香港特別行政區 訴 劉嘉駿及另一人

DCCC 953, 990 & 1194/2024 (合併)

[2025] HKDC 311

香港特別行政區

區域法院

刑事案件2024年第953、990及1194號

________________________

________________________

________________________

判刑理由書

________________________

1.本案有3名被告人。

2.第1被告被控3項「入屋犯法」罪，違反香港法例第210章《盜竊罪條例》第11(1)(b)及(4)條（控罪1至3）。

3.第2被告被控一項「企圖盜竊」罪，違反香港法例第210章《盜竊罪條例》第9條及第200《刑事罪行條例》第159G條（控罪4）及一項「處理贓物」罪，違反香港法例第210章《盜竊罪條例》第24條（控罪5）。

4.第3被控一項「盜竊」罪，違反香港法例第210章《盜竊罪條例》第9條（控罪6）。

5.第1被告現承認控罪1至3；而第3被告承認控罪6。第2被告則棄保潛逃，本席已發出拘捕令。

6.這是本席就第1及第3被告的判刑理由。

承認事實

7.兩名被告人承認的經修訂案情撮要如下：

控罪1案發經過（訴第1被告）

(1)  喬克信先生（控方第一證人）是「透工作室」（該工作室）的東主。該工作室用於攝影工作，其地址為香港九龍旺角弼街63號珍寶樓二樓。案發時，珍寶樓的一樓外面搭建了棚架。珍寶樓的露台與隔鄰的61號大廈桂業樓的露台相連，中間由鐵網相隔。

(2)  2023年9月24日下午約1時，控方第一證人關上該工作室的玻璃門（該門由電子鎖鎖上）便離開該工作室。證人沒有鎖上該工作室內的窗戶。

(3)  翌日清晨約5時，陳德隆先生（控方第二證人）沿弼街往洗衣街方向步行，期間見到一名男子（後知為第1被告）從珍寶樓的棚架跳下來。當時第1被告手持3袋物品，其中一個看來是宜家家居（IKEA）的環保袋。第1被告其後先左轉入花園街，之後折返弼街並登上一步的士離開。由於控方第二證人覺得可疑，即時報警。警員其後到達珍寶樓進行巡邏，發現該工作室的正門沒有鎖上，於是警員於約清晨5時30分通知控方第一證人。

(4)  同日早上約6時正，控方第一證人返回該工作室；經檢查，發現下列物品不翼而飛：

(i)  三部總值約港幣9,000元的Nikon相機；

(ii)  一部價值約港幣9,000元的手提電腦，上述相機及手提電腦存放於工作室內、辦公桌旁的儲物櫃內；

(iii)  一個價值港幣10元的宜家家居環保袋，該環保袋放於工作室近窗的地下；

(iv)  港幣20元現金；及

(v)  一本由上海商業銀行發給該工作室的支票簿，其中包括一張編號為319649的支票（該工作室的支票）。上述現金及支票簿原放於該工作室的收銀機內。案發後，該收銀機的錢箱被抽出來，並放在旁邊的置物架上。

