香港特別行政區 訴 張建清

HCMA 518/2021

[2022] HKCFI 2766

香港特別行政區

高等法院原訟法庭

刑事上訴司法管轄權

判刑上訴

案件編號：裁判法院上訴案件2021年第518號

(原屯門裁判法院刑事案件2021年第1490號)

——————————

——————————

判案書

1.上訴人為本案的第一被告。他在署理主任裁判官王詩麗席前承認一項「在香港非法入境後未得入境事務處處長授權而留在香港」罪（下稱「非法入境罪」）[1]，被判處18個月監禁，與區域法院案件編號DCCC 514/2021的46個月監禁分期執行。

2.上訴人不服兩宗案件刑期分期執行的判處，提出上訴。

承認案情

3.案情摘要指於2019年7月2日上午約5時15分，警方在天水圍嘉湖海逸酒店進行反入屋犯法的行動時，警員15484發現上訴人獨自一人前往該酒店而將他截查，稍後作出拘捕。上訴人於警誡下，承認他於2019年6月15日晚上8時從深圳蛇口乘快艇偷渡來港。根據入境處的紀錄，上訴人於2019年4月2日至7月2日期間並沒有出入境記錄。

輕判請求及判刑理由

4.上訴人有5項刑事定罪記錄，其中兩項定罪與本案控罪相同：於2005年因非法入境罪被判9個月監禁，及於2015年因非法入境罪被判15個月監禁。其他3項定罪紀錄包括一項入屋犯法罪、一項企圖入屋犯法罪和一項遊蕩罪 [2]。

5.上訴人在2021年7月26日承認控罪和同意案情。當時代表他的湛律師要求裁判官把判刑押後，原因是上訴人將會在9月17日於區域法院就另一宗案件出席判刑聆訊（案件編號DCCC 514/2021），裁判官逐把本案的判刑押後至2021年9月28日。判刑當日，上訴人由張大律師代表。張大律師告知裁判官上訴人在DCCC 514/2021案就一項入屋犯法罪和一項嚴重入屋犯法罪，被判處總共46個月監禁。

6.裁判官小心考慮本案的案情、求情陳詞和有關控罪的判案書，認為本案沒有任何特別情節致使她需要偏離女皇訴蘇文景[3] 案中定下的量刑指引，即初犯者在認罪後需被判監15個月，如再次干犯非法入境罪，法庭應調高量刑起點。由於上訴人已經是第3次非法入境，裁判官採納27個月監禁為量刑起點，給予三 分 一的認罪扣減後，判處他18個月監禁。

7.判刑當日，裁判官獲悉區域法院的判決後，曾使用司法機構的網頁試圖尋找DCCC 514/2021的判刑理由書不果 [4]。雖然如此，裁判官並沒有忽視整體量刑原則，並就此議題作出下列考慮 [5]：

「11. 本席當然沒有忽視整體量刑原則。在這議題上，本席在判刑前參考慮了HKSAR v Lau Chiu Kwan CACC 213/2001。該案上訴人提出針對刑期的上訴。他在2000年3月20日，在區域法院承認一項「入屋犯法」罪和一項「非法入境」罪，分別被判監2年和1年，兩項控罪的刑期分期執行，總刑期為3年。2001年2月14日，他在區域法院經審訊後被裁定干犯另一項「入屋犯法」罪而被判監42個月，當中6個月與前述的刑期分期執行。換言之，就兩項「入屋犯法」罪和一項「非法入境」罪，他被判監共6年。

12. 上訴法院指出：

“5. It is well established that the sentence for an offence of unlawful remaining will normally run consecutively to the sentence imposed for a burglary offence committed by an illegal immigrant.

13. We are of the view that the individual sentences for the burglaries in both trials were correct. The totality of 5 1/2 years’ imprisonment for the two burglaries, would in itself have been too high. What, however, has to be remembered is that this applicant was an unlawful immigrant and his sentence for that offence, in our view, ought to be wholly consecutive.

