香港特別行政區 訴 吳秀蘭

CACC396/2008

香港特別行政區

高等法院上訴法庭

刑事司法管轄權

判刑上訴許可申請

案件編號：刑事上訴案件2008年第396號

(原區域法院刑事案件2008年第501號)

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

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

判 案 理 由 書

原訟法庭法官湯寶臣頒發上訴法庭判案理由書 ：

背景

1. 申請人於2008 年10 月29 日在區域法院林偉權暫委法官席前承認兩項控罪 ：

(1)     控罪一為串謀詐騙罪。申請為該控罪第二被告人，他與另外5 名被告人共同被控以「祈福」為名，串謀詐騙受害人的金錢及珠寶；及

(2)     控罪二為以欺騙手段取得財產罪。申請人被控與其他身分不詳的人同樣以「祈福」為名，欺騙另一受害人，從而取得現金港幣127,900 元及總值約港幣100,000 元的珠寶。

刑期決定

2. 申請人就兩項控罪各被判入獄2 年4 個月。暫委法官下令控罪二的刑期中的1 年4 個月與控罪一的刑期分期執行，即申請人須服刑共3 年8 個月。申請人不服刑期，現提出申請上訴許可。

3. 本案所涉及的是兩宗典型的街頭祈福黨騙案，有關的被告人都是國內人士，在香港均沒有任何刑事紀錄。由於警方及時介入，第一項控罪的受害人倖免損失，但另一項控罪的受害人則已損失了22 萬多元的財物，無法尋回。

判刑理由

4. 暫委法官在判刑時指出(見判刑理由書第4、6、8及9 段)：

「4.   本案各被告所犯的第一項控罪與及第二被告另外犯上的第二項控罪，都是典型的祈福黨犯罪行為，他們利用受害人無知及迷信的心態引他們恐慌，然後作出詐騙。可幸是，第一控罪的受害人吳女士自己欠財，亦因警方及時介入，她才倖免損失。第二控罪的受害人則損失了二十二萬多元財物，不能尋回。

……

6.       雖然從警方的高級督察Mr Klose(?)提供的數據看來，祈福黨罪鴴已見收歛，舉報案件及受害人的總損失都有下降的趨勢。不過，在2008 年頭八個月，仍有三十宗舉報案件，受害人損失超過二百萬元。這類罪行的受害人大多屬上了年紀的婦女，知識水平低、無知、迷信，他們很多時被騙去大量金錢，甚或是畢生積蓄。大法官在柯麗一案中亦說這對社會上弱勢社群造成非常沉重及影響深遠的後果，對此類案件，法庭必須處以重刑。

……

8.       本席從本案的證據看來，各被告是同謀來港犯案，他們是專程來港犯案，並非順道行事。本席考慮過一切，包括各被告在此案前並無其他定罪紀錄，不過即使第一項控罪的受害人沒損失，這是她自己欠財產及警方及時介入而致。

9.       祈福黨騙徒犯罪的目的就是要盡量索取受害人的所有財產，在不少案件中，都對受害人造成重大損失，即使有人能夠及時倖免，有人則不幸盡失所有，因此，有沒有損失、損失多少這一點並不重要，重要的是祈福黨的犯罪行為是惡劣的，雖然這類犯罪行為已見收歛，但法庭仍應判以重刑，以繼續收阻嚇作用，這收歛情況才會得到加強，否則，只會死灰復燃。」

5. 在刑期評估方面，暫委法官有以下的結論(見判刑理由書第 13 段)：

「13.    第二被告在2008 年2 月專程來港犯案，然後離開，然後在2008 年3 月又專程來港犯案，若只將第二項控罪的些少刑期加在第一項控罪的刑期之上實在不當，這做法只有鼓勵像第二被告一類的祈福黨黨徒來港多番犯罪或連續犯罪，最終只會受到較輕的懲罰，本席因此並不認同馬律師的說法，本席認為第二被告兩項控罪的刑期基本上應分期執行，只是考慮到整體刑期問題，本席就下令部分刑期同期執行。本席下令，第二項控罪的刑期其中的一年又四個月，和第一項控罪的刑期分期執行，另外的一年刑期則和第一項控罪的刑期同期執行，即第二被告就兩項控罪共須服刑三年又八個月。」

上訴理據

6. 代表申請人的陳兆明大律師提出以下的上訴理據 ：

「1.   原審法官對第一及第二項控罪採取了三年半為監禁起點是過高。造成刑罰過重及嚴苛。

2.       在整體刑罰方面，原審法官在第二項控罪刑期以一年又四個月監禁與第一項控罪刑期分期執行，做成整體刑罰過重及嚴苛。

3.       以案情整體情況而言，刑罰是過重及嚴苛。」

上訴方的陳詞

7. 陳大律師認為祈福案通常是以3 年為判刑基準，而第一項控罪的受害者並無任何金錢上的損失，因此3 年半的刑期起點是過高，再者，原審法官以1 年4 個月作為分期執行會是過重。陳大律師提出了兩則案例來支持他的說法 ：HKSAR v. Liang Yaqiong & Others, CACC92/2008及香港特別行政區訴歐陽桂蘭，CACC251/2008(見陳大律師之陳詞大綱)。

答辯方的陳詞

8. 代表答辯人的曾藹琪高級檢控官認為刑期並沒有任何不妥當之處。她特別提出，在本案中，申請人夥同多至5 名人士參與罪行；又根據有關申請人的出入境紀錄，原審法官認為她是「專程來港犯案，然後離開」的推論是合理的。

9. 曾高級檢控官陳詞指，16 個月之分期，看似是偏高，但基於原審法官的分析，這決定是有充分理據的，因此本案的判刑恰當，並不過重，也無原則上的錯^誤。

討論

10. 上訴庭已多次討論過這類案件的判刑原則。在Liang Yaqiong & Others一案中，上訴庭有以下的看法(見判詞第6及7 頁)：

“11.  Mr Andy Hung, on the applicants’ behalf, submitted that the sentence was manifestly excessive.  In particular, he complained that the 3½-year starting point taken by the judge was too high and that the enhancement of about 60 per cent was wrong in principle especially when set against a background where the applicants were not recidivists.

