停牌期間危險駕駛的量刑？維持原判

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 蘇栢倫 - 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 - 判決日期：2014年3月6日 ### 案情摘要 申請人蘇栢倫承認12項控罪，包括盜竊、危險駕駛、於取消駕駛資格期間駕駛、沒有第三者保險而使用汽車、管有危險藥物、管有毒藥表第I部所列毒藥、超速駕駛及處理贓物。他曾因同類罪行被判監及停牌，但在停牌期間多次駕駛，並在警員追捕時危險駕駛。他亦在保釋期間再犯超速駕駛，並處理贓物。原審法官判處申請人總刑期40個月監禁及取消駕駛資格6年。申請人不服判刑，申請上訴許可。 ### 核心法律爭議 申請人提出上訴，認為原審法官就其駕駛相關罪行及管有危險藥物罪所採納的量刑基準明顯過重。他特別指出，於取消駕駛資格期間駕駛罪的12個月量刑基準已是相關法例的最高判刑，但其罪行並非同類案件中最惡劣。申請人亦爭辯原審法官在加重刑罰時未有明確說明具體控罪及加重幅度，構成原則性錯誤，並認為40個月的總刑期明顯過高。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭認同原審法官的立場，認為申請人目無法紀的行為必須予以阻嚇，加重刑罰是唯一有效方法。法庭指出，申請人有多次犯罪記錄，且在停牌及保釋期間再犯同類罪行，其危險駕駛行為可能對其他道路使用者造成嚴重傷亡，且受害人因其沒有第三者保險而無法獲得賠償。儘管上訴法庭認為原審法官對盜竊罪和處理贓物罪的量刑基準可能過輕，但考慮到整體案件背景和申請人的犯罪記錄，原審法官判處的40個月總刑期並非明顯過高，而是合適的。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭批准申請人就判刑的上訴許可申請，但駁回其上訴。原審法官判處的總刑期40個月監禁及取消駕駛資格6年維持不變。 ### 判決啟示 null --- ### 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 So Pak Lun - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Yeung VP, Hon Kwan JA - Date of Judgment: 6 March 2014 ### Factual Background The applicant, So Pak Lun, pleaded guilty to 12 charges including theft, dangerous driving, driving while disqualified, using a vehicle without third-party insurance, possession of dangerous drugs, possession of Part I poisons, speeding, and handling stolen goods. He had a history of similar offences and had been imprisoned and disqualified from driving. Despite this, he repeatedly drove during his disqualification period, engaged in dangerous driving while being pursued by police, and committed speeding and handling stolen goods while on bail. The trial judge sentenced him to a total of 40 months' imprisonment and a 6-year driving disqualification. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence. ### Key Legal Issues The applicant appealed against the sentence, arguing that the sentencing benchmarks adopted by the trial judge for driving-related offences and possession of dangerous drugs were manifestly excessive. He specifically contended that the 12-month benchmark for driving while disqualified was the maximum statutory penalty, and his offences were not the most serious of their kind. The applicant also argued that the trial judge erred in principle by not clearly specifying which charges warranted heavier sentences and to what extent, and that the overall sentence of 40 months was manifestly excessive. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge's stance that the applicant's lawless behaviour required deterrence, and heavier penalties were the only effective method. The court noted the applicant's extensive criminal record, his repeated offences during disqualification and while on bail, and the severe risk his dangerous driving posed to other road users, who would also be uncompensated due to his lack of third-party insurance. Although the Court of Appeal considered the trial judge's benchmarks for theft and handling stolen goods might have been too lenient, it concluded that, considering the overall case background and the applicant's criminal history, the 40-month total sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate and not manifestly excessive. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal granted the applicant leave to appeal against sentence but dismissed the appeal. The total sentence of 40 months' imprisonment and 6 years' driving disqualification imposed by the trial judge was upheld. --- ### 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.