A A
B B
DCCC 904/2023
C [2024] HKDC 1154 C
D D
香港特別行政區
E 區域法院 E
刑事案件 2023 年第 904 號
F F
G G
---------------------------------
H 香港特別行政區 H
訴
I I
朱春魁(又名朱振魁、林春葵及林春癸)
J J
---------------------------------
K K
主審法官： 區域法院法官謝沈智慧
L L
日期： 2024 年 7 月 16 日
M 出席人士： 李凱萍女士，律政司檢控官，代表香港特別行政區 M
N
黃信彥先生，由法律援助署委派的勞超傑律師事務所延 N
聘，代表被告人
O O
控罪： 有意圖而傷人（Wounding with intent）
P P
Q Q
---------------------
R R
判刑理由書
S --------------------- S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. 被告人承認一項「有意圖而傷人」，違反香港法例第 212
C 章《侵害人身罪條例》第 17(a)條。 C
D D
案情撮要
E E
F
2. 被告人承認的經修訂案情撮要如下： F
G G
(1) 2022 年 9 月 22 日約 1800 時，梁池輝先生（控方第
H 一證人）與妻子在香港北角糖水道近春秧街天橋底 H
I
發生爭執。控方第一證人不認識的被告人行近控方 I
第一證人，用木拐杖戳控方第一證人左胸，罵控方
J J
第一證人「蝦女人、打女人」。控方第一證人對被
K 告人說那是他的妻子。控方第一證人與被告人發生 K
L 口角。被告人之後用右拳打控方第一證人的頭部及 L
臉部 4-5 下，其後用木拐杖打控方第一證人的頭部
M M
及臉部 2-3 下，再用右拳打控方第一證人左胸 2-3
N N
下。之後，被告人轉身離開。控方第一證人捉住被
O 告人的衣服；被告人把控方第一證人推跌在地上， O
還踢了控方第一證人的胸部數下。控方第一證人失
P P
去知覺；
Q Q
R (2) 於附近購物的陳錦美 Theresa 女士（控方第二證人） R
目擊後半部份襲擊過程，向警方報案；
S S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
(3) 於附近工作的建築工人李嘉杰先生（控方第三證
C 人）目擊襲擊過程，並拍下襲擊錄像； C
D D
(4) 控方第一證人送往醫院，傷勢如下：(1) 右眼眶壁骨
E E
折；(2) 右上頸椎骨折；(3) 右前頭皮及右前額裂傷；
F (4)頭皮血腫；(5) 臉部瘀傷；(6) 臉部及左膝擦傷及 F
(7) 頸部及胸壁疼痛。控方第一證人於 2022 年 9 月
G G
22 日送入深切治療部，2022 年 9 月 23 日轉往病房，
H H
留院 20 天，2022 年 10 月 12 日出院；
I I
(5) 控方第三證人拍攝的錄像長約 4 分鐘。錄像拍攝到
J J
控方第一證人及被告人（穿戴口罩、白色 T 恤、牛
K K
仔褲及一個斜孭袋，帶着一支木拐杖）正在口角。
L 被告人用木拐杖企圖打控方第一證人，控方第一證 L
人擋開。被告人一度除下口罩，面容被拍攝下來。
M M
被告人用右拳不斷打控方第一證人的臉部及身體。
N N
控方第一證人跌在地上，捉住被告人衣服。最後，
O 被告人離開現場。控方第一證人躺在地上，臉上有 O
血。由於有物體阻擋鏡頭視線，錄像拍攝不到部份
P P
襲擊過程；
Q Q
R (6) 相關的閉路電視拍攝到被告人案發當日離開所住 R
大廈直至到達北角碼頭時所穿的衣着都與控方第
S S
三證人拍攝到的男子（即被告人）的衣着相同；
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
(7) 2022 年 9 月 23 日約 2145 時，偵緝警員 14459 拘捕
C 被告人，罪名是「傷人」。警方搜查被告人住所， C
期間發現一支木拐杖、一個斜孭袋及與施襲期間被
D D
告人所穿衣物吻合的衣物；
E E
F (8) 2022 年 9 月 24 日，被告人進行警誡錄影會面，承 F
認擁有在他住所檢獲的木拐杖、斜孭袋及衣物，又
G G
聲稱不認識控方第一證人；
H H
I (9) 2022 年 11 月 11 日，控方第一證人在列隊證人手續 I
中認出被告人；
J J
K (10) DNA 檢驗顯示，案中檢獲的斜孭袋上的血跡可能源 K
L 自控方第一證人。 L
M M
被告人的背景
N N
3. 被告人現年 65 歲，從未接受教育，已退休，倚靠綜援生
O O
活，獨居。他曾有 11 次刑事定罪紀錄，涉及共 14 項罪名，其中 6 項
P P
罪名與暴力有關。
Q Q
判刑原則
R R
S S
4. 「有意圖而傷人」是嚴重控罪，最高判刑為終身監禁。雖
T 然沒有量刑指引，但一般的刑期為 3 至 12 年監禁：HKSAR v Tse Hoi- T
lam [2005] HKLRD (Yrbk) 344。
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
C 5. 於 HKSAR v Nguyen Van Phuong [2006] HKCU 423 (CACC C
341/2005，9 March 2006，unreported)，上訴法院指出：
D D
E “All offences contrary to section 17 of Cap 212 are serious E
because they all contain the ingredient that the offender intended
to inflict really serious injury at the time”.
