爆竊罪量刑時是否屬機會主義犯案？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v HAI CHUNG PO (奚松波) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Lunn JA 及 Macrae J - 判決日期：2013年8月9日 ### 案情摘要 申請人於2012年11月1日中午時分，在深水埗一所教堂的員工宿舍內，偷竊了一部iPad和一部iPhone。他透過未上鎖的閘門進入教堂範圍，並經由未關的鐵閘和木門進入員工宿舍。在盜竊前，申請人曾被一名教會職員截停盤問，但他稍後折返並成功進入宿舍。他的行為被閉路電視拍下。被捕後，申請人被認出，但被盜物品（價值港幣8,876元）未能尋回。 ### 核心法律爭議 申請人就其26個月監禁刑期申請上訴許可。其主要爭論點是原審法官在判刑時未有充分考慮所有相關事實，特別是申請人是透過未上鎖的門戶進入，且未攜帶爆竊工具，因此應被視為「機會主義竊賊」(opportunistic burglar)。他認為法官應降低慣常的量刑起點，並指出沒有對財物進行搜掠或造成損壞。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭駁回申請人是「機會主義竊賊」的論點，指出閉路電視片段顯示申請人為盜竊作出了相當努力，包括被截停後仍折返犯案。法庭認為被盜物品價值不菲，且申請人專挑貴重物品盜竊，這與其引用的案例中盜竊麵條或檸檬茶等價值甚微物品的情況截然不同。因此，原審法官採用三年監禁作為入屋爆竊的慣常量刑起點是合理的。此外，鑑於申請人「惡劣的犯罪記錄」，法官將量刑起點提高三個月亦屬適當。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了數個案例來討論入屋爆竊的量刑原則： - AG v Lui Kam Chi [1993] 1 HKC 215：確立了入屋爆竊的慣常量刑起點。 - HKSAR v Sim Ka Wing (CACC 450/2000)：申請人引用此案支持機會主義爆竊可降低量刑起點的論點。 - HKSAR v Cheung To Ming [2006] 2 HKLRD 259：涉及非住宅處所爆竊，因特殊情況降低量刑起點。 - HKSAR v Law Tin Yam (CACC 258/2010) 及 HKSAR v Kwok Wing Kam (CACC 394/2010)：涉及機會主義爆竊，刑期較低。 - HKSAR v Chau Man Ying (CACC 439/2011)：涉及盜竊廢棄物品，刑期較低。 - HKSAR v Chan Pui Chi [1999] 2 HKLRD 830：關於對屢犯者加重刑罰以作個人阻嚇及保護公眾。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭裁定原審法官判處的26個月監禁刑期完全合理，因此駁回申請人就刑期提出的上訴許可申請。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申，即使爆竊是透過未上鎖的門戶進行，若被告為盜竊付出努力且有選擇性地盜竊貴重物品，則不應被視為「機會主義竊賊」而降低量刑起點。此外，被告惡劣的犯罪記錄，特別是屢次在獲釋後重犯同類罪行，是加重刑罰的重要因素，旨在達到個人阻嚇及保護公眾的目的。 --- ### 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 HAI CHUNG PO (奚松波) - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Lunn JA and Macrae J - Date of Judgment: 9 August 2013 ### Factual Background The applicant stole an iPad and an iPhone from staff quarters of a church in Sham Shui Po at lunchtime on 1 November 2012. He gained entry to the church grounds through an unlocked gate and entered the staff quarters through an open grille and wooden door. Prior to the theft, he was intercepted and questioned by a church staff member but returned shortly after to commit the burglary. His movements were captured on CCTV. Following his arrest, he was identified, but the stolen items, valued at HK$8,876, were not recovered. ### Key Legal Issues The applicant sought leave to appeal against his sentence of 26 months' imprisonment. His main contention was that the trial judge failed to consider all relevant facts, particularly that he entered through unlocked doors and did not possess housebreaking tools, thus qualifying him as an "opportunistic burglar." He argued that the judge should have lowered the usual starting point for sentencing and noted there was no ransacking or damage. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that the applicant was an "opportunistic burglar," noting that CCTV footage showed he made considerable effort to steal, including returning to the premises after being intercepted. The court found the stolen property was of not inconsiderable value, and the applicant specifically targeted valuable items, distinguishing it from cases involving items of negligible value like noodles or lemon tea. Therefore, the trial judge was justified in adopting a starting point of three years' imprisonment for domestic burglary. The enhancement of the starting point by three months due to the applicant's "appalling criminal record" was also deemed appropriate. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited several precedents discussing sentencing principles for burglary: - AG v Lui Kam Chi [1993] 1 HKC 215: Established the usual starting point for domestic burglary. - HKSAR v Sim Ka Wing (CACC 450/2000): Cited by the applicant to support lowering the starting point for opportunistic burglary. - HKSAR v Cheung To Ming [2006] 2 HKLRD 259: Involved burglary of non-domestic premises, with a reduced starting point due to unusual circumstances. - HKSAR v Law Tin Yam (CACC 258/2010) and HKSAR v Kwok Wing Kam (CACC 394/2010): Involved opportunistic burglaries with lower sentences. - HKSAR v Chau Man Ying (CACC 439/2011): Involved theft of abandoned items, resulting in a lower sentence. - HKSAR v Chan Pui Chi [1999] 2 HKLRD 830: Pertaining to enhancing sentences for persistent offenders for personal deterrence and public protection. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal found the 26-month imprisonment sentence imposed by the trial judge to be entirely justified and accordingly refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms that even if a burglary occurs through unlocked entry points, it may not be considered "opportunistic" if the defendant makes efforts to steal and selectively targets valuable items. Furthermore, a defendant's appalling criminal record, especially repeated re-offending after release, is a significant factor for sentence enhancement, serving both as personal deterrence and public protection. --- ### 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.