盜竊罪量刑起點是否過重？維持原判

### 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, CA) - 法官：Lunn JA 及 Macrae J - 判決日期：2013年8月23日 ### 案情摘要 兩名上訴人於2012年9月22日凌晨在蘭桂坊被便衣警員發現形跡可疑。第一上訴人進入酒吧偷竊一名女士的手袋，而第二上訴人則在外把風。兩人得手後被警員截停並拘捕。手袋內含美國護照、香港身份證、信用卡、iPhone及現金。第一上訴人為蒙古國民，案發前不足5.5小時以旅客身份入境香港。第二上訴人亦為蒙古國民，為酷刑聲請人，獲入境事務處發出擔保書獲准留港，曾有三次盜竊案底。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於原審法官對兩名上訴人盜竊罪判處的2.5年（30個月）監禁量刑起點是否明顯過重。上訴方認為，即使考慮到加重情節，根據《HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy》案的指引，量刑起點不應超過27個月。控方則支持原審法官的量刑決定，認為其已充分考慮所有加重情節。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭維持原審法官的量刑起點，認為其並無明顯過重。法庭強調，第一上訴人入境香港的目的就是為了犯罪，這是一個非常嚴重的加重情節。第二上訴人作為酷刑聲請人，濫用香港當局給予的留港特權，並針對遊客區進行盜竊，損害香港聲譽，這亦是嚴重的加重情節。法庭重申，量刑起點的評估應由原審法官酌情決定，上訴法庭不應輕易干預，且加重情節的類別並非封閉式清單。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了《HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy [2005] 2 HKLRD 1》案，該案為盜竊罪的量刑指引案例，確立了初犯者經審訊後的基本量刑起點為12至15個月監禁。此外，法庭亦引用了《HKSAR v Tan Hong Sheng》案，強調為犯罪目的入境香港是嚴重的加重情節。法庭還提及《HKSAR v Ho Minh Cong》案，指出有組織的扒竊罪行將來可能以至少2.5年監禁為量刑起點。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回兩名上訴人就其盜竊罪判處的刑罰提出的上訴。法庭認為原審法官判處的刑罰是恰當的，並無明顯過重。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了上訴法庭對原審法官量刑酌情權的尊重，強調加重情節的評估應由原審法官決定，且加重情節的類別並非固定不變。判詞特別指出，為犯罪目的入境香港及酷刑聲請人濫用留港特權在遊客區盜竊，均屬嚴重加重情節，可導致更高的量刑起點。法庭亦提醒，2.5年監禁並非此類罪行的「不可逾越的上限」。 --- ### 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 (CA) - Judge: Lunn JA and Macrae J - Date of Judgment: 23 August 2013 ### Factual Background The two appellants were spotted by plainclothes police officers acting suspiciously in Lan Kwai Fong in the early hours of 22 September 2012. The 1st appellant entered a bar and stole a woman's handbag, while the 2nd appellant acted as a lookout. They were intercepted and arrested by police after the theft. The handbag contained a US passport, HKID card, credit cards, an iPhone, and cash. The 1st appellant, a Mongolian national, had entered Hong Kong as a tourist less than 5.5 hours before the incident. The 2nd appellant, also a Mongolian national, was a torture claimant permitted to remain in Hong Kong by a recognisance, and had three previous theft convictions. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the starting point of 2.5 years' (30 months') imprisonment imposed by the trial judge for the theft offence was manifestly excessive. The appellants argued that, even with aggravating factors, the sentencing guidelines from HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy suggested a starting point not exceeding 27 months. The prosecution contended that the trial judge's sentencing decision was appropriate, having duly considered all aggravating circumstances. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's sentencing starting point, finding it not to be manifestly excessive. The court emphasized that the 1st appellant's purpose in entering Hong Kong was to commit crime, which constituted a very serious aggravating factor. The 2nd appellant, as a torture claimant, abused the privilege of remaining in Hong Kong by targeting a tourist area for theft, damaging Hong Kong's reputation, which was also a serious aggravating factor. The court reiterated that the assessment of the sentencing starting point is best left to the discretion of the trial judge, and the categories of aggravating features are not closed. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy [2005] 2 HKLRD 1, a guideline case for theft, which established a basic starting point of 12 to 15 months' imprisonment after trial for a first offender. The court also referred to HKSAR v Tan Hong Sheng, highlighting that entering Hong Kong to commit crime is a serious aggravating factor. HKSAR v Ho Minh Cong was mentioned, indicating that organized group pickpocketing might attract a starting point of at least 2.5 years' imprisonment in the future. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals by both appellants against their sentences for theft. The court found the sentences imposed by the trial judge to be richly deserved and not manifestly excessive. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the appellate court's deference to the sentencing discretion of trial judges, emphasizing that the assessment of aggravating factors is for the trial judge and that the categories of such factors are not exhaustive. It specifically highlights that entering Hong Kong with the purpose of committing crime and a torture claimant abusing their privilege to remain by committing theft in a tourist area are serious aggravating factors leading to higher starting points. The court also noted that 2.5 years' imprisonment is not an "impenetrable ceiling" for this offence. --- ### 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.