F F
G 6. 於 HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat [2013] 6 HKC 225，上訴法庭 G
指出：
H H
I “44. This court has said on innumerable occasions that the I
sentences for this offence are very much case and fact specific
J
and hence the wide range of 3-12 years for the usual type of J
wounding with intent… although cases attracting a starting point
towards the top of this range will often be cases involving severe
K injuries and/or severe residual disabilities it cannot be said that K
only cases with these features are appropriate candidates for
such a high starting point.
L L
45. Consequently, we are of the view that little is to be
M gained in embarking upon a comparative analysis of other cases. M
We believe it is more helpful to identify the relevant sentencing
principles and by properly applying them arrive at a just
N sentence. The starting point for this is an examination of the N
offence itself.
O O
46. The reason that offences contrary to section 17 are
serious is because they are committed with the intention of
P inflicting grievous bodily harm on the victim. In helping the lay P
person to understand what this legal phrase means the courts
have said that it means not just serious bodily harm but “really
Q Q
serious bodily harm”, laying emphasis on the qualifying word
“really”. It must be remembered that an intent to inflict this level
R of harm will have the consequence, should the victim die from R
the assault, of rendering the assailant liable to conviction for
murder. In upholding the grievous bodily harm rule as a basis
S of liability for murder the Court of Final Appeal in Lau Cheong S
& Anor v HKSAR (2002) 5 HKCFAR 415 made the important
T point that an assailant intending to inflict this level of harm may T
not be able to control the consequences to the victim. At page
437 C - D it said:
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
“A person may not subjectively intend or even foresee
C that he will cause death. He may desire to limit the C
consequences of his actions to the infliction of grievous
bodily injury. However, as a matter of commonsense it
D is impossible to predict that the consequences of an D
intentional infliction of really serious bodily harm will
E
necessarily be successfully limited and will not prove to E
be life threatening.”
F 47. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the offence is F
regarded as such a serious one. Indeed, the fact that the usual
range of sentence is 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment reflects that
G G
very seriousness. For this range indicates that not only will
imprisonment usually be the norm but also that the minimum
H period of imprisonment will usually be 3 years. H
48. Thus in determining the gravity of the offence, the factor
I of primary importance is the intent of the assailant to cause the I
victim really serious bodily harm. Whether that intent was fully
J realized in the injuries sought to be inflicted has been said to be J
of “secondary significance”. That must be so for, as the Court
of Final Appeal pointed out in the Lau Cheong case, the
K consequences to the victim may not be as the assailant intended. K
Tragically, they may be worse, but even when they are not or
they are not as bad as the assailant hoped to achieve that may not
L L
lessen the gravity of the offence. For the failure of the offender
to achieve the level of harm he intended may be due to resistance
M by the victim, the intervention of others, speedy medical M
attention or purely unanticipated fortuitous circumstances. That
is why, even though the consequences to the victim will always
N be an important factor, the gravity of the offence lies in the N
deliberate resort to violence with the intent by the offender to
O inflict by such violence really serious harm on the victim. O
49. Consequently, many of the factors to which a court will
P have regard in determining the gravity of a section 17 offence P
and the culpability of the offender will relate to the type of harm
Q
intended to be inflicted, the means by which that harm was Q
inflicted and the circumstances generally surrounding the
assault. Thus, without attempting to exhaustively identity all the
R relevant factors, the usual ones will be the extent to which the R
assault was premeditated, the reasons or motivation underlying
the assault upon the victim, the mental or emotional state of the
S S
assailant at the time of the assault, whether alcohol or drugs
contributed to the actions of the assailant, whether the assault
T was committed by the assailant alone or as part of a group, the T
type of weapons employed, the level of force or aggression and
the persistence with which the assault was pressed home, the
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B injuries caused to the victim and the effect of the assault upon B
the victim and those close to him or her.
