香港特別行政區 訴 董智浩

DCCC 404/2024

[2024] HKDC 1903

香港特別行政區

區域法院

刑事案件2024年第404號

________________________

________________________

________________________

判刑理由書

________________________

1.  被告人承認以下控罪：

(1)  一項「盜竊」，違反香港法例第 210 章《盜竊罪條例》第 9 條（控罪 1）；及

(2)  三項「以欺騙手段取得財產」，違反香港法例第 210 章《盜竊罪條例》第 17(1)  條（控罪 2至 4）。

案情撮要

2.  被告人承認的案情撮要如下：

(1)  劉在萍女士（控方第一證人）住在九龍九龍城紅磡愛景街 8 號海濱南岸 7 座 28 樓（28樓）H 室（H室），而被告人則住在 28 樓 G 室。控方第一證人與被告人並不認識。

(2)  2023 年 1 月 18 日約 1900 時，控方第一證人回家，但將鎖匙遺留在 H 室的匙孔內；該鎖匙扣在鎖匙包（鎖匙包），鎖匙包載有以下物品（被盜財物）：

(a)  控方第一證人的香港身份證；

(b)  AEON 信用卡（號碼 4170062800522100）（涉案信用卡）；

(c)  中國銀行提款咭（號碼 01291810561250）；

(d)  控方第一證人的員工證。

(3)  同日約 2215 時，控方第一證人獲 AEON 通知，涉案信用卡被用作以下欺詐交易：

交易編號	日期（時間）	商戶名稱（地址）	金額
1	2023 年 1 月 18 日 （2136 時）	7-11 便利店 （九龍九龍城紅磡福至街 38-42 號紅磡灣中心地下）（地點 1）	港幣 120 元
2	2023 年 1 月 18 日 （2141 時）	7-11 便利店 （九龍九龍城紅磡湖光街 1-7 號聯成大廈地下 17D 號舖）（地點 2）	港幣 600 元
3	2023 年 1 月 18 日 （2142 時）	OK 便利店 （九龍九龍城紅磡湖光街 1-7 號聯成大廈地下 17F 號舖）（地點 3）	港幣 540 元
		總額	港幣 1,260 元

(4)  地點 1 的閉路電視拍攝到事發當日 2134 時至 2135 時，被告人穿戴黑色鴨舌帽、白色口罩、深色外套、卡其色長褲及黑色運動鞋，在地點 1 用涉案信用卡購買兩包香煙。

(5)  地點 2 的閉路電視拍攝到事發當日 2133 時至 2134 時，被告人穿戴黑色鴨舌帽、白色口罩、深色外套、卡其色長褲及黑色運動鞋，在地點 2 用涉案信用卡購買一條香煙。

(6)  警方並無從地點 3 取得閉路電視片段。

(7)  控方第一證人證實交易 1 至 3 並非由她作出。

(8)  經查看地點 1 及地點 2 的閉路電視片段，警員 25046（控方第二證人）於 2023 年 1 月 26 日在紅磡進行反罪惡巡邏，期間發現並截停被告人，被告人的外貌與有關閉路電視拍攝到的犯案人相似。

(9)  被告人就交易 3 被警誡，在警誡下承認 2023 年 1 月 18 日在住所大廈 28 樓拾獲一個黑色鎖匙包。他看到鎖匙包內有信用卡，一時貪心使用該卡在紅磡區 3 間便利店買煙。他買東西後，將鎖匙包丟棄在湖光街的垃圾桶。

(10)  被告人被拘捕，在警誡下說：「比次機會，我知錯喇」，又表示願意賠償。

(11)  警方檢獲被告人被拘捕時所穿衣物，即以下各項：

(a)  一頂黑色鴨舌帽

(b)  一件藍色外套；

(c)  一條卡其色長褲。

(12)  被告人於拘捕現場所承認的事項，補錄在其後的會面紀錄，由被告人簽署和確認對該等承認事項沒有修改。

搜屋

(13)  警方在被告人的住所搜屋，沒有發現。

銀行結單

(14)  根據涉案信用卡的銀行結單，事發當日僅有三筆交易，分別在地點 1 至地點 3 進行，總額港幣 1,260 元。

罪行

(15)  案發所有期間：

(a)  被告人在涉案 28 樓偷竊涉案鎖匙包、一條鎖匙、一張信用卡、一張香港身份證、一張銀行卡及一張員工證，而該等物品為屬於控方第一證人的財產（控罪 1）；

(b)  被告人以欺騙手段，即虛假地表示被告人獲授權和有權使用持有人姓名為控方第一證人的涉案信用卡支付價值港幣 120 元的貨品的款項，從而不誠實地向牛奶有限公司的職員取得該貨品，以圖永久地剝奪該公司的上述財產（控罪 2）；

