扒竊罪量刑起點及加重因素計算？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v Suen Ping (孫平) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Zervos JA - 判決日期：2024年7月10日 ### 案情摘要 申請人孫平承認兩項盜竊罪（扒竊），於2023年11月22日被區域法院法官判處總共33個月監禁。第一項控罪發生於2023年1月24日，申請人在菜檔偷竊一部手提電話、八達通及信用卡。第二項控罪發生於2023年3月19日，申請人在街市偷竊一部手提電話及電話套，當時他正就第一項控罪獲准保釋。申請人是一名慣犯，65歲，有74項前科，其中一半與不誠實罪行有關。 ### 核心法律爭議 申請人就其刑期提出上訴許可申請，主要爭議點為：(1) 原審法官採用的32個月量刑起點過高，超出扒竊罪行的慣常範圍（12至15個月）；(2) 法官在計算認罪折扣時，應先將加重因素納入起點，再作三分之一扣減，而非先扣減再增加加重因素；(3) 最終33個月的刑期過重，相當於審訊後約50個月的起點。申請人亦申請保釋等候上訴。 ### 判決理由 法庭認為，雖然申請人的罪行非常嚴重，且他是一名屢犯者，但其上訴理據具有合理可爭辯性，即刑期可能過重。法庭指出，正確的量刑方法應包括：確立起點、考慮加重因素、扣減減輕因素（包括認罪折扣），並應用整體性原則 (totality principle) 處理多項罪行。原審法官的量刑方式可能導致刑期偏高。因此，法庭批准了上訴許可申請。然而，法庭拒絕了保釋申請，因即使上訴成功，刑期減幅亦不會太大，且申請人的預計刑滿日期為2024年12月14日，上訴應能在此之前審理。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy [2005] 2 HKLRD 1，該案為扒竊罪行的量刑指引案例，提供了初犯者經審訊後12至15個月監禁的指引刑期。此外，法庭在處理保釋申請時，引用了HKSAR v Fong King-choi, unrep., CACC 319/2018及HKSAR v Chung Ho Yin, unrep., CACC 75/2020，闡述了保釋等候上訴的「勝訴機會高」及「時間因素」原則。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭批准了申請人就其刑期提出的上訴許可申請，認為上訴理據具有合理可爭辯性。然而，法庭拒絕了申請人保釋等候上訴的申請，並指示加快處理其上訴。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了處理多項罪行時正確的量刑步驟，特別是關於認罪折扣和加重因素的應用順序。它強調了即使罪犯是慣犯，量刑仍需遵循既定原則，確保刑期不過重。同時，本案也闡明了保釋等候上訴的嚴格標準，即上訴需有「勝訴機會高」或「時間因素」的理據。 --- ### 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 Suen Ping (孫平) - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Zervos JA - Date of Judgment: 10 July 2024 ### Factual Background The applicant, Suen Ping, pleaded guilty to two charges of theft (pickpocketing) and was sentenced to a total of 33 months' imprisonment by a District Court Judge on 22 November 2023. The first charge occurred on 24 January 2023, involving the theft of a mobile phone, Octopus card, and credit card from a shopper. The second charge occurred on 19 March 2023, involving the theft of a mobile phone and case from a shopper, while the applicant was on bail for the first charge. The applicant is a 65-year-old recidivist with 74 prior convictions, half of which are dishonesty-related. ### Key Legal Issues The applicant sought leave to appeal against his sentence, arguing primarily that: (1) the judge adopted an exceptionally high starting point of 32 months, outside the usual range for pickpocketing (12-15 months); (2) the judge incorrectly applied the one-third discount for the guilty plea before adding aggravating factors, instead of after; and (3) the resulting sentence of 33 months was manifestly excessive, representing a starting point of about 50 months after trial. The applicant also applied for bail pending appeal. ### Ratio Decidendi The court found that despite the serious nature of the applicant's wrongdoing and his recidivist history, the grounds of appeal against sentence were reasonably arguable, suggesting the sentence might be excessive. The court outlined the correct sentencing approach: establishing a starting point, considering aggravating factors, reducing for mitigating factors (including a guilty plea discount), and applying the totality principle for multiple offences. The judge's approach might have led to a sentence on the high side. Therefore, leave to appeal against sentence was granted. However, bail pending appeal was refused, as any reduction in sentence, even if successful, would not be substantial, and the appeal was likely to be heard before his discharge date of 14 December 2024. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy [2005] 2 HKLRD 1, which provides sentencing guidelines for pickpocketing, suggesting 12 to 15 months' imprisonment after trial for a first-time offender. For bail pending appeal, the court referred to HKSAR v Fong King-choi, unrep., CACC 319/2018 and HKSAR v Chung Ho Yin, unrep., CACC 75/2020, which discuss the 'merits ground' and 'time ground' for granting bail. ### Decision & Orders The court granted the applicant leave to appeal against his sentence, finding the grounds of appeal reasonably arguable. However, the application for bail pending appeal was refused, and the court directed that the appeal against sentence be expedited. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reiterates the correct steps for sentencing multiple offences, particularly regarding the sequence of applying guilty plea discounts and aggravating factors. It emphasizes that even for recidivist offenders, sentencing must adhere to established principles to ensure the sentence is not manifestly excessive. It also clarifies the stringent criteria for bail pending appeal, requiring strong likelihood of success or a significant 'time ground'. --- ### 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.