香港特別行政區 訴 呂源舜

DCCC 1144/2021

[2022] HKDC 830

香港特別行政區

區域法院

刑事案件2021年第1144號

________________________

________________________

________________________

判刑理由書

________________________

引言

1.被告就一項 「入屋犯法罪」認罪及同意有關案情而被定罪；控罪指被告於2021年10月6日在香港，作為侵入者在進入九龍深水埗欽州街56號地下G-K號舖後，在該處偷竊一部流動電話。

案情

2.郭先生（“PW1”）是九龍深水埗欽州街56G-K號地下「滬海港冰廳」（“餐廳”）之東主。餐廳營業時間為每日上午6時至晚上11時，餐廳員工每日上午4時開始準備食物。

3.PW1擁有一部價值港幣1,000元的流動電話（“流動電話”），用作處理顧客的電子付款。PW1經常把流動電話放在餐廳收銀處，沒有把它鎖起來。

4.2021年10月6日上午6時30分，餐廳員工通知PW1，說流動電話不翼而飛。PW1在同日翻看餐廳的閉路電視片段，該片段顯示在2021年10月6日上午4時11分：—

•  餐廳正門捲閘並非全開，自動玻璃趟門關上；

•  餐廳內的門市大堂和收銀處空無一人；

•  一名中國籍男子打開玻璃趟門，彎腰在捲閘下方進入餐廳；

•  該男子蓄短髮，戴着眼鏡及藍色口罩，身穿背面印有 “NEW YORK” 字樣的白色直間條T恤、黑色長褲及白色鞋，左手手腕戴着一條手帶；

•  該男子在餐廳內四處張望，並查看收銀處；

•  該男子從收銀處枱面拿走上述流動電話，之後立即經正門離開餐廳；

•  由進入至離開，犯案人在餐廳逗留了約23秒；及

•  犯案人的步姿，外型均清晰可見。

PW1於是報案。

5.2021年10月7日上午10時20分，警員21352（“PW2”）在餐廳跟進本案，在餐廳職員協助下，他翻查上述閉路電視片段。

6.同日上午11時06分，PW2與隊員在九龍南昌街見到被告。被告當時蓄金色短髮，戴着深綠色眼鏡及藍色口罩，身穿黑色短袖衫、黑色長褲及白色波鞋，右手拿着一個白色膠袋，左手有綠色手帶。

7.因見被告步姿、外型、身穿的黑色長褲、白色波鞋及所戴的眼鏡與餐廳犯案人相似，PW2於是截停被告，在南昌街67號外查問和搜查被告。

8.PW2在被告手持的白色膠袋內發現一件背面印有“NEW YORK” 字樣的白色直間條T恤。於是PW2以「爆竊罪」拘捕被告。即場警誡後，被告說：「阿Sir，我無嘢講。」

9.被告現承認他是上述進入餐廳的犯案人，在2021年10月6日他作為侵入者進入餐廳後，於該處偷竊PW1的流動電話。

被告背景及刑事定罪紀錄

10.被告生於1974年10月，現年47歲，受教育至中六程度，未婚，育有一名10歲的女兒[1]。

11.在干犯本案前，被告曾干犯共27宗刑事案件，牽涉共37項控罪，其中包括共25項涉及不誠實罪行元素的控罪，而當中有9項「入屋犯法罪」，他最後兩項「入屋犯法罪」是於2016年5月20日在區域法院被判共52個月監禁[2]。被告在干犯本案前最後一次定罪，是案件WKCC 1559/2021中的一項「遊蕩」罪，他於2021年6月23日被判4個月監禁，他於2021年7月13日出獄。

求情陳詞

12.代表被告的顧大律師在其「辯方求情要點」說於案發當天，被告於朋友家中打完麻雀後，在回家途中，因覺肚餓，而見到涉事餐廳已捲起了半閘，被告認為該餐廳已在準備食物，而他以往也曾試過向一些未開始營業的食肆要求而購得食物，故此他進入未營業的涉事餐廳，希望涉事餐廳能給他煮些食物充饑；在進入餐廳後，他四處張望尋找員工時，見到收銀處放置了一部流動電話，他一時起了貪念，偷走該流動電話及離開涉事餐廳。