(c)  被告人以欺騙手段，即虛假地表示被告人獲授權和有權使用持有人姓名為控方第一證人的涉案信用卡支付價值港幣 600 元的貨品的款項，從而不誠實地向牛奶有限公司的職員取得該貨品，以圖永久地剝奪該公司的上述財產（控罪 3）；

(d)  被告人以欺騙手段，即虛假地表示被告人獲授權和有權使用持有人姓名為控方第一證人的涉案信用卡支付價值港幣 540 元的貨品的款項，從而不誠實地向 OK 便利店有限公司的職員取得該貨品，以圖永久地剝奪該公司的上述財產（控罪 4）。

被告人的背景

3.  被告人現年 43 歲，已婚，育有一名 7 歲的兒子。他曾於澳洲留學，接受大學程度教育。

4.  大律師指被告人原經營汽車零件生意，但因疫情結束營業。其後被告人協助妻子從事網上化妝品銷售的業務。兩人從業務中平均每月賺取約 20,000 元的收入。被告現時是兼職倉務員，月入約 14,000 元。

5.  被告人的父母均已退休，父親現年 72 歲，母親 69 歲。父母於香港及澳洲兩地居住。被告人亦有兩名妹妹。被告人的母親患有肝癌、癲癇症及抑鬱症，須定期覆診。雖然家人均非與被告人同住，但被告人有定期向父母支付家用。

6.  被告人於 2023 年 2 月 20 日有一次定罪紀錄，涉及三項控罪，但如本案並不類同，亦與不誠實無關。他被判處 81 小時社會服務令、停牌 24 個月、需參與及完成駕駛改進課程及罰款。被告人已完成社會服務令。

判刑原則

7.  「盜竊」罪（控罪 1）的最高刑期為 10 年監禁；「以欺騙手段取得財產」罪（控罪 2至 4）的最高刑期為 10 年監禁。這些控罪的案情千變萬化，因此沒有量刑指引。

討論

控罪1：盜竊

8.  辯方大律師援引 香港特別行政區 訴 朱光輝 HCMA 355/2020 [2021] HKCFI 2376。該案中的被告人於麥當勞拾獲事主掉在地上的銀包；銀包内有現金 1,000 元、事主的身分證、港澳通行證、一張八達通卡、兩張提款咭及一張信用卡。有關情況被麥當勞的閉路電視拍攝下來。後來，警員在深水埗區看見被告人，發現被告人的外表與閉路電視錄像所顯示的男子相似，於是拘捕被告人。所有失物無法尋回。辯方指被告人只是因一是貪念而干犯「拾遺不報」的罪行。裁判官指該案的被告人是看見銀包由事主褲袋掉出後才拾起銀包，不接納是「拾遺不報」，反而是「順手牽羊」。原審裁判官以 3 個月作為量刑起點，扣除認罪折扣後，判處被告人 2 個月監禁。被告人不服判刑，提出上訴。原訟法庭指被告人並非有計劃地利用別人的疏忽進行涉案的盜竊行為，屬「拾遺不報」。被告人過往沒有定罪紀錄、坦白承認控罪，並已作出全數賠償。因此兩個月的即時監禁屬過分嚴苛。因此，原訟法庭判處上訴人上訴得直，改判監禁兩個月，緩刑 18 個月。

9.  大律師指本案的被告人是於回家途中在住所大廈走廊地上拾獲控方第一證人的鎖匙包。他沒有可能預知控方第一證人會將鎖匙包遺留在屋外，而被告也不是有計劃地到處遊蕩，伺機行事。因此，本案的控罪 1 亦只屬「拾遺不報」，要求法庭判處非即時監禁的刑罰。

控罪2 至4：以欺騙手段取得財產

10.  大律師指，本案雖然涉及三次交易，但三次交易的地點是非常接近的便利店，時間相隔非常短，購買的物品也是相同，因此要求法庭視之為同一系列的行為。大律師續指，本案是一個簡單的操作，並非集團式經營，只牽涉一張信用卡，在十數分鐘內的三宗小額交易，不牽涉轉售貨品，亦不牽涉違反誠信。而且被告人亦有所節制，於第三宗交易後棄置信用卡，沒有直接對涉案信用卡構成任何進一步潛在風險。

11.  大律師承認，上訴法庭在一些案件中提及了這類案件的嚴重性，並指出盜用信用卡案件判刑時的考慮因素與使用偽造信用卡相類似，但這並不代表於本案的情況下，法庭必須判處即時監禁。

