香港特別行政區政府 訴 陳美娟

「3． 被告所干犯的罪行是屬於扒竊罪行，上訴庭對於扒竊罪行已有清晰明確的判刑指引。一般量刑起點為12至15個月不等，視乎案情而定。（R v Lau Kin Hong Mag App No. 355 of 1996）及（R v Vy Van Kien Mag Appeal No. 1162 of 1990）若被告人在最初時段認罪，她應得到叁份壹的寬減。這是顯示被告有真正悔意，並可減省法庭或證人出庭作供時間。若「然」被告在最終審訊前才認罪，這並不顯示被告有真正悔意，他便不能得到上述叁份壹的寬減。

4． 就此案而言，被告是在審訊前才承認控罪，本席考慮整體案情及有關背景包括被告在同類案件是初犯，所涉案的物品價值不高，財物已歸還物主，便採納最低的12個月為量刑起點，並給予她3個月的寬減，以作為對被告承認控罪的認同，因此本席判處被告入獄9個月。」

(1) HKSAR v Kwok Kam Ming, HCMA 398 of 1999：在第一次提訊時不認罪，在審訊日開始時認罪，可得到一般的三份一減刑；

(2) HKSAR v Lau Sai Kit, CACC 614 of 1997：在適當時機認罪，可得三份之一減刑；該案件在審訊第一天認罪可得到足三份之一減刑；

(3) HKSAR v Lo Chi Yip & Another [2000] 3 HKLRD 270：除非被告人曾經使用過技術性的手法，迫使害怕和不願意的證人到庭，或令調查延長，否則若果在適當時間認罪，可得足三份之一的判刑扣減；而在審訊第一天認罪是一個合時宜的答辯（timely plea）；

(4) HKSAR v Chu Shi Keung [2000] 1 HKLRD 495：在案中案後才認罪是不合時宜的答辯例子；如果被告人曾經棄保潛逃，可以不獲得三份之一減刑。

(1) 無論一名被告人是多麼深信自己是有罪，或清楚自己是在法律上有罪，但並不代表他必定會被法庭定罪；舉證的責任在控方，要達到毫無合理疑點的標準。若果控方證據不足，被告人應該當被判無罪。這是香港刑事法的基本原則。

(2) 一名被告人若要了解他被法庭定罪的機會有多少，他必定要有合理的時間去研究控方的證據，包括證人口供，證物及控方不採用的物料。

(3) 在裁判法院，當案件在第一次提訊時，除控罪書和案情摘要外，通常控方均未有提供上述的資料。這些控方資料多數是在被告人於提訊時不認罪後才提供。因此被告人在第一次提訊時，通常都未能對控方證供的強弱作出有意義的分析。

(4) 若衹是因為被告人在第一次提訊時不認罪便將判刑扣減減少，這便等同向未有足夠資料的被告人施加壓力，迫使他在未知控方證供強弱的情況下認罪。這做法是會損蝕香港刑事法的原則。

(1) R v Wong Pui Kei, CA 622/95：早期認罪及審訊日才認罪的量刑寬減是有分別的；

(2) HKSAR v Liang Chun-wai, CA 182/97：被告在審訊日才認罪，法官有權給予少於三份之一之量刑寬減；及

(3) HKSAR v Yuen Hing-yu, MA 765/98：被告人不在早期認罪，而在審訊日才認罪，浪費資源，裁判官有權祇給予四份之一之量刑寬減。

"12. The question of the plea of guilty and its timing is less straightforward. It is established that "in the absence of good reason where a timely plea has been entered, a defendant is entitled to a full one-third discount". See HKSAR v WONG Ka-kuen Cr App 35 of 1998; and see also HKSAR v Lo Chi Yip [2002] 3 HKLRD 270, 275, and HKSAR v Yeung Kin Man [2002] 2 HKLRD 821, 823.

13. The fact that a guilty plea has been tendered on the first day of trial where it could have been tendered earlier is generally not, of itself, without more, sound reason for reducing the discount normally given; although there will be cases and circumstances where a delay or last minute plea might well warrant such a reduction. In Lo Chi Yip, to which we have made earlier reference, and which concerned a plea of guilty entered by the first applicant on the first day of trial in the District Court, the Court of Appeal did not think that to be an untimely plea (see page 275H), and went on, at page 276, to say this:

"The other ground for justifying a reduced discount was said to be the late plea entered on 'the very first day of the trial'. In some circumstances, that might have been a justification for slightly reducing the discount although we do not seek to encourage that view. This will entirely depend on all the circumstances of individual cases, particularly when considering whether a plea at court on the first day of trial has been a technical manoeuvre resulting in frightened or reluctant witnesses being forced to come to court, or resulting in a prolongation of an investigation that could have been curtailed far earlier if a plea had been indicted at the first opportunity. These are examples and by no means do they provide an exhaustive list."

14. This is the current approach. In this particular case, the judge emphasised the fact that the plea was not entered at "the earliest opportunity". We accept that there have been cases in the past in which that phrase has been used, but of late the courts have rather been using the phrase "a timely plea" and the judge's approach is one which might suggest that it is exceptional rather than normal to deduct one-third if the plea of guilty is offered on the first day of trial. We emphasise that the one-third discount is not a rigid rule, for there are instances where a lesser discount will be, and as the cases show have been, warranted, and there are many examples provided by the cases. But there should, in our judgment, be some sound reason or circumstance, over and above the mere fact that the plea is only tendered on the first day of trial. We do not see that such sound reason existed in this case."