盜竊罪定罪上訴許可的理據？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v Sandagdorj Altankhuyag and Ulambayar Batkhuyag - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal) - 法官：關淑馨法官 (Hon Kwan JA) - 判決日期：2013年4月3日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及兩名申請人，Sandagdorj Altankhuyag（第一申請人）和Ulambayar Batkhuyag（第二申請人），他們被控在蘭桂坊一酒吧內盜竊一名女顧客的手袋。第一申請人是一名蒙古護照持有人，在犯案前僅抵港5.5小時，他承認控罪並被判處20個月監禁。第二申請人是一名蒙古酷刑聲請人，他否認控罪，經審訊後被定罪並判處30個月監禁。第二申請人申請就定罪提出上訴許可，而第一申請人則申請就判刑提出上訴許可。 ### 核心法律爭議 第二申請人就其盜竊罪的定罪申請上訴許可，主要爭議點在於原審法官是否錯誤接納控方證人（警員3892）的證供，以及是否不當地考慮了第二申請人過往的盜竊定罪紀錄。第二申請人亦尋求呈交額外證據，以支持其上訴。第一申請人則申請就其20個月的監禁判刑提出上訴許可，質疑30個月的量刑起點是否明顯過重。 ### 判決理由 對於第二申請人的定罪上訴許可申請，法官認為原審法官已審慎分析控方證人的證供，並無發現其證供有任何不實之處。原審法官亦認為第二申請人的辯解「完全不可信」(wholly implausible)，且其解釋前後矛盾。法官指出，原審法官是在裁定罪名成立後才獲告知第二申請人的過往定罪紀錄，並僅在判刑理由中提及，因此並無不當。至於呈交額外證據的申請，法官認為這些證據與案發經過的關聯性不大，不符合《刑事訴訟條例》(Criminal Procedure Ordinance) 第83V(1)條的要求。對於第一申請人的判刑上訴許可申請，法官對30個月的量刑起點是否「明顯過重」(manifestly excessive) 存有保留，特別是考慮到沒有根據《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》(Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance) 第27條加刑。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了HKSAR v Ngo Van Hui [2005] 2 HKLRD 1，該案例為扒竊罪行提供了量刑指引。上訴法庭在該案中指出，對於沒有加重情節的初犯者，經審訊後判處12至15個月監禁是合適的量刑起點。本案法官參考此案例，對第一申請人30個月的量刑起點是否過重提出疑問。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭駁回第二申請人就其定罪提出的上訴許可申請，認為其定罪並無不穩妥或不滿意之處。法庭批准第一申請人就其判刑提出的上訴許可申請。法庭亦批准第二申請人逾期就其判刑提出上訴許可申請，並給予其14天時間提交上訴通知書。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調了上訴法庭在處理定罪上訴時，對原審法官事實裁斷的尊重，除非有充分理由證明其裁斷不穩妥。同時，本案也重申了在判刑時，法庭會參考過往案例的量刑指引，並會審慎考慮量刑起點是否與案件的加重情節相符，以及是否明顯過重。對於呈交額外證據的申請，法庭會嚴格審視其與案件的關聯性及是否符合法定要求。 --- ### 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 Sandagdorj Altankhuyag and Ulambayar Batkhuyag - Court: Court of Appeal - Judge: Hon Kwan JA - Date of Judgment: 3 April 2013 ### Factual Background This case involves two applicants, Sandagdorj Altankhuyag (1st applicant) and Ulambayar Batkhuyag (2nd applicant), charged with theft of a female customer's handbag in a bar in Lan Kwai Fong. The 1st applicant, a Mongolian passport holder who arrived in Hong Kong just 5.5 hours before the offence, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 20 months imprisonment. The 2nd applicant, a Mongolian torture claimant, denied involvement, was convicted after trial, and sentenced to 30 months imprisonment. The 2nd applicant sought leave to appeal against his conviction, while the 1st applicant sought leave to appeal against his sentence. ### Key Legal Issues The 2nd applicant applied for leave to appeal against his conviction for theft, primarily arguing that the trial judge erred in accepting the prosecution witness's (PC 3892) evidence and improperly considered his previous theft convictions. He also sought to adduce additional evidence. The 1st applicant applied for leave to appeal against his 20-month imprisonment sentence, questioning whether the starting point of 30 months was manifestly excessive. ### Ratio Decidendi For the 2nd applicant's conviction appeal, the judge found that the trial judge had carefully analyzed the prosecution witness's evidence and found no untruthfulness. The trial judge also found the 2nd applicant's explanation "wholly implausible" and inconsistent. The judge noted that the trial judge was informed of the 2nd applicant's previous convictions only after finding him guilty and referred to them solely in the Reasons for Sentence, thus no impropriety. The application to adduce additional evidence was denied as it was deemed peripheral to the incident and did not meet the requirements of section 83V(1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance. For the 1st applicant's sentence appeal, the judge expressed reservations as to whether the starting point of 30 months was "manifestly excessive," especially given the absence of an enhancement under section 27 of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited HKSAR v Ngo Van Hui [2005] 2 HKLRD 1, which provided sentencing guidelines for pickpocketing. The Court of Appeal in that case suggested a sentence of 12 to 15 months imprisonment after trial for a first-time offender without aggravating features. The judge in the present case referred to this precedent when questioning whether the 30-month starting point for the 1st applicant was excessive. ### Decision & Orders The court declined to grant the 2nd applicant leave to appeal against his conviction, finding no reasonably arguable grounds that the conviction was unsafe or unsatisfactory. The court granted the 1st applicant leave to appeal against his sentence. The court also granted the 2nd applicant leave to appeal against his sentence out of time and extended the time for him to file a Notice of Appeal within 14 days. ### Key Takeaways This judgment underscores the appellate court's deference to a trial judge's factual findings unless there are strong reasons to deem them unsafe. It also reiterates that in sentencing, courts refer to previous sentencing guidelines and carefully consider whether the starting point is proportionate to aggravating features and not manifestly excessive. Applications to adduce additional evidence are strictly scrutinized for their relevance to the case and compliance with statutory requirements. --- ### 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.