12.  大律師援引 HKSAR v Dhaliwal Jaspreet Kaur 及另一人 [2019] 5 HKLRD 428。該案中的事主將手袋放在酒吧，內有一張信用卡。事主未有看管而前往跳舞。兩名上訴人均稱在吧枱上發現事主的信用卡，用以購買飲品，並聲稱隨後棄置了該信用卡。事實上，第一上訴人在同日使用該信用卡支付酒店房房間的費用、餐廳賬單、購買兩部電話及在一家數碼用品店舖支付 3,000 元。兩名上訴人認罪後，原審法官認為社會服務令並不恰當，因此沒有為第一上訴人索取報告。最後判處第一上訴人 23 個月監禁及賠償令，第二上訴人 19 個月監禁及賠償令。兩名上訴人不服判刑，提出上訴。結果上訴得直；因兩名上訴人已被監禁約 9 個月，上訴法庭下令立即釋放兩名上訴人。

13.  大律師指上訴法庭認為：

(1)  香港法庭對不當使用偽造或盜用信用卡案件的判刑採取強硬的態度，而這是基於有力的政策原因；

(2)  在小規模、簡單的、只牽涉一張或數張偽造信用卡的犯罪操作，而沒有證據顯示與任何更大的犯罪操作有聯繫的案件，雖然法庭採納的判刑方向，是處以三年或以下的監禁，法庭避免作出更詳細的指引。上訴法庭引述 Loh Joe Hooi指，在這類案件的判刑中，犯案的情節可以非常不同。法庭須考慮一系列的情況，決定案件嚴重性，從而得出合適的量刑起點：

“… In this area of sentencing, the circumstances in which such an offence might be committed are myriad; from the opportunistic use on one occasion of a single genuine credit card belonging to someone who has mislaid it, in order to procure goods of not great value, to the syndicated manufacture and proliferation across the border of numerous forged credit cards with significant losses to individuals and businesses. How a judge views the criminality of a particular defendant so as to arrive at an appropriate starting point depends on where, in that range of circumstances, the case before him falls. There are a number of factors which bear on that determination, which are set out in the authorities.”

(3)  由於信用卡相關案件的犯案情節可以非常不同，可是上訴法庭法官司徒敬於 HKSAR v Leung Pui Shan一案中指出法庭需要阻嚇信用卡相關案件，法官亦隨即指出判刑是一門藝術，不應過分機械化：

“14. But sentencing is an art which must carefully be moulded not only to the category of offence but to the offender. There is a danger of sentencing becoming over-mechanical with too little regard for unusual circumstances that might arise in relation to the commission of particular offences and too little regard to circumstances peculiar to the offender. Experience suggests that mitigation advanced sometimes takes the form of a mantra in our courts; with the courts being told of the age, health circumstances and number of an offender’s family members and of other matters which have little to do whatsoever with what has led the particular offender to the commission of the offence and what circumstances peculiar to the offender go in mitigation of sentence. There are certain offences – and these are well-known – in which personal circumstances and the circumstances leading to an offence will count much less than in others, because those offences demand, as a matter of public protection, deterrence as an overwhelming consideration. That said, the circumstances of this case provide an opportune moment in which to stress the need for individual justice having regard, of course, to the policy considerations that might dictate in a category of case a stern general approach but never forgetting the fact that the courts are on each sentencing occasion dealing with an individual whose peculiar circumstances, if they exist, always deserve careful attention. Consistency in sentencing is important but consistency does not dictate blindness to individual circumstances of a case and to those of an offender. An overly rigid pre-occupation with uniformity can be inimical to individual justice.”

14.  大律師指出，上訴法庭認為原審法官應該為第二上訴人索取感化報告及社會服務令報告。即使報告並不建議感化或社會服務令，合適的判刑亦應是緩刑。上訴法庭亦認為，基於第一上訴人犯案時不足 21 歲，因此原審法官應該為第一上訴人索取背景報告，並最少考慮適合社會服務令的可能性。

15.  大律師亦援引 HKSAR v Leung Pui Shan CACC 317/2007。案發時該案的上訴人只有 19 歲，與男朋友感情出現問題，在壓力下，盜取了兩名同事的信用卡購買名牌產品，假裝是由其他男性朋友送贈，希望激起男友的妒忌心。她購買了一枚戒指、一個錢包、一些化妝品，並嘗試購買一部數碼相機。原審法官將上訴人判處教導所令。上訴法庭指出案件嚴重，但考慮到上訴人背景及一系列的因素後，認為案件涉及不尋常的情況，索取感化官報告，並改判 18 個月的感化令。

