意圖傷人罪的量刑起點及減刑因素？加刑

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：律政司司長 訴 侯炳全 - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：馬道立首席法官、司徒敬副庭長、施道輝上訴法官 - 判決日期：2008年3月26日 ### 案情摘要 被告侯炳全（答辯人）因不滿村內分配宴會邀請卡的新安排，導致其家庭失去以往的利益，於2007年6月25日凌晨，持刀襲擊村代表（受害人）。受害人腹部及腹股溝被刀割傷，住院三天。被告其後向警方自首，承認持刀傷人。區域法院法官蔡少琦判處被告14個月監禁。律政司司長（申請人）認為判刑明顯不足，向上訴法庭申請覆核刑期。 ### 核心法律爭議 申請人律政司司長提出，原審法官所採用的27個月量刑起點明顯不足，且在計算刑期時出現錯誤。答辯人則引用兩宗案例，試圖證明其案件情況特殊，應獲較輕判罰。爭議點在於原審法官的量刑起點是否恰當，以及其給予額外減刑的理據是否符合常規。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭認為，原審法官採用的27個月量刑起點明顯不足，並指出「意圖傷人」罪行的通常量刑範圍為3至12年監禁。法庭強調，被告持刀夜間襲擊手無寸鐵的受害人，行為極其危險，其不滿情緒與其反應完全不成比例。法庭裁定，被告自首及提出賠償的行為，不應在認罪折扣之外獲得額外減刑，因為這些行為僅構成現場招認，且賠償提議不應作為減刑的基礎。最終，法庭將量刑起點定為5年，經認罪折扣後減至3年4個月，再考慮到覆核程序對被告造成的影響，額外減刑6個月。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了《侵害人身罪條例》（香港法例第212章）第17(a)條及《刑事訴訟程序條例》（香港法例第221章）第81A條和第81B條。法庭參考了 HKSAR v Tse Hok-lam [2005] HKLRD (Yrbk) 344，該案確立了意圖傷人罪的通常量刑範圍為3至12年監禁。法庭亦考慮了 R v Tsui Mei-ying [2002] 4 HKC 689 及 HKSAR v Yuen Wai-kui, CACC 280/2004，但認為這些案件的事實與本案差異太大，不具參考價值。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭批准律政司司長的覆核申請。原審法庭判處的14個月監禁被撤銷，並根據《刑事訴訟程序條例》第81B條，改判被告2年10個月監禁。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了「意圖傷人」罪行的量刑原則，特別是對於持刀襲擊的嚴重性。法庭明確指出，被告的自首行為及賠償提議不應在認罪折扣之外獲得額外減刑，這對日後類似案件的量刑具有指導意義。同時，法庭在覆核程序中考慮了對被告造成的影響，給予了額外減刑，體現了司法程序中的平衡考量。 --- ### 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: Secretary for Justice v Hau Ping Chuen - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon MA CJHC, Stuart-Moore VP and Stock JA - Date of Judgment: 26 March 2008 ### Factual Background The respondent, Hau Ping-chuen, was dissatisfied with a new village arrangement for allocating banquet invitation cards, which resulted in his family losing previous benefits. On 25 June 2007, he attacked the village representative (the victim) with a knife. The victim sustained cut wounds to his abdomen and groin and was hospitalized for three days. The respondent later surrendered to the police, admitting to the stabbing. Judge Chua in the District Court sentenced him to 14 months' imprisonment. The Secretary for Justice (the applicant) sought a review of the sentence, arguing it was manifestly inadequate. ### Key Legal Issues The applicant, the Secretary for Justice, contended that the starting point of 27 months adopted by the trial judge was manifestly inadequate and that there was a miscalculation in the sentence. The respondent cited two cases, attempting to demonstrate that his case was exceptional and warranted a lighter sentence. The core dispute was whether the trial judge's starting point was appropriate and if the additional discounts granted were in line with normal sentencing practice. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's starting point of 27 months to be manifestly inadequate, noting that the usual range for wounding with intent is 3 to 12 years' imprisonment. The court emphasized the extreme danger of the respondent's armed night attack on a defenceless victim, stating his reaction was disproportionate to his grievance. The court ruled that the respondent's surrender and offer of compensation should not attract additional discounts beyond the guilty plea, as these amounted to no more than a confession at the scene and an offer of payment is not a proper basis for reducing sentence. The court ultimately set a starting point of 5 years, reduced to 3 years and 4 months for the guilty plea, and further reduced by 6 months due to the impact of the review process on the respondent. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited section 17(a) of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance (Cap. 212) and sections 81A and 81B of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 221). The court referred to HKSAR v Tse Hok-lam [2005] HKLRD (Yrbk) 344, which established the usual sentencing range of 3 to 12 years' imprisonment for wounding with intent. The court also considered R v Tsui Mei-ying [2002] 4 HKC 689 and HKSAR v Yuen Wai-kui, CACC 280/2004, but found their facts too dissimilar to be of benefit. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal allowed the Secretary for Justice's application for review. The original sentence of 14 months' imprisonment imposed by the lower court was quashed, and in substitution, pursuant to section 81B of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, the respondent was sentenced to 2 years and 10 months' imprisonment. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms sentencing principles for "wounding with intent" offences, particularly the gravity of knife attacks. The court clarified that a defendant's surrender and offer of compensation should not lead to additional sentence reductions beyond the guilty plea discount. This provides important guidance for future sentencing in similar cases. The court also considered the impact of the review proceedings on the defendant, granting a further reduction, reflecting a balanced approach in judicial process. --- ### 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.