香港特別行政區 訴 Cortes Ramon Miguel

HCMA 858/2011

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2011年第858號

(原九龍城裁判法院案件2011年第4344號)

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

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

主審法官：高等法院原訟法庭法官張慧玲

聆訊日期：2012年3月1日

裁決日期：2012年3月1日

判案理由書日期：2012年3月6日

判 案 理 由 書

背景

1.上訴人被控3 項盜竊罪，違反香港法例第210 章《盜竊罪條例》第9 條 。上訴人承認所有控罪， 被裁判官判處監禁16 個月。

2.上訴人不服判刑，提出上訴。本席在聆訊後駁回上訴。以下是本席的理由。

承認案情

3.本案涉及上訴人在不同日期向3 名受害人偷竊，按時序是控罪 (三)、控罪 (二) 及控罪 (一)。

4.答辯人代表署理高級檢控官吳穎軒大律師將案情撮要列出。本席沿用如下：

「 控罪三

4. 於2011 年10 月2 日約下午5 時，受害人在廣東道新港中心的美食廣場坐下，把她的背包放在背後的椅上。到了約下午6 時，她打算離開時，發覺背包不見了。閉路電視錄影顯示是上訴人取去了其背包。背包內放了多項物品 (包括受害人的身份證、現金、回鄉咭、銀行咭等)，共值約港幣 1,126 元。這些失物均無法尋回。

控罪二

5. 於2011 年10 月13 日約下午4 時半，受害人與他的友人光顧位於麼地道的海景嘉福酒店內之Tiffany Bar。受害人把他的背包放在背後的椅上。到了約下午6 時44 分，受害人發覺背包不見了。閉路電視錄影顯示是上訴人取去了。背包內放了多項物品 (包括受害人的身份證、筆記本電腦、銀包、銀行咭及存摺等)，共值約港幣 20,000 元。這些失物均無法尋回。

控罪一

6. 於2011 年11 月11 日，受害人與家人光顧位於廣東道的海港城的Panash Bakery & Café，並把她的手袋放在她身旁的一部嬰兒車之上，未有加以留意。同日晚上約8時20 分，上訴人手持受害人的手袋，在北京道與漢口道交界處被警方截停查問。上訴人承認他較早前在Panash Bakery & Café內偷走了受害人的手袋。受害人的手袋內放了多項物品 (包括受害人的身份證、銀行咭及手提電話等)，共值約港幣 9,302 元，失物亦被尋回。」

上訴人的背景及求情陳詞

5.上訴人並無刑事定罪紀錄。他65 歲，離了婚，做成衣貿易生意。他來港原是為了找貨源做生意，但他花光了他的錢，故此鋌而走險犯案。

判刑理由

6.裁判官考慮到上訴人一而再、再而三地在短時間內干犯了3 項盜竊罪；3 件案件都是在尖沙咀遊客眾多的地方發生。上訴人的行事手法，有一定程度上的「專業」，而偷走的財物總值超過港幣30,000 元，並非小數目。裁判官亦肯定上訴人偷走受害人的個人證件及銀行咭等，會為受害人帶來相當的麻煩和不便。裁判官指他並無忽略上訴人過往在香港並無任何刑事定罪記錄，而控罪 (一) 的失物亦被尋回；上訴人亦承認了罪行，表明悔意。

7.裁判官認為上訴人的犯案手法是屬扒竊 (pickpocketing)形式的盜竊罪。在考慮案情後，裁判官決定採取具阻嚇力的判刑方式來處理。

8.裁判官認為判同期執行的刑期是較為恰當的，並採用了一個比處理單一控罪較高的量刑起點來作為3 項控罪的共同量刑起點，即24 個月監禁。裁判官在給予上訴人三份之一的認罪扣減後，判處上訴人每項控罪監禁16 個月，同期執行。

上訴理由

9.上訴人代表孔慶碩大律師依賴案例Ngo Van Huy[1]，指即使是屬3 項控罪的共同量刑起點，裁判官採納24 個月是明顯偏離Ngo Van Huy的量刑指引。他的論點是以單一控罪而言，每項控罪在加上在遊客旺區行事此加刑因素，刑期應為15 個月，因此裁判官採納24 個月為總體量刑起點是過重。