16.  大律師指從以上的案例可見，雖然此類案件嚴重，但是對於只涉及一張信用卡，短時間內數次購物，不涉及更大規模犯罪操作的案件，上訴法庭並無訂明任何嚴格的判刑指引。從上述案例可見如考慮所有情況，犯罪情況屬於輕微，法庭並不一定需要判處即時監禁。

17.  本席完全不同意大律師的陳述。首先，大律師的說法與被告人承認的案情撮要不脗合。根據案情撮要第 2 段，控方第一證人的鎖匙是插在其住所的匙孔內，而非掉在地上。更重要的是 朱光輝 的案情與本案的案情截然不同。雖然案例中的被盜物品包括信用卡，但該案的被告人沒有使用該些信用卡。本案中，被告人盜竊控方第一證人的鎖匙包後卻於短時間內，分別在 3 間不同的便利店使用控方第一證人的信用卡連環購物。

18.  上訴法庭已於多件案例中指出，這樣的情況不屬「拾遺不報」：

(1)  Secretary for Justice v Lam Yuk Chi Louisdeana (CAAR 4/2018)

該案的被告人承認一項「盜竊」及 4 項「以欺騙手段取得財產」。被告人拾獲事主鎖匙包後，於 1 小時內用事主的信用卡購買兩部昂貴的手提電話，及將其中一部手提電話以半價售予街上小販。被告人亦承認他購買涉案的物品後，將有關信用卡剪爛及扔進垃圾桶。原審時，辯方大律師指被告人因一時貪念而犯案，其犯罪手法不高明，且性質亦屬一般拾遺不報的個案。大律師強調被告人即時認罪，具相當悔意，亦願意作出賠償。被告人身體亦出現多種健康問題，需定時覆診及接受進一步治療。原審法官分別以監禁 9 個月、24 個月、30 個月及 24 個月作為量刑基準。扣除認罪減刑後判處被告人監禁 6 個月、16 個月、20 個月及 16 個月。因所有控罪在短時間內發生，法官下令所有控罪的刑期同期執行，即總刑期為 20 個月監禁但緩刑執行。律政司司長指判刑明顯不足及有原則性錯誤，向上訴法庭提出刑期覆核。上訴法庭裁定覆核得直，指：

「28. 本案絕非一般所謂 “拾遺不報” 的盜竊罪行。“拾遺不報” 是泛指拾取到他人的財物後，將財物據為己有的盜竊罪行。答辯人是拾取到受害人的鎖匙包，先處置部分財物後，再利用非法取得的信用卡在極短時間內 4 次購買總值約 14,000 元的物品（即 398 元、6,388 元、1,040 元及 6,457 元），包括兩部 iPhone 7。答辯人更在購買了兩部 iPhone 7 後不久便將其中一部以低過一半價錢出售。答辯人的整體罪行遠較一般的 “拾遺不報” 罪行嚴重。

29. 但本庭同意本案亦有別於一般假信用卡罪行。本案不涉及製造或從不當渠道取得假信用卡後，利用該些假信用卡隨意購物。該類罪行，如不被偵破，則犯案者極可能會不斷以假信用卡購物，導致有關財務機構面對具大的潛在經濟損失。本案亦非犯案者有計劃及故意主動盜取他人信用卡，目的是利用盜取而來的信用卡購物。本庭應指出申請人在短時間內 4 次購物後便將涉案信用卡剪爛及扔棄，故巨大潛在經濟損失的情況不會出現。…

35. 本庭重申本案的嚴重之處是答辯人盜取涉案信用卡後便立刻利用信用卡 4 次購物…

36. 本庭同意林專員的立場，並認為本案並非是一宗輕微的拾遺不報個案。雖然本庭同意答辯人提出的求情理由，包括她的年齡、背景、她從未犯案及患有身體及精神問題等因素，是有力的求情因素。但該些求情因素都並非是特殊至法庭應將刑期緩刑執行。

37. 即使以對答辯人最實際的處理方法，以本案的控罪性質及犯案手法而言，原審法官處以的緩刑判刑是不恰當的。原審法官下令所有控罪的刑期全部同期執行亦有值得商榷的地方。

38. 本庭認為以本案的控罪性質及犯案手法，即時監禁的判刑是無可避免的。考慮到上述求情理由及本申請是刑期覆核申請，本庭認為適當的最終整體判刑是即時監禁 15 個月。

