意圖傷人罪判刑是否過重？減刑

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 黃祿壽 - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：唐明治副庭長及班禮士法官 - 判決日期：2012年9月7日 ### 案情摘要 申請人黃祿壽被控一項意圖傷人罪 (wounding with intent)，違反香港法例第212章《侵害人身罪條例》第17(a)條。他否認控罪，經審訊後被定罪，判處監禁3年。申請人最初申請就定罪及判刑提出上訴許可，其後放棄就定罪上訴，僅尋求就判刑上訴。案情指，申請人與受害人曾因棋局爭執。案發當日，申請人攜帶兩把刀前往公園，向受害人追討「賠償」後發生爭執。受害人逃跑，但被申請人追上並用刀刺傷其左腋下及左手。受害人最終逃入區議員辦事處，申請人則在門外叫罵。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於原審法官所判處的3年監禁刑期是否明顯過重。申請人一方認為，原審法官未充分考慮受害人傷勢的嚴重程度及申請人的求情因素，包括其年齡、健康狀況及過往無暴力行為紀錄。答辯方則強調，申請人預謀犯案，攜帶致命武器，且受害人傷勢不嚴重僅屬僥倖，因此判刑並無不當。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭指出，意圖傷人罪 (wounding with intent) 並無量刑指引，但《Hung Kar Chun》案確立了3至12年的監禁刑期範圍。法庭同意答辯方指出本案存在加重情節，例如申請人並非在爭執當下盛怒犯案，而是事隔一至三天後攜帶兩把利刀尋仇，並追逐受害人施襲。儘管受害人傷勢不嚴重，但法庭認為不能僅考慮傷勢，而應考慮所有情況，特別是使用致命武器施襲的行為不應姑息。法庭區分了本案與《Yeung Kam Kwai》案，指出申請人並無該案被告的特殊健康狀況或受挑釁情況。最終，法庭認為適當的量刑起點應為2年3個月監禁。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了以下案例： - 《Secretary for Justice v Hau Ping Chuen》[2008] 4 HKLRD 673：原審法官引用此案，指出意圖傷人罪應嚴懲，通常判處3至12年監禁。 - 《HKSAR v Tse Hok Lam》CACC 85/2005：原審法官引用此案，指出意圖傷人罪應嚴懲，通常判處3至12年監禁。 - 《Secretary for Justice v Hung Kar Chun》[2011] 1 HKLRD 1078：答辯方引用此案，強調此類行為應判處具阻嚇性的刑罰。上訴法庭亦指出此案確立了3至12年的監禁刑期範圍，並強調法院不容忍以致命武器施襲。 - 《HKSAR v Yeung Kam Kwai》CACC 458/2007：申請人一方重點依賴此案，因其被告與受害人年齡與本案相近，且傷勢更重但獲輕判。上訴法庭詳細分析並區分了兩案的事實，指出《Yeung Kam Kwai》案存在特殊減刑因素，而本案則無。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭批准申請人就判刑上訴的許可，並將該申請視為正式上訴。法庭裁定上訴得直，撤銷原審法官判處的3年監禁刑期，改判監禁2年3個月。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了意圖傷人罪 (wounding with intent) 的量刑原則，強調即使受害人傷勢不嚴重，若施襲者使用致命武器且有預謀，仍會被判處阻嚇性刑罰。法庭亦明確指出，量刑時需全面考慮所有情況，而非僅限於傷勢，並強調案例的參考價值有限，需仔細區分事實。本案對老年被告的量刑提供參考，表明年齡雖是求情因素，但預謀及使用致命武器等加重情節仍會導致較重刑罰。 --- ### 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: HKSAR v Wong Luk-sau - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Tang VP and Hon Barnes J - Date of Judgment: 7 September 2012 ### Factual Background The applicant, Wong Luk-sau, was charged with one count of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212. He pleaded not guilty but was convicted after trial and sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment. The applicant initially sought leave to appeal both conviction and sentence, but later abandoned the appeal against conviction, seeking leave to appeal sentence only. The facts found were that the applicant and victim had a quarrel over a chess game. On the day of the offence, the applicant, carrying two knives, confronted the victim in a park, demanding "compensation." An altercation ensued, the victim fled, but the applicant pursued him and stabbed him under his left armpit and injured his left hand. The victim eventually took refuge in a District Councillor's office, while the applicant remained outside shouting abuses. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the 3-year imprisonment sentence imposed by the Deputy District Judge was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that the judge failed to adequately consider the victim's injuries and the applicant's mitigating factors, including his age, health, and lack of violent history. The respondent contended that the applicant's actions were premeditated, involved lethal weapons, and the victim's less serious injuries were due to sheer luck, thus the sentence was appropriate. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal noted that there are no sentencing guidelines for wounding with intent, but the case of Hung Kar Chun established a range of 3 to 12 years' imprisonment. The Court agreed with the respondent that there were aggravating features, such as the applicant not acting in the heat of the moment but seeking revenge one to three days later, armed with two knives, and relentlessly pursuing the victim. Although the victim's injuries were not serious, the Court emphasized that all circumstances, not just injuries, must be considered, particularly the use of lethal weapons. The Court distinguished the present case from Yeung Kam Kwai, noting the absence of the special health conditions or provocation present in that case. Ultimately, the Court determined that the appropriate starting point for sentencing was 2 years and 3 months' imprisonment. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The following cases were cited: - Secretary for Justice v Hau Ping Chuen [2008] 4 HKLRD 673: Cited by the trial judge for the proposition that wounding with intent calls for severe punishment, with a usual range of 3 to 12 years. - HKSAR v Tse Hok Lam CACC 85/2005: Also cited by the trial judge for the same sentencing range. - Secretary for Justice v Hung Kar Chun [2011] 1 HKLRD 1078: Cited by the respondent to argue for a deterrent sentence. The Court of Appeal also referenced this case for the 3-12 year sentencing range and its stance against attacks with lethal weapons. - HKSAR v Yeung Kam Kwai CACC 458/2007: Heavily relied upon by the applicant due to similar age profiles and more serious injuries yet a lighter sentence. The Court of Appeal distinguished this case by highlighting its exceptional mitigating factors, which were absent in the present case. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal against sentence and, treating the application as the appeal proper, allowed the appeal. The original sentence of 3 years' imprisonment was set aside and substituted with a term of 2 years and 3 months' imprisonment. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms sentencing principles for wounding with intent, emphasizing that premeditation and the use of lethal weapons warrant deterrent sentences, even if the victim's injuries are not severe. The Court stressed the need to consider all circumstances, not just the extent of injuries, and highlighted the limited precedential value of other cases due to varying facts. It provides guidance on sentencing elderly defendants, indicating that while age is a mitigating factor, aggravating factors like premeditation and weapon use will still lead to substantial sentences. --- ### 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.