|
CACC 93/2025，[2026] HKCA 538
原案件：[2025] HKCFI 1656
香港特別行政區
高等法院上訴法庭
刑事司法管轄權
不服刑罰上訴許可申請
刑事上訴案件2025年第93號
(原高等法院原訟法庭刑事案件2024年第217號)
__________________
| 答辯人 |
香港特別行政區 |
|
| |
對 |
|
| 申請人 |
QIAN PING (錢平) |
|
__________________
| 聆訊日期： |
2026年3月24日 |
| 判案書日期： |
2026年3月24日 |
判案書
1. 申請人被控一項‘企圖強姦’，經審訊後則被裁定較輕的‘猥褻侵犯’成立，高等法院原審法官（張慧玲法官）把他判囚3年。申請人不服，就刑罰提出上訴許可申請。
案情摘要
2. 申請人是一名按摩師。控方指他在按摩店為一名內地女遊客按摩時趁對方入睡，拉下對方的褲子，從後用下體‘頂’向對方的陰部。女遊客驚醒, 轉身看見申請人露出勃起的下體，接著報警。申請人在警誡下否認非禮或企圖強姦。他聲稱「冇發生乜事 … 佢話我強姦, 我話冇」。
原審情況
3. 答辯時，申請人否認‘企圖強姦’。他通過大律師表示有意承認‘猥褻侵犯’，但控方卻一直拒絕。原審法官回應，指視乎女遊客的證供，她會給予陪審團有關交替罪名的指引。
4. 申請人的庭上證供如下：按摩時女遊客提出想試一夜情。她主動讓申請人觸摸乳房和拉下自己的褲子。等到申請人拿出下體壓向她，女遊客才向他索價1,000元。申請人嘗試還價，但不成功，之後作罷。女遊客光著下身轉成俯臥狀態，他便用毛巾蓋著女遊客的臀部繼續為她按摩雙腿。不過由於慾念已被挑起，他便暗地裡一隻手繼續替女遊客按摩、一隻手隔著褲子自瀆，直至射精。女遊客是後來才突然跳起指控他強姦並跟著報警的。
5. 最後陪審團以5比2的比數裁定申請人‘企圖強姦’不成立，一致裁定他‘猥褻侵犯’成立。
原審量刑
6. 原審法官在判刑時指「被告畀口供就畀咗一個非常之唔同嘅情況」[1]，之後則續說[2]：
「好明顯，因為陪審員一致裁定被告人係非禮X罪名成立，即係話陪審員根本唔接受被告呢個講法。陪審團一定係接納被告係有做到X所講嗰啲嘅情況，先至係裁定佢非禮罪罪名成立，即係猥褻侵犯罪罪名成立。陪審員只係唔能夠肯定被告當時有一個懷住去強姦X嘅意圖而作出咗一啲行為係超乎咗呢個只係預備嘅工夫…。」
7. 原審法官表示：申請人雖然沒有前科，但本案案情嚴重，涉及違反誠信，所以判刑須具阻嚇性以向社會大眾發放正確訊息。她認為3年是合適的量刑基準和最終刑期。
上訴理由
8. 代表申請人的劉大律師不是原審大律師。他放棄量刑基準過高的投訴，改為只依賴一項上訴理由。這項上訴理由指申請人在開審前已表明願意承認‘猥褻侵犯’, 最終亦被裁定此罪罪名成立, 所以應該獲得相應的認罪扣減。
答辯方回應
9. 答辯人援引HKSAR v Lam Kai Man [2020] 4 HKLRD 107[3]，力陳申請人若要獲得認罪扣減，便必須在表示承認較輕罪名時闡述認罪的基礎或立場並記錄在案，但他卻沒有。再者他在審訊中是以從無非禮X以達致完全脫罪的立場進行抗辯，亦即與他擬認罪的基礎背道而馳。申請人只是提出純屬試探性的答辯商討，所以不應得到任何認罪扣減。
討論
10. 我完全同意答辯方的分析及陳詞。在說出承認‘猥褻侵犯’的意願之後，申請人並沒有作出正式的認罪答辯。在作供時他更說出一個連‘猥褻侵犯’都構不上的版本。這不可能是原審辯方大律師的疏忽。申請人明顯是因為承認‘猥褻侵犯’不成，便反而決心一搏，希望完全脫罪。不過即使申請人和原審辯方大律師都搞錯了，誤以為申請人的版本構成‘猥褻侵犯’，那也改變不了有關的基本情況，那就是，申請人從來都沒有真正意義上的認罪，所以亦自然不應該獲得相應的認罪扣減。
判決
11. 申請人的上訴理由，不是合理可供辯的上訴理由。我拒絕他的刑罰上訴許可申請。
警告
12. 在庭上，我已就《刑事訴訟程序條例》第83W條，即有關‘減時’命令的風險，包括只是按法律意見而重新提出申請所仍需承擔的風險，警告過申請人，他表示明白。
答辯人： 由律政司高級檢控官莫韻妍代表
申請人： 由法律援助署委派趙、司徒、鄭律師事務所轉聘劉啟賢大律師代表
[1] AB 54I。
[2] AB 54Q – S。
[3] 相關段落如下:
“E6. Further principles in respect of the application of Ngo Van Nam
52. In light of these authorities to which we have referred, we consider that it is necessary to supplement what has been said in Ngo Van Nam in respect of the position in this jurisdiction where early pleas of guilty to lesser offences or alternative charges are offered by a defendant, which pleas either match the eventual verdict of the jury or are later accepted by the prosecution.
53. First, if a defendant wishes to plead guilty to a lesser or alternative charge, he should make a clear and unequivocal statement of his position in court and on the record. This should be done by formally entering a plea to the proposed charge on the court record, but it may also in certain circumstances be achieved by his legal representative stating, again formally on the court record, the defendant’s intention and the basis of his proposed plea.
54. Secondly, the defendant should adhere to his stated position for the remainder of the proceedings. By this, we do not in any way mean to limit the right of a defendant to a trial or to conduct his case in any way he sees fit. We are only concerned with how a court should assess a claim by a defendant to a sentencing discount as a result of his earlier offer of a plea of guilty.
55. Thirdly, we do not propose to close the door entirely on clear and unequivocal offers to plead guilty to lesser or alternative charges made in writing by the defendant’s legal representatives to the prosecution, which cannot for some good reason be entered formally on the record. However, the court should satisfy itself that there was good reason for the plea not being formally entered on the court record, and the onus will be firmly upon the defendant seeking the discount to show that he clearly and unequivocally offered the plea in question and the basis for the plea; and that such position had been adhered to for the remainder of the proceedings.
56. Finally, the extent of the discount will of course depend on the stage at which the proposed plea is clearly and unequivocally entered on the court record. Even then, it must be subject to the overriding discretion of the judge and the principles set out in Ngo Van Nam. However, that discretion must not be exercised in such a way as to compromise these principles.”
|