39. 為了達到上述整體判刑，本庭將第二項、第三項、第四項和第五項控罪的判刑全部改為 12 個月，同期執行，但第一項控罪的 6 個月判刑中的三個月要和其餘控罪的 12 個月判刑分期執行。答辯人需服 15 個月的總刑期。」

(2)  HKSAR v Dai Xiangfei（代向飛） [2019] HKCA 29

該案的被告人承認兩項「盜竊」（控罪 1 及 4）及兩項「以欺騙手段獲得財產」。案情指被告人拾獲事主遺留在一間店舖的桌面的信用卡（控罪 1）。約 10 分鐘後，被告人使用事主的信用卡購買價值 1,000 元的護膚品（控罪 2）。不久之後，被告人再次使用事主的信用卡購買價值 730 元的香水（控罪 3）。閉路電視片段顯示被告人亦從店舖盜取一個名牌銀包（控罪 4）。同日，警方截停被告人，從其身上找到涉案的護膚品、香水及銀包，亦找到被告人利用事主信用卡購物的收據。原審時，大律師指被告人因一時貪念而犯案。原審法官認為控罪 4 是普通店舖盜竊，以 9 個月監禁作為量刑基準，減刑後判處被告人 6 個月監禁。原審法官認為控罪 1 （信用卡）只屬「拾遺不報」，因此以 8 個月監禁作為量刑基準。就控罪 2 及 3，原審法官以 2 年 8 個月監禁作為量刑基準。四項控罪的部份刑期分期執行，總刑期為 30 個月監禁。被告人不服判刑，提出上訴。上訴法庭駁回上訴，指：

“22. Although the applicant’s finding of the credit card may have been opportunistic, the courts have consistently taken a serious view of credit card fraud, whether by the use of forged credit cards or stolen credit cards: see HKSAR v Lee See Chung Stephen. Concurrent starting points of 3 years’ imprisonment could not be faulted in respect of Charges 2 and 3, which represented “a small unsophisticated operation, involving only one or a few forged cards uncomplicated by other evidence materially linking the offender to a larger operation”. Yet the judge in her discretion adopted starting points of 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment for both charges. The applicant cannot realistically complain about such starting points.

23. Nor can the applicant complain about the starting points adopted in respect of Charges 1 and 4, which were separate offences of theft; in particular Charge 4, which had nothing to do with credit card fraud. The claim to an opportunistic theft of the credit card and its subsequent use by someone who might not otherwise have stolen anything is somewhat undermined by the fact that the applicant had already embarked on her spree of dishonesty by shoplifting the red wallet before she came across PW1’s credit card.”

(3)  Secretary for Justice and Wong Che Ping（黃志平） [2020] HKCA 246

該案的被告人承認 2 項「盜竊」（控罪 1 及 2）和 1 項管有他人身分證（控罪 4）。2018 年 7 月 25 日，該案的事主遺失了銀包，內載有一張八達通卡、一張附屬信用卡、身份證、車牌及 1,000 元現金。數間便利店的閉路電視片段顯示，事主父親（主卡持有人）報失前，被告人於短時間內，用事主附屬信用卡分別 10 次購買香煙，總價值為 4,484 元。因每項交易涉及的金額不大，被告人無須簽署作實。後來被告人被捕。警方在被告人身上找到一包香煙。警誡下，被告人承認在街上拾獲事主的銀包，在一時貪念下，使用事主的信用卡購買香煙。搜屋時，警方於被告人的住所找到事主的信用卡，72 包香煙及現金 300 元。另外，警方亦搜獲一張屬於 GUPTA Dishank 的身分證及信用卡。被告人承認拾獲 GUPTA Dishank 的身分證及信用卡。原審法官指涉及以信用卡作欺詐的盜竊案件是嚴重控罪，就算只是簡單及小型的詐騙也可以 3 年監禁作為量刑基準。法官指該案的案情極嚴重，被告人於事主遺失銀包後 2 個小時內連環用被竊的信用卡購物。可是法官指被告人過往沒有刑事定罪紀錄，亦已被囚超過一個月。法官強調該案只屬「拾遺不報」，因此莫視感化官的意見，判處被告人 200 小時社會服務令。律政司司長不服判刑，提出判刑覆核。上訴法庭裁定覆核得直，指：

“28. We agree that the respondent was not a recidivist but an opportunist who could not resist the temptation after picking up Mr Wong’s wallet and committed the crime… However, frauds against shops with a stolen credit card are extremely serious offences, of which the culpability should not be downplayed but instead, calls for a deterrent sentence. The appropriate sentence for such offences is immediate imprisonment for a considerable [length]. In fact, the Court of Appeal has dealt with many similar cases by way of immediate custodial sentences.

