|
DCCC 884/2023
[2024] HKDC 1458
香港特別行政區
區域法院
刑事案件2023年第884號
________________________
________________________
| 出席人士: |
吳思思女士，律政司檢控官，代表香港特別行政區 |
| |
周偉雄先生，由法律援助署委派的黎國光律師事務所延聘，代表被告人 |
| 控罪: |
[1] 盜竊罪 (Theft) |
| |
[2] 使用他人的身份證 (Using an identity card relating to another person) |
| |
[3] 偽造 (Forgery) |
| |
[4] 在公眾地方管有攻擊性武器 (Possession of an offensive weapon in a public place) |
| |
[5] 駕駛時無有效駕駛執照 (Driving without a valid driving licence) |
| |
[6] 沒有第三者保險而使用汽車 (Using a motor vehicle without third party insurance) |
________________________
判刑理由書
________________________
1. 被告人承認共 6 項控罪：
(1) 盜竊，違反香港法例第 210 章《盜竊罪條例》第 9 條（控罪 1）；
(2) 使用他人的身份證，違反香港法例第 177 章《人事登記條例》第 7A(1A) 條（控罪 2）；
(3) 偽造，違反香港法例第 200 章《刑事罪行條例》第 71 條（控罪 3）；
(4) 在公眾地方管有攻擊性武器，違反香港法例第 245 章《公安條例》第 33(1) 條（控罪 4）；
(5) 駕駛時無有效駕駛執照，違反香港法例第 374 章《道路交通條例》第 42(1) 及 (4) 條（控罪 5）；及
(6) 沒有第三者保險而使用汽車，違反香港法例第 272 章《汽車保險（第三者風險）條例》第 4(1) 及 (2)(a) 條（控罪 6）。
案情撮要
2. 被告人承認的經修訂案情撮要如下：
案情
(1) 2023 年 2 月 7 日，警務人員在元朗進行反毒品行動。約於 1725 時，偵緝警員 25731（控方第三證人）與隊員看見登記號碼 WY 3757 的私家車（WY 3757）進入天水圍天秀路 8 號天一商場停車場 B 層（天一停車場）。被告人及一名女子分別從 WY 3757 的駕駛座位及前座乘客座位下車。控方第三證人表露警察身份，截停被告人。經查問，發現被告人 16 歲（即未滿 18 歲），並無持有任何駕駛執照。控方第三證人搜查被告人，在他身上檢獲一條 WY 3757 的車匙。
(2) 被告人於是被拘捕，並於警誡下說：「我知我無牌，我先偷架車嚟揸」。
(3) 經搜車，在前座乘客位置地氈下面發現一個環保袋，載有一把開山刀（刀鋒約 32 厘米，刀鋒被一個紙皮刀套包裹着）。被告人於警誡下說：「我驚俾人打，先將把刀擺喺架車度傍身」。
警方調查
(4) 指紋檢驗顯示，WY 3757 的右車門發現被告人的右掌紋。
(5) 天一停車場的閉路電視片段拍攝到 2023 年 2 月 7 日 1510 時，被告人駕駛 WY 3757，載着一名女子離開停車場。
(6) 運輸署記錄顯示：
(a) WY 3757 的登記車主是羅梓賢先生（控方第一證人），報稱的通信地址是將軍澳健明邨一住宅單位（單位）；
(b) 被告人沒有任何有效的駕駛執照。
(7) 居於單位內的張萬鴻先生（控方第二證人）確認對有關 WY 3757 的運輸署記錄並不知情。
(8) 控方第一證人表示：
(a) 2022 年 12 月 1 日，他遺失了載有香港身份證及其他物品的銀包。他同日報失了香港身份證。
(b) 他並無擁有任何車輛，亦無授權任何人把他登記為 WY 3757 的車主。
(c) 他從沒收到任何關於 WY 3757 的通知或信件，對單位亦毫不知情。
(d) 他並不認識被告人。
警誡會面
(9) 被告人其後進行錄影會面，說出一些事情，當中包括以下各項：
