危險駕駛致死量刑是否過輕？加刑

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：律政司司長 訴 林兆棠 及 律政司司長 訴 黃敦凡 - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：馬道立首席法官、夏正民上訴法庭法官、蘇理宏原訟法庭法官 - 判決日期：2009年9月4日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及律政司司長根據《刑事訴訟程序條例》（香港法例第221章）第81A條，就兩宗危險駕駛引致他人死亡案件的判刑申請覆核。第一宗案件（CAAR 2/2009）中，林兆棠（Lam）承認危險駕駛引致他人死亡罪，被判監禁12個月及停牌3年。他以時速74公里（限速50公里）駛近行人過路處，在交通燈轉紅時撞死一名行人。第二宗案件（CAAR 4/2009）中，黃敦凡（Wong）經審訊後被裁定危險駕駛引致他人死亡罪成，被判監禁20個月及停牌2年半。他駕駛雙層巴士在交通燈已轉紅、行人燈已轉綠的情況下，未有停車或減速，撞死一名行人。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於原審法庭對兩宗危險駕駛引致他人死亡案件所判處的刑罰是否明顯不足（manifestly inadequate）。律政司司長認為，考慮到案件的嚴重性，特別是事故發生在行人過路處，原審法庭的量刑起點過低，導致最終判刑不足。答辯方則可能爭辯原審法官已充分考慮所有相關因素，包括認罪折扣和被告的悔意。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭在分析案件裁決理由（ratio decidendi）時，強調危險駕駛引致他人死亡罪的嚴重性，特別是事故發生在行人過路處時，這是一個嚴重的加重刑罰因素（aggravating feature）。法庭引用了《律政司司長 訴 潘永基》[2007] 1 HKLRD 660一案的原則，指出量刑時應考慮整體情況和被告的罪責程度（culpability），並強調阻嚇作用。對於林兆棠案，法庭認為原審法官的量刑起點18個月明顯過低，應為24個月，但考慮到被告即將獲釋，維持原判。對於黃敦凡案，法庭認為原審法官的量刑起點24個月亦明顯過低，應為36個月，並將其刑期由20個月改為32個月。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用了《律政司司長 訴 潘永基》[2007] 1 HKLRD 660一案，該案確立了危險駕駛引致他人死亡罪的量刑原則，特別是關於加重及減輕因素的考量。此外，法庭還參考了《香港特別行政區 訴 歐陽國堅》CACC 21/2008一案，並指出該案對CAAR 4/2009提供了有用的指引。法庭明確指出，在《潘永基》案之後，一些較舊的裁判法院案例，如《香港特別行政區 訴 莫景賢》[2002] 2 HKLRD 76等，在量刑方面已不再具有說服力。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭批准了律政司司長的兩項判刑覆核申請。在CAAR 2/2009林兆棠案中，儘管法庭認為原判刑期明顯不足，但考慮到被告即將獲釋，維持原判的12個月監禁及3年停牌。在CAAR 4/2009黃敦凡案中，法庭將原審判處的20個月監禁改為32個月監禁，並維持2年半的停牌期。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了危險駕駛引致他人死亡罪的嚴重性，並強調在行人過路處發生的事故構成嚴重的加重刑罰因素。判決明確指出，在《律政司司長 訴 潘永基》案之後，裁判法院處理的同類案件的量刑指引已不再適用，且刑罰水平應顯著提高。此外，判決亦強調了即使被告有悔意和良好品格，在涉及奪去無辜生命的危險駕駛案件中，這些因素所佔的比重會非常小。 --- ### 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 Lam Siu Tong and Secretary for Justice v Wong Ton Fan - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Ma CJHC, Hartmann JA & Saw J - Date of Judgment: 4 September 2009 ### Factual Background This case involved two applications for review of sentence by the Secretary for Justice under section 81A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 221) concerning dangerous driving causing death. In the first case (CAAR 2/2009), Lam Siu Tong (Lam) pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death and was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment and disqualified from driving for 3 years. He approached a pedestrian crossing at 74 km/hr (speed limit 50 km/hr) and struck a pedestrian as the traffic light turned red. In the second case (CAAR 4/2009), Wong Ton Fan (Wong) was convicted after trial of dangerous driving causing death and sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment and disqualified for 2.5 years. He drove a double-decker bus through a red light at a pedestrian crossing, failing to stop or slow down, and killed a pedestrian. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the sentences imposed by the District Court in two cases of dangerous driving causing death were manifestly inadequate. The Secretary for Justice argued that, given the gravity of the offences, particularly their occurrence at pedestrian crossings, the starting points for sentencing adopted by the trial judges were too low, resulting in inadequate final sentences. The respondents likely contended that the trial judges had fully considered all relevant factors, including guilty pleas and remorse. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal, in its ratio decidendi, emphasized the seriousness of dangerous driving causing death, particularly when incidents occur at pedestrian crossings, which constitutes a serious aggravating feature. The court applied principles from Secretary for Justice v Poon Wing Kay [2007] 1 HKLRD 660, stating that sentencing should consider the overall circumstances and the offender's culpability, and stressing the deterrent effect. For Lam's case, the court found the original starting point of 18 months manifestly inadequate, suggesting 24 months, but upheld the original sentence due to his imminent release. For Wong's case, the court found the original starting point of 24 months also manifestly inadequate, suggesting 36 months, and substituted the sentence from 20 months to 32 months' imprisonment. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The primary precedent cited was Secretary for Justice v Poon Wing Kay [2007] 1 HKLRD 660, which established sentencing principles for dangerous driving causing death, particularly regarding aggravating and mitigating factors. The court also referred to HKSAR v Au Yeung Kwok Kin, CACC 21/2008, noting its relevance to CAAR 4/2009. The judgment explicitly stated that older Magistrates' Court decisions, such as HKSAR v Mok King Yin [2002] 2 HKLRD 76, were no longer persuasive for sentencing guidance after Poon Wing Kay. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal granted both applications for review of sentence by the Secretary for Justice. In Lam Siu Tong's case (CAAR 2/2009), despite finding the original sentence manifestly inadequate, the court maintained the original sentence of 12 months' imprisonment and 3 years' disqualification, considering his imminent release. In Wong Ton Fan's case (CAAR 4/2009), the court substituted the original sentence of 20 months' imprisonment with 32 months' imprisonment, while maintaining the 2.5-year disqualification period. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the severe nature of dangerous driving causing death, highlighting that incidents at pedestrian crossings are a significant aggravating factor. It clarifies that sentencing guidelines from older Magistrates' Court cases for similar offences are no longer applicable post-Secretary for Justice v Poon Wing Kay, and that sentence levels should be considerably higher. Furthermore, the judgment stresses that even factors like remorse and good character carry very little weight in dangerous driving cases resulting in the loss of innocent lives. --- ### 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.