29. In Lam Yuk Chi Louisdeana…, the defendant made four purchases including two expensive iPhones with the credit card contained in the key pouch within an hour since she picked it up, and she resold one of the iPhones at half price to a street vendor. The observation made by the Court of Appeal when dealing with the application to review her sentence is also applicable to the present case:

“28. This case is by no means ‘theft by finding’, which generally refers to thefts involving anyone who keeps the property that they picked up. The respondent, after picking up the victim’s key pouch, first disposed of some of the properties, and then made four purchases amounting to HK$14,000 with the credit card that she had illegally obtained within a very short time, including two iPhone 7s, one of which was resold below half price before long…

29. … The court should point out that there is no latent risk of a huge financial loss because the applicant (sic)  cut and discarded the credit card in question after making four purchases within a short time.”…

35. Having considered the background of the case, the circumstances of the respondent, and also the submission he made to this Court, we are of the view that it is necessary to revise the said sentence since, no matter in terms of individual charges or as a whole, the said sentence departed greatly from the sentences imposed in other similar cases, it was wrong in principle and manifestly inadequate, and fell outside the range of sentences which a judge, applying his mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate.

36. In our view, the starting points for the first and second counts of theft should be 9 months’ and 2 years’ imprisonment respectively, and that for the fourth count, i.e. possessing identity document relating to another person, should be 12 months’ imprisonment. The appropriate starting point for the three charges overall is 30 months…”

19.  因此，朱光輝 案根本完全不適用。

20.  大律師也承認，Dhaliwal Jaspreet Kaur及 Leung Pui Shan案均涉及年輕罪犯。根據香港法例第 221 章《刑事訴訟程序條例》第 109A 條，除非沒有其他適當的判刑選項，否則法庭不應判處一名年青罪犯監禁。於 Dhaliwal Jaspreet Kaur案中，上訴法庭指出：

“21. For many years, the courts in this jurisdiction have for sound policy reasons taken a strong line in sentencing for the illicit use of forged or stolen credit cards. In R v Kwan Ying Ho, credit card fraud was described by Litton JA (as he then was)  as an insidious poison in the community. It affects a large number of citizens. It erodes the credit card system and damages Hong Kong’s standing in the international community”. In HKSAR v Leung Pui Shan, Stock JA (as he then was)  described credit card offences as “a running scourge”, which were to be treated seriously and attract deterrent sentences.

22. Although the courts have adopted a common sentencing approach that for “a small unsophisticated operation, involving only one or a few forged cards uncomplicated by other evidence materially linking the offender to a larger operation, … a starting point of three years’ imprisonment or less would be appropriate”, they have refrained from setting out more detailed guidelines for the fraudulent use of credit cards. As the Court in HKSAR v Loh Joo Hooi explained…

24. … the case of A2. She had been in the Bar in question celebrating the birthday of A1’s mother, who also happened to be her aunt. Given that both appellants had been celebrating for several hours before the card was taken and used, it is not difficult to accept, as was put on their behalf in mitigation, that at the time Charges 1 and 2 were committed they were inebriated enough “to do something which they would not have done if they were sober”. That was not, of course, a defence but it does help to explain how a young woman of good character from a good family came to commit such an offence.

25. Her involvement was limited, on both her account and, independently, that of A1, as well as on the facts averred by the prosecution, to finding the credit card on a bar table and using it to purchase drinks to a value of $254. Her conduct came squarely within the lower range of culpability described in Loh Joo Hooi, namely “the opportunistic use on one occasion of a single genuine credit card belonging to someone who has mislaid it, in order to procure goods of not great value”.

26. In our judgment, given the circumstances of A2’s commission of Charges 1 and 2 and her plea, as well as her age, character and family background, the judge should have called for a Probation report and a Community Service Order (“CSO”)  suitability report, the obtaining of which defence counsel had in fact urged upon the judge. Had either of those alternatives been found to be unsuitable, and the judge was nevertheless satisfied that it was not appropriate to deal with her in any other way than by a sentence of imprisonment, she should have considered whether a suspended sentence would have been appropriate.…

28. The same considerations do not apply to A1. Whilst she, like A2, may have been intoxicated and had her inhibitions lowered at the time the credit card was stolen and used to pay for $254 worth of drinks in the Bar, her subsequent actions leading to the commission of Charges 3, 4, 5 and 6 cannot be seen in the same light; in particular, the separate and distinct offences of using the credit card to pay for a meal and for two mobile telephones at different shops in Sham Shui Po, Kowloon later that day. The appellant, in addition to the value of the drinks in the Bar, used the credit card on four separate occasions to obtain goods or services worth $7,460.