(5)  上述被盜財物總值約港幣18,030元。

(6)  一間位於弼街 65 號店舖的閉路電視拍攝到第1被告逃離現場的情況。當時第1被告戴上白色鴨舌帽，身穿黑色上衣、黑色長褲及白色 PUMA 牌運動鞋。

控罪2案發經過（訴第1被告）

(7)  干伯文先生（控方第三證人）是桂業樓一樓A室「Boom」髮型屋（該髮型屋）的東主。該髮型屋有前門及後門，後門連接桂業樓的露台。

(8)  2023年9月24日晚上約10時正，控方第三證人離開該髮型屋，離開前曾檢查前門確定鎖上，但後門如常沒有上鎖。

(9)  翌日早上約11時42分，控方第三證人返回該髮型屋，發現店內有被搜掠的痕跡；經檢查，發現下列物品被盜：

(i)  港幣400元現金；

(ii)  一部價值約2,000元的「三星」筆記簿型電腦；

(iii)  一部價值約港幣600元的金色iPhone 6 Plus，上述現金、電腦及手提電話原放於該髮型屋的收銀櫃；

(iv)  一部價值約港幣2,000元的紅色iPhone XR；

(v)  一個價值約港幣2,000元的「Marshall」音樂揚聲器；

(vi)  一個價值港幣100元的電話散熱器，上述iPhone XR、音樂揚聲器及電話散熱器原放於該髮型屋的剪髮位置；

(vii)  一雙價值約港幣1,299元的「Jordan 11」運動鞋，原放於該髮型屋的一個角落。

(10)  上述被盜財物總值約港幣8,399元。

(11)  點算過失物後，控方第三證人報警。

控罪3案發經過（訴第1被告）

(12)  危月燕女士（控方第四證人）是「新聯公司」的文員。上述公司的辦公室（該辦公室）位於旺角旺角道93-99號王子大廈（該大廈）三樓F室。案發時，該大廈外面（包括該辦公室的窗外）搭建了棚架。

(13)  2023年9月22日（星期五）下午約4時，控方第四證人鎖上該辦公室的木門及鐵閘便下班離開。

(14)  2023年9月25日上午約11時40分，控方第四證人回到該辦公室。當時辦公室的鐵閘及木門仍然鎖上，但證人進入辦公室後發現單位有被搜掠痕跡。經檢查後，控方第四證人發現兩本由大新銀行發給林嘉川先生的支票簿被盜（支票簿1及支票簿2）。林嘉川先生為「新聯公司」東主（控方第五證人）的父親。上述兩本支票簿原放於該辦公室其中一張辦公桌上，每本支票簿各有25張空白支票。於是，控方第四證人報警處理。

拘捕第1被告的經過

(15)  2023年9月25日下午約3時45分，控方第三證人檢查並得知該髮型屋被盜的iPhone XR最後一次啟動地點為花園街106號。於是警員（包括控方第六證人，警員16900）翻查附近店舖及大廈的閉路電視片段，得知第1被告於同日約凌晨4時52分曾進入亞皆老街83號先施大廈。有見及此，警方在該處進行埋伏。2023年9月25日晚上約6時47分，控方第六證人在花園街近亞皆老街巡邏時發現第1被告。由於第1被告的身形與犯案人相似，亦穿着白色PUMA牌運動鞋，控方第六證人截停第1被告。經搜查，控方第六證人在第1被告腰間發現支票簿1。

(16)  由於第1被告的衣着與控罪 1 的疑犯相似，同日晚上約6時53分，控方第六證人以「爆竊」罪名就控罪1向第1被告施行警誡。警誡下，第1被告表示「阿Sir，係我爆嘅 … 我嗰日係擒棚架上去入咗間舖頭，偷咗啲相機同電腦 … 啲相機同電腦我賣晒啦，搵唔返㗎啦」。

(17)  同日晚上約6時55分，控方第六證人以「爆竊」罪名拘捕第1被告。警誡下，第1被告表示「阿Sir，我等錢使，所以先去爆竊，比次機會我啦」。

(18)  其後，控方第六證人就控罪2向第1被告施行警誡。警誡下，第1被告承認「阿Sir，都係我爆嘅」。同日約6時59分，控方第六證人再次以「爆竊」罪名拘捕第1被告。警誡下，第1被告表示「我見都係隔離大廈，咪擒棚架一次過爆埋個單位」。

(19)  由於在第1被告腰間搜出支票簿1，控方第六證人就控罪3以「爆竊」罪名拘捕第1被告。警誡下，第1被告承認「阿Sir，係我貪心，我等錢使先走去爆竊，啲錢我洗晒啦，本支票簿我留起睇吓有冇用咋」。

