香港特別行政區 訴 梁偉傑

DCCC 726/2024

[2025] HKDC 561

香港特別行政區

區域法院

刑事案件2024年第726號

________________________

________________________

________________________

判刑理由書

________________________

1.  被告人在本席席前承認以下控罪：

(1)  欺詐罪（涉款$800）；

(2)  欺詐罪（涉款$250）；

(3)  盜竊罪（涉及一部流動電話）；

(4)  欺詐罪（涉款$400）；

(5)  欺詐罪（涉款$2,000）；

(6)  欺詐罪（涉款$3,000）；

(7)  欺詐罪（涉款$4,000）；

(8)  欺詐罪（涉款$6,500）；

(9)  欺詐罪（涉款$23,000）；及

(10)  欺詐罪（涉款$8,000）；

2.  這些控罪中的受害人均為一位姓陳的中學生（PW1），而詐騙手法是包括被告人虛假地表示自己為警務人員以騙取該等利益。

3.  本案的發生時間，亦橫跨2012年11月至2013年4月。

4.  根據被告人承認的案情指，他與PW1偶然在天水圍一個地方相遇。被告人向PW1出示一張類似警察委任證的證件，繼而向PW1作出搜查。這樣令PW1誤信被告人是警務人員。

5.  期間，被告人向PW1訛稱，從PW1的斜孭袋中搜出了一包毒品。PW1否認藏毒，但被告人說要帶他返回警署跟進。

6.  PW1不斷提出自己沒有犯法，但不果。PW1亦向被告人哭求。被告人繼而向PW1提出可以幫忙，期間拿取了PW1銀包內$900之中的$800並指出可以「當無件事」（控罪一）。

7.  不過，被告人亦把握機會，著PW1透露自己的姓名，電話號碼，住址及就讀學校資料。

8.  不久之後，被告人到訪PW1的學校，乘機向PW1訛稱鑑證科人員可能會為上述毒品包裝進行驗指模。被告人更裝作把毒品取來交給PW1棄掉，但以此等假資訊和手法作為向PW1索取$250的理由，成功後便離開（控罪二）。

9.  翌日，被告人再次到學校找PW1。被告人對PW1訛稱警方拘捕了一些人，當中有人指控PW1，藉此向PW1訛稱要拿走PW1的流動電話作檢查。被告人聲稱完成檢驗工作後會歸還流動電話，但一直沒有（控罪三）。

10.  自此，被告人有多次接觸PW1。先後以「加快檢驗」手提電話為由向PW1騙取了$400（控罪四）；訛稱警方針對PW1開了檔案，騙取了$2000作為替PW1銷案的條件，其中更以警員會到PW1家中找PW1作為警告手段（控罪五）；訛稱參與銷案的虛構出來的警員被ICAC拘捕，為著這個虛構的人物不要向ICAC供出 PW1，再騙取$3,000（控罪六）；向PW1騙取$4,000「安家費」給上述虛構出來的警員（控罪七）；以不同理由包括該虛構的警員在獄中被打，會有黑社會人員找PW1等，向PW1騙取共$6,500（控罪八）；訛稱被告人找了一位虛構出來的警員同事，向黑社會談判，結果花了$25,000，要PW1承擔。PW1因此相繼被騙了共$23,000（控罪九）；及再以談判為藉口，向PW1索取$8,000，導致PW1向不同人借錢，最後被騙取了$8,000（控罪十）。

11.  事件最後由一位PW1的同學的母親揭發，事源她正是其中一位上述提及PW1借錢的對象。

12.  基於以上，被告人不誠實地騙取了PW1合共$47,950款項及一部價值$2,000的手提電話。

13.  值得一提，被告人在被捕時先保持緘默。其後於錄影會面中竟說先是PW1和另一人打劫他，並搶去11萬人民幣。他成功追捕了PW1，並同意PW1以分期付款方式還錢等作為解釋他接觸PW1的理由。被告人更指不知為什麼PW1會以「阿Sir」稱呼自己。