10.孔大律師亦引用曹均華[2] (譯音) 及盧清輝[3] (譯音) 案例，指裁判官考慮整體刑期起點此舉正確，但起點過高。

11.孔大律師指無論刑期是同期或分期執行，總刑期起點應不超過18 個月，恰當的刑期是12 個月。

答辯人回應

12.答辯人同樣依賴Ngo Van Huy案例，並引用依賴趙雪儀[4] 及劉林峰[5]案例，指每項的量刑起點是18 個月，而非15 個月。以上訴人涉及3 宗控罪，16 個月監禁並非明顯過重。

法律原則

13.就扒竊罪，上訴法庭在Ngo Van Huy一案訂下了判刑指引如下 (判詞第9 段)：

“…

(1) Theft by pickpocketing can be regarded as the type of offence that society severely and rightly condemns. Although in many cases, the value of the items stolen may not amount to much, the significant degree of inconvenience, the relative case with which it can be effected by a direct invasion of or about the person and privacy of those minding their business in public places, and the adverse reputation that this type of crime collectively brings upon a city makes this offence a particularly serious one. It is one which attracts, justifiably in our view, a heavy penalty.

(2) The guideline sentence of 12‑15 months after trial is therefore appropriate for a first time offender. This is an immediate custodial sentence, not a suspended one.

(3) Of course, account must be taken of the existence of any aggravating, or particular mitigating, features before the court.

(4) Aggravating features include : ‑

(a) The presence or use of a weapon (such as a razor‑blade or knife used to cut open, say a handbag or, worse still, intended to be used on the victim) : ‑ see Vy Van Kien.

(b) Where the offence is committed in a place in which the public is at particular risk, such as crowded places like the MTR or the racecourse, crowded shopping areas where the pedestrian traffic is heavy.

(c) If the accused commits the offence in conjunction with another, the sentence should be higher. Where he is part of an organized and professional ring of thieves a substantial increase in sentence may be called for : see HKSAR v Rang Zhi Tai and Another, unreported, HCMA 7/1999, 25 March 1999, Court of First Instance; HKSAR v Ho Minh Cong, unreported, HCMA 547/1999, 23 September 1999, Court of First Instance. For example, where professional pickpockets from overseas (whether individually or in a group) come to Hong Kong to carry out this type of activity (no doubt tempting owing to the number of crowded places here), an increased sentence can be imposed : ‑ see R v Saldana Alca Jose and Another, unreported, CACC 655/1996, 19 August 1997. In giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Patrick Chan J made the following remarks about organized pickpocketing :

‘We take this opportunity to indicate that in our view, because of their seriousness, organized crimes of this nature including group pickpocketing, even without international ramifications, might in future properly attract a starting point of at least 2½ years’ imprisonment.’

(d) Where the accused is a repeat offender or, worse still, a persistent one : ‑ see R v Chiang Pok Wing, unreported, HCMA 589/1996, 25 July 1996, Court of First Instance; HKSAR v Huynh Van Dung, unreported, HCMA 270/2001, 21 June 2001, Court of First Instance.

…”

大意是以初犯者而言，即時監禁的量刑起點是在12至15 個月之間。誠然，法庭有需要顧及是否有「加刑」或「減刑」因素。「加刑」因素包括使用武器、在人流眾多地方行事、與他人斗黨行事及犯案者是屬屢罰屢犯等等。

14.至於法庭在考慮加刑因素之前，應該在12至 15 個月的量刑基準範圍如何作出取捨，上訴庭在趙雪儀 有下列分析：

“10. A preliminary question concerns which matters influence where in the normal starting point range of 12 to 15 months’ imprisonment after trial (before taking into account aggravating factors enhancing that starting point) a sentencing court should commence.

11. In our judgment that will depend on the facts of the case, that is, the circumstances of the theft itself, other than those matters which may be accounted for later as aggravating factors. Such matters as the value of the property stolen, the age or vulnerability of the victim and the expertise used in the theft will determine at what part of the range the appropriate starting point commences. Each case will be fact sensitive and considerable allowance should be given to the exercise of the sentencing judge’s discretion.

12. In selecting an initial starting point within the 12 to 15 months range, the sentencing court will need to avoid double counting, that is taking into account a matter later considered to be an aggravating factor enhancing the starting point of sentence.”