第1被告的警誡錄影會面

(20)  偵緝警員12830（控方第七證人）其後與第1被告進行錄影會面。警誡下，第1被告說出一些事情，當中包括以下各項：

(i)  第1被告2003年至2019年任職棚架工人，手部受傷後離開搭棚行業。第1被告需要錢，所以犯案；

(ii)  第1被告犯案後棄置所穿衣物；

關於控罪一

(iii)  第1被告爬上弼街63號所搭建的棚架，進入該工作室。當時爬上冷氣機，經一個打開的窗戶入內，查看有沒有貴重物品；

(iv)  第1被告拿走一部手提電腦、三部相機及一本支票簿，放進環保袋，之後沿路折返，爬上棚架；

(v)  第1被告在該工作室逗留約10分鐘；

(vi)  第1被告第一次進入該工作室；

(vii)  第1被告指他只是隨意進入一個窗戶打開的地方；

(viii)  第1被告把上述的一部手提電腦、三部相機及一本支票簿賣給深水埗夜市的一名男小販；

(ix)  第1被告沒有任何同謀；

關於控罪 2

(x)  第1被告離開該工作室後，把被盜財物掛在棚架上；

(xi)  第1被告隨後經棚架，從一道沒上鎖的門進入該髮型屋，尋找貴重物品；

(xii)  第1被告拿走港幣數百元、一部手提電腦、兩部流動電話、一個揚聲器、一個電話散熱器及一雙運動鞋。他把被盜財物放進一個在髮型屋隨意發現的袋中；

(xiii)  第1被告拿了所有被盜財物後，經棚架離開；

(xiv)  第1被告在該髮型屋逗留約20分鐘；

(xv)  第1被告第一次進入該髮型屋；

(xvi)  第1被告其後登上一部的士，並在某處下車，以便到深水埗賣掉被盜財物；

(xvii)  第1被告沒有任何同謀；

關於控罪3

(xviii)2023年9月25日凌晨約零時至1時，第1被告爬上棚架，經一個沒上鎖的窗戶進入該辦公室，尋找貴重物品；

(xix)  第1被告拿走支票簿，放入褲袋，然後經棚架離開；

(xx)  第1被告在該處所逗留約10分鐘；

(xxi)  第1被告事前從未到過該辦公室；

(xxii)  第1被告沒有任何同謀。

控罪6案發經過（訴第3被告）

(21)  2023年9月28日，警員12680（控方第十證人）與其隊員在旺角上海街627號外面進行返罪惡巡邏，期間控方第十證人看見第3被告形跡可疑。同日下午約1時50分，控方第十證人因此截停第3被告；經搜查，在第3被告手持的黃色紙袋中發現支票簿2。支票簿2的支票全部空白，沒有寫上任何東西，亦沒有簽署。

(22)  於是控方第十證人詢問第3被告是否認識物主。第3被告表示「我唔識佢，本嘢我執返嚟嘅」。基於第3被告的回應，控方第十證人向第3被告施行警誡，並進一步向第3被告查詢他如何得到該支票簿。警誡下，第3被告表示「我喺頭先12點喺旺角唔知邊度執」。第3被告亦再次確認不認識支票簿2的物主。

(23)  同日下午約2時正，控方第十證人拘捕第3被告。

兩名被告人的背景

第1被告

8.第1被告現年35歲，聲稱已婚，曾接受中三程度教育。案發前與母親、後父及弟弟同住；家人均從事送貨工作，第1被告人則無業。2003年至2019年，第1被告任職搭棚工人，收入穩定。第1被告聲稱2019年右手臂骨折，之後無法再繼續搭棚工作，因此失業，需依賴家人接濟。

9.第1被告過往有9個刑事定罪紀錄，涉及17項控罪，其中9項控罪涉及不誠實行為，1項是盜竊，另外8項均為「爆竊」。於DCCC 793/2020中，8項「爆竊」共判處3年8個月（44個月）監禁，於2021年3月3日出獄。

10.第1被告聲稱於2019年初結婚。由於妻子是內地人，未能長期留港，婚後妻子在內地與她和前夫所生的一名10歲女兒同住。妻子已申請來港居留，並於2024年12月獲批來港定居。因第1被告被羈留，未能返回內地親身簽署相關文件，妻子仍未能成行。

第3被告

11.第3被告現年37歲，曾接受中三程度教育。他曾任職散工，但案發時無業。他已婚，育有兩名子女。他有9個刑事定罪紀錄，涉及11項控罪，其中一項（店舖盜竊）涉及不誠實行為。本案被拘捕後，於2024年6月20日至2025日1月7日分別因賭博、毒品及管有違禁武器而被定罪。

量刑原則

「入屋犯法」罪

12.「入屋犯法」是嚴重罪行，最高刑期為14年監禁。上級法庭已就「入屋犯法」罪訂明指引，涉及商業處所的「爆竊」，適當的量刑起點為30個月監禁：R v Wong Man [1993] 1 HKC 80；Secretary for Justice v Tsang Hon Yin [2004] HKCU 1497（CAAR 5/2004, 2004年12月16日，未經彙編）。可是該量刑起點只適用於初犯者及沒有其他加刑或減刑因素的案件：HKSAR v Chan Kong Yiu [2011] 4 HKLRD 291。被告人夥同他人犯案及有類同前科均為加刑因素。

