估證據時，認定《人權條例》第11條排除《人權法案》對非入境權人之權利適用，且《文化公約》第6條及《基本法》第33條不適用於本案，故申請人就工作權的爭議敗訴。針對處長決定，部分申請人（MA、GA）獲撤銷拒絕工作准許的決定，但其他主張被駁回。關於不人道處遇風險，法庭認為《人權法案》第3條不適用，因無證據顯示重大風險。最終裁決維持處長酌情權，但須符合《人權條例》第11條例外規定，並未涉及具體金額賠償。
|
||||
involved_entities:
|
||||
- entity_name: 終審法院首席法官馬道立
|
||||
reason: 本案主審法官，負責主導判案書書寫及爭議點裁定。
|
||||
- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官李義
|
||||
reason: 在Tang Kwok Wah v HKSAR [2019] HKCFA 23 中擔任主筆法官，闡述舉證責任原則，本案第34段引用其判詞。
|
||||
- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官鄧國楨
|
||||
reason: 作為主審法官之一，參與爭議點認定及判決書書寫。
|
||||
- entity_name: 終審法院非常任法官陳兆愷
|
||||
reason: 作為主審法官之一，參與爭議點認定及判決書書寫。
|
||||
- entity_name: 終審法院非常任法官簡嘉麒勳爵
|
||||
reason: 作為主審法官之一，參與爭議點認定及判決書書寫。
|
||||
- entity_name: 入境事務處處長
|
||||
reason: 涉案行政機關負責人，為答辯人（答辯人）及政策制定者。
|
||||
- entity_name: 聯合國難民署香港辦事處
|
||||
reason: 處理庇護聲請及提供解決辦法的機構，涉案場所管理機構。
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,16 +0,0 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"config_name": "ollama-qwen3-8b",
|
||||
"source": "local",
|
||||
"model": "qwen3:8b",
|
||||
"elapsed_seconds": 105.054,
|
||||
"num_api_calls": 8,
|
||||
"input_tokens": 43060,
|
||||
"output_tokens": 1536,
|
||||
"total_tokens": 44596,
|
||||
"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
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,51 +0,0 @@
|
|||
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: >-
|
||||
四名上訴人（三名經核實難民及一名獲確立酷刑聲請人）就入境事務處處長不給予工作准許的決定，向入境事務處處長提出司法覆核申請，請求確認其享有憲法保障的工作權。
|
||||
case_object:
|
||||
- 工作權
|
||||
- 工作准許
|
||||
- 司法覆核濟助
|
||||
judgment_result:
|
||||
- charge: GA及MA就工作准許申請的司法覆核 (責任問題)
|
||||
result: 部分勝訴。原訟法庭裁定處長沒有適當考慮該兩名申請人的個人情況，也沒有真正以無成見之心處理他們的要求，幾乎沒有考慮其個人情況，撤銷處長拒絕給予工作准許的決定。
|
||||
- charge: GA、MA就憲法保障工作權的上訴 (責任問題)
|
||||
result: 敗訴。上訴法庭駁回所有上訴，裁定《人權法案》第14條、《文化公約》第6條及《基本法》第33條對各申請人沒有幫助，不接納普通法裏有工作權。
|
||||
- charge: FI、JA及PA就工作准許的司法覆核 (責任問題)
|
||||
result: 敗訴。原訟法庭駁回該三名申請人的司法覆核申請。
|
||||
- charge: 各申請人基於《人權法案》第3條不人道處遇的主張 (責任問題)
|
||||
result: 未有最終裁定。原訟法庭及上訴法庭均因《人權條例》第11條而裁定《人權法案》第3條不適用，但原訟法庭附帶意見認為原則上長時間禁止工作在某些情況下可構成不人道或有辱人格的待遇，惟須有醫學證據清楚證明精神狀況及因果關係。
|
||||
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||
四名上訴人（三名經核實難民及一名獲確立酷刑聲請人）因入境事務處處長拒絕給予工作准許，提起司法覆核，主張享有憲法保障的工作權。核心爭議為：長期滯港的難民或酷刑聲請人能否基於《人權法案》第14條、《文化公約》第6條及《基本法》第33條獲得工作准許。終審法院經審理後，駁回所有上訴。法庭裁定：因《人權條例》第11條及英國政府就《權利公約》和《文化公約》訂立的保留條文，上述憲法條文對各申請人不適用；普通法亦不包含工作權。關於《人權法案》第3條不人道處遇的主張，法庭雖因第11條裁定不適用，但以附帶意見指出，原則上長時間禁止工作在特定情況下可構成不人道處遇，惟須有醫學證據清楚證明精神狀況及因果關係。就GA及MA而言，原訟法庭曾裁定處長未適當考慮其個人情況而撤銷拒絕決定，但上訴法庭推翻此裁決。最終，法庭確認處長在出入境事務上享有廣泛酌情權，各申請人未能確立憲法保障的工作權。
