香港特別行政區 訴 羅群英及另一人

HCMA513/2008

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2008年第513號

(原荃灣裁判法院案件2008年第1485號)

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

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

審理法官：高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官潘敏琦

聆訊日期：2008年7月30日

裁決日期：2008年7月30日

判 案 書

1.兩名上訴人在裁判官席前承認一項盜竊控罪，各被判處入獄6 個月。兩人現不滿判刑，提出上訴。

2.案情指她們受僱在涉案地盤任職清潔工人。案發當日，一名電器技工點算地盤的電線時，見她們把卷著的100 米長價值500 元的電線放入一個箱內，偷竊該電線。

上訴理由

3.上訴理由現綜合概述如下。裁判官沒有充份考慮兩名為家庭經濟及生活支柱的上訴人今次是初犯、失物價值不高而事主沒有實際損失、兩人犯案手法簡單直接，錯誤以地盤盜竊罪即使並非日益猖獗但情況亦不算少，把起刑點大幅提高至9 個月，屬原則性犯錯及明顯過重。另外兩名上訴人的子女均分別撰寫求情信予法庭，希望法庭可對上訴人從輕法落。

答辯人回應

4.答辯人指裁判官已考慮了兩名上訴人在干犯本案前並沒有刑事紀錄及兩人的家庭狀況，但她們偷取僱主物品，雖然被盜竊的物品價值不高且已物歸原主，但涉及夥同犯案及違反誠信，案情情節嚴重，加上以裁判官經驗之談，僱員在地盤內干犯的盜竊罪情況普遍，故判處阻嚇性刑罰，實屬恰當。

判決

5.本席首先處理罪行猖獗性一點。

6.裁判官說：

「…. 從法庭的經驗來看，地盤內由僱員所犯的盜竊案，雖不說很猖獗，但情況也不算很少。本席認為為了保障公眾利益，有關的量刑須起阻嚇作用——其阻嚇作用除了針對兩名被告外，也針對其他有著兩名被告同樣犯罪想法的人。」

7.高嘉楽法官在HKSAR v. Duong Duc Phong, HCMA284/2001一案中指出：

“… There is, however, a principle that a sentence may be imposed where the offence is one which is prevalent in a particular area or of a particular prevalent nature.  That is not a deterrence to a particular individual but a general deterrence in respect of the commission of that type of offence or an offence in that particular area. …

The magistrate, I am satisfied, would know the frequency of this type of offence in this type of store in that area.  It is that prevalence which he took as an aggravating factor, not the individual circumstances of the appellant. …”

8.雖然，Wright DJ(當時官階)在HKSAR v. Wang Fang-ling, HCMA635/2002曾說：

“      The magistrate recorded that this offence is one that is prevalent and that the place where this offence occurred is notorious for offences of this nature.  Those are matters to which he is fully entitled to have regard.  It is well settled that a magistrate may properly have regard to situations which prevail in his area of jurisdiction.  Nothing more than that was done in this instance.  The magistrate sits in Court 1 of this magistracy on a daily basis.  He is entitled to rely on his daily experience.”

9.Barnes DJ(當時官階)在HKSAR v.Li Yik-ming and others, HCMA207/2001亦道明：

“… The learned magistrate is a very experienced magistrate, having sat at the Western Magistracy for a long period of time.  I would be slow to say that he did not know whether a particular offence was prevalent or not. …”

10.本席不認為裁判官須長駐同一裁判法院或必須是第一庭的主任裁判官才能決定某控罪是否日益猖獗，並以此為量刑基礎。

11.就違反誠信案件， 上訴法庭在HKSAR v. Lam Wai Hung, CACC5/2006指出:

“… It is true that whilst the sums involved are important, they are not the sole consideration and that included in the matters to be taken into account are the quality and degree of trust reposed in the offender, including his rank; the period over which the fraud or thefts have taken place; the use to which the money dishonestly appropriated has been put; and the applicant’s own history. …”

12.本案所涉物品價值500 元，遠較其他違反誠信案件如香港特別行政區訴莊偉傑，HCMA48/2003及HKSAR v. Law Tak Him, HCMA533/2003為低：前者共涉2,900 元，後者則涉94,360 元。

13.本案屬一次性事件，莊偉傑案涉地產經紀三次欺骗僱主佣金的不誠實作為，而Law Tak Him案則涉售貨員偽造17 張支票、覆蓋約8 個月時間的不誠實作為；該兩案上訴人均承認控罪，分別被判處6 個月和5 個月監禁。上訴刑期被駁回。

14.本案無論在金額、僱主對上訴人的誠信要求程度、上訴人在僱傭架構中所佔的位置、不誠實作為的次數及覆蓋期間，均低於上述兩案，而兩人是打算變賣物品幫補家計。即使兩人夥同犯案及有關罪行的普及性須予以具阻嚇作用的量刑，9 個月的起刑點實較諸案情更為嚴竣的案件之刑期為高。本席認為一個3 個月的起刑點是合適的，認罪後刑期應為兩個月。

15.本席下令上訴得直，刑期擱置，改判兩個月監禁。

控方：  由律政司高級檢控官陳詩韻代表香港特別行政區

辯方：  第一被告人無律師代表，親自出庭

由法律援助署委託梁錦濤關學林律師行轉聘劉耀勤大律師代表第二被告人