企圖盜竊及盜竊

13.「盜竊」罪最高的刑期為10年監禁；除了違反誠信、信用卡盜竊及扒竊外，沒有量刑指引。

討論

第1被告：控罪1至3

14.大律師強調3項控罪均於2023年9月25日凌晨至清晨時分發生；3項控罪涉及的3個單位外均有棚架；第1被告因利成便爬上棚架進入3個涉單位。第1被告並無夥同他人犯案，亦沒使用重型爆竊工具。各涉案單位內並無存放大量現金或貴重財物，單位內並無任何損壞及損失。大律師指第1被告首先干犯控罪3，但只獲取兩本支票簿，因而再干犯控罪1及 2。控罪1及2是相連單位，因此可說是同一犯罪行為，希望法庭可以下令兩項控罪的刑期同其執行。大律師指被告人適時認罪，可獲三份之一的扣減。

15.首先，本席須衡量每項控罪適當的量刑基準。無可爭議的是第1被告並非初犯；問題是他是否一個專業竊匪及「爆竊」積犯。表面上，第1被告的刑事定罪紀錄顯示他只有一次「爆竊」的定罪紀錄，涉及8項「爆竊」罪名（見刑事定罪紀錄第6項，DCCC  793/2020）。可是從該紀錄的報案號碼可見，不但該案8項控罪的報案號碼不同，亦發生於不同區域（分別為旺角及元朗）。本席參閱DCCC 793/2020的判刑理由書，控方亦將副本提供予辯方作陳述。法官指：

“1. The defendant pleads guilty to eight charges of burglary of non-domestic premises…

2. … In summary the defendant was arrested on 5 April 2020 for the eight burglaries committed in November 2019 and April 2020…

3. The burglaries included schools; a church, an education centre, a beauty salon and a bookshop. …

Charge 1

5. At about 4:40 a.m. on 11 November 2019 the defendant burgled a language school situated on the 4^th floor of President Commercial Centre, Nos. 602-608 Nathan Road in Mong Kok.…

6. The defendant prized open the glass door and metal gate to the language school, ransacked the school and stole nine iPads valued at $36,000.…

Charge 2

8. At about 9:11 p.m. on 12 November 2019 the defendant burgled VNSAA St Hilary’s School in Mong Kok. The padlock of the wooden door to the school was prized open, the security alarm damaged and a classroom ransacked. $18,000 cash; seventeen iPads valued at $70,000; one cheque book and a school stamp were stolen.…

Charge 5

11. In the early hours of 2 April 2020 the defendant burgled the Yuen Long Church on Ping Shun Street.… The church was ransacked and HK$5,949, US$85, seven cheques, one digital camera, two notebook computers and one webcam were stolen. The total value of the stolen goods was $18,912. …

Charge 6

12. In the early hours of 2 April 2020 the defendant burgled the Yuen Long Church (CCC)  Chan Kwong No. 2 Kindergarten which was next to the Yuen Long Church on Ping Shun Street. … Three tablet computers and one digital camera, with a total value of $8,997, were stolen.…

Charge 9

14. In the early hours of 3 April 2020 the defendant burgled “A Salon” situated at Flat B on the 1^st Floor of Siu Ming Building in Yuen Long … $1,000 cash, one television valued at $2,000, one notebook computer valued at $2,000, a company stamp, one cheque book and a bank passbook were stolen. …

Charge 8

17. On the night of 3 April/ morning of 4 April 2020 the defendant burgled “Superior Education Centre Limited” situated at Flat B on the 1^st Floor of No. 140 Castle Peak Road in Yuen Long. … Two computers, two memory sticks, one smartphone, two speakers; four boxes of masks, $400 cash, one waist bag, one trolley, one wallet, one router, one fish tank, one tool bag and four bags were stolen. The total value of the stolen property was $26,600.

Charge 11

19. In the early hours of 5 April 2020 the defendant burgled “Kiu Hong Moxibustion Center” situated on the 2^nd Floor of No. 126 Castle Peak Road in Yuen Long. Scaffolding was erected outside the building which the defendant climbed and entered the center. The center was ransacked and $4,500 cash, four packets of soup mix valued at $272, twenty bottles of supplement valued at $7,000, fifteen packets of dried orange peel valued at $11,250, one lighter valued at $3,000, two bank passbooks, one bank card and one membership card were stolen.

