香港特別行政區 訴 陳偉傑

HCMA 160/2020

[2020] HKCFI 2507

香港特別行政區

高等法院原訟法庭

刑事上訴司法管轄權

判刑上訴

案件編號：裁判法院上訴案件2020年第160號

(原九龍城裁判法院刑事案件2019年第2785號)

______________

______________

______________

判 案 理 由 書

______________

1.  上訴人承認一項「管有危險藥物」罪和一項「在公眾地方管有攻擊性武器」罪，分別被判22 個星期和18 個星期刑期，分期執行，共40 個星期監禁。上訴人不服判刑提出的上訴已被駁回，以下是理由。

案情

2.  案情指，上訴人在2019 年3 月29 日於街上被警員截查，發現在他肩袋內的摺傘藏有一袋危險藥物及一支伸縮棍，上訴人承認管有危險藥物自用；及因怕被追債而帶備伸縮棍用作自衛(經驗證後，確定為攻擊性武器)。危險藥物經化驗後證實為1.36 克結晶體，內含1.33 克甲基苯丙胺鹽酸鹽。

上訴理由

3.  上訴人指，裁判官錯誤不給予他全數三分之一的量刑扣減。他未有按時出席法庭聆訊是因為該日他到「廣華醫院」急症室求診，並即時聯絡及傳真有關文件到法庭。就兩項控罪而言他在第一時間認罪。上訴人續指，裁判官沒有充分考慮戒毒所報告顯示他仍有毒癮，在下令分期執行時沒有考慮量刑整體性。

答辯人回應

4.  答辯人指，上訴人所指因為求診而缺席首次的答辯聆訊，缺乏任何文件的支持，庭審的錄音謄本亦不曾顯示，當時代表上訴人的律師曾就這點向法庭作出陳述。上訴人潛逃約五個月，浪費法庭的時間及資源。沒有依時歸押亦缺乏合理理由，裁判官絕對可以不給予他全數三分之一的量刑扣減。而兩項控罪雖然源於同一事件，但性質並不相同，裁判官明言由於上訴人的年齡及第二項控罪必須判處監禁式刑期的考慮，故此戒毒所並非適當的刑罰。就兩項控罪的刑期無論個別或整體而言絕非過重。

討論

5.  上訴人力陳，他缺席聆訊是因為當日他到了廣華醫院急症室求診，及已即時聯絡和傳真文件到法庭。他以為法庭或警方會通知他另一聆訊日期，他否認是棄保潛逃。他在法庭聽取答辯時已即時認罪，裁判官錯誤不給予他應得的三分之一量刑扣減。

6.  HKSAR v Ngo Van Nam [2016] 5 HKLRD 1 案中援引了以下Yeung V-P在 HKSAR v Ma Ming [2013] 1 HKLRD 813案的判詞：

“39. The Court wrote in its judgment of Ma Ming the following:

[27] A discount of one third is quite a substantial discount. One of the main purposes of the court giving this one-third discount to a defendant who pleads guilty is to encourage a guilty person to own up to the crimes he committed, so as to conserve the resources of the community and to ensure that justice can be administered more efficiently and matters can be concluded in the most expeditious manner.

. . .

134. Of the difficulties for a court to determine ‘what a timely plea of guilty is’, Yeung V-P said:

Since there is a period of time between the moment when a suspect is put under arrest and the time when he appears in court to face the charge or charges, what happened during that period of time and the attitude taken by the suspect might influence the sentencing decision. If the court has to take into account all these factors before passing sentence, not a few disputes may arise and the sentence that will be passed ultimately would become uncertain. . . .

. . . the court may very likely have to go into fine distinctions and subtle differences between different cases and adjust the sentences according to such niceties and subtleties. Such an approach would lengthen and complicate the court proceedings, increase costs, adversely affect court efficiency and delay the handling of cases which genuinely require the court’s attention. It not only goes contrary to the policy and basic objective of giving a one third discount, but is also against public interest. . . .

135. In the result, Yeung V-P concluded that:

. . . when giving the one third discount the approach taken by the court is a firm and broad-brush approach. It gives a defendant who timely pleads guilty the one third discount, which is substantial, without regard for niceties, in order to discourage excessive arguments and to prevent wasteful use of the resources of the community.”

7.  Ngo Van Nam案第232 段亦指出：

“232. . . . we are satisfied that, usually, but subject to the overriding discretion of the Magistrate in sentencing, the opportunity to secure a one-third discount from the starting point for sentence occurs when the defendant is asked to tender a plea to the charge. If he pleads not guilty and trial dates are fixed that opportunity is lost.” (Emphasis added)

8.  由此可見，裁判官在考慮是否給予三分之一的量刑扣減時仍可考慮一些他認為值得考慮的因素，而非盲目地只以不同階段作出機械性的劃分。

9.  Ngo Van Nam案第200 段清晰指出三分之一的量刑折扣內包含了被告人的悔意:

“200. In contrast to the approach in sentencing in Scotland and Australia, as evidenced in the judgments of the Courts of those jurisdictions, in Hong Kong to a considerable extent this Court has elided the difference between the utilitarian value of a plea of guilty and the subjective factor of remorse. So, other than in exceptional circumstances, the remorse of a defendant who pleads guilty is taken to be subsumed in the discount of one-third afforded for a plea of guilty. As noted earlier, this Court has used the phrase the ‘high watermark’ in a number of judgments in reference to the one-third discount . . . we are satisfied that it is appropriate to continue sentencing on that basis.”

10.  上訴人被捕後需於2019 年11 月20 日出庭應訊。但他缺席，裁判官發出拘捕令。雖然上訴人力陳他曾傳真文件給法庭解釋及證明他當日缺席是因為他在醫院就診，但他在另一單販運危險藥物案被捕及執行了本案的拘捕令、被緝拿歸案後，在裁判官席前的兩次聆訊中(2020 年5 月25 日及2020 年6 月9 日，上訴卷宗第 30至32 頁)，無論他本人或代表律師均沒有向裁判官提及這點，又或者呈遞有關的文件以茲證明。綜觀整個上訴卷宗，均沒有他曾在醫院急症室求診的記錄。他是在上訴理由中才首次提及此事的。再者，他在缺席法庭聆訊後，再干犯了更嚴重的販運危險藥物的控罪，亦正正顯示他對干犯本案的悔意極之有限。在此情況下，裁判官只給予他不少於百分之二十五的扣減，並無不妥。

11.  上訴人的上訴理由二，投訴裁判官下令兩項控罪的刑期分期執行。雖然戒毒所報告指上訴人仍有毒癮及建議戒毒所命令，裁判官鑒於監禁是第二項控罪唯一判刑選項，亦已考慮上訴人在執行逮捕令後已被羈押八個星期，故以即時監禁來處理兩項控罪。裁判官表示：

「兩項控罪性質不同，並無關連，雖然同時間被拘捕，實為兩件獨立事件。考慮整體刑責和刑期長度後，認為須分期執行。」

12.  本席認同，兩條控罪唯一的關連就是兩物件是同時間在上訴人的身上檢獲的，但控罪性質並不一樣，涉案的物件亦非同類，裁判官正確下令兩項控罪的刑期分期執行。