12.     We do not need to recite, from the many cases of this kind which have come before this court, the various ways in which we have previously described heartless scams of this kind.  In any event, as we have said, the judge was extremely familiar with the grave view taken of crimes of this sort and he had cited Huang Yu-huan and Anor (above) as an illustration of the criminality involved.

13.     He was also well aware of previous sentencing decisions taken by this court.  In all but one of the examples he had cited (HKSAR v Cheung Kwun-ching and Anor CACC 220/2001, HKSAR v Chu Sau-chi and Ors CACC 294/2002, HKSAR v Cho Ah-mui CACC 83/2003, HKSAR v Huang Yu-huan and Anor [2002] 2 HKC 682, HKSAR v So Yat-chun and Ors CACC 403/2002, and HKSAR v Xu Mai-qing CACC 464/2005), a sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment was considered appropriate.  The reason given by the judge for taking a higher starting point for the applicants was that the gang, of which they formed a part, consisted of six members.  This, he observed, was more than in all the examples to which he had referred.

14.     We can sympathise to an extent with the judge’s concern that offences of this kind have not been dealt with sufficiently heavily in the past to deter others in the light of clear evidence that these crimes show little sign of abating.  On the other hand, a sense of proportion has to be maintained with other serious offences involving dishonesty including burglary and thefts by well-organised teams of pickpockets.”  [本庭強調]

最後，上訴庭批准上訴，把3 年半的刑期基準改為3 年及把6 成的加刑減為5 成，令該案的申請人得到8 個月的減刑。

11. 在歐陽桂蘭一案中，上訴庭引述了HKSAR v. Ye Yaliu and others的觀點(見判詞第16至18 段)：

“16.   The applicants and others who continue to commit ‘street deceptions’ must be deterred. The offences call for heavy sentences. The personal backgrounds and family circumstances of the applicants are not mitigating factors. If they are concerned about their families, they should not have come to Hong Kong to commit the offences in the first place.

17.     The judge was right to take a grave view of the crimes in question. However, other than the nature of the offence itself, there was no other aggravating factor, such as large-scale operation, repeated offence or perhaps involving exceptional large amount of money, as fairly conceded by Ms Mary Sin, for the respondent.

18.     Ms Sin also accepts that the usual starting point for one charge of ‘street deception’ is only three years’ imprisonment. (See HKSAR v Huang Yu Huan & anor [2002] 2 HKC 682 and HKSAR v Liang Yaqiong & Others CACC 92/2008)”

上訴庭在判詞第20 段裡指出 ：

「本庭認為，這類糾黨的街頭行騙案的刑期基準為該為3 年到3½ 年，視乎案情的嚴重性而言；每多一項控罪應可考慮加多6 個月的分期刑罰，至於應否將總刑期根據《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》第27 條提升及加刑的幅度，那就應視乎個別案件的情況而定。」

12. 上訴庭在HKSAR v. Wu Mudi alias Bao Xiujin, CACC358/2007)一案，也曾討論過這方面的判刑原則(見判詞第9及13 段)：

“Street deception

9.       The sentence of three years’ imprisonment for the first conspiracy charge is in accordance with the sentence imposed for offences of this type.  While we are of the view that the starting point for the other conspiracy charges should be increased to three and half years to reflect the aggravating factor namely, the applicant committed the further offences after she had absconded while on bail, we are prepared to accept the same starting point adopted by the Judge in relation to the three other conspiracy charges.

…

Totality

13.     The Judge imposed a total sentence of six years and two months for all five charges.  We are of the view that even with the repeated offences the total sentence is manifestly excessive.  This would be equivalent to a nine years and three months’ imprisonment for a contested case.  We are of the view that as the four conspiracy cases occurred at different times the sentences should be consecutive to each other.  We are of the view that eight months of each of the remaining three conspiracy charges should be consecutive to the first conspiracy charge and consecutive to each other, making a total of 60 months’ imprisonment.  The sentence of two months’ imprisonment for the failure to surrender to custody charge should also be consecutive to the 60 months, making a total of 62 months’ or five years and two months’ imprisonment.” [本庭強調]

13. 根據有關案例看來，暫委法官所採取的3 年半的刑期基準，屬於適當的判刑範圍，並無不妥，但16 個月的分期執行則令總刑期變得明顯地過高。本庭當然理解暫委法官的理念。他在判刑時指出如果祇把第二項的些少刑期加在第一項控罪的刑期上，祇會鼓勵從事這些不法活動的人更多來港犯案，因為重犯都祇會得到較輕的懲罰。但其實暫委法官都同意判刑須考慮到整體刑期方面，這祇是普通法裡的一項基本原則。

14. 經考慮後，本庭認為兩項刑期基準都應維持在3 年6 個月，在扣減了因認罪而得到的三份一後，兩項刑期各為2 年4 個月；本庭會下令第二項刑期中的8 個月與第一項刑期分期執行，其餘同期，因此總刑期應為3 年。

15. 基於以上的理由，本庭批准判刑的上訴許可，並視之為正式上訴，總刑期減為3 年。