有意圖傷人罪的量刑標準？加刑

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：律政司司長 訴 熊家駿 - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：張澤祐法官、袁家寧法官、區慶祥法官 - 判決日期：2010年10月6日 ### 案情摘要 答辯人熊家駿被控「有意圖而傷人」罪。案情指答辯人與其女友的兄長（控方第一證人）因阻止其與女友會面而發生爭執。答辯人其後離開商場，購買一把生果刀後折返，並致電恐嚇控方第一證人。雙方在商場大堂相遇，答辯人持刀衝向控方第一證人，儘管女友嘗試阻止，答辯人仍用刀刺傷控方第一證人腰部。控方第一證人脾臟受損，需進行切除手術。答辯人否認控罪，經審訊後被區域法院裁定罪名成立，判處9個月監禁。律政司就刑期提出覆核申請。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於原審法官判處的9個月監禁刑期是否明顯過輕，以及是否犯了原則性錯誤。律政司認為答辯人使用致命武器、行為有預謀且受害人傷勢嚴重，原審判刑未能反映案件嚴重性。答辯人則可能強調其情緒失控、無犯罪記錄及受害人已原諒等求情因素。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭認為原審法官在判處9個月監禁時犯了原則性錯誤，且量刑明顯過輕。法庭重申，使用致命武器襲擊他人，尤其是在有預謀的情況下，法庭會採用嚴峻的刑罰以起阻嚇作用。本案答辯人特意購買武器並折返施襲，並非純粹突發性行為。此外，受害人脾臟被切除，傷勢嚴重，即使受害人原諒答辯人，法庭仍需考慮公眾對暴力事件的關注及案件嚴重性。上訴法庭參考了「有意圖傷人」罪的量刑範圍（3年至12年監禁），認為9個月監禁未能反映案件嚴重性。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了以下案例： - 律政司 訴 Low Wing Wah CAAR 81/1995：重申法庭不會容忍被告因輕微挑釁或爭吵而使用致命武器襲擊他人，並會採用嚴峻刑罰以起阻嚇作用。 - 香港特別行政區 訴 袁偉渠 CACC 280/2004：提及「有意圖傷人」罪的刑期範圍為3年至12年監禁。 ### 裁決與命令 高等法院上訴法庭批准律政司的刑期覆核申請，撤銷原審法官判處的9個月監禁，並將答辯人的刑期更改為2年半（30個月）監禁。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調了在涉及使用致命武器的「有意圖而傷人」罪行中，即使被告無犯罪記錄且受害人表示原諒，法庭仍會考慮行為的預謀性、傷勢的嚴重性以及公眾利益，判處具阻嚇性的刑罰。原審法官若未能充分考慮這些因素，其判刑可能被上訴法庭裁定為原則性錯誤及明顯過輕。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: Secretary for Justice v Hung Ka Chun - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Cheung J.A., Yuan J.A., Au J. - Date of Judgment: 6 October 2010 ### Factual Background The respondent, Hung Ka Chun, was charged with "wounding with intent". The case involved a dispute between the respondent and his girlfriend's brother (the first prosecution witness) who tried to prevent the respondent from meeting his girlfriend. The respondent left the mall, purchased a fruit knife, returned, and threatened the first prosecution witness by phone. Upon meeting in the mall lobby, the respondent, holding the knife, charged at the first prosecution witness. Despite his girlfriend's attempts to intervene, the respondent stabbed the first prosecution witness in the waist. The victim suffered a ruptured spleen and required a splenectomy. The respondent pleaded not guilty but was convicted after trial in the District Court and sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment. The Secretary for Justice applied for a review of the sentence. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was whether the original sentence of 9 months' imprisonment imposed by the trial judge was manifestly inadequate and erred in principle. The Secretary for Justice argued that the respondent used a deadly weapon, acted with premeditation, and caused severe injury, thus the original sentence did not reflect the gravity of the offence. The respondent likely emphasized factors such as emotional distress, a clean record, and the victim's forgiveness. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in principle and imposed a manifestly inadequate sentence of 9 months' imprisonment. The court reiterated that using deadly weapons to assault others, especially with premeditation, warrants severe deterrent sentences. In this case, the respondent deliberately purchased a weapon and returned to commit the assault, indicating it was not a purely spontaneous act. Furthermore, the victim suffered severe injuries, including a splenectomy. Even if the victim forgave the respondent, the court must consider public concern over violent incidents and the seriousness of the case. The Court of Appeal referred to the sentencing range for "wounding with intent" (3 to 12 years' imprisonment) and concluded that 9 months' imprisonment did not reflect the gravity of the offence. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited the following precedents: - Secretary for Justice v Low Wing Wah CAAR 81/1995: Reaffirmed that courts will not tolerate the use of deadly weapons in assaults, even under minor provocation or during arguments, and will impose severe deterrent sentences. - HKSAR v Yuen Wai Kui CACC 280/2004: Referenced the sentencing range for "wounding with intent" as 3 to 12 years' imprisonment. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal granted the Secretary for Justice's application for sentence review, set aside the original sentence of 9 months' imprisonment, and substituted it with a sentence of 2 years and 6 months (30 months) imprisonment. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights that in cases of "wounding with intent" involving deadly weapons, even if the defendant has no prior criminal record and the victim expresses forgiveness, courts will prioritize the premeditation of the act, the severity of the injuries, and public interest, imposing deterrent sentences. If a trial judge fails to adequately consider these factors, their sentence may be overturned by the Court of Appeal as an error in principle and manifestly inadequate. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.