香港特別行政區 訴 朱春魁(又名朱振魁、林春葵及林春癸)

DCCC 904/2023

[2024] HKDC 1154

香港特別行政區

區域法院

刑事案件2023年第904號

________________________

________________________

________________________

判刑理由書

________________________

1.  被告人承認一項「有意圖而傷人」，違反香港法例第212章《侵害人身罪條例》第17(a)條。

案情撮要

2.  被告人承認的經修訂案情撮要如下：

(1)  2022年9月22日約1800 時，梁池輝先生（控方第一證人）與妻子在香港北角糖水道近春秧街天橋底發生爭執。控方第一證人不認識的被告人行近控方第一證人，用木拐杖戳控方第一證人左胸，罵控方第一證人「蝦女人、打女人」。控方第一證人對被告人說那是他的妻子。控方第一證人與被告人發生口角。被告人之後用右拳打控方第一證人的頭部及臉部4-5下，其後用木拐杖打控方第一證人的頭部及臉部2-3下，再用右拳打控方第一證人左胸2-3下。之後，被告人轉身離開。控方第一證人捉住被告人的衣服；被告人把控方第一證人推跌在地上，還踢了控方第一證人的胸部數下。控方第一證人失去知覺；

(2)  於附近購物的陳錦美Theresa女士（控方第二證人）目擊後半部份襲擊過程，向警方報案；

(3)  於附近工作的建築工人李嘉杰先生（控方第三證人）目擊襲擊過程，並拍下襲擊錄像；

(4)  控方第一證人送往醫院，傷勢如下：(1)  右眼眶壁骨折；(2)  右上頸椎骨折；(3)  右前頭皮及右前額裂傷； (4)頭皮血腫；(5)  臉部瘀傷；(6)  臉部及左膝擦傷及 (7)  頸部及胸壁疼痛。控方第一證人於2022年9月22日送入深切治療部，2022年9月23日轉往病房，留院20天，2022年10月12日出院；

(5)  控方第三證人拍攝的錄像長約4分鐘。錄像拍攝到控方第一證人及被告人（穿戴口罩、白色T恤、牛仔褲及一個斜孭袋，帶着一支木拐杖）正在口角。被告人用木拐杖企圖打控方第一證人，控方第一證人擋開。被告人一度除下口罩，面容被拍攝下來。被告人用右拳不斷打控方第一證人的臉部及身體。控方第一證人跌在地上，捉住被告人衣服。最後，被告人離開現場。控方第一證人躺在地上，臉上有血。由於有物體阻擋鏡頭視線，錄像拍攝不到部份襲擊過程；

(6)  相關的閉路電視拍攝到被告人案發當日離開所住大廈直至到達北角碼頭時所穿的衣着都與控方第三證人拍攝到的男子（即被告人）的衣着相同；

(7)  2022年9月23日約2145時，偵緝警員14459拘捕被告人，罪名是「傷人」。警方搜查被告人住所，期間發現一支木拐杖、一個斜孭袋及與施襲期間被告人所穿衣物吻合的衣物；

(8)  2022年9月24日，被告人進行警誡錄影會面，承認擁有在他住所檢獲的木拐杖、斜孭袋及衣物，又聲稱不認識控方第一證人；

(9)  2022年11月11日，控方第一證人在列隊證人手續中認出被告人；

(10)  DNA檢驗顯示，案中檢獲的斜孭袋上的血跡可能源自控方第一證人。

被告人的背景

3.  被告人現年65歲，從未接受教育，已退休，倚靠綜援生活，獨居。他曾有11次刑事定罪紀錄，涉及共14項罪名，其中6項罪名與暴力有關。

判刑原則

4.  「有意圖而傷人」是嚴重控罪，最高判刑為終身監禁。雖然沒有量刑指引，但一般的刑期為3至12年監禁：HKSAR v Tse Hoi-lam [2005] HKLRD (Yrbk)  344。

5.  於HKSAR v Nguyen Van Phuong [2006] HKCU 423 (CACC 341/2005，9 March 2006，unreported)，上訴法院指出：

“All offences contrary to section 17 of Cap 212 are serious because they all contain the ingredient that the offender intended to inflict really serious injury at the time”.

6.  於HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat [2013] 6 HKC 225，上訴法庭指出：

“44. This court has said on innumerable occasions that the sentences for this offence are very much case and fact specific and hence the wide range of 3-12 years for the usual type of wounding with intent… although cases attracting a starting point towards the top of this range will often be cases involving severe injuries and/or severe residual disabilities it cannot be said that only cases with these features are appropriate candidates for such a high starting point.