13.顧大律師陳詞指本案被告形同「機會主義的爆竊者（opportunistic burglar）」，顧大律師引用HKSAR v Sim Ka Wing CACC 450/2000、HKSAR v Cheung To Ming [2006] 2 HKLRD 259及HKSAR v Panaguiton Mary Joy De La Pena DCCC 81/2020，請法庭以18個月監禁作為量刑基準。

14.就被告過往有25項涉及不誠實罪行元素的紀錄（包括9項「入屋犯法罪」前科），顧大律師請法庭參考HKSAR v Lui Bing Ching DCCC 538 & 698/2018，酌量把刑期上調3個月。

判刑

15.本案涉及非住宅處所的「入屋犯法罪」，根據R v Wong Man [1993] 1 HKC 80及Attorney General v Lui Kam Chi [1993] HKEC 254，除非案件有加重或減輕刑罰的特別因素，否則對於一個成年的初犯者而言，量刑基準是30個月監禁。

16.顧大律師求情指被告是因為肚餓，所以才走入未營業的涉事餐廳，祈求餐廳會烹煮一些食物給被告充飢；就這一項陳詞，顧大律師告知法庭，說被告不會用「紐頓研訊（Newton Inquiry）」方式去處理；在被告選擇不進行「紐頓研訊」的前提下，本席有以下觀察： —

(i)  案發地點是深水埗欽州街，該處並非荒遠偏僻的街道，被告若然要購買食物充饑，大可去附近24小時營業的便利店、漢堡飽店或其他食店購買食物，而不是在凌晨4時許，彎腰走入捲閘仍未全開的涉事餐廳，請求尚未營業的涉事餐廳特意為他烹煮食物；

(ii)  案發時，涉事餐廳的捲閘並非全開，正表示餐廳尚未開始營業，亦不會招呼外來人士，若然被告是真誠希望餐廳破例地在未營業前為他提供食物，被告大可在捲閘外拍門呼叫通知餐廳內的工作人員被告的要求，而不是未得許可，擅自彎腰走入捲閘仍未全開的涉事餐廳；及

(iii)  被告在涉事餐廳內逗留只約23秒，本席在聆訊時曾觀看過有關的閉路電視片段，本席認為被告當時的舉動，完全不吻合他所辯稱是為求餐廳在未營業前為他提供食物的行為；反之，被告的舉動，正正就是一般入屋犯法者在入屋後四處張望，看看有甚麼有價值的東西可以偷竊的盜賊行為。

本席不接納被告進入涉事餐廳時，是為求購買食物之辯解，本席裁定被告進入涉事餐廳，目的就是要偷竊在餐廳內的東西。

17.關於被告是否「機會主義的爆竊者（opportunistic burglar）」，本席引述上訴法庭法官麥偉德（當時官階）在HKSAR v Tsang Chun Yin（曾俊言）[2017] HKCU 3293「判案書」第49及50段說：—

“49. Returning to the questions I posed, what is meant by an opportunistic offence and what is it about such an offence that lessens the culpability of the offender? If it means no more than that the offence was not premediated then the extent to which that will lessen the culpability of the offender may very much depend on whether it is only an isolated lapse. Where, as here, it is not an isolated lapse what does it tell us about the offender? It may simply suggest that although the offender is not a professional criminal he is willing to resort to crime whenever the opportunity presents itself. Such an opportunistic offender is hardly likely to excite the sympathy of the court; indeed, for such an offender the court may well incline to regarding the offender as being in need of a deterrent sentence.