14. Given the particular facts of the two case and the applicant’s particular circumstances, including his criminal record, overall sentences amounting to 6 years in total - whilst we acknowledge that they are at the high end of the scale – can not be said to be manifestly excessive.＂

13. 在HKSAR v Tong Fuk Sing [1993] 3 HKLRD 710，上訴人承認一項「入屋犯法」罪和一項「非法入境」罪。上訴法院在第714G段指出：

“Furthermore, unless, for example, there exist some compelling circumstances, such as strong humanitarian reasons, this sentence should normally be imposed consecutively to the sentence imposed for the offence which accompanies it. HKSAR v Wong Ting Wah CACC 153/1997, was a similar case to the one we are presently considering. There, this Court considered the position where pleas of guilty had been entered to a burglary on a house in New Territories committed by a man who was unlawfully in Hong Kong. The Court on that occasion said:

“The Judge properly took three years as the starting point and properly gave a one-third reduction for plea reducing that to two years. The sentence of 15 months was also a proper sentence to impose on the charge of unlawful entry.

This Court has repeatedly said that it is proper that such sentence be made consecutive…The sentences, in our view, were not too severe and the application is refused.＂

14. 經小心考慮整體案情和Lau Chiu Kwan及 Tong Fuk Sing，本席認為第一被告在席前承認「非法入境」罪的性質與「入屋犯法」罪完全不同，犯案日期(與嚴重入屋犯法罪的日期)也不同，理應全數分期執行。本席亦作此如此命令。」

上訴理由

8.代表上訴人的黃達明大律師就判刑提出下列兩項理由：

(一)  裁判官沒充分考量「新近」案例對於整體量刑（分期或同期）的法理和原則。

(二)  上訴人被判處共64個月的監禁，是明顯過重。

上訴理由的考慮

9.兩項上訴理由可一併處理。上訴方並不爭議裁判官就非法入境罪判處18個月的刑期，唯一的投訴是裁判官判處兩案的刑期全數分期執行，沒有考慮整體量刑原則，致使刑期明顯過重。

10.根據區域法院暫委法官許肇強在DCCC 514/2021案中日期為2021年9月21日的「判刑理由書」，本案上訴人為該案的第一被告人，他承認一項入屋犯法罪及一項嚴重入屋犯法罪，第一項控罪的案發日期為2018年11月26日，相隔7個多月後他於2019年7月2日干犯第二項控罪。就第一項控罪，法官判處上訴人28個月監禁，就第二項控罪30個月監禁。考慮總量刑原則後，法官下令控罪二當中的12個月監禁與控罪一的刑期同期執行，兩項控罪共判處監禁46個月。

11.上訴方援引原訴法庭在HKSAR v Wong Tak Po (AD1)[6] 案中賴盤德暫委法官（當時官階）就入屋犯法罪及非法入境罪的刑期是否全數分期執行有如下說法[7]：

“6. Ms Lo who appears for the respondent in this appeal puts that case before me and also another case called HKSAR v. Chan Po, CACC No. 290 of 1999. Obviously in those two cases, and Chan Po was very similar on the facts to Tong Fuk Sing, the Court of Appeal had not abandoned or forgotten the totality principle, they merely decided that the total of three years and three months, two years of which were for burglary and one year and three months for the unlawful remaining, did not produce too great a total, therefore, it was quite proper to make the sentence wholly consecutive.

7. Those cases are not authority for a principle that in every single case the 15 months must always be wholly consecutive and to illustrate that one only has to imagine the situation where an illegal immigrant, say, chose to traffick in a large amount of drugs and received one of the sentences that are passed in these courts that starts at 20 to 25 years. In those circumstances, my judgment is that most courts would be very slow to add a further one year and three months to such a big sentence because the totality would be too big. At the other end of the scale when an illegal immigrant comes here to shoplift or commit offences of petty theft it is inevitable that the short sentence for such crime will be wholly consecutive to the 15 months for the unlawful remaining. That is because the total is right and one can see if one moves up the scale, as illustrated by the two cases I have referred to, when one is around the three years or three years and three months mark, the totality is still alright.