(a) 被告人已駕駛 WY 3757 約兩星期。2023 年 1 月底，被告人以港幣約 20,000 元購買 WY 3757，然後指示代辦公司用控方第一證人的香港身份證把控方第一證人登記為 WY 3757 的車主。該身份證是被告人一個月前在旺角拾獲的。2023 年 1 月 31 日，被告人簽署了有關 WY 3757 的「車輛過戶通知書」。
(b) 被告人一星期前在旺角丟掉控方第一證人的香港身份證。被告人並不認識控方第一證人。
(c) 被告人亦在網上向亞洲保險有限公司遞交了住址證明信件。他用 Photoshop 編輯該住址證明，用作購買 WY 3757 的第三者保險。他把原有信件上的地址改成了單位的地址。
(d) 被告人在天一停車場 2023 年 2 月 7 日的閉路電視片段截圖中認出自己。
(e) 被告人於兩星期前在旺角的後巷拾獲涉案的「開山刀」，隨後把該「開山刀」放在 WY 3757 前座乘客位置地氈下面作「防身」之用。
判刑原則
控罪 1：盜竊
3. 「盜竊」罪最高的刑期為 10 年監禁，沒有量刑指引。
控罪2：使用他人的身份證
4. 該控罪最高的刑期為第六級罰款及 10 年監禁。於 HKSAR v Li Chang Li [2005] 1 HKLRD 864 一案中，上訴法庭就來港訪客管有或使用偽造或他人身份證訂定量刑指引。根據該指引，就算被告人合法留港，承認管有偽造身份證或他人身份證後適當的量刑基準為 12 個月監禁；如被告人曾出示或使用過上述身份證，藉此非法受聘或非法延期留港，認罪後適當的量刑基準為 15 個月監禁。除此之外，該類控罪沒有量刑指引。
控罪 3：偽造
5. 這是嚴重控罪，最高刑期為 14 年監禁；刑期視乎案情，沒有量刑指引。
控罪4：在公眾地方管有攻擊性武器
6. 該控罪最高的刑期為 3 年監禁，沒有量刑指引，但法例按被告人的年齡劃分法庭可考慮的判刑。
控罪5：駕駛時無有效駕駛執照
7. 如屬首次被定罪，該控罪最高的刑罰為第 2 級罰款及監禁 3 個月（見香港法例第 374 章《道路交通條例》第 42(4) 條）。
8. 另外，上述法例第 69 條訂明：
「69. 就某些罪行的定罪而取消駕駛資格
(1) 在不損害規定就一項罪行可以或必須施加罰則的任何其他條文下，判處任何人以下罪行罪名成立的法庭或裁判官，可命令該人取消駕駛資格為期一段其認為適當的期間 ——
(a) 任何本條例所訂與駕駛汽車相關的罪行…」
控罪6：沒有第三者保險而使用汽車
9. 香港法例第 272 章《汽車保險（第三者風險）條例》第 4(2)(a) 條訂明，該控罪最高的刑罰為第 3 級罰款及監禁 12 個月。另外，任何人就本條所訂罪行被定罪，其持有或領取汽車駕駛執照的資格須予取消（除非法庭因特別理由而認為適合另作命令，期間由法庭裁定，但由定罪之日起計不得少於 12 個月或多於 3 年。
被告人的背景
10. 被告人生於 2006 年 2 月，現年 18 歲（案發時 16 歲），未婚，與父母及長姊同住。他曾接受中二程度的教育，但於 2021 年輟學。
11. 被告人有 4 項刑事定罪紀錄，與本案的控罪不類同（包括串謀販運危險藥物、普通襲擊、違反感化令及襲擊引致造成身體受傷。最後一次被定罪的日期為 2021 年 9 月 28 日，被判處戒毒所。
討論
法庭應否傳召報告
12. 大律師依賴香港法例第 245 章《公安條例》第 33(2)(b) 條，要求法庭判刑前先傳閱一系列報告。《公安條例》第 33 條訂明（強調後加）：
「(1) 任何人如無合法權限或合理辯解而在任何公眾地方攜有任何攻擊性武器，即屬犯罪，一經循簡易程序或公訴程序定罪，可按第 (2) 款指明的方式判處刑罰。
(2) 被裁定犯第 (1) 款所訂的罪行的人 ——
(a) 如年齡未滿 14 歲，須按照《少年犯條例》（第 226 章）的條文處理；
(b) 如年齡已滿 14 歲但不足 17 歲，須 ——
(i) 判處不超過 3 年的監禁；
(ii) 判處根據《勞教中心條例》（第 239 章）條文發出的羈留令，但須符合該條例的條文；
(iii) （已於 1990 年被廢除）；
(iv) 在符合《教導所條例》（第 280 章）的條文下，判處在該條例所指的教導所羈留；或
(v) 在符合《更生中心條例》（第 567 章）的條文下，判處在該條例所指的更生中心羈留；
(c) 如年齡已滿 17 歲但不足 25 歲，須 ——
(i) 判處不超過 3 年的監禁；
(ii) 判處根據《勞教中心條例》（第 239 章）條文發出的羈留令，但須符合該條例的條文；