29. However, there was a significant matter of mitigation in her case. She was, at the time of the commission of the offences, 19 years and 5 months old. By the time she came to be sentenced, she was just over 21 years of age. No mention was made by the judge of the terms of section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221, although we note that no mention was made of the section by defence counsel either. Yet, the appellant fell into the unusual category of a defendant who at the time of the commission of the offence would have been entitled to be treated as a ‘young offender’ between the age of 16 and 21, but by the time of conviction and sentence was technically no longer a ‘young offender’…

30. In our judgment, notwithstanding the seriousness of the offences, the judge should have called for background reports and at least given consideration to the possibility of A1’s suitability for a Community Service Order…

31. If the judge had concluded, for sound reasons, on the basis of the reports and her assessment of the facts and relevant authorities that there was no other method of dealing with A1 than by an immediate sentence of imprisonment, we would have accepted her position. However, we would still have expected her to reflect the fact of A1’s age and obvious immaturity in the quantum of sentence adopted.

32. As to the appropriate quantum of sentence, we have found two recent judgments of this Court particularly helpful in identifying what would have been an appropriate starting point for facts of this nature…

33. In Secretary for Justice v Lam Yuk Louisdeana…

34. In substituting an immediate sentence of imprisonment for the suspended sentence, the Court made clear that it had taken into account that the substitution had come about by way of an Application for Review of sentence. Although it did not specify what the sentence would have been had it not been an Application for Review, we think that the sentences adopted correspond to the approach of the Court in Li Chi Yat. However, in neither Li Chi Yat nor Lam Yuk Chi Louisdeana was there an age factor. In the former case, the appellant was 29 years of age: in the latter, the respondent was 58 years of age.

35. In our particular case, had we come to the view that despite her age, the appellant had to be sent to prison for these offences, we would nevertheless have reflected the factor of her age in the terms of imprisonment imposed.

36. One should remember that an offender’s young age holds out the hope of reform and rehabilitation, which can be easily undermined by a crushing sentence of imprisonment in an adult prison. The goal of ensuring that a young offender does not proceed down the path of crime can, for certain cases, be more effectively achieved by the lighter touch of a more lenient and compassionate sentence than by the heavier hand of a punitive and deterrent one.

37. We would have adopted a starting point of 9 months’ imprisonment in respect of Charges 1 and 2 to reflect her age and the obvious circumstances of intoxication at the time the offences were committed, and 18 months’ imprisonment in respect of each of Charges 3, 4, 5 and 6 to reflect her age and evident immaturity… We would have ordered the sentences on Charges 1 and 2 to run concurrently with each other, and the sentences on Charges 3, 4, 5 and 6 also to run concurrently with each other. We would then have ordered 3 months of the sentence on Charges 1 and 2 to run consecutively to the 12 months’ imprisonment on Charges 3, 4, 5 and 6, thus making 15 months’ imprisonment in all.”

21.  上述案例中的兩名上訴人均為青年罪犯。顯然地，上訴法庭裁定上訴得直的主要原因是兩名上訴人的年紀。上訴法庭指第二上訴人的參與程度極低，她只是使用被盜信用卡 1 次。因此原審法官應考慮判處緩刑。但第二上訴人之後分別使用被盜信用卡 4 次，因此情況有別；若原審法官考慮《刑事訴訟程序條例》第 109A 條及傳閱報告後，認為唯一選項是即時監禁，上訴法庭並無異議。

22.  另外，HKSAR v Leung Pui Shan 梁佩珊 CACC 317/2007 一案的被告人犯案時亦是 19 歲。因此法庭須考慮《刑事訴訟程序條例》第 109A 條。

23.  本案的被告人已 43 歲，並非年青罪犯，法庭無須考慮《刑事訴訟程序條例》第 109A 條。他於短時間內使用被盜信用卡 3 次，情況與上述案例的第 2 上訴人不同，反而與第 1 上訴人的情況相若。

24.  辯方大律師援引的案例根本不適用於本案。

25.  雖然被告人最終丟棄被盜信用卡，但沒有證供顯示他有剪爛信用卡，因此，沒有減低經濟損失的風險。

量刑

26.  縱觀本案的案情，本席裁定控罪 1 適當的量刑基準為 9 個月監禁。被告人於盜竊信用卡的短期內連環犯案，這並非減刑因素，反而是加重罪責。另外，被告人是於 KT 21/2023 一案的保䆁期間干犯本案，令情況更嚴重。控罪 2 適當的量刑基準為兩年半監禁。