8. In my judgment, once one gets to the sort of sentence that the appellant has in this case of six and a half years, you are somewhere between the two extremes and one can reasonably consider overlapping the sentences. That is what I have done.

9. In making that order, I have absolutely no criticism of the sentence the Magistrate passed. As Ms Lo points out, it was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. However the test in this court, unlike the Court of Appeal, is not based on that criteria. On appeal from a decision taken in a summary court, an appellant is entitled to ask the judge to look at the facts afresh and impose the sentence that the judge would have imposed on the admitted facts.”

12.上訴方指法庭在決定非法入境罪的刑期與其他控罪的刑期同期或分期執行時，理應考慮兩類形案件的「相對性量刑比例」來決定整體刑罰，避免導致一個重判風險。上訴方投訴裁判官沒有考慮這項「新近法律原則」。

13.在上文的 Wong Tak Po (AD1) 案，該案的被告人就兩項搶劫罪被判6年6個月監禁，另就一項非法入境罪被判15個月監禁，分期執行，總刑期為7年9個月監禁。上訴後原訟法庭以重審方式重新衝量整體刑期，下令非法入境罪刑期中的7個月與搶劫罪的監禁同期執行，總刑期為7年2個月監禁，其判決完全是基於對整體刑期的考慮。

14.上訴法庭在多宗不同的典據中重申，在非法入境罪的案件中，除非有非常強而有力的情況（例如強烈的人道理由），否則其刑期須與其他控罪的刑期分期執行[8]。這項原則一直為上訴法院採納並沿用至今[9]。當案件涉及超過一項控罪的量刑時，法庭便會考慮刑期應否同期或分期執行，及整體刑期是否過重，這是多年來各級法庭一貫的做法，並非甚麼「新近法律原則」。

15.本案裁判官雖然在判處當日不能得知區域法院的判刑理由，但並非如上訴方指稱完全沒有考慮整體量刑原則。相反地，裁判官在考慮過整體案情、上訴法院在不同案件的陳述、控罪的性質和犯案日期後，才決定將入屋犯法罪的刑期與區域法院的刑期全數分期執行。

16.上訴人在區域法院的案件涉及一項入屋犯法罪及一項嚴重入屋犯法罪，該兩項控罪的案發日期雖然相隔有7個多月，但原審法官基於整體量刑原則，下令兩項刑期中的12個月監禁同期執行，總刑期下調至46個月監禁。正如裁判官正確地指出，非法入境罪與DCCC 514/2021的控罪性質截然不同，兩宗案件的刑期分期執行是適當的，沒有原則性犯錯。

17.至於5年4個月的整體刑期是否過重，本席參考過上訴法庭在Lau Chiu Kwan 案中，上訴法庭認為被告人就兩項入屋犯法罪被判處5年6個月的刑期與非法入境罪12個月的刑期完全分期執行（總刑期為6年半監禁），並非明顯過重。在Tong Fuk Sing案中，上訴法庭認為被告人就一項入屋犯法罪的3年監禁與非法入境罪的15個月監禁完全分期執行（總刑期為4年3個月監禁）是適當的。在Chan Po及Wong Ting Wa案中，上訴法庭認為被告人就一項企圖入屋犯法罪的兩年監禁與非法入境罪的15個月監禁完全分期執行（總刑期為3年3個月監禁）是適當的。

18.本案上訴人並非初犯者，他於2009年就兩項涉及入屋犯屋法的罪名在區域法院被判處共2年10個月的監禁，並分別於2005年及2015年因非法入境罪被判處9個月及15個月的監禁，今次他重犯相同的控罪，法庭應判處懲誡式的刑罰以收警惕之效。

19.在考慮了整體刑期後，本席認為5年4個月的總刑期合乎案件的整體嚴重性及上訴人的罪責，並非明顯過重。

20.上訴理由不成立。

結論

21.上訴駁回，維持原判。

答辯人： 由律政司檢控官黃善輝代表香港特別行政區

上訴人： 由法律援助署委託劉林陳律師事務所轉聘黃達明大律師代表