45. Consequently, we are of the view that little is to be gained in embarking upon a comparative analysis of other cases. We believe it is more helpful to identify the relevant sentencing principles and by properly applying them arrive at a just sentence. The starting point for this is an examination of the offence itself.

46. The reason that offences contrary to section 17 are serious is because they are committed with the intention of inflicting grievous bodily harm on the victim. In helping the lay person to understand what this legal phrase means the courts have said that it means not just serious bodily harm but “really serious bodily harm”, laying emphasis on the qualifying word “really”. It must be remembered that an intent to inflict this level of harm will have the consequence, should the victim die from the assault, of rendering the assailant liable to conviction for murder. In upholding the grievous bodily harm rule as a basis of liability for murder the Court of Final Appeal in Lau Cheong & Anor v HKSAR (2002)  5 HKCFAR 415 made the important point that an assailant intending to inflict this level of harm may not be able to control the consequences to the victim. At page 437 C - D it said:

“A person may not subjectively intend or even foresee that he will cause death. He may desire to limit the consequences of his actions to the infliction of grievous bodily injury. However, as a matter of commonsense it is impossible to predict that the consequences of an intentional infliction of really serious bodily harm will necessarily be successfully limited and will not prove to be life threatening.”

47. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the offence is regarded as such a serious one. Indeed, the fact that the usual range of sentence is 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment reflects that very seriousness. For this range indicates that not only will imprisonment usually be the norm but also that the minimum period of imprisonment will usually be 3 years.

48. Thus in determining the gravity of the offence, the factor of primary importance is the intent of the assailant to cause the victim really serious bodily harm. Whether that intent was fully realized in the injuries sought to be inflicted has been said to be of “secondary significance”. That must be so for, as the Court of Final Appeal pointed out in the Lau Cheong case, the consequences to the victim may not be as the assailant intended. Tragically, they may be worse, but even when they are not or they are not as bad as the assailant hoped to achieve that may not lessen the gravity of the offence. For the failure of the offender to achieve the level of harm he intended may be due to resistance by the victim, the intervention of others, speedy medical attention or purely unanticipated fortuitous circumstances. That is why, even though the consequences to the victim will always be an important factor, the gravity of the offence lies in the deliberate resort to violence with the intent by the offender to inflict by such violence really serious harm on the victim.

49. Consequently, many of the factors to which a court will have regard in determining the gravity of a section 17 offence and the culpability of the offender will relate to the type of harm intended to be inflicted, the means by which that harm was inflicted and the circumstances generally surrounding the assault. Thus, without attempting to exhaustively identity all the relevant factors, the usual ones will be the extent to which the assault was premeditated, the reasons or motivation underlying the assault upon the victim, the mental or emotional state of the assailant at the time of the assault, whether alcohol or drugs contributed to the actions of the assailant, whether the assault was committed by the assailant alone or as part of a group, the type of weapons employed, the level of force or aggression and the persistence with which the assault was pressed home, the injuries caused to the victim and the effect of the assault upon the victim and those close to him or her.

50. In arriving at an appropriate sentence the court will have regard not just to the need to punish the offender for his conduct, but also to the sentencing principles of deterrence, both general and individual, and, in appropriate cases, the need to denounce the resort to violence. Of course deterrence and denunciation are always important when there is resort to violence but there may be particular situations that call for greater deterrence, such as in triad gang or contract attacks, or more denunciatory sentences, such as in domestic violence cases…

53. It is simply that, as with any victim of crime, the court will have regard to the effect and impact of the crime upon the victim. The victim’s attitude to the criminal may help the court in an understanding of the crime’s impact upon the victim by, for example, revealing that the victim’s “psychological or mental suffering must be very much less than would normally be the case”…

54. These points were made by Woo JA in HKSAR v Wong Siu Kwan, CACC 166/2001, unreported 17 October 2001. At paragraph 25 he succinctly set out the correct approach:

“While it is true that a sentence cannot be tailored according to the views of the victim because of the intervention of the state and it is a matter for the court which will have to consider a wider sphere of public interest as well as reasoning and precedent, the court should have regard to what the victim has to say, relating to how the offence was committed, how seriously he was hurt, mentally and physically, how he has been affected by the offence, and whether the imposition of a particular sentence would add to his distress or concern, especially when the victim's views are rational and intelligent…”

