|
DCCC 699/2020
[2021] HKDC 1380
香港特別行政區
區域法院
刑事案件2020年第699號
________________________
________________________
| 出席人士: |
周沅瑩女士，律政司檢控官，代表香港特別行政區 |
| |
蘇啟明先生，由法律援助署委派的Tsang, Chan & Woo Solicitors & Notaries延聘，代表被告人 |
________________________
判刑理由書
________________________
1.被告人原被控一項入屋犯法罪。在他不認罪後在本席前面對審訊。在控方舉證基本完成後，被告人在特別事項亦即是招認的自願性這個課題選擇作供。在主問的過程中，產生另一個課題就是被告人是否適宜受審。因此，主問暫時中斷，從而先後獲取就被告人的兩份辯方及三份控方的精神科報告。其中一份辯方及所有三份控方的報告均作出結論就是被告人適宜受審。
2.在等候精神科報告的時候，控辯雙方進行談判及在獲取精神科報告後達成一些協議。
3.在本席考慮過所有精神科報告及經雙方共同邀請下，本席裁定被告人適宜受審。
4.辯方隨即終止在特別事項下對被告人的主問。控方亦宣布沒有盤問。被告人在特別事項下作供完畢。
5.控方隨即在辯方不反對的情況下申請修訂控罪為盜竊罪，違反香港法例第210章盜竊罪條例第9條。罪行詳情為被告人於2020年6月15日在香港九龍旺角山東街40P號榮華大樓8/F(唐九樓)，偷竊一對襪，而該對襪為屬於陳己已的財產。
6.本席批准控方的申請。本席命令再聽取被告人的答辯。
7.被告人對經修訂的控罪認罪。
被告人承認的事實撮要
8.案發日早上約十時被告人攜著紙袋進入榮華大樓地下之後上了8/F(唐九樓)20A單位外，從該處晾掛的衣物偷去一雙黑白間條襪子然後走下樓梯，最後在3/F(唐四樓)乘搭升降機回到地下。在地下工作的保安主管從閉路電視見狀後已經報警。這時警方還未趕至。保安主管在地下遇到被告人問他在做什麼。被告人說打算在榮華大樓租房。被告人接著離開榮華大樓。
9.在大樓外，被告人被到來的警務人員截停。警方在被告人攜帶的紙袋搜出一雙黑白間條襪子，後證實為榮華大樓8/F(唐九樓)的住客陳氏的財產價值港幣50元。
10.被告人在拘捕及警誡下承認偷去該雙襪子。
11.同日被告人跟警方進行會面警誡下承認以下事情：—
(a) 被告人前往榮華大樓本想找其中一間賓館租房，但不小心踏進水窪，雙襪濕透；
(b) 被告人其後看見該處掛著一雙黑白間條襪子便順手偷去，本想在離開榮華大樓後換上；及
(c) 被告人記不起當日所到賓館的名稱。
刑事紀錄
12.被告人有35次刑事定罪紀錄，其中有十六次是盜竊罪或入屋犯法罪。值得關注的是，在最後的一項定罪紀錄，被告人於2019年12月4日被判處包括兩個月監禁緩刑12個月。
經歷
13.被告人現年34歲(案發時32歲)，在香港完成中五教育，被捕時的工作是一名地盤雜工。被告人單身，居於九龍油麻地彌敦道。
精神科報告的關鍵撮要
14.本席認為以下的選段對本席較為有幫助。
15.葉醫生撰寫的日期為2021年10月8日的精神科報告：—
“4. Psychiatric history: Ip has been known to psychiatric services since May 2006 for self-harm behaviour of jumping from window. He was diagnosed with drug induced psychosis and antisocial personality disorder. He had multiple psychiatric admissions in the past due to substance related problems and repeated violence. He was labelled a Special care case since 2015 for having assaulted a police officer. Ip was documented to have on-going illicit substance use with rapid reinstatement after each discharge. Ip’s diagnosis was revised to Paranoid Schizophrenia since September 2019…”.