|
||||
involved_entities:
|
||||
- entity_name: 終審法院首席法官馬道立
|
||||
reason: 本案主審法官，撰寫判案書並闡述法律原則。
|
||||
- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官李義
|
||||
reason: 本案主審法官之一，參與審理並作出裁決。
|
||||
- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官鄧國楨
|
||||
reason: 本案主審法官之一，參與審理並作出裁決。
|
||||
- entity_name: 終審法院非常任法官陳兆愷
|
||||
reason: 本案主審法官之一，參與審理並作出裁決。
|
||||
- entity_name: 終審法院非常任法官簡嘉麒勳爵
|
||||
reason: 本案主審法官之一，參與審理並作出裁決。
|
||||
- entity_name: 入境事務處處長
|
||||
reason: 本案答辯人，負責出入境管制及酌情決定工作准許事宜的政府官員。
|
||||
- entity_name: 聯合國難民事務高級專員署香港辦事處
|
||||
reason: 涉案機構，負責處理難民庇護聲請及安排自願遣返或移居第三國。
|
||||
- entity_name: 入境事務處
|
||||
reason: 涉案政府部門，負責處理酷刑聲請及出入境管制事務。
|
||||
- entity_name: 入境事務處酷刑聲請審理科
|
||||
reason: 涉案政府部門，負責審理酷刑聲請並決定聲請人是否有遭受酷刑的危險。
|
||||
- entity_name: 張舉能法官
|
||||
reason: 原訟法庭主審法官，作出一審判決並闡述關於不人道處遇的法律原則。
|
||||
- entity_name: 霍兆剛法官
|
||||
reason: 上訴法庭法官，在判案書第76段中闡述關於人的尊嚴及不人道處遇的法律原則。
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,16 +0,0 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"config_name": "or-claude-sonnet-4.5",
|
||||
"source": "openrouter",
|
||||
"model": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5",
|
||||
"elapsed_seconds": 67.418,
|
||||
"num_api_calls": 9,
|
||||
"input_tokens": 57583,
|
||||
"output_tokens": 3158,
|
||||
"total_tokens": 60741,
|
||||
"input_price_per_million": 3.0,
|
||||
"output_price_per_million": 15.0,
|
||||
"price_unit": "USD",
|
||||
"input_cost": 0.172749,
|
||||
"output_cost": 0.04737,
|
||||
"total_cost": 0.220119
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,44 +0,0 @@
|
|||
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: >-
|
||||
四名经核实难民或获确立酷刑声请人就入境事务处处长拒绝给予工作准许的决定提出司法覆核，主张他们根据香港法律享有工作权，并要求撤销该决定及确认工作权。
|
||||
case_object:
|
||||
- 工作权
|
||||
- 免受不人道处遇的权利
|
||||
judgment_result:
|
||||
- charge: 上訴人就憲法保障的工作權的上訴 (責任問題)
|
||||
result: 駁回。法庭裁定《人權法案》第14條、《文化公約》第6條及《基本法》第33條均不賦予上訴人憲法保障的工作權。主要理由是《人權條例》第11條及英國政府所作的保留條文排除了這些條文的適用。普通法亦不包含工作權。
|
||||
- charge: 上訴人就《人權法案》第3條不人道處遇的上訴 (責任問題)
|
||||
result: 部分勝訴。法庭裁定各上訴人的個案決定須由處長根據正確的法律原則重新考慮。法庭指出原訟法庭及上訴法庭因《人權條例》第11條而認為不人道處遇不適用的觀點，在本院就Ubamaka案作出判決後已不正確；《人權法案》第3條原則上可適用。然而法庭未有就各上訴人是否確有遭受不人道處遇的風險作出終局裁決，而是發還處長重新考慮。法庭亦裁定，若存在真正及重大的不人道處遇風險，處長並無酌情權拒絕工作准許。
|
||||
- charge: 上訴人就處長政策整體的上訴 (責任問題)
|
||||