C C
50. In arriving at an appropriate sentence the court will have
regard not just to the need to punish the offender for his conduct,
D but also to the sentencing principles of deterrence, both general D
and individual, and, in appropriate cases, the need to denounce
E
the resort to violence. Of course deterrence and denunciation E
are always important when there is resort to violence but there
may be particular situations that call for greater deterrence, such
F as in triad gang or contract attacks, or more denunciatory F
sentences, such as in domestic violence cases…
G G
53. It is simply that, as with any victim of crime, the court
will have regard to the effect and impact of the crime upon the
H victim. The victim’s attitude to the criminal may help the court H
in an understanding of the crime’s impact upon the victim by,
for example, revealing that the victim’s “psychological or
I mental suffering must be very much less than would normally I
be the case”…
J J
54. These points were made by Woo JA in HKSAR v Wong
Siu Kwan, CACC 166/2001, unreported 17 October 2001. At
K paragraph 25 he succinctly set out the correct approach: K
“While it is true that a sentence cannot be tailored
L L
according to the views of the victim because of the
intervention of the state and it is a matter for the court
M which will have to consider a wider sphere of public M
interest as well as reasoning and precedent, the court
should have regard to what the victim has to say, relating
N to how the offence was committed, how seriously he was N
hurt, mentally and physically, how he has been affected
O by the offence, and whether the imposition of a particular O
sentence would add to his distress or concern, especially
when the victim's views are rational and intelligent…”
P P
Q
7. 於 香港特別行政區 對 馬廸倫 CACC 112/2013 10 April Q
2014, unreported，上訴法庭指：
R R
S 「39. 本庭認為，把不同案件的判刑比較，並非對量刑的正 S
確處理方法，因為每宗案件的情節不盡相同，比較判刑的意
義不大。
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B 40. 上訴庭在 HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat [2013] 6 HKC 225 B
一案中，重申「有意圖而傷人」罪的嚴重性，判刑必須具阻
C 嚇性，而法庭須考慮的重要因素為： C
D
(a) 襲擊的預謀程度； D
(b) 襲擊的背後動機；
E E
(c) 襲擊者的精神狀態；
F F
(d) 襲擊者有否受酒精或藥物影響；
G (e) 襲擊是個人或群體行為； G
H (f) 使用的武器性質； H
(g) 武力使用的程度；
I I
(h) 受害人的傷勢；
J J
(i) 襲擊帶給受害人（及親人等）的影響。
K K
上訴庭亦指出對於某些暴力行徑，如牽涉三合會的團伙襲
擊，法庭必須作出強烈譴責及施以更強的阻嚇性刑罰。
L L
41. 另外，在這類傷人案件的加刑因素有：（一）被告是
M 事件的主腦；（二）有其他人夥同行兇；（三）襲擊並非源 M
於挑釁；（四）在公眾地方作案；（五）事主在跌倒後繼續
N
受襲；（六）事主在失去防衛能力後繼續受襲；（七）事主 N
受到嚴重及永久傷害； （八）被告被接見時就案情誤導警方，
顯 示 沒 有 悔 意 。 見 香 港 特 別 行 政 區 訴 徐 國 明 ， CACC
O O
380/2013（未經彙報），2014 年 3 月 27 日的判案理由書第
13 段。
P P
42. 誠如原審法官於判刑時指出，就「有意圖而傷人」罪
Q
的判刑，主要是取決該案的特有案情。而本案的嚴重之處， Q
乃是申請人一伙人的襲擊，引致陸遭受非常嚴重的傷害。綜
觀所有的醫療報告，只有一個結論：陸受到的傷害非常嚴
R R
重。…
S 44. 另外，申請人依賴一份 2013 年 3 月 11 日的醫療報 S
告，但這報告作用不大，因為它只是把先前的醫療報告綜合
T
而已，並沒有提及陸最新的情況。 T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
8. 於 HKSAR v Roka Sijan [2018] HKCA 986，上訴法庭指出：
C C
“49. The judge in her sentencing remarks noted that there
D were no tariffs for such an offence and that sentences were case D
specific. However, she went on to note that there were relevant
factors that put the sentence to be imposed at the higher end of
E the scale. She said: E
F “Those include the fact the assault or the attack was in F
public. It was at 10 am on a Sunday and from CCTV
footage there were many people walking up and down
G that section of Hollywood Road, including children. The G
attack continued when PW1 was on the ground and
unable to defend himself at all. There was no evidence
H H
the defendant was provoked by PW1 to such an extent
that it could justify such a response. PW1 in particular
I suffered very serious and lasting injuries.” I
50. The judge considered that a global sentence of 5 years’
J J
imprisonment was appropriate. She sentenced the applicant to
5 years’ imprisonment on Charge 1, and 4 years’ imprisonment
K on Charge 2. She ordered both sentences to run concurrently, K
resulting in a total sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment.