(iii) （已於 1990 年被廢除）；
(iv) 在符合《更生中心條例》（第 567 章）的條文下，判處在該條例所指的更生中心羈留；
(d) 如年齡在 25 歲或以上，須判處不超過 3 年的監禁。」
13. 首先，《公安條例》第 33 條之下的控罪是例外控罪（Excepted Offence）；除非法例另有訂明，根據香港法例第 221 章《刑事訴訟程序條例》第 109A 條，就算是年青罪犯，法庭判處監禁前無須考慮其他判刑選項。
14. 根據第 33(2)(a) 條，如被告人年齡未滿 14 歲，須按照《少年犯條例》（第 226 章）的條文處理。除了被告人的年齡外，法例第 33(2)(b) 及 33(2)(c) 條有明顯的差異：根據第 33(2)(b)(iv) 條，法例指明法庭須按照《教導所條例》（第 280 章）的條文處理。換句話說，在沒有其他方法處理被告人才應判處監禁；判刑的選項包括教導所。根據第 33(2)(c) 條，沒有要求法庭考慮《教導所條例》（第 280 章）的條文，判刑選項亦不包括教導所。
15. 哪一項條文適用取決於被告人被定罪時的年齡。本案被告人被定罪時已年滿 18 歲。因此，法例第 33(2)(b) 條並不適用；適用的條文是第 33(2)(c) 條。可是根據法例，控罪 4 的判刑的選項只有監禁、更生中心及勞教中心。
16. 本席明白本案的其他控罪並非例外控罪，法庭仍可就其他控罪傳閱報告。
17. 本席已指出，香港法例第 567 章《更生中心條例》第 4 條訂明：
「(2) 羈留令只可針對符合以下所有條件的人作出 ——
(c) 並非正在因服刑而被羈留在以下地方亦從未如此被羈留 ——
(i) 勞教中心；
(ii) 教導所；或
(iii) 戒毒所。」
18. 被告人曾被判處戒毒所，因此根本不切合《更生中心條例》的要求。
19. 香港法例第 239 章《勞教中心條例》第 4 條訂明：
「(1) 凡看來是青少年犯的人被裁定犯有關罪行，而法庭認為在該個案的情況下，並經顧及該人的品性及過往行為後，為該人本身及公眾利益着想，該人應羈留在勞教中心一段時間，則法庭可針對該人作出羈留令，以代替任何其他判刑。
(2) 凡針對某人作出的羈留令正在生效，該人須在該命令作出之日起被羈留在勞教中心，期限由署長在考慮個人的健康情況及行為後予以決定 ——
(a) 如羈留令述明該人看來是 21 歲或以上，則該期限不得少於 3 個月，但亦不得超過 12 個月；
(b) 如羈留令述明該人看來是不足 21 歲，則該限期不得少於 1 個月，但亦不得超過 6 個月。」
20. 如本席就其中任何一項控罪判處勞教中心令或更生中心令便不可就餘下的控罪判處監禁。被告人現年 18 歲；換句話說，如法庭判處勞教中心令，最高的刑期為 6 個月。考慮到本案案情，判處勞教中心令明顯嚴重不足以反映被告人的罪責。
21. 更重要的是，勞教中心的目的是給予年青犯案者短暫及嚴苛的囚禁（short sharp shock），藉此令他們改過自新。法例第 4(1) 條訂明，法庭衡量是否應判處勞教中心令時，須考慮被告人的品性及過往行為。縱使被告人只有 18 歲，他已有 3 次的刑事定罪紀錄，已非初次誤入歧途。首兩次定罪，法庭均給予機會，判處被告人感化令。可是，被告人沒有吸取教訓，再次犯案，違反感化令，更被發現是癮君子，因此被判處戒毒所。被告人已曾嘗鐵窗滋味，但仍繼續犯案。他根本不適合判處勞教中心。
22. 縱觀上述因素，本案的唯一判刑選項為即時監禁。
控罪 1：盜竊
23. 大律師要求法庭考慮 香港特別行政區 訴 彭稜耀 [2024] HKDC 1056。首先，這是同級法院的判刑案件，對本席完全沒有約束力。
24. 於 律政司司長對唐健帮及另二人 [2023] HKCA 896 第 35 至 36 段，上訴法庭指出：
「35. 第一，雙方於本案存檔了多份區域法院的判刑理由書，希望藉此支持己方立場。本庭在 律政司司長 訴 溫達揚 一案第 27 段已指出：
「…因為這些判刑，從來就沒有經過上訴而被肯定，也沒有什麼量刑原則可言，對量刑既沒有約束力也沒有參考價值，根本起不了任何指導作用，根本不應稱之為『案例』…」
…任何單純對案件判刑作出比較的做法，都不能協助本庭處理原審判刑是否恰當這個議題。歸根究底，控罪要旨（gravamen of the offence）及適用的量刑因素才是重點所在，而非個別案件的判刑。