7.  於香港特別行政區 對 馬廸倫 CACC 112/2013 10 April 2014, unreported，上訴法庭指：

「39. 本庭認為，把不同案件的判刑比較，並非對量刑的正確處理方法，因為每宗案件的情節不盡相同，比較判刑的意義不大。

40. 上訴庭在HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat [2013] 6 HKC 225一案中，重申「有意圖而傷人」罪的嚴重性，判刑必須具阻嚇性，而法庭須考慮的重要因素為：

(a)  襲擊的預謀程度；

(b)  襲擊的背後動機；

(c)  襲擊者的精神狀態；

(d)  襲擊者有否受酒精或藥物影響；

(e)  襲擊是個人或群體行為；

(f)  使用的武器性質；

(g)  武力使用的程度；

(h)  受害人的傷勢；

(i)  襲擊帶給受害人（及親人等）的影響。

上訴庭亦指出對於某些暴力行徑，如牽涉三合會的團伙襲擊，法庭必須作出強烈譴責及施以更強的阻嚇性刑罰。

41. 另外，在這類傷人案件的加刑因素有：（一）被告是事件的主腦；（二）有其他人夥同行兇；（三）襲擊並非源於挑釁；（四）在公眾地方作案；（五）事主在跌倒後繼續受襲；（六）事主在失去防衛能力後繼續受襲；（七）事主受到嚴重及永久傷害；（八）被告被接見時就案情誤導警方，顯示沒有悔意。見香港特別行政區 訴 徐國明，CACC 380/2013（未經彙報），2014年3月27日的判案理由書第13段。

42. 誠如原審法官於判刑時指出，就「有意圖而傷人」罪的判刑，主要是取決該案的特有案情。而本案的嚴重之處，乃是申請人一伙人的襲擊，引致陸遭受非常嚴重的傷害。綜觀所有的醫療報告，只有一個結論：陸受到的傷害非常嚴重。…

44. 另外，申請人依賴一份2013年3月11日的醫療報告，但這報告作用不大，因為它只是把先前的醫療報告綜合而已，並沒有提及陸最新的情況。

8.  於 HKSAR v Roka Sijan [2018] HKCA 986，上訴法庭指出：

“49. The judge in her sentencing remarks noted that there were no tariffs for such an offence and that sentences were case specific. However, she went on to note that there were relevant factors that put the sentence to be imposed at the higher end of the scale. She said:

“Those include the fact the assault or the attack was in public. It was at 10 am on a Sunday and from CCTV footage there were many people walking up and down that section of Hollywood Road, including children. The attack continued when PW1 was on the ground and unable to defend himself at all. There was no evidence the defendant was provoked by PW1 to such an extent that it could justify such a response. PW1 in particular suffered very serious and lasting injuries.”

50. The judge considered that a global sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment was appropriate. She sentenced the applicant to 5 years’ imprisonment on Charge 1, and 4 years’ imprisonment on Charge 2. She ordered both sentences to run concurrently, resulting in a total sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment.

51. We were of the view that the overall sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment was very lenient in the circumstances of the case, but in fairness to the judge, she may have felt constrained by the jurisdictional ceiling of the District Court of 7 years’ imprisonment.

52. Any form of violence must be visited by condign punishment in order to serve the purposes of retribution and deterrence. This is especially true in cases of wounding, where the element of the offence is that the offender intended to inflict really serious injury on the victim. Whilst there are no sentencing guidelines for wounding, it has been said that the usual range will be between 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment, although this will very much depend on the particular circumstances of each case. See HKSAR v Tse Hok Lam [2005] HKLRD 344 and HKSAR v Chun Sze Wing, CACC 289/2011, 14 June 2012, unreported at paragraph 12. However, we would add that in very serious cases of wounding, a sentence outside this range may well be warranted.

53. Key factors in determining the appropriate level of sentence for the offence of wounding, include the nature and circumstances of the assault, the use of a weapon and the circumstances of its use, the defenceless state of the victim, and the nature and effect of the injuries suffered by the victim. For these factors, the judge in the present case should have imposed a much higher starting point.”