result: 部分勝訴。法庭裁定處長須按照指引重新考慮各上訴人的個案，但未有直接撤銷或更改處長的政策。法庭接納處長在出入境管制方面有廣泛酌情權，但該酌情權受《人權法案》第3條制約。法庭亦接納長時間禁止經核實難民或酷刑聲請人工作，在特定情況下可構成不人道或侮辱之處遇。
|
||||
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||
四名经核实难民或酷刑声请人因入境事务处处长拒绝工作准许，提出司法覆核。核心争议为香港法律是否赋予其工作权，及禁止工作是否构成不人道处遇。终审法院裁定《人权法案》第14条、《文化公约》第6条及《基本法》第33条均不赋予宪法保障的工作权，因《人权条例》第11条及英国保留条文排除适用，普通法亦无此权利。但就《人权法案》第3条，法庭认为原审因《人权条例》第11条认定不适用之观点有误，该条原则上可适用；若存在真正及重大不人道风险，处长无酌情权拒绝工作准许。最终驳回工作权上诉，但就处长决定及政策部分胜诉，发还处长按正确法律原则重新考虑各人个案。
|
||||
involved_entities:
|
||||
- entity_name: 終審法院首席法官馬道立
|
||||
reason: 本案主審法官，撰寫判案書，闡述難民及酷刑聲請人工作權的法律爭議。
|
||||
- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官李義
|
||||
reason: 本案主審法官之一，參與審理及裁決。
|
||||
- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官鄧國楨
|
||||
reason: 本案主審法官之一，參與審理及裁決。
|
||||
- entity_name: 終審法院非常任法官陳兆愷
|
||||
reason: 本案主審法官之一，參與審理及裁決。
|
||||
- entity_name: 終審法院非常任法官簡嘉麒勳爵
|
||||
reason: 本案主審法官之一，參與審理及裁決。
|
||||
- entity_name: 張舉能法官
|
||||
reason: 在原訟法庭審理本案，撰寫判案書，闡述經核實難民及酷刑聲請人工作權的附帶意見。
|
||||
- entity_name: 霍兆剛法官
|
||||
reason: 在上訴法庭審理本案，撰寫判案書，闡述不人道處遇與工作權的關聯。
|
||||
- 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的酌情權行使。
|
||||
- entity_name: 聯合國難民事務高級專員署香港辦事處
|
||||
reason: 處理難民庇護聲請的機構，本案中負責核實難民資格。
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,16 +0,0 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"config_name": "or-deepseek-v4-flash",
|
||||
"source": "openrouter",
|
||||
"model": "deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash",
|
||||
"elapsed_seconds": 89.997,
|
||||
"num_api_calls": 6,
|
||||
"input_tokens": 26974,
|
||||
"output_tokens": 4900,
|
||||
"total_tokens": 31874,
|
||||
"input_price_per_million": 0.1,
|
||||
"output_price_per_million": 0.2,
|
||||
"price_unit": "USD",
|
||||
"input_cost": 0.002697,
|
||||
"output_cost": 0.00098,
|
||||
"total_cost": 0.003677
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,45 +0,0 @@
|
|||
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: >-
|
||||
上訴人為經核實難民及獲確立酷刑聲請人，就入境事務處處長不准其在港工作的決定，向法院提出司法覆核，要求確立工作權。
|
||||
case_object:
|
||||
- 工作權
|
||||
judgment_result:
|
||||
- charge: 上訴人基於《香港人權法案》第14條、《經濟、社會與文化權利的國際公約》第6條及《基本法》第33條主張的憲法保障工作權 (責任問題)
|
||||
result: 敗訴。終審法院裁定《人權法案》第14條因《香港人權法案條例》第11條及英國政府就《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》訂立的保留條文而不適用於無權進入及停留於香港的人；《文化公約》第6條因英國政府訂立的保留條文而不適用；《基本法》第33條因《基本法》第41條而不適用於非香港居民的上訴人。
|
||||
- charge: 上訴人基於普通法主張的工作權 (責任問題)
|
||||
result: 敗訴。終審法院不接納普通法包含上訴人所主張的工作權。
|
||||
- charge: 上訴人基於《香港人權法案》第3條主張的不人道或侮辱之處遇 (責任問題)
