多項爆竊罪的總刑期是否過重？減刑

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v FAN KIT HUNG (范傑雄) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Hartmann JA 及 McMahon J - 判決日期：2009年7月14日 ### 案情摘要 申請人范傑雄在區域法院承認13項非住處爆竊罪。他在2008年5月至9月期間，於新界、九龍及香港多處店鋪爆竊，共盜取現金130,825港元及其他物品，所有贓物均未尋回。大部分爆竊案發生在夜間店鋪無人時。其中一宗案件中，申請人在店鋪職員目擊下從收銀機取走75,000港元並成功逃脫。原審法官判處總刑期為6年監禁，申請人現就該判刑提出上訴。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於原審法官判處的6年總監禁刑期是否明顯過重 (manifestly excessive)。申請人一方認為，該總刑期反映的假定起點刑期 (notional starting point) 為9年監禁，遠超同類案件的量刑標準。控方則需證明該判刑合理，並引用多宗案例說明對專業或慣犯爆竊者需判處具阻嚇性的刑罰。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭審視了多宗涉及多項非住處爆竊罪的案例，並指出對專業或慣犯爆竊者判處具阻嚇性的刑罰有日益增加的必要性。法庭參考了《HKSAR v Cheng Wai Kai》案中列出的加重情節，例如犯案者是否專業爆竊者、犯案數量多寡等。儘管本案損失金額及財物損壞程度不及某些案例，但申請人犯案數量極多且屬專業爆竊者。法庭認為原審法官所採用的9年假定起點刑期明顯過重，更合適的起點刑期應為6年監禁，以達致4年總監禁刑期。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多宗案例以確立對多項爆竊罪的量刑原則，包括： - Secretary for Justice v. Chan Tsz Lung, CAAR4/1998：此案批准了對15項爆竊罪採用5年假定起點刑期。 - HKSAR v. Xie Guohong, CACC384/2003：此案涉及較高金額的損失。 - HKSAR v. Lui Cho Yiu, CACC81/2004 - HKSAR v. Cheng Wai Kai, CACC338/2007：此案列出了多項加重情節，例如犯案者是否專業爆竊者、犯案數量多寡、是否造成重大損壞等，對本案的量刑分析有重要影響。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭批准了申請人的上訴，將聆訊視為上訴處理，並將總監禁刑期從6年減至4年。法庭維持了每項控罪的個別刑期，但調整了刑期合併方式，命令第一項控罪的刑期與其他控罪完全同期執行，並額外命令第三項控罪的8個月刑期與所有其他控罪同期執行。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了對專業或慣犯爆竊者判處具阻嚇性刑罰的重要性，並強調量刑時需考慮多項加重情節，例如犯案數量、損失金額、財物損壞程度以及犯案者是否為專業人士。儘管個別案件的損失金額可能不高，但若犯案數量多且犯案者屬專業爆竊者，仍會被視為嚴重情節。本案亦顯示上訴法庭會介入調整明顯過重的總刑期，即使個別控罪的刑期本身沒有問題。 --- ### 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 FAN KIT HUNG (范傑雄) - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hartmann JA and McMahon J - Date of Judgment: 14 July 2009 ### Factual Background The applicant, Fan Kit Hung, pleaded guilty in the District Court to 13 charges of burglary of non-domestic premises. Between May and September 2008, he stole a total of HK$130,825 in cash, as well as clothing and other items, from various shops across the New Territories, Kowloon, and Hong Kong. None of the stolen items were recovered. Most burglaries occurred at night when the premises were empty. In one instance, the applicant was seen by a staff member taking HK$75,000 from a cash drawer and successfully escaped. The trial judge imposed a total sentence of 6 years' imprisonment, and the applicant now appeals against this sentence. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question in dispute was whether the total sentence of 6 years' imprisonment imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that this totality reflected a notional starting point of 9 years' imprisonment, which was disproportionate to similar cases. The prosecution needed to justify the sentence, citing various precedents to demonstrate the need for deterrent sentences for professional or serial burglars. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal reviewed numerous cases involving multiple non-domestic burglaries, noting the increasing appreciation for deterrent sentences for professional or serial burglars. The court referred to aggravating factors outlined in HKSAR v Cheng Wai Kai, such as whether the offender is a professional burglar and the number of offences. While the loss amount and damage in this case were not as high as in some precedents, the applicant committed a very high number of offences and was a professional burglar. The court found the trial judge's notional starting point of 9 years to be manifestly excessive, determining that a more appropriate starting point would be 6 years' imprisonment, leading to a total of 4 years' imprisonment. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited several precedents to establish sentencing principles for multiple burglary offences, including: - Secretary for Justice v. Chan Tsz Lung, CAAR4/1998: This case approved a notional starting point of 5 years for 15 burglary charges. - HKSAR v. Xie Guohong, CACC384/2003: This case involved a higher amount of loss. - HKSAR v. Lui Cho Yiu, CACC81/2004 - HKSAR v. Cheng Wai Kai, CACC338/2007: This case listed several aggravating circumstances, such as the offender being a professional burglar, the number of offences, and significant damage, which significantly influenced the sentencing analysis in the present case. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal allowed the applicant's application, treating the hearing as the appeal, and reduced the total sentence of imprisonment from 6 years to 4 years. The court did not disturb the individual sentences for each charge but adjusted the concurrency orders, directing that the sentence for the 1st charged offence be served wholly consecutively to the other sentences, and an additional 8 months of the sentence for the 3rd charged offence be served consecutively to all other sentences. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the importance of deterrent sentences for professional or serial burglars and highlights that multiple aggravating factors, such as the number of offences, the amount of loss, the extent of damage, and the professional nature of the offender, must be considered during sentencing. Even if the monetary loss in individual cases is not high, a large number of offences by a professional burglar will be treated seriously. The case also demonstrates the Court of Appeal's role in adjusting manifestly excessive total sentences, even if the individual sentences for each charge are not inherently problematic. --- ### 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.