50. Clearly, the most value that an “opportunistic offence” can have as mitigating the culpability of an offender is when the offender is involved in criminal conduct on only one occasion, the criminal conduct is unpremeditated and the criminal conduct took place in circumstances where the ease with it could be committed tempted the offender into an out-of-character lapse in judgment. The commonly cited examples are where there is an open window or door which “invites” entry and which reveals tempting property in plain view. The less the conduct can be portrayed in this way the less, it seems to me, it reduces the culpability of the offender.”

18.本席留意到被告在干犯本案前，曾干犯另一宗案件WKCC 1559/2021的「遊蕩」罪，於是本席向西九龍裁判法院索取WKCC 1559/2021的案情摘要，從該案的案情摘要可見，該案於2021年4月23日凌晨1時28分左右發生，案發地點是深水埗大埔道190至192號五聯大廈（Penta House），當時被告走進該大廈，徒步經樓梯走去該大廈2樓，並成功把一個「劏房」單位的大門推開；之後，被告走到該大廈3、4及5樓，同樣嘗試開啟那三層樓單位的大門；被告於同日上午1時48分離開該大廈，當警員在同日上午2時左右向被告搜身時，從被告所攜帶的環保袋內搜得若干項物品，其中包括一隻手套、一把較剪及一枝螺絲批。

19.本席亦參考過被告曾干犯的「入屋犯法罪」的兩宗案件DCCC 15/2006[3]及DCCC 311/2016[4]，從DCCC 15/2006、DCCC 311/2016及WKCC 1559/2021的案情可見，被告一貫以來的犯案手法，都是到處尋找機會入屋犯法；本案中，被告亦是在凌晨4時11分，趁涉案餐廳把捲閘半開，餐廳內的門市大堂和收銀處空無一人之際，偷偷進入餐廳盜竊，本席引用上訴法庭法官麥偉德（當時官階）在HKSAR v Tsang Chun Yin（曾俊言）第49段所說，本席認為本案案發時，被告犯案並非個別單一的錯失（isolated lapse），即使被告並非一名專業的犯案者，但是當有機會出現在被告面前時，他是會願意訴諸犯罪的。正如上訴法庭法官麥偉德（當時官階）說： —

“… Such an opportunistic offender is hardly likely to excite the sympathy of the court; indeed, for such an offender the court may well incline to regarding the offender as being in need of a determent sentence.”

20.本席認為在本案中，被告絕非一名「機會主義的爆竊者」，相反，本席認為被告是一名「主動尋找機會的爆竊者」，本席不會就求情陳詞中說被告是「機會主義的爆竊者」而給予減刑。本席仍以30個月監禁為量刑基準。

21.被告過往有25項涉及不誠實罪行元素的定罪紀錄，當中有9項「入屋犯法罪」紀錄，他最後兩項「入屋犯法罪」是於2016年5月20日在區域法院被判共52個月監禁﹕DCCC 311/2016。在干犯本案控罪前，他於同年6月23日在西九龍裁判法院因一項「遊蕩」罪被判4個月監禁﹕WKCC 1559/2021，就該項控罪，他於2021年7月13日出獄，但約兩個半月後（即2021年10月6日），被告旋即干犯本案控罪。

22.就上述被告於2016年5月20日在區域法院被判共52個月監禁，牽涉兩項「入屋犯法罪」的案件中（即DCCC 311/2016），被告曾經向上訴法庭提出判刑的上訴許可申請（CACC 160/2016），上訴法庭法官麥機智（當時官階）在該案「判案書」第12至14段及第19至21段說：—

“12. The judge first noted that the normal starting point for a person of clear record after trial for a domestic premises burglary would be 36 months’ imprisonment. Having considered the applicant’s antecedents and his evident recidivism, the judge considered that some enhancement to the starting point was appropriate.

13. The judge referred to the applicant’s previous appearance before the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Lui Yuen Shun (supra)  and observed that the judge at first instance had enhanced the starting points for two burglaries of domestic premises to 45 months’ imprisonment for each charge in view of his criminal record. I note that the facts of the two charges before the Court of Appeal on that occasion were not dissimilar to the present offences, inasmuch as the applicant had inveigled himself into two domestic premises on a false pretext while they were occupied. As I have said, the Court of Appeal endorsed those starting points.

