非禮兒童罪的量刑是否過輕？加刑

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v KAM WING YIN (甘永賢) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Stuart-Moore 副庭長及 Stock 上訴法庭法官 - 判決日期：2006年7月14日 ### 案情摘要 申請人甘永賢因三項非禮罪在區域法院被判處監禁20個月。受害人為兩名年幼女童，她們到申請人家中學習鋼琴。申請人對所有控罪均認罪。其中一項非禮罪涉及一名9歲女童W，申請人將其上衣掀起並觸摸其身體，更以硬物插入其私處。另一項非禮罪涉及一名5歲女童C，手法類似。申請人曾被診斷患有專注力不足及行為問題，智力屬中下水平。區域法院法官在判刑時考慮到申請人的智力水平及專家報告，給予了顯著的減刑。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議點在於區域法院法官對非禮罪判處的刑罰是否明顯過輕。控方認為，考慮到受害人的年齡、申請人濫用信任的行為、其對行為錯誤的認知以及缺乏真正悔意，原審判刑過輕。上訴法庭需審視原審法官在量刑時是否充分考慮了案件的嚴重性及公眾保護的重要性，以及申請人的低智力是否應導致如此大幅度的減刑。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭認為，原審法官在量刑時對申請人給予的寬大處理是錯誤的。儘管申請人智力較低，但他清楚知道其行為是錯誤的，且其行為構成對兒童的嚴重危險。法庭強調，保護公眾是量刑時的首要考慮因素。法庭引用《刑事訴訟程序條例》（香港法例第221章）第83I條的權力，上調了刑期，以反映罪行應得的適當刑罰，並指出不應為達到監管目的而增加刑期。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回申請人就刑期上訴的申請。法庭行使《刑事訴訟程序條例》（香港法例第221章）第83I條的權力，將總刑期從20個月監禁上調至3年零4個月監禁。具體而言，第一項及第二項控罪的起點刑期從18個月減至12個月，其中第二項控罪的4個月刑期與第一項控罪分期執行。第三項控罪的起點刑期從3年減至2年，並與第一項及第二項控罪的刑期分期執行。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調了保護公眾在涉及兒童性侵犯案件中的首要重要性，即使被告智力較低，亦不能過度減輕刑罰。法庭亦指出香港刑事司法系統在性罪犯登記制度方面的不足，並建議設立正式的性罪犯登記冊，以防止戀童癖者再次接觸兒童。此外，法庭明確表示，不應為使被告在獲釋後受到監管而增加刑期。 --- ### 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 KAM WING YIN (甘永賢) - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Stuart-Moore VP and Stock JA - Date of Judgment: 14 July 2006 ### Factual Background The applicant, Kam Wing Yin, applied for leave to appeal against a sentence of 20 months' imprisonment imposed by the District Court for three charges of indecent assault. The victims were two young female children who attended piano lessons at the applicant's home. The applicant pleaded guilty to all charges. One charge involved a 9-year-old girl (W), where the applicant lifted her upper garment, touched her body, and inserted a hard object into her private parts. Another charge involved a 5-year-old girl (C) with similar acts. The applicant had been diagnosed with attention-deficit disorder and conduct problems, and had low-average intelligence. The District Court judge, in sentencing, considered the applicant's intelligence and expert reports, granting a significant reduction in sentence. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the sentence imposed by the District Court judge for indecent assault was manifestly inadequate. The prosecution argued that, considering the victims' ages, the applicant's breach of trust, his awareness of wrongdoing, and lack of genuine remorse, the original sentence was too lenient. The Court of Appeal had to determine if the trial judge adequately considered the gravity of the offences and the paramount importance of public protection, and whether the applicant's low intelligence justified such a substantial reduction in sentence. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal found that the leniency shown by the trial judge in sentencing the applicant was misconceived. Despite the applicant's low intelligence, he was fully aware that his actions were wrong, and his conduct posed a significant danger to children. The court emphasized that the protection of the public is a paramount consideration in sentencing. Exercising its powers under section 83I of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 221), the court increased the sentence to reflect the appropriate punishment for the offences, stating that sentences should not be increased solely to enable post-release supervision. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited. ### Decision & Orders The application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, exercising its powers under section 83I of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 221), increased the overall sentence from 20 months' imprisonment to 3 years and 4 months' imprisonment. Specifically, the starting points for charges 1 and 2 were reduced from 18 months to 12 months each, with 4 months of the sentence for charge 2 to run consecutively. The starting point for charge 3 was reduced from 3 years to 2 years, to run consecutively to the sentences for charges 1 and 2. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights the paramount importance of public protection in cases of child sexual assault, emphasizing that low intelligence of an offender does not warrant an excessive reduction in sentence. The court also identified a lacuna in Hong Kong's criminal justice system regarding a formal sex offender registry and recommended its establishment to prevent paedophiles from working with children. Furthermore, the court explicitly stated that sentences should not be increased with the sole purpose of enabling post-release supervision. --- ### 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.