36. 高等法院原訟法庭法官潘兆初（當時官階）於 馬廸倫 案已重申：
「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。」」
25. 於 香港特別行政區 對 劉晉旭 [2023] HKCA 1098，上訴法庭於第 51 段又再重申：
「在完結前特別一提。申請方曾在他們的書面陳詞援引區域法院另一宗二號橋暴動案的原審判刑（香港特別行政區 訴 陳起行 [2021] HKDC 874），作為適用 蔡家輝 案的支點以支持本案量刑基準過高的主張，結果終被勸退。本庭已在過往指出過多次，在今年的 律政司司長對唐健帮及另二人 [2023] HKCA 896（判案理由書日期：2023 年 8 月 25 日）又再重申：未經上訴的原審判刑對同級法院沒有約束力，對上訴法庭也沒有任何參考價值，不應被業界用作上訴時的依據。」
26. 於 Secretary for Justice v Wong Che Ping CAAR 3/2019 [2020] HKCA 246，被告人承認 2 項盜竊（控罪 1 及 2）及 1 項管有他人身份證（控罪 4），被判處 200 小時社會服務令。律政司不服判刑，提出覆核。該案中，受害人遺失了銀包，內載有其身分證及信用卡等物品。後來警方發現被告人分別 10 次使用受害人的信用卡購買共 76 包香煙。拘捕被告人時，警方從被告人身上搜獲另一名叫 GUPTA Dishank 的身分證及信用卡。警誡下，被告人承認拾獲受害人的銀包，並使用受害人的信用卡購買 76 包香煙；他已丟掉受害人的身分證。原審法官認為被告人盜竊受害人的銀包及 GUPTA Dishank 的身分證只是「拾遺不報」；考慮到被告人沒有刑事定罪紀錄，縱使感化官認為被告人不適合，法官仍然判處被告人社會服務令。上訴法庭指：
“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.”
27. 大律師指第 1 證人於 2022 年 12 月遺失涉案的身份證。被告人只是拾遺不報，第 1 控方證人亦沒有蒙受經濟或實際損失。本席接受沒有任何證供顯示被告盜取控方第 1 證人的銀包。因此，本席以對被告人最有利的角度來衡量刑期。縱使是「拾遺不報」，但身分證並非玩物，亦沒收藏價值；事實亦證明被告人盜竊涉案身分證是用作干犯其他控罪。
28. 基於上述因素，本席認為控罪 1 適當的量刑起點為 9 個月監禁。
控罪2：使用他人的身分證
29. 大律師再次提及 彭稜耀 案（同上）。該判刑案件不但全無約束力，更沒參考價值。
30. 於 HKSAR v Li Chang Li [2005] 1 HKLRD 864 一案中，上訴法庭就來港訪客管有或使用偽造或他人的身分證，藉此獲取工作或延長來港而作出量刑指引。可是，上訴法庭於之後的一系列案例中述明，該量刑指引不適用於香港永久居民。
31. 於 HKSAR v Fan King Lam [2011] HKCU 1875（CACC 220/2010），上訴法庭指，上述的量刑指引並非針對香港永久居民。該案中的被告人承認一項販運危險藥物（控罪 1）及一項管有他人身份證（控罪 2）。案情指被告人被警方截停搜查，警方於被告人身上搜獲大量毒品及空置的透明膠袋和 1 個電子磅等。另外，警方亦於被告人的右後褲袋找到 2 張香港身份證。調查顯示該 2 張身份證是真的身份證，但警方找不到身份證的持有人。判刑時，原審法官運用 Li Chang Li的量刑指引，被告人認罪後，就控罪 2 判處一般的 12 個月監禁，與控罪 1 的刑期分期執行。被告人不服判刑提出上訴。上訴時，被告人援引 2 件裁判法院的判刑案件及 HKSAR v Chan Man Mo [2001] 1 HKLRD 121。上訴法院指：
“17. We accept, of course, that the present applicant is a Hong Kong permanent resident and not someone staying in Hong Kong by permission. There is no specific tariff for such a case.”