|
||||
result: 敗訴。終審法院裁定，即使《人權法案》第3條適用，上訴人未能提供證據證明存在真正和重大的風險會引致不人道處遇，因此處長拒絕給予工作准許的決定並未違反該條文。
|
||||
- charge: 上訴人就原訟法庭及上訴法庭判決提出的上訴 (責任問題)
|
||||
result: 敗訴。終審法院駁回所有四名上訴人的上訴，維持上訴法庭的判決。
|
||||
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||
四名上訴人為經核實難民或酷刑聲請人，因入境事務處處長不准其在港工作，提出司法覆核。核心爭議為上訴人是否享有憲法或普通法上的工作權，以及長期禁制工作是否構成不人道處遇。終審法院裁定，《香港人權法案》第14條與《經濟、社會與文化權利的國際公約》第6條，因英國政府就公約作出的保留及《香港人權法案條例》第11條，不適用於無權在港停留的上訴人；《基本法》第33條則因第41條不保障非香港居民。普通法亦未確立此項工作權。就《人權法案》第3條而言，即使適用，法院認為上訴人未能提供證據，證明拒絕工作准許存在導致不人道處遇的真正重大風險。最終，終審法院一致駁回全部四名上訴人的上訴，維持上訴法庭裁決，處長決定合法。
|
||||
involved_entities:
|
||||
- entity_name: 終審法院首席法官馬道立
|
||||
reason: 本案主審法官，撰寫終審法院判詞。
|
||||
- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官李義
|
||||
reason: 本案主審法官，參與聆訊及裁決。
|
||||
- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官鄧國楨
|
||||
reason: 本案主審法官，參與聆訊及裁決。
|
||||
- entity_name: 終審法院非常任法官陳兆愷
|
||||
reason: 本案主審法官，參與聆訊及裁決。
|
||||
- entity_name: 終審法院非常任法官簡嘉麒勳爵
|
||||
reason: 本案主審法官，參與聆訊及裁決。
|
||||
- entity_name: 張舉能法官
|
||||
reason: 在原訟法庭HCAL 68/2010等案中擔任法官，就工作權及不人道處遇等爭議點作出裁決，其判案書被終審法院引用。
|
||||
- entity_name: 霍兆剛法官
|
||||
reason: 在上訴法庭CACV 46/2011等案中擔任法官，就憲法保障工作權及不人道處遇發表附帶意見，其判案書被終審法院討論。
|
||||
- entity_name: 入境事務處處長
|
||||
reason: 本案答辯人，行使出入境管制酌情權，包括審批工作准許。
|
||||
- entity_name: 聯合國難民事務高級專員署香港辦事處
|
||||
reason: 負責處理在港難民聲請及安排自願遣返或移居第三國的國際機構。
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,16 +0,0 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"config_name": "or-deepseek-v4-pro",
|
||||
"source": "openrouter",
|
||||
"model": "deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro",
|
||||
"elapsed_seconds": 250.701,
|
||||
"num_api_calls": 9,
|
||||
"input_tokens": 41782,
|
||||
"output_tokens": 9456,
|
||||
"total_tokens": 51238,
|
||||
"input_price_per_million": 0.435,
|
||||
"output_price_per_million": 0.87,
|
||||
"price_unit": "USD",
|
||||
"input_cost": 0.018175,
|
||||
"output_cost": 0.008227,
|
||||
"total_cost": 0.026402
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,59 +0,0 @@
|
|||
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: >-
|
||||
上訴人（經核實難民及獲確立酷刑聲請人）就入境事務處處長不准許其在港工作的政策及相關決定，向終審法院提出上訴，請求確認其在憲法及普通法下享有工作權，並要求撤銷處長不准許其工作的決定。
|
||||
case_object:
|
||||
- 在港工作權
|
||||
- 工作准許
|
||||
- 衡平法濟助
|
||||
judgment_result:
|
||||
- charge: 上訴人聲稱根據《人權法案》第14條、《文化公約》第6條及《基本法》第33條享有憲法保障的工作權 (責任問題)
|
||||
result: 敗訴。終審法院裁定《人權條例》第11條及相關國際公約的保留條文具有效力，限制了非香港居民在出入境管制下的權利；《基本法》第33條所指的「選擇職業自由」並不等同於賦予非香港居民無條件的工作權。