Charge 12

22. In the early hours of 5 April 2020 the defendant burgled “Comic Village” bookshop situated on the 1^st Floor of No. 126 Castle Peak Road in Yuen Long.

23. … The defendant opened the locked cashier and stole $11,000 cash. Forty Blu-ray discs valued at $4,000 were also stolen. …

Mitigation

25. In passing sentence, I have carefully considered the oral and written submissions of Mr Sio, including that the defendant, who is 31, single and a scaffolding worker by trade, lives with his mother who he takes care of.

26. Mr Sio says that the defendant wanting to make quick money because all his savings had been used up committed the burglaries. Mr Sio explains that after the defendant’s business closed down in 2018 the defendant continued working as a scaffolding worker. However due to the social unrest of 2019 he became unemployed. The defendant’s arm was also fractured when he was assaulted trying to stop Sai Yeung Choi Street from being blocked. The defendant was hospitalized for one week and has been unable to work as a scaffolding worker anymore.

27. Mr Sio submits today a mitigation letter written by the defendant in which the defendant details his working history; how he was assaulted; the need to take care of his mother; that he acted out of greed and asks for a lenient sentence. …

Totality

31. Mr Sio accepts that where offences are committed in different premises against different victims on different dates, consecutive sentences should be imposed, subject to the totality principle.. …

32. In my view … Sentence must reflect that the defendant committed eight burglaries, two in November 2019 and six in April 2020…

33. Sentence should also reflect that the burglaries subject of charges 5 and 6 were of adjoining premises and that the burglaries subject of charges 11 and 12 were committed in the same building one after the other. …”

16.顯而易見，雖然當時以一宗案件處理，事實上第1被告是干犯了8宗不同的「爆竊」；該些「爆竊」無論時間、地點、受害人及被竊物品都不同。第1被告亦明顯是一名職業的爆竊者及貫犯。

17.對職業竊匪及/或慣犯，法庭需處以阻嚇性刑罰。

18.於HKSAR v Cheng Chi Shing [2001] HKCU 300, 上訴法庭指：

“9. In the argument for the respondent, Mr Law referred to HKSAR v Chan Pui Chi, (1999)  2 HKLRD 830 where Stuart-Moore VP said at p.833:-

“Whilst it is always important for the sentencer to bear in mind the general principle that a defendant is being sentenced for the offence which has brought him before the court and not for previous offences for which he has already served the penalty, the constant repetition of this applicant’s trafficking in dangerous drugs had itself increased the gravity of these offences, at least so far as sentence is concerned. The sentences he had received in the past had proved to be no deterrent at all, and prevention of further repetition was demonstrably in the public interest.”

We should add that there is nothing original about the notion that a defendant, with previous convictions of the same or a similar kind as the offence for which he is due to be sentenced, may receive a longer sentence than a defendant with none. If it were otherwise, the man of good character standing next to the recidivist in the dock on a joint charge, with equal culpability for the crime, would plainly have to be sentenced to the same terms of imprisonment subject probably to a small reduction in the case of the former to take account of his good character.”

The judgment went on to look at examples where offences are aggravated, for the purposes of sentence, by repetition before Stuart-Moore VP said:-

“There are many examples of this kind to be made, and trafficking in dangerous drugs is certainly no exception, if indeed there are any exceptions, to the general rule that re-offending in the same or similar way may aggravate the offence, at least so far as sentence is concerned. This will have the result that the starting point which would have been adopted for a man of good character will sometimes need to be increased to take into account the aggravating features of persistence and the failure of previous sentences to deter on the one hand, and the court’s duty to protect the public on the other. The court, in other words, is passing a deterrent sentence on the persistent offender, from whom the public needs protection, which is often unnecessary on a first or even sometimes a second-time offender. Much may depend on the gravity of the crime. The graver the crime, the more obvious becomes the need for a deterrent sentence on repetition in order that the public are properly protected.”

10. In the matter before us, the judge properly took into account that the gravity of the offence was increased, so far as the applicant's sentence was concerned, by the fact that he had four previous convictions of burglary. We are satisfied that the judge was not in error in finding three years and four months to be an appropriate starting point. We are satisfied that the sentence is neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.”