32. 彭稜耀 案中的被告人是香港永久居民。辯方的大律師欲援引 Li Chang Li的量刑指引。
33. 雖然沒有量刑指引，但這不代表香港永久居民管有或使用偽造或他人身分證的罪責比訪客為輕。
34. 於 Fan King Lam案（同上），上訴法院指：
“17. … While it is true that there could be no issue of seeking unlawful employment, we see no ground to say that the 12 months is not applicable in this case. In HKSAR v Lau Kwok Wo, CACC 181/2008, in discussing the sentence of 12 months for possessing a forged Hong Kong identity card, Yeung JA pointed out that:
“20. The Applicant is neither an illegal immigrant nor an overstayer in possession of a forged identity card or an identity card relating to another person. As Mr. Wong correctly pointed out, the Applicant was a Hong Kong permanent resident and so he must have his own identity card. By possessing a forged identity card, the Applicant must have his purpose. We do not intend to speculate his purpose. But he was certainly up to no good. In view of these, the Applicant’s offence of possessing a forged identity card is no less serious than an illegal immigrant or an overstayer possessing a forged identity card or an identity card relating to another person for finding a job or extending his stay.””
35. HKSAR v Zhen Yinfang（甄銀芳） [2012] HKCU 17 一案中的被告人於港澳碼頭的入境櫃位辦理入境手續。入境處人員於被告人的銀包內發現一張香港永久居民身份證。身份證上的相片與被告人的容貌脗合，但出生日期和名字均與被告人的個人資料不脗合。警誡下，被告人承認於內地以人民幣 100 元購買涉案的身份證、她知悉該身份證是偽造的身份證；被告人指她打算以該身份證隱藏她的真實年齡。雖然被告人並非香港的永久居民，她擁有一張香港身份證及可在香港合法逗留。原審裁判官運用 Li Chang Li的量刑指引，被告人承認控罪後以 12 個月監禁作為量刑基準。被告人不服判刑，提出上訴。原訟法庭指：
“29. Whilst in preceding paragraphs His Lordship elaborated on the severity of the problem of illegal employment and the need of deterrence, and in paragraph 41 a sentence of 15 months upon plea was suggested for showing or using a false identity card or an identity card belonging to another person to conceal the real identity in order to work or stay in Hong Kong, no qualifying words were used in paragraph 40. It was said, in the cases of possession of false identity card or identity card belonging to another person, even if the offender is lawfully in Hong Kong, generally speaking, a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment should be imposed upon a plea to reflect the seriousness of the offence and for deterrence.
30. In a subsequent case, HKSAR v Lau Kwok Wo (劉國和) CACC 181/2008, a case of which the judgment was also written in Chinese, Yeung JA (as he then was) said, in a case where the offender was found to be up to no good, his offence of possession of a false identity card is no less serious than an illegal immigrant or an overstayer possessing a false identity card or an identity card relating to another person for finding a job or extending his stay.
31. The latest Court of Appeal case referred to me is HKSAR v Fan King Lam, CACC 220/2010. In this case the Court of Appeal accepted that there is no specific tariff for a case where the offender is a Hong Kong permanent resident and not someone staying in Hong Kong by permission. Their Lordship went on to quote the passage of Yeung JA in Lau Kwok Wo and held that the sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment, which was imposed upon a guilty plea, should not be disturbed…
44. In HKSAR v Lau Kam Ling HCMA 2323/2010, Deputy High Court Judge P. Li observed:
“Despite the absence of sentencing guideline for cases of this kind, there is no lack of sentencing cases involving resident using forged identity cards to commit crime where a starting point of 15 months being adopted…”
48. In deciding the correct sentence, the finding that possession of the false identity card by the appellant was for some sinister motive must be borne in mind…
53. Unless in very exceptional circumstances, Community Service Order is not an appropriate sentence for an offence of this nature and gravity.”
36. 於 HKSAR v Chung Ka Wai（鍾嘉威） CACC 364/2015，上訴法庭指：
“54. The possession of an identity card relating to another person is surely not a minor offence because the purpose of the person possessing it is very likely to be illegal. Using it to commit a crime not only will enhance the difficulty of solving the case, but it may also cause inconvenience to its genuine holder.
55. If there is evidence to show that a defendant possesses an identity card relating to another person for the purpose of committing other offences, a sentence of immediate imprisonment should be imposed for the charge of possessing an identity card relating to another person.”
37. 於 Secretary for Justice v Wong Che Ping（同上），上訴法庭指：
“33. … He even discarded Mr Wong’s identity card and driving licence, causing huge inconvenience to him.
