入屋犯法及非法入境罪的量刑是否過重？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 李釗銳又名李朝銳 - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：朱芬齡 - 判決日期：2014年4月30日 ### 案情摘要 申請人李釗銳在區域法院承認一項入屋犯法罪及一項非法入境罪。原審法官就每項控罪判處20個月監禁，並命令兩項刑期分期執行，總刑期為3年4個月。申請人就判刑提出上訴許可申請，理由包括他與警方合作、坦白認罪、入屋犯法地點為空置地盤且無財物損失，以及原審法官不應視他為積犯加重刑罰。申請人有多次非法入境及其他刑事紀錄，他聲稱因母親生病需錢而來港賺快錢。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於原審法官對入屋犯法罪及非法入境罪的量刑是否恰當。申請人質疑入屋犯法罪的量刑起點（sentencing starting point）是否應下調，因犯案地點空置且無財物損失。對於非法入境罪，申請人認為將量刑起點上調至30個月是否過高。此外，申請人爭辯在考慮總刑期時，兩項控罪的刑期是否應部分同期執行，以及總刑期40個月是否明顯過高。 ### 判決理由 法官分析認為，申請人就其被捕後態度合作及坦白認罪已獲10個月的刑期扣減，此上訴理由不成立。然而，法官認為申請人提出的其他上訴理由有合理可爭辯之處。對於入屋犯法罪，法官考慮到犯案地點是空置地盤，申請人沒有毀壞門鎖及沒有引致財物損失，質疑2年半的量刑起點是否應予下調。對於非法入境罪，法官質疑將量刑起點上調至30個月是否合乎適度。最後，法官考慮到總刑期原則，質疑兩項控罪的刑期是否應部分同期執行，以及40個月的總刑期是否過高。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了數個判例來討論量刑原則： - AG v Lui Kam Chi [1993] 1 HKC 215：關於非住宅單位入屋犯法罪的判刑原則。 - HKSAR v Chan Pui Chi [1999] 2 HKLRD 830：關於非法入境罪的量刑原則，特別是針對積犯。 - HKSAR v Kei San Man CACC 246/1999：關於刑期分期執行的原則。 - 香港特別行政區訴佘伯池（HKSAR v Shea Pat Chi）CACC 196/2012：作為參考案例，討論入屋犯法罪量刑起點的下調可能性。 ### 裁決與命令 高等法院上訴法庭法官朱芬齡批准申請人就判刑提出上訴。這意味著申請人將有機會在正式上訴中爭辯其判刑的合理性，原審法官的判決將被重新審視。 ### 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 Lee Chi Yui also known as Li Chiu Yui & Lee Hung Kim - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Chu Fun Ling JA - Date of Judgment: 30 April 2014 ### Factual Background The applicant, Lee Chi Yui, pleaded guilty in the District Court to one count of burglary and one count of unlawful entry. The trial judge sentenced him to 20 months' imprisonment for each charge, with the sentences to run consecutively, resulting in a total sentence of 3 years and 4 months. The applicant sought leave to appeal against sentence, citing his cooperation with the police, his guilty plea, the nature of the burglary (an unoccupied construction site with no damage or theft), and that he should not be treated as a persistent offender. The applicant had previous convictions for unlawful entry and other offences, claiming he sought quick money for his sick mother. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal questions concerned the appropriateness of the sentences for burglary and unlawful entry. The applicant questioned whether the starting point for the burglary sentence should be lowered given the unoccupied nature of the site and lack of damage or theft. For unlawful entry, he argued that raising the starting point to 30 months was excessive. Furthermore, he contended that the sentences for both offences should have been partially concurrent when considering the totality principle, and whether the total sentence of 40 months was manifestly excessive. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge found that the applicant's argument regarding cooperation and guilty plea was unfounded, as he had already received a 10-month reduction for each charge. However, the judge identified arguable grounds for appeal concerning the other points. For the burglary charge, the judge questioned whether the 2.5-year starting point should be reduced, considering the unoccupied nature of the site and the absence of damage or theft. For the unlawful entry charge, the judge questioned the proportionality of increasing the starting point to 30 months. Finally, the judge considered the totality principle and whether the sentences should have been partially concurrent, and if the total sentence of 40 months was manifestly excessive. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment cited several precedents concerning sentencing principles: - AG v Lui Kam Chi [1993] 1 HKC 215: Principles for sentencing burglary of non-residential premises. - HKSAR v Chan Pui Chi [1999] 2 HKLRD 830: Sentencing principles for unlawful entry, particularly for repeat offenders. - HKSAR v Kei San Man CACC 246/1999: Principles for consecutive sentences. - HKSAR v Shea Pat Chi CACC 196/2012: Referenced for discussion on potential reduction of burglary sentencing starting points. ### Decision & Orders Justice Chu Fun Ling of the Court of Appeal granted the applicant leave to appeal against sentence. This means the applicant will have the opportunity to formally argue the reasonableness of his sentence, and the trial judge's decision will be reviewed. ### Key Takeaways null --- ### 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.