管有適合作偷竊用途工具罪的量刑？維持原判

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v LI HO YIN (李浩賢) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：袁家寧上訴法庭法官及林文瀚法官 - 判決日期：2013年1月11日 ### 案情摘要 上訴人李浩賢被控兩項罪名：管有適合作偷竊用途的工具罪（盜竊罪條例第27(1)條）及襲擊致造成身體傷害罪（侵害人身罪條例第39條）。他對兩項控罪均認罪。案情指，2011年12月28日清晨，上訴人試圖闖入尖沙咀一棟大廈的一樓單位，被傭工發現後逃跑。他被大廈看更及巡邏警員追捕，期間將看更推倒在地，導致看更脊椎受傷。上訴人最終被警員制服，並掉落撬棍及手套。原審法官判處上訴人總監禁刑期為2年。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議點為原審法官就「管有適合作偷竊用途的工具」罪所採納的量刑起點是否過高。上訴人認為，其2年半的量刑起點與其他同類案件相比過重，並引用了多宗案例以支持其論點。控方則引用了上訴法庭的Tsang Wing Ming案例，該案例亦是原審法官所參考的。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭認為，原審法官就「管有適合作偷竊用途的工具」罪採納2年半監禁的量刑起點是合理的。法庭分析指，雖然該罪行屬「預防性」罪行，但上訴人的行為已遠超單純的準備或尋找目標階段，他已打開窗戶，意圖入屋爆竊，並攜帶撬棍，顯示其意圖闖入上鎖處所。此外，上訴人是一名慣犯，其最近三次定罪均為爆竊罪，且在服刑期滿僅三個月後再次犯案，符合Tsang Wing Ming案中強調的「專業爆竊犯」性質。法庭逐一審視上訴人引用的案例，並指出這些案例與本案在犯案情節或被告性質上均有區別。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用了上訴法庭的 R v Tsang Wing Ming CACC315/1989 案例，該案例強調了被告作為「專業爆竊犯」的性質在量刑中的重要性。此外，上訴人亦引用了 HKSAR v Chan Yee Lap DCCC25/2009 等多宗關於「管有適合作偷竊用途的工具」罪的地區法院案例，但上訴法庭認為這些案例與本案情況不同，未能推翻原審判決。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回上訴人就刑罰提出的上訴。原審法官判處的總監禁刑期2年維持不變。法庭認為原審法官在量刑起點及整體刑期方面並無犯錯。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了在「管有適合作偷竊用途的工具」罪的量刑中，被告的犯罪意圖、犯案階段（是否已超越單純準備階段）、所攜帶工具的性質，以及被告是否為慣犯（特別是「專業爆竊犯」）等因素的重要性。上訴法庭強調，即使沒有明確的量刑指引，法庭仍會根據個別案件的事實，包括被告的背景和犯罪情節，力求達致量刑的一致性。 --- ### 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 LI HO YIN (李浩賢) - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Yuen JA and Line J - Date of Judgment: 11 January 2013 ### Factual Background The appellant, Li Ho Yin, was charged with two offences: going equipped for stealing (contrary to s.27(1) of the Theft Ordinance Cap. 210) and assault occasioning actual bodily harm (contrary to common law and punishable under s.39 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance Cap. 212). He pleaded guilty to both charges. The prosecution's case was that in the early morning of 28 December 2011, the appellant attempted to break into a first-floor flat in a Tsimshatsui building. He was discovered by a domestic helper and fled. He was pursued by the building's watchman and patrolling police officers, during which he pushed the watchman to the floor, causing spinal injuries. The appellant was eventually subdued by police, dropping a crowbar and gloves. The trial judge sentenced the appellant to a total of 2 years imprisonment. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question in dispute was whether the starting point adopted by the trial judge for the offence of "going equipped for stealing" was excessive. The appellant argued that the 2½-year starting point was too high compared to similar cases and cited several precedents to support his argument. The prosecution, on the other hand, referred to the Court of Appeal decision in Tsang Wing Ming, which the trial judge had also referenced. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's adoption of a 2½-year imprisonment starting point for the "going equipped for stealing" offence was justified. The court reasoned that although this is a "preventive" crime, the appellant's actions had progressed well beyond a merely preparatory or target-searching stage. He had opened a window, clearly intending to commit burglary in domestic premises, and carried a crowbar, indicating an intention to break into locked premises. Furthermore, the appellant was a professional burglar, with his last three convictions being for burglary, and he committed the subject offence only three months after serving a 29-month sentence for those burglaries, aligning with the "professional burglar" nature emphasized in Tsang Wing Ming. The court reviewed the cases cited by the appellant and distinguished them based on the circumstances of the offence or the nature of the defendant. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The main precedent cited was the Court of Appeal case R v Tsang Wing Ming CACC315/1989, which highlighted the importance of the defendant's character as a "professional burglar" in sentencing. The appellant also cited several District Court cases concerning "going equipped for stealing," such as HKSAR v Chan Yee Lap DCCC25/2009, but the Court of Appeal found these cases distinguishable from the present one and insufficient to overturn the original judgment. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal against sentence. The total sentence of 2 years imprisonment imposed by the trial judge was upheld. The court found no error in the trial judge's determination of the starting point or the overall sentence. ### Key Takeaways This case reaffirms the importance of factors such as the defendant's criminal intent, the stage of the offence (whether it has progressed beyond mere preparation), the nature of the tools carried, and whether the defendant is a repeat offender (especially a "professional burglar") in sentencing for "going equipped for stealing." The Court of Appeal emphasized that even without specific sentencing guidelines, courts strive for consistency in sentencing based on the individual facts of each case, including the defendant's background and the circumstances of the crime. --- ### 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.