34. It has been stressed by the Court of Appeal that document of identity is not a plaything or collector’s item, and it is highly likely that there is an unlawful purpose for possessing someone else’s identity card. Therefore, possessing an identity card relating to another person may also attract 15 months’ imprisonment even after a guilty plea…”
38. 被告人盜竊涉案的身分證，已為控方第 1 證人帶來不便；他不但使用控方第 1 證人的身分證作案，令控方第 1 證人成為 WY 3757 的登記車主。如 WY 3757 涉及交通意外或違反交通規例，可能令控方第 1 證人惹上更多及更大的麻煩。
39. 基於上述因素，本席認為控罪 2 適當的量刑起點為 27 個月監禁。
控罪 3：偽造
40. 大律師承認被告人更改控方第 2 證人的銀行月結單偽造住址證明，但稱被告人已忘記如何獲取該銀行月結單。大律師指保險公司及其代理公司實際上沒有任何損失，要求予以輕判。
41. 於 HKSAR v Poon Yiu Fai [2009] HKCU 686，原訟庭指出使用虛假文書比管有更為嚴重。於 HKSAR v Lam See Chung Stephen [2013] 5 HKLRD 242，上訴法庭指出，使用任何虛假文書均為極嚴重控罪，一般判以即時監禁。
42. 被告人不但偽造文件，還使用該文件購買車輛第三者保險。保險公司沒有實際損失，但該保險是以欺詐手段獲取，根本無效。如 WY 3757 涉及交通意外，第三者根本無法獲得任何保險賠償。
43. 考慮到上述因素，本席認為控罪 3 適當的量刑基準為 18 個月監禁。
控罪4：在公眾地方管有攻擊性武器
44. 被告人稱涉案的「開山刀」是在旺角拾得；他將刀放在車上作防身之用。
45. 大律師指，沒有證供顯示被告人曾使用該刀。他要求法庭考慮 HKSAR v Ip Chi Wang HCMA 377/2003。案情指警方發現被告人進入小巷，從其褲襠拿出一把「開山刀」。警誡下，被告人稱進入小巷小解。後來警方於小巷內找到另外 2 把刀。
46. 被告人經審訊後被定罪；原審裁判官判處被告人 9 個月監禁時指：
“This was a truly wicked weapon which you were carrying concealed on your body in a public place where people were congregating. It has a sharpened edge and a pointed heavy curved blade. It is capable of easily causing severe injury or death. Everybody knows how, on occasions, such weapons are produced in confrontations where lethal choppings occur.
This is the reason why the law takes such a severe view of these cases, why this is one of the few offences where the law lays down a mandatory term of imprisonment and where the maximum, here in the magistracy, is increased from the normal two years' imprisonment. There is a determination by the community to banish such lethal weapons.”
47. 該案的被告人不服定罪及判刑，提出上訴。原訟法庭駁回上訴，並指：
“30. In my judgment, the magistrate was right in the circumstances of this case to regard it as a serious offence warranting an immediate custodial sentence. No doubt he took into account also the appellant's previous record of an offence of blackmail.
31. Mr Suen suggests that the magistrate went too far in asserting that such knives are used for lethal choppings. I disagree. That is a perfectly sensible consideration an experienced Hong Kong magistrate is entitled to take into account. It is not a mere assumption as Mr Suen argues. The magistrate’s reasoning in this regard cannot be criticized.”
48. 涉案的刀是一把「開山刀」。被告人承認單是刀鋒已有約 32 厘米。從相片可見，刀鋒末端極鋒利。被告人聲稱從街上拾獲該把刀令人難以信服。另外，被告人稱該「開山刀」是以防被人襲擊，用作自衛。本席不接受任何一名正常、合理及守法的人須使用該等大殺傷力武器作自衞。如法庭於 Ip Chi Wang中所述，這類「開山刀」是用作毆鬥傷人。況且，被告人之前已有 2 次涉及暴力的前科。因沒有證供顯示被告人曾使用該「開山刀」，適當的量刑基準為 9 個月監禁。
控罪 5：無牌駕駛
49. 該控罪的情節極嚴重。案發時被告人只有 16 歲，連學車的資格也欠奉。他從未通過考試證實可安全駕駛，案發時已駕駛 WY 3757 兩個星期；被截停時更正接載著乘客，為其他道路使用者帶來極大風險。該控罪適當的量刑基準為 9 個星期監禁。
控罪6：沒有第三者保險而使用汽車
50. 大律師提及 香港特別行政區 訴 王錦城 的判刑。這亦是同級法院的判刑案件，完全沒有約束力，亦無參考價值。
51. 於 HKSAR v Tsang Kwun Wing CACC 89/2004，被告人承認共 7 項控罪：1 項盜竊（控罪 1）、4 項偽造（控罪 2 至 5）、1 項沒有第三者保險而使用汽車（控罪 6）及 1 項使用沒有發牌的車輛（控罪 7）。2003 年 10 月 16 日，被告人駕駛一輛被盜的士而被捕。當時該的士掛著 KB 1913 車牌，被告人承認於 2002 年 11 月 16 日盜竊該的士；之後他在香港購買 2 個偽造車牌（KB 1913 及 JU 1311）及於內地購買 2 張偽造行車證，藉此駕駛該的士。就控罪 6，原審法官以 12 個月監禁（即最高刑期）作為量刑基準。被告人不服判刑，提出上訴。上訴法庭駁回上訴，指：
“7. Mr Kelly submitted that with regard to the sentences on charges 6 and 7, the totality of the applicant’s sentence was disproportionate to his overall criminality. Mr Kelly argued with specific reference to these charges that they related to offences which had arisen out of the same set of facts as the earlier charges and should, in such circumstances, not have attracted an additional term of imprisonment.