減刑因素

27.  被告人適時認罪，可獲三份一的扣減。因此各控罪的刑期減為：

控罪 1：6 個月監禁

控罪 2 至 4：每項控罪 20 個月監禁。

28.  被告人指願意作出賠償。Sentencing in Hong Kong 11^th edition 第 [30-345]，[30-347] 及 [30-349] 段指出：

“[30-345] Voluntary restitution is something which “must be encouraged and that this can only be done if real weight is given to it as a factor mitigating sentence”: Secretary for Justice v Hui Siu-man [1999] 2 HKLRD 236, 242… But while it is an important mitigating factor, it is “not sufficient to justify for (sic)  a suspension of sentence”: HKSAR v Sathak Abdul Kader Anees Rahman [2021] HKCU 4475…

[39-347] The actual size of any discount for restitution “very much depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case”: HKSAR v Ma Kim-hung [2002] HKCU 573 (CACC 33/2002, 10 May 2002, unreported). If made after a guilty plea has been entered, it will, as Stock JA noted in HKSAR v Wong Kam-tat [2002] 2 HKC 677, 680, have materialized “at the very last moment and, although it counts for something, it must be viewed in that light”…

[30-349] … However, a court should avoid the impression that it is striking a deal with the accused, or that he is being allowed to buy himself out of the consequences of his crime…”

29.  事發已超過一年半，辯方亦稱不知道應向何人付款。只可以將被告人的意願當作一個承諾，但這並非減刑因素。

30.  這些是嚴重控罪；眾所周知，被告人的背景、經濟困境、判刑對家人的影響和面對訴訟的壓力，均並非減刑因素。除了認罪之外，沒有其他減刑因素。

總刑期

31.  本席必須考慮總刑期的原則。大律師指控罪 2 至 4 的時間、地點及購買的物品均相近，希望法庭將該 3 項控罪視作同一事件。這並非適當的測試。

32.  於 HKSAR v Ngai Yiu Ching（倪耀偵） [2011] 6 HKC 238 一案中，上訴法庭指：

“18. It was in an attempt to safeguard fairness to the offender by ensuring that he was not punished twice for the same conduct that the courts developed the “one transaction” rule. In essence, this rule said that if the number of offences have been charged arising from the one transaction or course of criminal conduct, then concurrent sentences should be imposed.

19. The one transaction rule was not developed as an inflexible rule of law. It was never intended as anything more than a practical rule of thumb to guide judges in the exercise of the power to impose consecutive sentences so that the final sentence was not one that was unfair to an offender.

20. However, once stated, this practical working rule tended to develop a life of its own and has led to some difficulty in its application. Judicial dicta explained what was meant by “one course of criminal conduct” and exceptions to the rule developed … All of this, understandably enough, became material for advocates who sought to argue that the multiple offences of which their client had been convicted were part of one transaction and that it inevitably followed that the correct sentence was one where all the sentences were concurrent.

21. There are several problems associated with this line of reasoning. First it runs the risk of elevating a practical working rule to a rule of law, thereby providing an opportunity to argue that departure from it inevitably meant that the sentence imposed on the client was excessive. Secondly, it tends to obscure the real point which is not whether two or more offences are committed at about the same time, but whether the second or other further offences add to the culpability or criminality of the first. Thirdly, it ignores the reality that whatever sentence is arrived at after application of the rule is still subject to the totality principle …

23. The emphasis therefore should be on a reflection in the sentence of true culpability disclosed by the offences of which the accused has been convicted. This is an approach which this court has consistently adopted in recent times …. It is likely to be a more effective approach in reflecting an offender’s overall culpability than one which becomes overly concerned with the one transaction rule, although in the case of more than one offence, the court must guard carefully against punishing twice for the same act. If the second offence which takes place in the course of the suggested single episode adds to the culpability of the first offence, it will normally follow that the sentence for the second offence will run wholly or partially consecutive to that for the first; to what extent, if at all, will depend upon an assessment of the totality appropriate for the conduct as a whole. As with most sentencing exercises, the approach is an art, sensitive to the individual circumstances of the case and the offender.”

33.  本席於衡量量刑基準時已考慮被告人利用盜取的信用卡於短時間內連環犯案。因此下令控罪 2 至 4 的刑期全部同期執行（即 20 個月監禁）。可是控罪 2 至 4 令控罪 1 的罪責更嚴重。本席下令控罪 1 的其中 3 個月與控罪 2 至 4 分期執行，即總刑期為 23 個月監禁。