14.  明顯地，被告人說的這些都是謊話連編。

15.  求情方面，辯方以書面形式作出了詳盡的陳辭。當中有不少案例和求情要點，本席都有一一考量。

16.  本案嚴重之處包括受害人當年只是一名16歲的中學生，被告人的詐騙手段是以假扮警員，以及提出嚴重的指控和情節（包括事件已涉及黑社會，ICAC，還有銷毀證據等）藉由欺詐PW1。PW1所受的驚嚇和困擾，可想而知。

17.  本席認為被告人的行為是十分卑劣。對受害人的傷害遠遠超出受騙只是$50,000左右的基本事實。

18.  儘管辯方大律師努力為被告人求情，被告人的背景對判刑並無重大關連。

19.  事件發生在2012-2013年間。被告人也在2013年被捕，但自2013年9月18日潛逃至2024年1月30日。他的解釋是到內地做裝修工作，回港則是為家人處理靈位事宜。當然，本席不會因潛逃另外判罰一項他沒有被控的罪行。但潛逃對於他是否可以得到充足的1/3判刑扣減，則有商榷餘地。

20.  根據《盜竊罪條例》，控罪三的最高刑罰是10年監禁；其他的欺詐罪，則為14年監禁。

21.  辯方引述的案例指出，盜竊罪沒有量刑指引，但涉及智能電話的案件，因種種原因，可以以更重的判罰處理[1]。

22.  本席認為不單如此。被告人騙取/偷走PW1的手提電話的藉口是要檢查，要查證其他被捕人士的指控。這種手段實在可恥。本席認為比起同類型案件涉及的犯罪手法更精密。

23.  以應用在其他欺詐罪上，本席也不接受犯案手法簡單。無疑，被告人並沒有連群結黨犯案，也沒有製作假文件，以多人扮演不同角色或利用受害人的家人，工作環境等制造騙局。本案亦不涉及傷害金融機構或包含國際元素。但以再三向PW1訛稱PW1身陷困局，針對的是一位年青學生，完全是被告人抓緊PW1入世未深的特質，對PW1一再施壓，這等行為肯定是被告人思前想後之舉。被告人食髓知味，貪得無厭，卑劣得令人髮指。

24.  辯方提供了的案例有一般性的，有針對街頭騙案的，包括：

(1)  HKSAR v Chong Hung Shek [2019] 2 HKLRD 937；

(2)  香港特別行政區 訴 歐陽桂蘭及另二人 [2009] HKCA 425；

(3)  香港特別行政區 訴 葉世雄 [2014] HKDC 810；

(4)  HKSAR v Ng Wing Lun [2012] HKDC 1729；

(5)  香港特別行政區 訴 劉靜兒 [2024] HKDC 1290。

25.  從眾多例子可見，就欺詐罪行的判刑必須貼近案情，不能一概而論。當中以即時監禁處理既是常態，也有其必要性。有不少例子更以4年，或更高的起刑點處理，表現出法庭對不法份子嚴厲看待的態度。

26.  本席亦特意與控辯雙方討論有關潛逃，但認罪，卻沒有加控不依法庭指示歸押的情況。事源一旦有加控不依法庭指示歸押罪，那該罪可得1/3認罪扣減的同時，其餘的原控罪則有案例指出，不可得到充足的1/3扣減。問題是，兩者背後的道理相約，但始終本案的被告人是在出現現階段的各法律程序中及早認罪。他時至今日才面對判刑，卻又是其咎由自取。

27.  從鍾大律師的陳辭可見，她強調本案發生的日期距今超過12年。她沒有投訴任何延誤，事關這均是被告人潛逃之故所致。她亦強調，本案在當年並未排期，所謂潛逃，也沒有包含違反法庭命令之過，也有極端例子是最後潛逃者是沒有被檢控的現象可作比較。

28.  鍾大律師力陳，被告人是在盡早階段認罪。他自入境被捕之後，一直合作，直通判刑程序，希望法庭仍然給予1/3之扣減來反映其盡早提出的認罪。

29.  本席有機會詳細閱讀香港特別行政區 訴 陳偉傑 HCMA 160/2020 [2020] HKCFI 2507的判詞。原訟法庭的潘法官（當時官階）正要處理一位因病而缺席聆訊的上訴人未能獲得1/3的量刑扣減的案件。