意思是法庭須顧及案情 (但並非加刑因素)，包括失物的價值、受害人年紀及犯案手法等等。法庭須避免在採納12至15 個月在何處著墨時，考慮了「加刑」因素，因而引致「雙重計算」。

15.另就法庭如何處理涉及多於一項控罪的判刑，上訴庭在Zhou Jianguo & Anor[6]一案有以下的闡述：

“18. As this court has said on a number of occasions, the proper approach to be taken by a sentencing judge dealing with a number of offences is to decide, first and foremost, on a proper starting point for each offence. For this purpose, it is not appropriate to take a global view. The sentence for each offence needs to be looked at separately. After this has been done, the sentence must, in appropriate circumstances, be reduced to take into account the mitigation. The final step is to deal with totality.”

意思是法庭應獨立考慮每項控罪的正確判刑，再考慮是否有求情因素，最後處理整體刑期。

16.在曹均華 一案，高等法院原訟法庭法官包鍾倩薇在第13 段說：

“ But, as was pointed out by the Court of Appeal in England in R v Smith [1975] Crim.LR 468, a series of short sentences should be avoided. It is legitimate to impose concurrent sentences even in respect of discrete offences provided that one bears in mind, when imposing concurrent sentences in such circumstances, that the increased criminality arising out of the fact of repeated offences would have to be reflected in a total sentence which is higher than would be the sentence for a single or smaller number of offences: see R v TONG Hoi-fung [1988] 1 HKLR 610 at page 611; AG v LO Ching-fai [1996] 1 HKC 747 at page 750; and R v KWOK Chi-keung [1993] 2 HKCLR 294 at page 297.”

意思是法庭應避免判以一連串的短期監禁。即使連串罪行並非源於同一事件，法庭可判以同期執行刑期，但須以較高的量刑起點來反映多宗罪行的較高罪責。

17.本案並不涉及多項短期監禁。本席認為適當的處理方法是依據Zhou Jianguo 一案。裁判官應獨立考慮每項控罪。

18.再者，在盧清輝 一案，上訴庭指：

“16. As is generally the case, it does not matter whether one arrives at that overall starting point by way of concurrent sentences or by way of consecutive sentences.

17. If the sentences are made concurrent, then each term must be higher than it would be if it were set for one offence only.

18. If, on the other hand, the sentences are made consecutive, then each term must be scaled down to avoid an excessive total.”

意思是一般而言，整體刑期起點是以同期或分期執行達致，並不要緊。若刑期是同期執行，每項刑期須較單一控罪為高。若刑期分期執行，每項刑期須調低，以避免整體刑期過高。

19.上訴人是初犯者，他以同一犯案手法干犯3 項控罪。他乘事主一時不備之際，伺機偷走他們的財物，可說是一個有預謀的專業做法。再者，控罪 (二) 及 (三) 涉及的20,000 多元財物未能尋回。根據上述Ngo Van Huy及趙雪儀 案例，在考慮加刑因素前，每項控罪恰當的量刑基準應為15 個月。

20.3 項控罪均在繁忙的尖沙咀鬧巿內的食肆發生，實為加刑的因素，每項控罪的量刑基準應該調高至少3 個月，起點是18 個月。

21.上訴人除了其認罪答辯外，並無強力的求情理由。在給予三份一認罪扣減後，每項控罪的量刑是12 個月。

22.以本案的總刑期為36 個月來考慮整體刑期，本席認為恰當的整體刑期應是20 個月。

23.即使本案是適合採用整體刑期起點，以本案的所有情況而言——尤其是涉案的失物價值，本席認為24 個月此起點是偏低，恰當的量刑起點應是2½ 年。在給予上訴人三份一認罪扣減後，刑期仍是20 個月。

24.以上訴人現時被判的16 個月監禁而言，刑期不單不是明顯過重，連稍為過重也不是。上訴人可說是幸運者，獲判了較輕的16 個月監禁刑期。

25.本席曾考慮應否依據香港法例第227 章《裁判官條例》第119 條賦予的權力，判處較裁判官所判處的為重的懲罰。在考慮了上訴人有律師代表，由法律援助署委派孔大律師提出上訴理由，加上上訴人獲較輕判的是4 個月，本席決定不加重懲罰。

26.基於上述理由，本席駁回上訴。

控方：由律政司署理高級檢控官吳穎軒代表香港特別行政區

辯方：由法律援助署委派孔慶碩大律師代表上訴人