|
||||
- charge: 長期禁止受保護人士（難民及酷刑聲請人）工作是否構成《人權法案》第3條下的「不人道處遇」 (責任問題)
|
||||
result: 部分勝訴（原則性認定）。法庭裁定入境事務處處長的酌情權受《人權法案》第3條制約。若禁止工作會導致當事人面臨引致不人道處遇的真正和重大風險（如嚴重的精神疾病），處長必須考慮給予工作准許。
|
||||
- charge: 撤銷入境事務處處長拒絕給予GA及MA工作准許的決定 (責任問題)
|
||||
result: 勝訴。法庭維持原訟法庭判決，認為處長在處理GA及MA的申請時，未有充分考慮其個人情況（如在港滯留時間極長），屬於行使酌情權時考慮不周，故撤銷原決定並令處長重新考慮。
|
||||
- charge: 其他上訴人（FI、JA、PA）要求撤銷拒絕工作准許的決定 (責任問題)
|
||||
result: 敗訴。法庭認為除GA及MA外，其他上訴人未能提供足夠證據證明拒絕工作准許已達到「不人道處遇」的法律門檻，或證明處長在行使酌情權時存在法律錯誤。
|
||||
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||
本案涉及GA等四名在港滯留多年的難民及酷刑聲請人，因不滿入境事務處處長拒絕其工作申請，遂提出司法覆核，主張其享有憲法及普通法保障的工作權。核心爭議在於非香港居民是否擁有受法律保障的工作權，以及長期禁止工作是否構成「不人道處遇」。終審法院分析指，根據《人權條例》第11條及相關國際公約保留條文，非香港居民在出入境管制下的權利受限，且《基本法》第33條不賦予其無條件工作權，故駁回憲法權利主張。然而，法庭強調處長酌情權受《人權法案》第3條制約，若禁止工作將導致當事人面臨嚴重精神疾病等不人道處遇風險，處長必須考慮准許工作。最終，法庭裁定處長在處理GA及MA申請時未充分考慮其長期滯留等個人情況，屬行使權力不周，遂撤銷原決定並令其重新考慮，其餘上訴人則因證據不足被駁回。
|
||||
involved_entities:
|
||||
- entity_name: 馬道立
|
||||
reason: 終審法院首席法官，本案主審法官之一，並撰寫本案判案書。
|
||||
- entity_name: 李義
|
||||
reason: 終審法院常任法官，本案主審法官之一。
|
||||
- entity_name: 鄧國楨
|
||||
reason: 終審法院常任法官，本案主審法官之一。
|
||||
- entity_name: 陳兆愷
|
||||
reason: 終審法院非常任法官，本案主審法官之一。
|
||||
- entity_name: 簡嘉麒勳爵
|
||||
reason: 終審法院非常任法官，本案主審法官之一。
|
||||
- entity_name: 張舉能
|
||||
reason: 原訟法庭法官，負責本案原審判決，其判詞在終審法院判案書中被引用及評述。
|
||||
- entity_name: 霍兆剛
|
||||
reason: 上訴法庭法官，在上訴法庭階段撰寫判詞，闡述關於人的尊嚴與不人道處遇之法律原則。
|
||||
- entity_name: 入境事務處處長
|
||||
reason: 本案答辯人，負責行使出入境管制酌情權及審理工作准許申請。
|
||||
- entity_name: 聯合國難民事務高級專員署香港辦事處
|
||||
reason: 獲聯合國大會授權，負責在香港處理難民資格核實及尋求移居方案的機構。
|
||||
- entity_name: 入境事務處酷刑聲請審理科
|
||||
reason: 入境事務處轄下負責審理酷刑聲請的專責部門。
|
||||
- entity_name: GA
|
||||
reason: 本案上訴人（申請人）之一，經核實難民。
|
||||
- entity_name: PA
|
||||
reason: 本案上訴人（申請人）之一，獲確立酷刑聲請人。
|
||||
- entity_name: FI
|
||||
reason: 本案上訴人（申請人）之一，經核實難民。
|
||||
- entity_name: JA
|
||||
reason: 本案上訴人（申請人）之一，經核實難民。
|
||||
- entity_name: MA
|
||||
reason: 原訟法庭及上訴法庭階段的申請人之一，經核實難民。
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,16 +0,0 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"config_name": "or-gemini-3-flash-preview",
|
||||
"source": "openrouter",
|
||||
"model": "google/gemini-3-flash-preview",
|
||||
"elapsed_seconds": 32.713,
|
||||
"num_api_calls": 9,
|
||||
"input_tokens": 44252,
|
||||
"output_tokens": 2245,
|
||||
"total_tokens": 46497,
|
||||
"input_price_per_million": 0.5,
|
||||
"output_price_per_million": 3.0,
|
||||
"price_unit": "USD",
