入屋犯法罪判刑是否過重？維持原判

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v SONG JIANHUA alias SUNG KIN WA, SONG HONG, SUNG HUNG and WONG CHI LONG - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal) - 法官：張澤平法官、袁家寧法官、麥馬漢法官 - 判決日期：2007年5月10日 ### 案情摘要 上訴人因入屋犯法罪 (burglary) 被區域法院判處32個月監禁。案情指，保安員於2006年5月16日凌晨發現上訴人攀爬深水埗一住宅大廈的棚架。警方接報到場搜查，發現上訴人藏匿於該大廈二樓一單位飯桌下，他以螺絲批撬開廁所窗戶進入單位。上訴人被警誡後承認入屋是為了盜竊。上訴人獲准上訴，聲稱判刑過重。 ### 核心法律爭議 上訴人爭議原審法官判處的32個月監禁刑期過重，並錯誤地考慮了他曾於同一大廈犯下入屋犯法罪的紀錄。上訴人亦認為，由於他未能成功盜竊任何物品，應獲得較輕的判刑。控方則認為原審法官的判刑並無不妥，已充分考慮所有加重情節。 ### 判決理由 法庭認為，原審法官將上訴人過往的刑事紀錄，特別是曾於同一地點犯下入屋犯法罪，視為加重情節是恰當的。雖然原審法官錯誤地指上訴人曾於「同一大廈」犯案，但這對判決影響甚微。此外，入屋犯法發生在凌晨時分，當時單位內極可能有人，這亦是法官有權考慮的加重情節。上訴人未能成功盜竊物品，對量刑並無影響。法庭認為原審法官以四年監禁作為量刑起點，並無原則性錯誤，最終判處的刑期亦非明顯過重。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了以下案例，以支持入屋犯法罪在凌晨時分發生，且單位內可能有人時，應視為加重情節的原則： - HKSAR v. Tong Fuk Sing [1999] 3 HKC 332 - HKSAR v. Ng Wai Hing [2003] 2 HKLRD 338 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回上訴人的上訴，維持原審法官判處的32個月監禁刑期。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申，入屋犯法罪的量刑會考慮多項加重情節，包括被告的刑事紀錄（特別是同類罪行）、犯案時間（如凌晨時分單位內可能有人）以及犯案地點。被告未能成功盜竊物品，並不會減輕刑責。法庭亦強調，每個案件的判決均基於其自身事實，其他案件的判刑結果不具參考價值。 --- ### 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 SONG JIANHUA alias SUNG KIN WA, SONG HONG, SUNG HUNG and WONG CHI LONG - Court: Court of Appeal - Judge: Hon Cheung JA, Yuen JA and McMahon J - Date of Judgment: 10 May 2007 ### Factual Background The appellant was convicted on his own plea in the District Court for burglary and sentenced to 32 months' imprisonment. A security guard observed the appellant climbing scaffolding around a residential building in Sham Shui Po in the early hours of 16 May 2006. Police were called and found the appellant hiding under a dining-room table in a second-floor flat, having gained entry by prying open a toilet window with a screwdriver. The appellant admitted to entering the premises to steal. He was granted leave to appeal his sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive. ### Key Legal Issues The appellant contended that the 32-month imprisonment sentence was manifestly excessive and that the judge wrongly considered his previous burglary in the same building. He also argued for a lesser sentence as he did not successfully steal anything. The prosecution maintained that the sentencing judge's decision was appropriate, having duly considered all aggravating factors. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court found that the sentencing judge was entitled to treat the appellant's prior criminal history, particularly a previous burglary in the same location, as an aggravating factor. While the judge mistakenly referred to the 'same building' instead of 'same location', this was a minor point. Furthermore, the burglary occurring in the early hours when occupants were likely to be home was a valid aggravating factor. The appellant's failure to steal anything did not mitigate the sentence. The Court concluded that the starting point of four years' imprisonment was not wrong in principle, and the final sentence was not manifestly excessive. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The following cases were cited to support the principle that a burglary committed in the early hours when occupants are likely to be home constitutes an aggravating factor: - HKSAR v. Tong Fuk Sing [1999] 3 HKC 332 - HKSAR v. Ng Wai Hing [2003] 2 HKLRD 338 ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding the original sentence of 32 months' imprisonment. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms that sentencing for burglary considers various aggravating factors, including the defendant's criminal record (especially for similar offences), the time of the offence (e.g., early hours when occupants are likely present), and the location. The inability to successfully steal items does not reduce culpability. The Court also emphasized that each case is decided on its own facts, and sentences in other cases are not directly relevant. --- ### 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.