8. In passing sentence, the judge had remarked that the serious nature of the case was not only the theft of the taxi but the fact that the applicant had been driving it for many months without insurance…
9. We are unable to agree with Mr Kelly that the judge erred either in the starting points which he adopted for these two offences or in his decision to make consecutive terms of imprisonment to those imposed on charges 1 to 5. The applicant had no insurance to drive this stolen taxi and he was unlawfully driving it for a very considerable time. Whilst the offence of driving without insurance had arisen because the applicant was driving the stolen vehicle, and in this sense arose from the theft allegation, he created by doing so a serious hazard to other road users in general. The theft of the taxi will, no doubt, have been a major inconvenience to its owner but the offence in charge 6 affected the road-using public at large. In our view, the judge was entitled to have taken the course which he did.”
52. 於 HKSAR v Yeung Chi Wa（楊志華） [2018] HKCA 73，被告人承認共 9 項控罪：2 項盜竊（控罪 1 及 控罪 5）、4 項使用虛假車牌（控罪 2、3、4 及 6）、1 項使用虛假的禁區牌照（控罪 8）及 1 項沒有第三者保險而使用汽車（控罪 9）。2016 年 11 月 11 日早上，一輛車牌為 PZ 963 的的士被盜；車主報案（控罪 1）。同年 11 月 24 日，一輛的士（登記號碼為 HA 9072）的行車證被盜（控罪 5）。同年 11 月 23 日，警方發現被告人駕駛一輛被盜的士，當時該的士掛著 KX 8483 車牌；擋風玻璃上的行車證顯示 HA 9072（控罪 7）及一個寫上 HA 9072 的禁區牌照（控罪 8）。司機位置的地氈下另有一個車牌 KG 1609（控罪 4）。警方亦於該的士的車尾箱內找到被盜的士原有的兩個 PZ 963 車牌及兩個 HA 9072 和 RM 9641 車牌（控罪 2 及 3）。警誡下，被告人承認盜竊該的士用作賺錢。被告人亦承認知悉車牌 RM 9641、KX 8483 及 KG 1609 均為的士車牌，於是購買相同的偽造車牌。他更承認盜竊 HA 9072 的行車證及更改被盜的士的禁區牌照（寫上 HA 9072）。就控罪 5（盜竊行車證）及 9（沒有第三者保險而使用汽車），原審法官採納 6 個月監禁作為量刑基準。被告人不服判刑，提出上訴。上訴法庭指：
“30. … Issue was taken, inter‑alia, with the sentence of 8 months’ imprisonment imposed for the charge of using the motor vehicle without third‑party insurance… which the judge ordered to be served consecutively to the other sentences. The judge had stipulated a starting point for sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment and, affording the applicant a discount of one‑third, imposed a sentence of 8 months’ imprisonment. In determining that the judge was entitled to take that approach in sentencing, Stuart‑Moore VP noted that the applicant had driven the stolen taxi for many months without insurance and said that the applicant that had created “a serious hazard to other road users in general”, noting that the offence “affected the road‑using public at large.”…
31. In the instant application it was accepted that the applicant had used the stolen taxi to ply for hire as a taxi driver for the period of six weeks that it was in his possession. Obviously, in those circumstances the road‑using public were put at risk for a considerable period of time by the fact that he was using the stolen taxi in that way without third‑party insurance, albeit that the period of use of the stolen taxi was considerably less than that in HKSAR v Tsang Kwun Wing. In those circumstances, in my judgment it is not reasonably arguable that the judge erred in stipulating a starting point for sentence for that charge of 6 months’ imprisonment and imposing a sentence of 4 months’ imprisonment…
33. In sentencing the applicant, the judge stated that he had regard to the totality principle in arriving at the appropriate overall sentence to impose on the applicant. The judge ordered that the sentences of imprisonment imposed in respect of Charges 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 were to be served concurrently to the other sentences of imprisonment. Those charges arose from the steps that the applicant had taken to use the stolen taxi was concealing from others that it was stolen.
