控方同時呈堂條文,及四單參考案例: 1. HKSAR v. TAM LAP FAI [2005] HKCFA 30; [2005] 2 HKLRD 487; (2005) 8 HKCFAR 216; FACC 15/2004 2. R v Lau Yin Kum (unreported, HCMA 15/1997) 3. HKSAR v. IBARRA OLIVA FERNANDEZ (HCMA119/2004) 4. 香港特別行政區訴吳志偉及另一人(HCMA 310/2011)
案例一被告被控公安條例36B,分別指被告襲擊、抗拒、阻礙警察執行職務,於裁判法院被裁定罪名成立,上訴至高等法院原訟庭獲撤銷襲警及抗拒警員,但維持阻差辦公罪名。此案上訴至終審法院。終審法院判詞中提到 Hinchliffe v Sheldon [1955] 1 WLR 1207一案為普通法地區訂立後稱為「Goddard's Test」的測試,即「阻礙警員即令警員更難完成職務」“obstructing, for the present purpose, means making it more difficult for the police to carry out their duties”,案例一的辯方針對Goddard's Test 是否「足夠地針對邊沿案件」"sufficiently specific in borderline cases",並引用加拿大案例 R v. Whalen (1993) 143 AR 234中法官指出阻礙程度必須「較瞬間、片刻阻礙為大」"more than a fleeting or momentary diversion or expenditure of effort"(17段)。R v. Robinson (2000) 287 AR 79 亦清楚說明阻差辦公門檻在於行為「必須造成多於微量、不重要阻礙」“must be more than trifling or de minimus in nature”。