爆竊罪量刑起點及前科影響？維持原判

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v CHENG CHI SHING - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal) - 法官：Stuart-Moore 署理首席法官、Stock 上訴法庭法官、Gall 法官 - 判決日期：2001年3月6日 ### 案情摘要 申請人於2000年5月31日被區域法院裁定一項爆竊罪名成立，判處監禁三年零四個月。他申請就定罪和判刑提出上訴許可，但定罪上訴未獲追究而被駁回。案情指，警方於2000年1月3日凌晨發現申請人從一處所走出，手持兩個膠袋，內有大量硬幣。警方其後在梯間發現更多硬幣，並發現該處所的後捲閘被撬開，夾萬亦被撬開。申請人住所亦搜出大量現金和硬幣。該處所的物主證實夾萬內有總值港幣422,250元的現金和硬幣被盜。 ### 核心法律爭議 申請人爭辯，原審法官就爆竊罪判刑所採用的量刑起點過高，且基於申請人的犯罪紀錄而提高量刑起點是錯誤的原則。他亦認為，其共同被告的量刑起點較低，令他感到不公。 ### 判決理由 法庭審視了量刑起點的問題，指出非住宅爆竊罪的常見量刑起點為兩年半監禁，但這並非絕對限制。若案情嚴重，例如涉及專業策劃、多人犯案、撬開夾萬及盜取巨額財物，法庭可採用更高的量刑起點。關於犯罪紀錄對量刑的影響，法庭引用 HKSAR v. Chan Pui Chi 一案，確認被告的重複犯案可加重罪行的嚴重性，尤其在判刑方面。法庭認為，原審法官考慮到申請人有四次爆竊前科，將其量刑起點定為三年零四個月是恰當的，並非原則性錯誤或明顯過重。 ### 引用案例與條文 HKSAR v. Chan Pui Chi, (1999) 2 HKLRD 830：此案例確立了被告的重複犯案可加重罪行的嚴重性，尤其在判刑方面，並允許法庭對屢犯者施加阻嚇性刑罰，以保護公眾。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭駁回申請人就判刑提出的上訴許可申請。原審法官所判處的三年零四個月監禁維持不變。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申，雖然判刑應針對當前罪行而非過往罪行，但被告的重複犯案，特別是同類罪行，可作為加重情節，導致更高的量刑起點。這反映了法庭在保護公眾和阻嚇屢犯者方面的職責，即使對於非住宅爆竊這類有常見量刑起點的罪行亦然。 --- ### 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 CHENG CHI SHING - Court: Court of Appeal - Judge: Hon Stuart-Moore, Acting CJHC, Stock JA and Gall J - Date of Judgment: 6 March 2001 ### Factual Background The applicant was convicted on 31 May 2000 by the District Court of one count of burglary and sentenced to three years and four months' imprisonment. His application for leave to appeal against conviction was dismissed as it was not pursued. The facts found by the judge were that on 3 January 2000, police observed the applicant emerging from premises with two plastic bags containing a large sum of coins. Further coins were found on a stairway. The premises' rear roller door and a safe had been forced open. A significant amount of cash and coins, totaling HK$422,250, was reported stolen by the owner. A search of the applicant's home also yielded a substantial amount of cash and coins. ### Key Legal Issues The applicant argued that the starting point for sentencing adopted by the trial judge for burglary was too high and that it was wrong in principle to increase the starting point due to his criminal record. He also contended that he felt aggrieved because his co-accused received a lower starting point. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court considered the appropriate starting point for sentencing. While acknowledging that the usual starting point for non-domestic burglary is often two and a half years, it emphasized that courts are not strictly confined by this where the facts justify a higher starting point, such as professional execution, multiple offenders, forced safes, and large sums stolen. Regarding the impact of previous convictions, the Court cited HKSAR v. Chan Pui Chi, affirming that repeated offending can aggravate the gravity of an offence for sentencing purposes. The Court found that the judge was not in error in taking three years and four months as the starting point, given the applicant's four previous burglary convictions. ### Key Precedents & Statutes HKSAR v. Chan Pui Chi, (1999) 2 HKLRD 830: This case established that a defendant's repeated commission of similar offences can increase the gravity of the current offence for sentencing purposes, allowing courts to impose deterrent sentences on persistent offenders to protect the public. ### Decision & Orders The Court dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence. The original sentence of three years and four months' imprisonment was upheld. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms that while sentencing focuses on the current offence, a defendant's persistent offending, particularly for similar crimes, can be an aggravating factor leading to a higher sentencing starting point. This reflects the court's duty to protect the public and deter recidivists, even for offences with common sentencing benchmarks like non-domestic burglary. --- ### 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.