34. The offences reflected by Charges 5 and 9 involved quite separate criminality from the other offences. In ordering that the sentences of 4 months’ imprisonment imposed for each of those charges to be served consecutively to all the other charges the judge imposed an overall sentence of 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment on the applicant. In my judgment, in all the circumstances it is not reasonably arguable that he erred in doing so.”
53. 大律師指保險公司沒有任何損失。如上文所述，本案嚴重之處是被告人當時只有 16 歲，連學車的資格也欠奉。他從未通過考試證實可安全駕駛，案發時已駕駛 WY 3757 2 個星期，案發時還載著乘客，嚴重危害其他道路使用者的安全。被告人以偽造文件獲取保險；該保險根本無效。如發生意外的話，第三者根本無法獲得任何賠償。雖然本案被告人駕駛 WY 3757 的時段較 楊志華 短，但被告人是從沒獲駕駛執照的人。基於上述因素，該控罪適當的量刑基準為 6 個月監禁。
減刑因素
認罪折扣
54. 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：
(1) 控罪 1：6 個月監禁；
(2) 控罪 2：18 個月監禁；
(3) 控罪 3：12 個月監禁；
(4) 控罪 4：6 個月監禁；
(5) 控罪 5：6 個星期監禁；
(6) 控罪 6：4 個月監禁。
年齡
55. 本席明白被告人現年 18 歲，案發時 16 歲，是一名年青犯案者。可是年輕並非萬靈丹。Sentencing in Hong Kong 11th Edition 的作者指出：
“[30-24] In Kuramihirangi Pouwhare v R [2010] NZCA 268, Keane J emphasized that “The young age of the offender cannot be accorded, presumptive, let alone paramount weight”… In HKSAR v Dhaliwal Jaspreet Kaur and Anor [2020] 4 HKC 161…, Macrae VP said: “One should remember that an offenders 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”. In respect of some offences, however, this may be unavoidable…
[30-26] Youth notwithstanding, the court must keep in mind the classical principles of sentencing which, apart from rehabilitation, include retribution, deterrence, and prevention… the interest of the community as a whole must also be considered…
[30-27] In Re Applications for Review of Sentences [1972] HKLR 370, 417, it was explained that: “The personality, youth or personal circumstances of the offender may pale into insignificance because of the magnitude or prevalence of the offence in question”. If serious crimes are committed by young person, they cannot expect to turn their age to their advantage upon conviction. The courts, instead, must be prepared to “steel themselves, unless there are particularly powerful and peculiar contrary reasons attaching to the circumstances of the offender and his involvement in the offence, to the imposition of substantial prison terms”: HKSAR v Law Ka Kit and Ors [2003] 2 HKC 178, 187.”
56. 本案情節嚴重，被告人不但干犯一系列控罪，案情顯示被告人的計劃周詳，他的年齡變得微不足道。除了認罪之外，並無其他減刑因素。
總刑期
57. 大律師指，除了控罪 4 之外，其他控罪均源於同一系列基礎事實，要求法庭下令該些控罪的刑期同期執行。
58. 首先，本席必須指出，雖然同一日期發生，於控罪 2 被告人是使用他人身分證蒙騙運輸署；於控罪 3 被告人是行駛偽造文書蒙騙保險公司。控罪 5 及 6 則嚴重影響公眾利益。換句話說，控罪中的文書及受害人均不同。
59. 另外，本席亦不同意，刑期應否同期執行在於控罪是否源自同一交易。於 HKSAR v Ngai Yiu Ching（倪耀偵） [2011] 6 HKC 238，上訴法院裁定：
“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.”
60. 明顯地，每一項控罪均令案情更加嚴重。考慮到整體案情，本席認為總刑期 4 年可適當反映被告人的罪責；扣減認罪折扣的總刑期為 32 個月監禁。因此，本席下令：
(1) 控罪 1：6 個月監禁（與控罪 2 同期執行）；
(2) 控罪 2：18 個月監禁（與控罪 1 同期執行）；
(3) 控罪 3：12 個月監禁（其中 6 個月與控罪 1 及 2 分期執行）；
(4) 控罪 4：6 個月監禁（與控罪 1、2 及 3 完全分期執行）；
(5) 控罪 5：6 個星期監禁（與控罪 6 同期執行）；
(6) 控罪 6：4 個月監禁（與控罪 5 同期執行，但其中 2 個月與控罪 1、2、3、4 分期執行）。另外，由今天起計，被告人於12個月內，不得申請或持有任何類別的駕駛執照。
|