|
||||
"input_cost": 0.022126,
|
||||
"output_cost": 0.006735,
|
||||
"total_cost": 0.028861
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,50 +0,0 @@
|
|||
plaintiff:
|
||||
- GA
|
||||
- PA
|
||||
- FI
|
||||
- JA
|
||||
defendant:
|
||||
- 入境事务处处长
|
||||
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: >-
|
||||
經核實难民及酷刑声请人就入境事务处长拒绝向他们签发工作准许的决定，向上诉法庭提出上诉，争辩其工作权受宪法保障。
|
||||
case_object:
|
||||
- 工作准许
|
||||
- 宪法保障的工作权
|
||||
- 不人道或有辱人格的处遇
|
||||
- 出入境管制酌情权
|
||||
judgment_result:
|
||||
- charge: 工作權的憲法保障問題 (責任問題)
|
||||
result: 敗訴。終審法院確認《人權條例》第11條及英國政府的保留條文使人權法案第14條、《文化公約》第6條及《基本法》第33條均不適用於本案標的事宜，亦不接受普通法包含工作權。
|
||||
- charge: 不人道或侮辱之處遇問題 (責任問題)
|
||||
result: 敗訴。終審法院確認入境事務處處長在出入境事務方面的酌情權須受《人權法案》第3條制約，但裁定申請人未能證明存在真正和重大的風險會引致不人道處遇。
|
||||
- charge: 工作准許的酌情權決定 (責任問題)
|
||||
result: 部分勝訴。對於MA及GA，原審法官裁定處長未有適當考慮其個人情況及未有真正以無成見之心處理其要求，撤銷拒絕工作准許的決定，要求重新考慮；但其他申請人的司法覆核申請被駁回。
|
||||
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||
四名来自布隆迪、斯里蘭卡及巴基斯坦的经核实难民及酷刑声请人，就入境事务处长拒绝签发工作准许的决定向终审法院提出上诉。三项争议点均经审裁：工作权的宪法保障问题上，終審法院確認《人权条例》第11條及英國政府保留條文，使《人权法案》第14條、《文化公约》第6條及《基本法》第33條均不适用于本案，亦不接受普通法包含工作权，申請人敗訴；不人道或有辱人格处遇问题上，处长酌情权虽受《人权法案》第3條制約，但申请人未能证明存在真正和重大的不人道处遇风险，亦敗訴；工作准许酌情权问题上，原審法官確認MA及GA的工作准许申请被不当忽视，撤銷处长决定並要求重新考虑，但其他申请人司法覆核申请被驳回。
|
||||
involved_entities:
|
||||
- entity_name: 終審法院首席法官馬道立
|
||||
reason: 本案主審法官，負責主持聆訊及撰寫判案書。
|
||||
- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官李義
|
||||
reason: 本案主審法官，參與五名法官合議庭審理本案。
|
||||
- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官鄧國楨
|
||||
reason: 本案主審法官，參與五名法官合議庭審理本案。
|
||||
- entity_name: 終審法院非常任法官陳兆愷
|
||||
reason: 本案主審法官，參與五名法官合議庭審理本案。
|
||||
- entity_name: 終審法院非常任法官簡嘉麒勳爵
|
||||
reason: 本案主審法官，參與五名法官合議庭審理本案。
|
||||
- entity_name: 張舉能法官
|
||||
reason: 原審主審法官，在FACV 7/2013第8段中負責裁決原審司法覆核申請，裁定《人權條例》第11條排除《人權法案》權利的適用，並處理MA及GA的工作准許事宜。
|
||||
- entity_name: 霍兆剛法官
|
||||
reason: 上訴法庭法官，在FACV 7/2013第13段中以附帶意見形式處理不人道處遇爭議點，闡述《權利公約》保障人的尊嚴之根本目的。
|
||||
- entity_name: 入境事務處處長
|
||||
reason: 本案答辯人，負責決定是否給予經核實难民及酷刑聲請人工作准許，在出入境管制方面擁有廣泛酌情權。
|
||||
- entity_name: 入境事務處
|
||||
reason: 負責執行出入境管制政策及處理酷刑聲請的政府部門，現時由酷刑聲請審理科負責決定酷刑聲請人的申請。
|
||||
- entity_name: 聯合國难民署香港辦事處
|
||||
reason: 處理本案庇護聲請的國際機構，獲聯合國大會授權負責處理难民資格認定及安排自願遣返或移居第三國。
|
||||
- entity_name: 香港特別行政區政府
|
||||
reason: 制定處理聲稱是难民人士政策的實體，堅持其沒有責任收容根據《难民公約》尋求庇護的人士。
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,16 +0,0 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"config_name": "or-minimax-m2.7",