19.於HKSAR v Chan Kwong Chun [2009] HKCU 345，被告人於一個商業處所爆竊時被拘捕。他承認控罪。被告人有11次「爆竊」及2次「外出時備有偷竊用的物品」的刑事定罪紀錄。原審法官認為被告人是一名職業爆竊者，以3年半監禁作為量刑基準，考慮到被告人認罪及其他求情因素後，判處被告人28個月監禁。被告人不服判刑，提出上訴。上訴法庭指：

“5. There is no doubt that the judge in this case was entitled to increase the starting point. The applicant had a very bad record. He had been convicted of 11 burglaries and two for going equipped for theft. On 11 occasions he had been sentenced to imprisonment for terms ranging from 8 months to 3 years.

6. There is no arithmetic formula for the enhancement of sentences. It is a matter of judgment for the sentencing judge. On this occasion it is plain that the judge considered the applicant to be a professional burglar who was a menace to society. We think he was perfectly entitled to come to this view and make a meaningful increase in the starting point as a deterrent. An increase of 12 months in all the circumstances was perfectly reasonable.”

20.於HKSAR v Fan Kit Hung （范傑雄）[2009] 6 HKC 314，上訴法庭指：

“5. We have been referred to a large number of cases involving multiple burglaries of non-domestic premises commencing with Secretary for Justice v Chan Tsz Lung [1998] 4 HKC 496, CAAR 4/1998, … which involved 15 charges of burglary and one charge of possession of an offensive weapon. This court (differently constituted)  allowed the application for review and in doing so approved, in respect of the burglary offences, a notional starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment reduced, because of the pleas, to a totality of 46 months’ imprisonment (increased by a further 6 months for the weapons offence).

6. However, as we understand that decision, the court in Chan Tsz Lung was not purporting to place an upper limit on the totality of sentence for multiple burglary offences. That quite simply could not be so given the variation in circumstances and aggravating factors possible.

7. In subsequent cases involving multiple offences of burglary of non-domestic premises, which raised questions concerning the appropriate totality of sentence, similar or even higher notional starting points have been approved by this court in circumstances involving far fewer offences: see HKSAR v Xie Guohong [2004] HKCU 313 ; (CACC 384/2003, unreported); HKSAR v Lui Cho Yiu [2004] HKCU 1064 ; (CACC 81/2004, unreported)  and HKSAR v Cheng Wai Kai [2008] HKCU 932 ; (CACC 338/2007, unreported). From those cases and others we were referred to during argument it is apparent that there is an increasing appreciation of the need for deterrent sentences for offenders who are professional or serial burglars.

8. So far as sentence is concerned, much will depend on the aggravating circumstances of the individual case. However where the facts reveal the offender to be a professional burglar then that is plainly an aggravating factor and, where several offences are also involved, the totality of sentence would, depending on other factors, often reflect a notional starting point of more than 5 years’ imprisonment.

9. Those other factors were illustrated in Cheng Wai Kai by Yeung JA at para 15 where he said:

“The starting point can be adjusted upwards if there are aggravating circumstances such as; (1)  the offence is carefully planned and skilfully executed involving the use of heavy instruments or equipment; (2)  the offence is committed by two or more people; (3)  the offence targets substantial premises and involves substantial properties; (4)  the offender is a professional burglar and not just an opportunist; (5)  the offender has previous convictions, particularly previous convictions of a similar nature, and (6)  the offender commits multiple offences.””

21.於HKSAR v Chan Kong Yiu（陳江耀）[2011] HKCU 1498，被告人涉及兩宗不同的案件，即DCCC 906/2010及DCCC  500/2010。於DCCC 906/2010中，被告人承認爆竊一個商業處所，被判處監禁20個月。原審法官下令該刑期與DCCC 500/2010的42個月刑期分期執行，即總刑期為62個月監禁。被告人不服判刑，提出上訴許可申請。上訴法庭指：

“6. … Having heard submissions, we took the view that the sentence imposed on the applicant, far from being manifestly excessive, was in fact inadequate to reflect the seriousness of the offences that the applicant had committed.

7. We took the view the applicant’s overall sentence should be 68 months. We therefore granted leave to appeal and treating the application as the appeal proper, we allowed the appeal by increasing the applicant’s sentence to 68 months. …

36. The applicant was clearly a professional burglar. He had 6 previous convictions, all for burglaries committed between 1986 and 1997. Of course, the applicant committed another burglary in 2003.

