空置住宅企圖爆竊的量刑基準？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 佘伯池 - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：楊振權副庭長、關淑馨法官、張慧玲法官 - 判決日期：2012年11月28日 ### 案情摘要 申請人佘伯池被區域法院裁定一項企圖入屋犯法罪，判處監禁2年。他申請就判刑上訴，並同時申請延展上訴期限，因其申請已逾期。案發地點為一幢已被收購的空置大廈，但涉案住宅仍有上鎖。申請人被警員發現正用鐵筆撬開鐵閘，其背囊內藏有大量爆竊工具。申請人聲稱因缺錢，打算進入住宅變賣值錢物品。他有5次案底，包括兩次盜竊。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於原審法官對企圖入屋犯法罪所採納的2年量刑基準是否明顯過重。申請人一方認為，由於案發大廈已空置，無人居住，且沒有證據顯示住宅內有值錢物品，亦無住客受威嚇，故應採納較輕的量刑基準。答辯方則認為，申請人攜帶大量爆竊工具，顯示其有計劃犯案，並非機會主義者，應受阻嚇。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭認為，涉及住宅的入屋犯法罪一般量刑基準為3年監禁，但本案有其特殊之處，即大廈已空置，無人居住，故原審法官將量刑基準減低至2年是合理的。法庭強調，儘管大廈空置，但涉案住宅鐵閘上鎖，且申請人攜帶大量爆竊工具，顯示其有計劃行事，並非機會主義者。這種強行進入他人地方意圖偷竊的行為應受到阻嚇。法庭認為原審法官採納的2年量刑基準並無明顯過重，因此沒有基礎更改判刑。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了R v Wong Man [1993] 1 HKC 80案，該案確立了涉及住宅的入屋犯法罪一般量刑基準為3年監禁。此外，申請人援引了HKSAR v Chau Man Ying (CACC 439/2011)案，但上訴法庭認為該案案情較輕，被告人並未攜帶爆竊工具，亦無證據顯示需強行撬開門窗，故其量刑基準（18個月監禁）不適用於本案。 ### 裁決與命令 高等法院上訴法庭駁回申請人就判刑提出的逾期上訴許可申請。法庭認為原審法官採納的2年監禁量刑基準並無明顯過重，因此沒有基礎更改判刑。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了即使是空置住宅的入屋犯法罪，若被告人有預謀並攜帶爆竊工具，其量刑基準仍會較高，以達到阻嚇作用。法庭區分了機會主義者與有計劃犯案者的量刑考量，強調了強行進入他人地方意圖偷竊的嚴重性。這對處理類似空置物業爆竊案的量刑具有指導意義。 --- ### 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 She Ap Chi - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Yeung VP, Hon Kwan JA, Hon Cheung J - Date of Judgment: 28 November 2012 ### Factual Background The applicant, She Ap Chi, was convicted in the District Court of attempted burglary and sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment. He applied for leave to appeal against sentence and also sought an extension of time for his appeal, as his application was out of time. The incident occurred in an acquired, vacant building, though the flat in question was still locked. Police officers found the applicant attempting to pry open the iron gate with a crowbar, and his backpack contained numerous burglary tools. The applicant claimed he intended to enter the flat to sell any valuable items due to lack of money. He had 5 previous convictions, including two for theft. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was whether the 2-year starting point for sentencing adopted by the trial judge for attempted burglary was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that since the building was vacant, uninhabited, and there was no evidence of valuable items inside or residents being intimidated, a lighter sentence should be imposed. The respondent contended that the applicant's possession of numerous burglary tools indicated a planned offense, not an opportunistic one, and deterrence was necessary. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal held that while the general sentencing guideline for residential burglary is 3 years' imprisonment, the present case had special circumstances, namely that the building was vacant. Therefore, the trial judge's reduction of the starting point to 2 years was reasonable. The court emphasized that despite the building being vacant, the flat's iron gate was locked, and the applicant carried a large number of burglary tools, indicating a planned act rather than an opportunistic one. Such forcible entry with intent to steal should be deterred. The court found no manifest excess in the 2-year starting point and thus no basis to alter the sentence. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited R v Wong Man [1993] 1 HKC 80, which established a general sentencing guideline of 3 years' imprisonment for residential burglary. The applicant referred to HKSAR v Chau Man Ying (CACC 439/2011), but the Court of Appeal distinguished it, noting that the defendant in that case did not carry burglary tools and there was no evidence of forced entry, making its 18-month sentencing guideline inapplicable to the present case. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence out of time. The court found no manifest excess in the 2-year imprisonment sentence imposed by the trial judge, and therefore no basis to vary the sentence. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms that even in cases of attempted burglary of vacant residential properties, a higher sentencing starting point is warranted if the defendant acts with premeditation and carries burglary tools, emphasizing the deterrent effect. The court distinguished between opportunistic and planned offenses in sentencing considerations, highlighting the seriousness of forcible entry with intent to steal. This provides guidance for sentencing in similar cases involving vacant properties. --- ### 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.