14. The judge noted that previous sentences had not deterred the applicant. Accordingly, he adopted further enhanced starting points of 48 months’ imprisonment for each offence, which reduced for plea would result in sentences of 32 months’ imprisonment in respect of each offence.

…

19. The problem for the applicant is this. He has a truly appalling criminal record of dishonesty, including no less than seven previous offences of burglary. It is also clear that he has developed a particular modus operandi of gaining access to domestic premises on a false pretext, while the occupants are present, in order to steal items while the occupants are distracted. I note that the Court in HKSAR v Lui Yuen Shun (supra), at para 11, held:

“In our judgment, whether entry is gained to premises by sliding open a door or window or by a planned deception makes little difference.”

As I have pointed out, the two offences with which I am dealing, bear obvious factual similarities with the two burglary offences considered by the Court in the applicant’s previous appearance before the Court of Appeal.

20. Therein lies the difficulty for the applicant. The Court of Appeal has already decided, in relation to this very applicant, that because of his already “bad criminal record” by 2006, an enhanced starting point of 45 months’ imprisonment was appropriate in respect of each of two similar offences of burglary. Yet, numerous convictions for dishonesty later, and facing two more similar burglary offences, the judge in the present case considered that:

“…it is clear that the previous sentences for both offences of theft and for burglary have not deterred the (applicant)  from committing these offences and so the (applicant)  can expect a further enhancement of the starting point in respect of these two charges.”

21. I cannot see any appellate court disagreeing with the judge’s sentiments, given the applicant’s continuing criminal record and his persistence in committing the same kind of offence. Indeed, Mr Shek realistically accepts that the court was entitled to consider further enhanced starting points in view of the applicant’s criminal record since 2007. In my judgment, there is no reasonably arguable ground of appeal that the judge’s adoption of 48 months’ imprisonment in respect of the starting point for each offence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.”

從CACC 160/2016「判案書」第12至14段可見，被告曾於另一宗牽涉兩項住宅處所的「入屋犯法罪」的案件（DCCC 15/2006及相關的CACC 322/2006）中，原審法官由於被告的多項前科而把36個月監禁的量刑基準上調至45個月監禁，由於DCCC 15/2006的加刑沒有對被告產生阻嚇作用，所以DCCC 311/2016案的原審法官把36個月監禁的量刑基準上調至48個月監禁[5] 。而上訴法庭在CACC 160/2016中亦同意把判刑如此上調並非過重，亦非在原則上犯錯。以36個月監禁上調至48個月監禁計，DCCC 311/2016的原審法官是把量刑基準上調了三分一。

23.在本席給予CACC 160/2016的「判案書」給控辯雙方參考後，代表被告的顧大律師陳詞指，在CACC 160/2016中，上訴法庭同意把刑期由36個月上調至48個月，除了因為被告的前科外，也因為被告之前干犯的「入屋犯法罪」所採用的手法相同或類似，但被告干犯本案的手法與DCCC 15/2006及DCCC 311/2016的犯案手法不同，顧大律師因而說就本案而言，不應參考DCCC 311/2016的加刑比率。本席不接受顧大律師的如此說法，否則，即表示若然被告再犯「入屋犯法罪」但採用的犯案手法不同，法庭則可以用低於CACC 160/2016的加刑比率去加刑，這無疑是鼓勵被告以其他方式干犯「入屋犯法罪」，以避免嚴峻的加刑比率；本席不接受此說法。

24.鑑於被告有9項「入屋犯法罪」的前科，亦有見DCCC 311/2016（及CACC 160/2016）的量刑基準上調比率，本席亦在兩年半監禁的量刑基準上把判刑上調三分一，至40個月監禁。

25.被告及時認罪，可得三分一判刑折扣，除此以外，再沒有其他有效的求情因素可令判刑有進一步折扣，以40個月乘以三分二計，被告被判26個月又20日監禁。