30.  潘法官引述HKSAR v Ngo Van Nam [2016] 5 HKLRD 1一案的判詞。其中進一步引述的HKSAR v Ma Ming [2013] 1 HKLRD 813一案如下：

“ 6. …

‘39. …The Court wrote in its judgment of Ma Ming (supra)  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 VP 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 VP 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)

31.  為此，潘法官補充說：

「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。」（後加強調）

32.  以此論之，本席認為本案中的被告人並沒有違反法庭命令的「潛逃」，他失蹤時又未有審期（甚至提訊日）的特質都並非關鍵之處。被告人未能合理地依時序出庭應訊完全是他「潛逃」所致，反映他悔意有限，與遲來但充分的悔意也不能跟盡早認罪者相提並論。若以今時今日才有罪可認，被告人有把握機會來細分，明顯與潘法官所指「盲目地只以不同階段作出機械性的劃分」無異。

33.  當然，本席沒有忘記Ngo Van Nam一案是在2016年9月2日頒布。本案發生則在2012-2013年間。但這方面的觀察，旨在說明法律上就追朔權力有特定考量和運用。依本席理解，Ngo Van Nam一案所論及的對本案仍然通用。事實上，一名被告人可得1/3量刑扣減的法律精神始終如一。

34.  同理，閱讀HKSAR v Lo Kam Fai [2016] 2 HKLRD 308一案，便會注意到其頒布日比Ngo Van Nam更早。可是，只要細心閱讀，便知道上訴庭麥機智法官（當時官階）為該案所寫的判詞，正解決到本席提出的疑問，並可為本案導航，沒有因為其頒布日期是本案發生之後而有所改變。

35.  事源在該案中，麥法官指出：

“63.The issue of whether the courts should penalise a defendant by reducing his discount for failing to enter a ‘timely plea’, and if so by how much, has been a matter of concern to the courts before. In HKSAR v Poon Chum Kong (unrep., CACC 228/1999), for example, the Court of Appeal said of this issue:

‘One of us was initially concerned about that approach. A person admitted to bail who fails to surrender to custody when called upon to do so commits an offence punishable with imprisonment: see section 9L of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap 221). To deny a defendant who absconded the discount for his plea of guilty which he would otherwise have been given could be said to be tantamount to punishing him for committing that offence. He is, in effect, serving an additional sentence for having absconded when he had not been charged with that. It could be said that it was wrong to treat the defendant in a way which has the effect of him receiving an additional sentence of imprisonment for an offence for which he had never been charged.’

64. The Court overcame its concerns for reasons I shall return to. Accordingly, it upheld the discount accorded the applicant by the sentencing judge of 25%. However, it may be noted that in Poon Chum Kong, the applicant had not in fact been charged with a further offence of absconding. We do not know, therefore, how the Court might have resolved the matter of discount in respect of the substantive offence, if the applicant had been charged and sentenced for a separate offence of absconding.

65. It is also clear, from a review of relevant authorities, that the courts have not adopted a particularly consistent approach to sentence where a defendant is sentenced in respect of the substantive offence in circumstances where he has absconded.”

36.  由此可見，麥法官清楚把議題對焦在沒有就「潛逃」被加控控罪的情況與出現加控控罪是否有別，再提出探討法庭在以往可有不一致的處理手法。麥法官繼而列舉大量例子，說明有法庭就「潛逃」後歸案認罪決意降低減刑幅度至25%。首批案例是沒有就「潛逃」加控控罪，後一批，則有附加控罪（見第60-70段及第71-79段）。

37.  問題跟著轉為兩組控罪（原控罪及就「潛逃」而附加的控罪）應否定必以完全分期執行處理，及無論如何，判刑中會否出現重覆判罰（double punishment）的情況（正如Poon Chum Kong案中提出過的疑問）。

38.  首先，麥法官認為綜合這些判例後仍然可以確立“a reduced discount for a late plea by virtue of his absconding but not dealt with separately for a discrete offence of absconding, it would seem that a discount of about 25% has been the more favoured discount.”（第80段）。這是包括了考量及分析該等只違反警方保釋（Police Bail）的案件。

39.  第二，有關是否必須把附加控罪（有出現的情況下）以完全分期執行處理，則不被接納：

“83. Accordingly, I am not persuaded that White and McKinnon supports the contention that, where a judge reduces the discount for plea on the substantive offence because of the defendant’s absconding, there must always be a wholly consecutive sentence for absconding when such a charge is additionally brought. ...”

