香港特別行政區 訴 江雲華
Read the full judgment text of CACC 207/2006 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 9 November 2006 before 袁家寧.
Criminal law – burglary – sentencing – leave to appeal against sentence – two counts of burglary committed shortly after release from prison, one during the bail period for the other – guilty plea – whether sentencing starting points were manifestly excessive – whether Leung Tong & Another [2001] 1 HKLRD 526 was directly comparable. The applicant, who had a prior burglary conviction, was released from prison and on 10 December 2005 burgled a housing estate management office. While on bail, on 14 February 2006 he burgled a dwelling and stole a mobile phone, cash, and a ring worth over HK$3,000. He pleaded guilty in the District Court to two counts of burglary and was sentenced by Deputy District Judge 沈智慧 to a total of 3.5 years' imprisonment, comprising 2 years on the first charge and 3 years on the third charge, with 1.5 years of the third-charge sentence to run concurrently. The sentencing judge adopted 3 years as the starting point for the first charge and 4.5 years for the third charge, uplifted from the usual 3-year starting point for residential burglary because of the aggravating features of the offence. The applicant sought leave to appeal, contending that the offender in Leung Tong & Another [2001] 1 HKLRD 526 was a professional burglarger acting in concert, and that the applicant's starting point should accordingly be lower. Held, dismissing the application: Leung Tong was distinguishable because the offender in that case had not committed residential burglary and had not reoffended while on bail. The uplift in starting point to 4.5 years for the third charge was justified by the applicant's persistence in similar offending shortly after release from prison and his commission of the third charge while on bail for the first. The overall sentence of 3.5 years was not manifestly excessive or contrary to sentencing principles. Leave to appeal refused, with the applicant notified of his right to renew the application before the Court of Appeal, which retains power to increase the sentence or order a deduction of time.
Legal issues: Whether sentence for two counts of burglary was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle
Outcome: Leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Cites 1 case
|
CACC 207/2006 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 刑事司法管轄權 刑罰上訴許可申請 刑事上訴案件2006年第207號 （原區域法院刑事案件2006年第273號）
主審法官 ： 高等法院上訴法庭法官袁家寧 聆訊日期 ： 2006年11月9日 判決日期： 2006年11月9日 判決 上訴法庭法官袁家寧： 1.區域法院沈智慧暫委法官在2006年5月6日就兩項入屋犯法罪，經申請人認罪後，判申請人入獄一共3年半，即就第一項控罪判兩年監禁，而就第三項控罪判3年監禁，其中1½ 年與第一項控罪監禁期同時執行。 2.案情顯示2005年12月10日，申請人被發現進入了一屋苑的管理員更衣室，並試圖盜竊管理員的財物。申請人被拘捕後，警方給予保釋。 3.但申請人在保釋期間，於2006年2月14日犯了第三項控罪，即進入民居，盜竊居住者的財物，包括手機、現金，戒指等，價值一共超過$3,000。 4.原審時，申請人認罪。 5.案發時申請人是剛從監獄釋放，而他所犯的罪，正正又是入屋犯法罪，他是被判入獄共3½ 年。 6.申請人剛獲釋放後，則再次兩度入屋犯法，顯示他不知悔改，再次干犯本案，所以原審法官以較高的量刑基準判刑。就第一項控罪，她以3年為量刑基準，而就第三項控罪，雖然原審法官知悉一般入民居爆竊罪的量刑基準是3年監禁，但原審法官則鑑於申請人再次干犯同類案件，更是在第一項控罪的保釋期間再次犯法，所以以4½ 年為量刑基準。 7.申請人現申請上訴許可。他援引Leung Tong & Another [2001] 1 HKLRD 526一案（即原審法官判刑理由書中所援引的案例）。該案中的犯人亦是再次犯上同類罪行，而他是專業爆竊賊人，更是兩人一起行動，而所得到的財物較為貴重。法庭以4年為量刑基準，所以申請人聲稱他的量刑基準應比Leung Tong案中的犯人較輕。 8.本席不認同申請人說法。Leung Tong一案的犯人並不是爆竊民居，而犯人亦並不是在保釋期間再次犯案。本席不認為本案判刑明顯過重或違反判刑原則。本席駁回申請人的上訴許可申請。現通知申請人，他有權向上訴法庭重新申請針對判刑的上訴許可，但上訴法庭有權將判刑加重或命令扣時。
申請人：無律師代表，親自應訊。 答辯人：由律政司高級政府律師梁燊頤代表。 |
Cases cited in this judgment