37. The Court of Appeal had indicated again, in HKSAR v Wu Chi Tai, Kennis (unreported CACC 256 & 257/2010), the need for deterrent sentences for offenders who are professional or serial burglars. Hartmann JA said in paragraph 23 of the judgment:

“It is also apparent, as this Court (differently constituted)  noted in HKSAR v Fan Kit Hung … that there is an increasing appreciation of the need for deterrent sentences for offenders who are professional or serial burglars.” …

39. A 30-month starting point for non-domestic burglary is suitable for one without any special aggravating feature, and in particular, normally only for a 1^st offender.

40. The burglary in DCCC 906 /2010 was quite a bad case when the applicant burgled an office unit by first prizing open the metal grille of the building on the ground floor and then the metal shutter of the unit. The applicant was clearly well equipped as he was able to cut open two safes. We could not ignore the fact that the applicant, by then, had already had 6 previous convictions for burglary.

41. We wish to echo what McMahon J emphasized in Fan Kit Hung (supra)  at para 7 of the judgment:

“From those cases and others we were referred to during argument it is apparent that there is an increasing appreciation of the need for deterrent sentences for offenders who are professional or serial burglars.”

42. We were of the view that the starting point for the burglary offence in DCCC 906/2010 should be 3½ years’ imprisonment. With the guilty pleas, the sentence in DCCC 906/2010 should be 28 months’ imprisonment.”

22.本席不接受第1被告是因只獲取兩本支票簿（控罪3）才干犯控罪1及2。從DCCC 793/2020的案情可見，第1被告是專門偷竊電子產品、銀行存摺及支票簿的竊匪。於控罪3中，他已偷取兩本支票簿，目的已達，但仍繼而干犯控罪1及2。

23.本席同意第1被告沒有帶備或使用任何工具，但這只顯示沒有這一方面的加刑因素。本席接受第1被告沒於受害處所造成任何損毁，但不同意受害處所沒有損失。該說法與承認事實南轅北轍。另外，第1被告於DCCC 793/2020被判處共44個月監禁，但這對他似乎沒有阻嚇性。他於2021年3月刑滿出獄，但兩年多後又再干犯相同控罪。

24.案發時，第1被告已有8項「爆竊」控罪的定罪紀錄。本席認為每項控罪適當的初步量刑基準為3年半監禁（即42個月監禁）。

減刑因素

25.第1被告適時認罪，可獲三分一的扣減，每項控罪的刑期減為28個月監禁。

26.第1被告聲稱於2019年與居於內地的妻子結婚並有一名10歲的繼女。本席不接受該說法。DCCC 793/2020的判刑日期是2021年3月3日。當時第1被告的大律師指第1被告未婚。於認證供詞內，第1被告聲稱未婚。況且，眾所周知，面對嚴重控罪時，被告人的個人及家庭背景及判刑對家人的影響均並非減刑原因。因此，就算本席接受第1被告的說法也不會影響判刑。

27.大律師亦指，第1被告因右臂骨折而無法從事搭棚工作，因遇到經濟困難才干犯本案。本席亦不接受該說法。大律師承認第1被告是徒手攀爬受害處所外的棚架犯案。從案情及閉路電視片段，可見，第1被告得手後，拿著被盜物品攀爬棚架離開。換言之，就算是手持有重量的物件（包括3部相機、一部手提電腦、一部筆記簿型電腦、兩部手提電話、一個音樂揚聲器、一個散熱器及一對波鞋等），第1被告於棚架上仍來去自如。再者，眾所周知，經濟困難並非減刑因素。因此就算本席接受辯方的說法，對刑期亦沒有影響。

28.本案中，除了適時認罪外，並無其他減刑因素。每項控罪的刑期為28個月監禁。

總刑期

29.大律師指3項控罪的時間及地點相近，法庭應將3項控罪視為同一犯罪行為。該陳述完全是違反案例及判刑原則。

30.於HKSAR v Ngai Yiu Ching（倪耀偵） [2011] 6 HKC 238，上訴法庭指：

“(1)  When a judge was faced with the task of sentencing for multiple offences, he was required as an initial step to identify the appropriate sentence for each offence and as the final step to achieve a total sentence appropriate to the culpability of the offender. In the case of several offences committed in the course of a single episode, the prosecuting authority might choose to proffer only one charge, where one charge embraced all the criminal conduct reflected by the evidence, or separate charges for each criminal act. If it chose the former course, the instances of proved conduct embraced by the single charge but which could have been the subject of separate charges were taken into account in deciding what penalty reflected the true overall criminality. If it elected the latter course, namely, to charge two or more offences arising from an episode of criminal activity, the objective was still the same; that is to say, the ultimate overall sentence must still reflect the overall and true culpability, although the sentencing judge must take care, first, to pass a sentence for each individual offence that was appropriate to that offence and the circumstances of its commission and, second, not to punish the offender twice for the same conduct.