16.羅醫生撰寫的日期為2021年9月14日的精神科報告:—
“10. Mr Ip recalls that [the alleged offence] happened in June 2020. He had fragmented memory of what happened. He was just discharged from Pamela Youde Nethersole Hospital. He had no fixed abode and he tried to look for a hostel to stay. On the day he says that he had taken excessive dosage of his medications. He went to a building and found his socks wet. He found a pair of dry one and wanted to use it to change his wet one. He was then arrested.
……
21. I am of the opinion that Mr Ip has suffered from a longstanding history of substance use disorder and he had episodes of substance-induced mental disorders when he uses the substances excessively. The substance-induced mental disorder is usually a temporary impairment of the thinking process, perception, emotion, neurocognitive functions and behaviour while the patient is intoxicated by the substances. These impairments will gradually subside after the effects of the substances wane off. That explains why Mr Ip was quite disturbed before admissions and yet the admissions were usually brief. He had altogether seven admissions to psychiatric ward in 2019.
22. When Mr Ip is not under the influence of the substances, there is no thought or perpetual abnormality. There is also no gross cognitive function impairment. This was how he presented himself when the assessment took place on 6th September 2021.”
戒毒所適合性報告
17.本席在判刑前獲取戒毒所適合性報告。報告結論指出：—
“… he started to abuse “Ice” and zopiclone in 2005 and 2007 respectively. For his previous convictions, he had been sentenced to a Rehabilitation Centre, fined, placed on probation, given suspended sentence and imprisoned. Also, he had been sentenced to a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre in 2010. Yet, he was not determined enough to amend himself. He maintained his vice habit and waywardness all along. Out of his weak law-abiding concept, he ran into trouble with the law again by committing the present offence.
Based on the medical examination, clinical observation and the facts available, the Medical Officer has come to a conclusion that defendant is a drug dependent. In view of his weak willpower and taking into consideration his rehabilitative needs, another period of compulsory drug addiction treatment coupled with intensive statutory supervision would still be beneficial to him. Hence, I consider him suitable for admission to a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre. There is a place available for him.”
18.簡言之，報告認為被告人適宜進入戒毒所接受戒毒治療。
輕判請求陳詞
19.法律援助署署長委派的蘇啟明大律師代表被告人作出輕判請求陳詞。以下是該陳詞的撮要。
20.被告人干犯盜竊罪時只是順手牽羊，這樣減低他的罪責。失物價值只是50元而且已經歸還。雖然如此，被告人願意補償給事主，這顯示他的懺悔。
21.辯方早於2021年7月已經向控方表示被告人願意就盜竊罪認罪；並在控方開案後的9月再次發信給控方表達同一意願。這顯示被告人一直有心願意承認盜竊罪。
22.被告人依靠綜援來生活。最初被告人與母親同住，但因為鄰居知道他的精神病背景而時常欺負他，所以他最終搬出。
23.根據葉醫生撰寫的精神科報告的第4段，被告人於2006年5月開始接受公立醫院精神科診斷。辯方陳詞稱，刑事紀錄內從2006年開始的定罪是在精神病背景下發生的。
24.關於本案是在緩刑期內發生這一點，辯方陳詞稱，被告人是一名精神科病人，所以沒有在作出周全的考慮下而犯案的。
25.辯方亦作出陳詞稱，不同意只要被告人停止濫用藥物，他的精神病病況便會自動好轉。
26.就著戒毒所適合性報告，辯方陳詞稱，被告人對內容不存爭議，但對結論有所保留。被告人不願意再次到戒毒所接受治療。另外，在戒毒所治療也可能影響他接受精神科治療。
判刑
27.本席認為判被告人入戒毒所戒毒對被告人是最有利的，亦希望可藉此終斷被告人再犯罪的意志。至於他的精神科治療需要，可向懲教署提出。
28.因此，本席接納戒毒所適合性報告的建議，判被告人入戒毒所接受戒毒治療。
29.就著被告人對上一次的監禁緩刑令，本席不作激活令。
|