|
HCMA138/2006
香港特別行政區
高等法院原訟法庭
刑事上訴司法管轄權
減刑上訴
案件編號 ：裁判法院上訴案件2006年第138號
(原九龍城裁判法院案件2005年第8080號)
------------------------------
-------------------
主審法官 ： 高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官彭偉昌
聆訊日期 ： 2006年4月11日
裁決日期 ： 2006年4月11日
判案理由書 ： 2006年4月24日
判 案 理 由 書
1.上訴人經認罪後被裁定兩項「盜竊」罪成立，分別處入獄12 個月及6 個月，其中的三個月同期執行，即合共15 個月。上訴人不服，現就刑期提出上訴。
2.以下是上訴人認罪時所承認的事實 (原文以英文書寫) ：
| “ |
At former time (1), PW1 was shopping in location (1) with his girl friend. While they were shopping, deft.2-3 kept jostling vtm. on three occasions without any good reason. PW1 became suspicious and paid attention on deft.2-3. At latte time (1), PW1 found the zip of his shoulder bag was opened. Upon checking, PW1 found his wallet (exh.1) missing and suspected that it was stolen by deft.2-3. PW1 immediately informed the card centre to cancel the stolen credit cards and continued with his shopping. At time (2), PW1 came across deft.2-3 in location (2), who were together with deft.1. PW1 then kept surveillance on them and saw deft.2 took a leather jacket (exh.2) from a rack, put it on herself and left location (2) with deft.1 & 3 and without paying for exh.2. PW1 became confident that his wallet was stolen by deft.2-3 and made a report. PW1 then followed deft.2-3 and saw deft.2 passed exh.(2) to deft.1. Shortly afterwards, PW3-5 attended scene and arrested deft.1-3, who denied the offence under caution. Upon searching by PW3, exh.1 was found inside the rear left pocket of deft.1’s trousers. In addition, exh.2 was found inside deft.1’s carrier bag (exh.3). Enquiry was then conducted at location (2) and the staff PW2 confirmed that exh.(2) belonged to her shop and had not been sold. Deft.1-3 were then taken back to Tsimshatsui police station for further enquiry and were later charged with the offence accordingly.” |
3.上文提到的「deft.2」，即本案的上訴人。
4.對於判刑理由，裁判官則有以下說明，原文見裁判官的書面判詞 ：
| 「 |
很明顯兩件案件都是有計劃、有組織的行動，亦在同一商場、短短一個小時內發生，這令本案案情比普通店舖盜竊或扒竊嚴重。 |
| |
第一控罪是發生於公眾場所的扒竊案，在尖沙咀一帶遊人眾多的購物區極為猖獗，因此，上訴庭一再指出，此等罪行的量刑起點，就是初犯者，亦應處12-15 個月監禁。 |
| |
本席認為本案的第一控罪是有組織、有計劃的行動，所以應採納比較高的18個月監禁量刑起點。基於同樣理由，第二控罪亦不能以普通機會主義犯罪一方法處理；更有見此罪在第一控罪發生後約1小時內發生，故亦宜採用較高的量刑起點。經考慮兩案的案情之下，本席決定採納9 個月監禁為量刑起點，由於被告認罪，故分別下調至12 個月及6 個月。 |
| |
被告祇有22歲，祖籍哈爾濱，在本地並無案底。 |
| |
根據被告律師的陳情，被告犯事，是一時貪心所致。從被告犯案的模式，本席對此說法，有所保留。但就是本席接納其所言，這點亦非有效的求情理由。但有見被告的年紀及無案底這些因素，以及考慮到總量刑原則之下，本席下令第二控罪的三個月監禁，與第一控罪分期。是故被告應服的刑期，合為15 個月。」 |
5.本席認為，裁判官的判刑理由充份。相反，上訴人在我席前聲稱自己年幼無知，容易受他人擺佈，卻又否認本案乃有組織、有計劃的行為，實在自相矛盾，而且明顯與所承認的事實不符。
6.上訴駁回。
控方 ： 由律政司高級政府律師何眉語代表香港特別行政區
辯方 ： 無律師代表，親自出庭
|