(2)  The ‘one transaction’ rule that concurrent sentences should be imposed for offences arising from one transaction or course of criminal conduct was not developed as an inflexible rule of law. It was never intended as anything more than a practical rule of thumb to guide judges in the exercise of the power to impose consecutive sentences so that the final sentence was not one that was unfair to an offender. Departure from such practical working rule did not inevitably mean that the sentence imposed on the accused was excessive. The real point was not whether two or more offences were committed at about the same time, but whether the second or other further offences added to the culpability or criminality of the first. Whatever sentence was arrived at after application of the rule was still subject to the totality principle.…

(3)  The importance of the totality principle could not be overstated. It was there to ensure not only fairness to the offender, in the sense that he was not punished twice for the same offence and that the sentence was not an unduly crushing punishment but it was also a tool by which to ensure that ‘the overall effect of the sentences is sufficient having regard to the usual principles of deterrence, rehabilitation and denunciation… The emphasis therefore should be on a reflection in the sentence of true culpability disclosed by the offences of which the accused had been convicted. It was likely to be a more effective approach in reflecting an offender’s overall culpability than one which became overly concerned with the one transaction rule, although in the case of more than one offence, the court must guard carefully against punishing twice for the same act. If the second offence which took place in the course of the suggested single episode added to the culpability of the first offence, it would normally follow that the sentence for the second offence would run wholly or partially consecutive to that for the first; to what extent, if at all, would depend upon an assessment of the totality appropriate for the conduct as a whole …”

31.於Attorney General v Lui Kam Chi [1993] 1 HKC 215，被告人承認三項「爆竊」罪，每項控罪被判處共 15 個月監禁，同期執行。律政司司長不滿判刑，提出刑期覆核。上訴法庭指：

“7. In relation to multiple offences, the proper approach, which was not disputed … for the respondent, was stated by Barker JA in R v Tong Hoi-Fung 1988 1 HKLR 610, 611I-J in the following way:

“This court has said time and time again that where there is more than one offence of a similar nature committed at different times, it is right for the court to award a higher sentence than if there had been only one offence. We cannot accede to … submission that we should treat the sentences concurrently.”

The offences were committed in different premises against different victims on different dates. Clearly, they cannot be regarded as part of the same transaction. We can see no justification for concurrent sentences.”

32.無可爭議的是，第1被告於同一晚內連環爆竊3個不同的商業處所。於短時間內連環犯案，不但並非減刑因素，反而是加刑因素（見上文案例）。雖然時間相近，該3項控罪涉及不同的地點、受害人及被竊物品，刑期理應分期執行。可是本席必須考慮總刑期的原則。本席認為適當的總刑期為5年監禁，扣除認罪折扣後，總刑期減至40個月監禁。本席下令判處第1被告：

控罪1： 28個月監禁

控罪2： 28個月監禁，其中6個月與控罪1分期執行；

控罪3： 28個月監禁，其中6個月與控罪1及控罪2分期執行。

即總刑期為40個月監禁。

第3被告：控罪6

33.大律師指第3被告只是「拾遺不報」，要求本席考慮以短期監禁作為量刑起點。大律師承認第3被告於2007年有一項「店舖盜竊」的刑事定罪紀錄，其餘的8項刑事定罪紀錄均與本案不類同。

34.大律師援引HKSAR v Tumendelger Byambadelger CACC  247/2015及HKSAR v Nyamdoo Zoljargal CACC 54/2016。該兩件案例的案情與本案截然不同，要求法庭作出比較根本不切實際。

35.涉案物品為一本支票簿。本席不接納可隨地拾獲支票簿。就算地上發現支票簿，支票簿對他人全無價值；一個合理守法的人也不會拾起及保留。大律師亦承認第3被告盜竊該支票簿是心懐不軌。考慮到第3被告的背景及整體案情，本席認為適當的量刑起點為3個月監禁。第3被告適時認罪，可獲三分一的扣減，即刑期減為2個月監禁，緩刑2年。