9.  於HKSAR and Tung Pak Fai [2022] HKCA 1470, 上訴法庭指出：

“21. The relevant factors relevant to sentencing in wounding with intent cases were set out in HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat and endorsed in HKSAR v Jatinder Singh… The list is not meant to be exhaustive but it purely demonstrates that the culpability of an offender of a wounding with intent charge will relate to the type of harm intended to be inflicted, the means by which that harm was inflicted and the circumstances generally surrounding the assault. Given the many imponderables as to why an assailant failed to achieve the injuries intended by him, the actual injuries caused is only one of the myriad of factors to be take into account. The gravamen of the offence is in the intent to inflict really serious injuries, which is the same intent as that required for murder. The lack of serious injuries does not necessarily reduce the gravity of the offence or offset the other aggravating factors…

23. It is incorrect to say that the upper range of the usual sentence only reserved for cases involving very serious injuries and long-term or sustaining impact done to the victim…

24. Cases of extreme magnitude can warrant a starting point well above that of the upper range of the 3-12 years range: HKSAR v Yip Kim Wah and Anor.

25. Every case has to be directed on its own fact and the practice of comparing other cases are of little assistance for the purpose of sentencing…”

討論

10.  大律師指案發時，被告人路經北角春秧街天橋底，看見控方第一證人正與一名女子爭執指罵，甚至掟雜物；當時已有街坊路人圍觀。被告人認為男人不應該欺負女人；當他得悉控方第一證人是該女子的丈夫時，感到更加憤怒，認為丈夫更不應該如此對待妻子。 於是他便上前開聲制止，站在控方第一證人和妻子之間分隔兩人，被告人用木拐杖「戳住」控方第一證人的左胸；兩人因此發生口角，雙方互罵動武，事情一發不可收拾。大律師指涉案的木拐杖是被告人的隨身用品；被告人並非有預謀犯案。控方第一證人倒地後，被告人並沒再用木拐杖作出襲擊。

11.  大律師指：

(1)  被告人案發時過分魯莽衝動，而且用武力過度。他完全沒有預謀犯案；

(2)  被告人的動機是制止控方第一證人與妻子在公眾地方互相指罵及扔雜物；

(3)  被告人認為控方第一證人對妻子的行為不對。控方第一證人認為他的行為與其他人無關，對上前制止的被告人是一種挑釁；

(4)  被告人最初的表現克制，只是開聲制止，站在兩人中間；後來才變成指罵及動武；

(5)  被告人所用的武器只是隨身的拐杖；

(6)  雖然控方第一證人的傷勢嚴重，住院二十天，但根據醫療報告；大部份傷勢已經痊愈；

(7)  本案與黑社會並無關係。

12.  本席同意被告人犯案並非早有預謀。被告人最初可能是打算勸說控方第一證人及妻子和解，但他上前不久後便使用武力，以拐杖「戳住」控方第一證人的左胸；引致兩人發生口角。被告人與控方第一證人素未謀面，對控方第一證人及妻子之間的爭拗全不知情；控方第一證人認為與妻子的衝突與他人無關根本並不構成對被告人的挑釁。本席不接受控方第一證人對被告人作出挑釁。就算可被視為挑釁，也不足以令被告人作出如此嚴重的攻擊。案發於公眾地方；控方第一證人手無寸鐵，被告人在光天白曰及眾目睽睽下嚴重襲擊控方第一證人，不但拳打腳踢，還使用木拐杖，而且是集中攻擊控方第一證人的頭部，完全目無法紀。大律師指被告人轉身離開，似乎是指事件本可平息，但控方第一證人捉着被告人的衣服，被告人才再次作出襲擊。本席不敢苟同。被告人對控方第一證人作出嚴重襲擊，難道控方第一證人應該讓被告人逃之夭夭？當時控方第一證人已受傷，被告人再將控方第一證人推到地上，在控方第一證人全無還擊能力下繼續作出襲擊，直至控方第一證人失去知覺。控方第一證人的傷勢嚴重，曾經須入住深切治療部，住院共20天；雖然大部份傷勢已痊愈，但右眼的視力受損、頸部移動幅度亦有限制。綜觀本案所有案情，本席認為適當的量刑基準為4年監禁。另外，被告人並非初犯。他有共11項刑事定罪紀錄，涉及14項控罪，其中6項與暴力有關，是涉及暴力控罪的積犯。因此，本席將量刑基準上調6個月，即量刑起點為4年半監禁。

減刑

13.  被告人適時認罪可獲三份一的扣減；刑期減為3年監禁。除此之外，並無其他減刑因素。

刑期

14.  本席下令被告人監禁3年。