香港特別行政區訴張琦

Case No.HCMA 170/2006

Court

High Court CFI

Date—

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCMA170/2006

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170號

(原屯門裁判法院案件2006年第250號)

------------------------------

	香港特別行政區
	訴
被告人	張琦

-------------------

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19日

裁決日期：2006年4月19日

判案理由書日期：2006年5月4日

判案理由書

1.上訴人經認罪後被裁定一項「對他人身體加以嚴重傷害」罪成立，違反香港法例第212 章《侵害人身罪條例》第19 條，處入獄10 個月，與現有的18 個月刑期分期執行。上訴人不服，現就判刑提出上訴。

2.以下是上訴人所承認的事實 (原文以英文寫成) ：

“PW1 and D are serving their sentence at the same dormitory of A/L. At above time while PW1 and other prisoners were taking a rest at the canteen of A/L after lunch and PW2-3 were on duty inside the said canteen. PW2 saw D holding a piece of stone (Exh.1) and walking towards the middle of the canteen. Knowing that something might happen, PW2 immediately shouted D to stop but in vain as PW2 saw D hit the head of PW1 with the stone from behind for two to three times already. PW2 immediately dashed towards and subdued D with assistance of PW3. PW1 was sent for medical treatment and was treated by PW4. A report was made and D was arrested by PW5 and Exh.1 was seized by PW6. Under caution, D stated that as he had a dispute with PW1 over the noise caused by PW1, he therefore assaulted him (Exh.2).

2. When interviewed by PW6 under caution (Exh.3) with assistance of the interpreter (PW7), D stated that as he had been bullied by PW1 and other inmates of the same dormitory in the past few days, he therefore attacked PW1 with a piece of stone.

3. Medical finding of PW1 are as follows (Exh.4):

- Linear laceration 2cm & 1.5cm long each over the vertex

- 1.5cm laceration over right temporal region

- 1.5cm x 2cm haematoma over the vertex of head

- 2 dots abrasion over right eyebrow

- A dot of abrasion over left middle finger

- 2cm long peeling off skin of right forearm

- 2cm long abrasion over right foot

- 1.5cm long abrasion at right foot with a dot abrasion between the 1^st & 2^nd toe of left foot

(Admitted into QE Custodial Ward & discharged on 2006-01-10)”

3.至於判刑理由，裁判官則有以下的說明 (原文見裁判官的書面判詞) ：

「3. 上訴人現年43 歲，正因非法入境罪服刑18 個月。他已離婚，子女與前妻生活。

4. 本席認為在服刑期間襲擊其他囚犯是嚴重罪行，加上上訴人當時以石頭為武器，蓄意使受害人受嚴重傷害，應該重判。姑念受害人沒有永久傷殘，只須留院兩天，所以本席以15 個月為判刑起點，上訴人認罪可獲減刑5 個月，故判他入獄10 個月。

5. 本案與上訴人現時服刑的罪行沒有任何關係，也沒有值得寬大的減刑理由。所以，本席判這10 個月與上訴人現行的刑期分期執行。」

4.最後，上訴人所持的上訴理由，翻來覆去的都不外事主阻礙他休息，他向懲教署人員投訴又不受理，反而遭事主得悉而準備向他暴力報復，所以他才決定先發制人。

5.然而，上訴人所言者都不是有效的上訴理由，而且與他所承認的事實並不完全吻合。

6.總括而言，本案的判刑並無問題，這是本席的判斷。上訴駁回。

(彭偉昌)
高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官

控方：由律政司政府律師曾藹琪代表香港特別行政區

辯方：無律師代表，親自出庭

香港特別行政區 訴 張琦

香港特別行政區訴張琦