40.  不過要注意，麥法官清楚指出：

“85. What concerns me about this whole area of sentencing is that, whilst I appreciate the conceptual differences between reducing a discount for an untimely plea and punishing a defendant for the separate criminal offence of absconding, there must inevitably be a degree of overlap in the considerations which justify a court in reducing the discount and those which indicate the length of sentence for absconding. Returning to the reasons which overcame the Court’s concerns in Poon Chum Kong, the Court said this:

‘However, any initial misgivings about that approach have now been laid to rest. The reason why the discount is reduced in these circumstances is because the plea of guilty is not tendered at the earliest opportunity. Indeed, the effect of the applicant absconding was that there had to be a second trial. He was not therefore being punished for absconding. He was being denied the discount to which he would otherwise have been entitled because of the consequences of his absconding, namely that his plea of guilty was in the circumstances a late plea and that a second trial was necessary. If one of the justifications for giving a discount for a plea of guilty is the saving of the expense of a contested trial, that was to some extent neutralised in the present case by the expense of an albeit short second trial.’

86. This reasoning as to the practical consequences of absconding for the courts on otherwise “timely pleas” finds resonance in a number of the other authorities to which I have referred. In Ko Chun Hung, for example, the Court said:

‘24. We accept that having been sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment for absconding and then not being granted the full one-third discount for pleading guilty again because of absconding, the applicant appeared to have been punished twice for the same facts. However, there was a logical foundation for it.

25. By absconding, the applicant had committed a fresh offence and had to be punished separately. By absconding, the applicant also rendered the administration of justice more costly and more time-consuming, and the judge was entitled to exercise his discretion by reducing the percentage of discount that he would otherwise have obtained.’”

See also Leung Yau Wing, Victor, at para 29.

41.  更重要的是：-

“87. I would accept that pleas entered following any period of absconding are not timely. …”（後加強調）

42.  補充一句，麥法官的判詞以批准上訴，判上訴得直作結；另外兩位上訴庭副庭長則未有改變原判決的處理。簡單交代，他們的分歧只在整體性原則下，原審法庭把關正確與否，這無損麥法官就法律上的任何分析和判斷。本席更認為以本案論題而言，麥法官在判詞中的講解，極具份量，把論點和關注的要害處提供無可比擬的分析，是所有閱讀本判詞的法律工作者應當伸延拜讀的。

43.  就此，本席亦得向代表辯方的鍾大律師致謝，為她找出這個案例並作出陳辭而令本席得到協助實在難得。

44.  可是，本席未能同意，本案有特別之處可令本席莫視被告人的「潛逃」。

45.  他的及早認罪也只是陝義之說，未達可享有完整的1/3扣減的精神及用意。

46.  經雙方陳辭及小心考慮後，本席認為在這背景下，因認罪的減幅該為25%。

47.  整體而言，本席認為控罪一至三，控罪四至七，及控罪八至十的量刑起點分別為3年，3年4個月及3年8個月（即36，40及44個月）。因認罪減至27，30及33個月。

48.  被告人在過往10年間有機會已經反省了及相當程度改過自新，由他隻身潛往內地，到落地生根成家立室。本席認為就此以及本案的發展，可行使酌情權進一步減刑3個月。當然，他今天才被判刑，貫切地是他的選擇。他可在多年前重新做人，遠離獄中生活，他沒有把握，是他對人生的錯誤決定。更何況，被告人並不是初犯。他有5次判監或失去自由的經歷。自1989年起有7項與不誠實有關的定罪紀錄。故此，本席看不到有任何進一步減刑理由或以非即時監禁處理。

49.  考慮到整體性原則，本席則願意把所有刑罰判以同期執行。因此，被告人就各項控罪如上被判24，27及30個月，同期執行，全數共30個月監禁。