|
||||
"source": "openrouter",
|
||||
"model": "minimax/minimax-m2.7",
|
||||
"elapsed_seconds": 88.981,
|
||||
"num_api_calls": 9,
|
||||
"input_tokens": 45184,
|
||||
"output_tokens": 4715,
|
||||
"total_tokens": 49899,
|
||||
"input_price_per_million": 0.279,
|
||||
"output_price_per_million": 1.2,
|
||||
"price_unit": "USD",
|
||||
"input_cost": 0.012606,
|
||||
"output_cost": 0.005658,
|
||||
"total_cost": 0.018264
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,80 +0,0 @@
|
|||
# v3 模型输出对比分析
|
||||
|
||||
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。
|
||||
|
||||
## 原文关键信息基准
|
||||
|
||||
- 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。
|
||||
- 日期：聆讯为 2014 年 1 月 8-9 日，判案书日期为 2014 年 2 月 18 日。
|
||||
- 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。
|
||||
- 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。
|
||||
- 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。
|
||||
- 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。
|
||||
|
||||
## 总体评分
|
||||
|
||||
| 排名 | 模型输出 | 准确度/完整度 | 耗时 | 费用 USD | 主要评价 |
|
||||
|---:|---|---:|---:|---:|---|
|
||||
| 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-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 | `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-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-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 | `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。 |
|
||||
|
||||
## 逐模型分析
|
||||
|
||||
### `or-deepseek-v4-pro`
|
||||
|
||||
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。
|
||||
|
||||
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。
|
||||
|
||||
### `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。
|
||||
|
||||
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。
|
||||
|
||||
### `mm-minimax-m2.7`
|
||||
|
||||
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。
|
||||
|
||||
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。
|
||||
|
||||
### `or-minimax-m2.7`
|
||||
|
||||
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。
|
||||
|
||||
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-gemini-3-flash-preview`
|
||||
|
||||
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。
|
||||
|
||||
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。
|
||||
|
||||
### `or-deepseek-v4-flash`
|
||||
|
||||
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