非禮兒童判刑是否過輕？加刑

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：律政司司長 訴 黃龍威 - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：張澤祐上訴法官、楊振權上訴法官、袁家寧上訴法官 - 判決日期：2008年12月19日 ### 案情摘要 被告黃龍威在深水埗一社區中心擔任義工，該中心為兒童提供課後輔導和課外活動。被告於2006年8月及2007年10月期間，對兩名分別為7歲及9歲的男童X和Y進行了四次非禮行為。這些行為包括觸摸他們的生殖器和臀部，以及親吻臉頰。其中一名受害人Y曾多次被非禮。被告在被捕後承認了這些行為，並表示自10歲起便喜歡與兒童玩耍，無法克制觸摸他們。原審法官考慮到被告年輕、初犯、認罪及背景等因素，判處18個月感化令。律政司司長認為判刑明顯不足，申請覆核。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於原審法官判處的感化令是否明顯不足，未能充分反映非禮罪行的嚴重性及相關的判刑原則。律政司司長認為，原審法官過於側重被告的個人情況，而忽略了對兒童非禮罪行的懲罰、阻嚇及公眾譴責等重要原則。被告則可能辯稱其年輕、初犯、認罪以及其個人背景（如家庭問題和被排斥的經歷）應作為減刑因素。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭認為，原審法官在判刑時僅考慮了被告的個人情況，而忽略了對兒童非禮罪行的判刑原則。法庭強調，此類罪行性質嚴重，判刑必須反映公眾對此類罪行的厭惡、阻嚇他人犯案，並彌補受害人的傷害。儘管被告年輕、初犯且認罪，但其行為並非單一事件，而是顯示出其犯罪傾向。法庭指出，感化令明顯不足以反映罪行的嚴重性，必須判處羈留式刑罰。考慮到被告的年齡、初犯、良好品格及已被羈押26天等因素，法庭最終裁定康復中心令為合適的刑罰，其羈留期為不少於3個月但不超過9個月。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多宗案例以確立對兒童非禮罪行的判刑原則： - HKSAR v. Yau Kin Wai CACC 398/2003：確立成人非禮幼童屬嚴重罪行。 - HKSAR v. Chan Ching Ho [2000] 3 HKLRD 476：列出判刑的三個關鍵考慮因素（阻嚇、公眾厭惡、彌補受害人）。 - HKSAR v. See Tak Man [1998] 1 HKLRD 794 及 HKSAR v. Kong Yun Chiu [2007] 4 HKC 391：強調不能忽視受害人可能遭受的心理傷害。 - Secretary for Justice v. Wong Tsz Kin [1998] 4 HKC 32：指出此類罪行難以偵測。 - HKSAR v. Kam Wing Yin CACC 515/2005：強調保護兒童是首要考慮。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭批准律政司司長的刑期覆核申請，撤銷原審法官判處的18個月感化令，改判被告黃龍威康復中心令。康復中心令的羈留期為不少於3個月但不超過9個月。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了對兒童非禮罪行判刑的嚴肅性，即使被告年輕、初犯且有悔意，法庭仍需優先考慮罪行的嚴重性、公眾利益及保護兒童的原則。感化令在處理此類嚴重罪行時，若未能充分反映上述原則，將被視為明顯不足。本案亦探討了不同羈留式刑罰（如訓練中心令與康復中心令）的適用性，並強調康復中心令在特定情況下對年輕犯人提供改造機會的重要性。 --- ### 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 Huang Long Wei - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Cheung JA, Yeung JA, Yuen JA - Date of Judgment: 19 December 2008 ### Factual Background The defendant, Huang Long Wei, was a volunteer at a community centre in Shamshuipo, which provided after-school tutorials and extra-curricular activities for children. Between August 2006 and October 2007, the defendant indecently assaulted two boys, X (aged 7) and Y (aged 9), on four occasions. These acts included touching their penises and buttocks, and kissing their cheeks. One victim, Y, was assaulted multiple times. Upon arrest, the defendant admitted to the acts, stating he had enjoyed playing with children since age 10 and could not refrain from touching them. The original judge sentenced him to 18 months' probation, considering his youth, clear record, guilty plea, and background. The Secretary for Justice applied for a review, arguing the sentence was manifestly inadequate. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was whether the probation order imposed by the original judge was manifestly inadequate, failing to reflect the gravity of indecent assault offences and the relevant sentencing principles. The Secretary for Justice contended that the judge overemphasized the defendant's personal circumstances, neglecting crucial principles of punishment, deterrence, and public condemnation for child molestation. The defendant likely argued that his youth, first-offender status, guilty plea, and personal background (e.g., family issues, social ostracization) should be mitigating factors. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal found that the original judge, in sentencing, focused solely on the defendant's personal circumstances, overlooking the established sentencing principles for indecent assault on children. The court emphasized the serious nature of such offences, stating that sentences must reflect public abhorrence, deter others, and address victims' grievances. Despite the defendant's youth, first-offender status, and guilty plea, his actions were not isolated but indicated a propensity to commit such offences. The court concluded that a probation order was manifestly inadequate to reflect the gravity of the offences, necessitating a custodial sentence. Considering the defendant's age, first-offender status, good character, 26 days in custody, and the need for rehabilitation, the court determined a rehabilitation centre order, with a detention period of not less than 3 months but not exceeding 9 months, was appropriate. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited several precedents to establish sentencing principles for indecent assault on children: - HKSAR v. Yau Kin Wai CACC 398/2003: Established that indecent assaults on young children by adults are serious offences. - HKSAR v. Chan Ching Ho [2000] 3 HKLRD 476: Outlined three crucial sentencing considerations (deterrence, public abhorrence, redress for victims). - HKSAR v. See Tak Man [1998] 1 HKLRD 794 and HKSAR v. Kong Yun Chiu [2007] 4 HKC 391: Emphasized not overlooking potential psychological damage to victims. - Secretary for Justice v. Wong Tsz Kin [1998] 4 HKC 32: Noted the difficulty in detecting such offences. - HKSAR v. Kam Wing Yin CACC 515/2005: Stressed that protecting children is the most important consideration. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal allowed the Secretary for Justice's application for review of sentence. The original 18-month probation order was varied, and the defendant, Huang Long Wei, was sentenced to a rehabilitation centre order, with a period of detention of not less than 3 months but not exceeding 9 months. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the seriousness of sentencing for indecent assault on children. Even with a young, first-time offender who shows remorse, the court must prioritize the gravity of the offence, public interest, and child protection principles. A probation order is manifestly inadequate for serious offences if it fails to reflect these principles. The case also explores the applicability of different custodial sentences (e.g., training centre vs. rehabilitation centre orders), highlighting the importance of rehabilitation centre orders in providing reformative opportunities for young offenders in specific circumstances. --- ### 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.