L 51. We were of the view that the overall sentence of 5 years’ L
imprisonment was very lenient in the circumstances of the case,
M but in fairness to the judge, she may have felt constrained by the M
jurisdictional ceiling of the District Court of 7 years’
imprisonment.
N N
52. Any form of violence must be visited by condign
punishment in order to serve the purposes of retribution and
O O
deterrence. This is especially true in cases of wounding, where
the element of the offence is that the offender intended to inflict
P really serious injury on the victim. Whilst there are no P
sentencing guidelines for wounding, it has been said that the
usual range will be between 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment,
Q although this will very much depend on the particular Q
circumstances of each case. See HKSAR v Tse Hok Lam [2005]
R HKLRD 344 and HKSAR v Chun Sze Wing, CACC 289/2011, R
14 June 2012, unreported at paragraph 12. However, we would
add that in very serious cases of wounding, a sentence outside
S this range may well be warranted. S
53. Key factors in determining the appropriate level of
T T
sentence for the offence of wounding, include the nature and
circumstances of the assault, the use of a weapon and the
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B circumstances of its use, the defenceless state of the victim, and B
the nature and effect of the injuries suffered by the victim. For
C these factors, the judge in the present case should have imposed C
a much higher starting point.”
D D
9. 於 HKSAR and Tung Pak Fai [2022] HKCA 1470, 上訴法庭
E E
指出：
F F
“21. The relevant factors relevant to sentencing in wounding
G with intent cases were set out in HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat and G
endorsed in HKSAR v Jatinder Singh… The list is not meant to
be exhaustive but it purely demonstrates that the culpability of
H an offender of a wounding with intent charge will relate to the H
type of harm intended to be inflicted, the means by which that
I harm was inflicted and the circumstances generally surrounding I
the assault. Given the many imponderables as to why an
assailant failed to achieve the injuries intended by him, the
J actual injuries caused is only one of the myriad of factors to be J
take into account. The gravamen of the offence is in the intent
to inflict really serious injuries, which is the same intent as that
K K
required for murder. The lack of serious injuries does not
necessarily reduce the gravity of the offence or offset the other
L aggravating factors… L
23. It is incorrect to say that the upper range of the usual
M M
sentence only reserved for cases involving very serious injuries
and long-term or sustaining impact done to the victim…
N N
24. Cases of extreme magnitude can warrant a starting point
well above that of the upper range of the 3-12 years range:
O HKSAR v Yip Kim Wah and Anor. O
P 25. Every case has to be directed on its own fact and the P
practice of comparing other cases are of little assistance for the
purpose of sentencing…”
Q Q
討論
R R
S S
10. 大律師指案發時，被告人路經北角春秧街天橋底，看見控
T 方第一證人正與一名女子爭執指罵，甚至掟雜物；當時已有街坊路人 T
圍觀。被告人認為男人不應該欺負女人；當他得悉控方第一證人是該
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
女子的丈夫時，感到更加憤怒，認為丈夫更不應該如此對待妻子。 於
C 是他便上前開聲制止，站在控方第一證人和妻子之間分隔兩人，被告 C
人用木拐杖「戳住」控方第一證人的左胸；兩人因此發生口角，雙方
D D
互罵動武，事情一發不可收拾。大律師指涉案的木拐杖是被告人的隨
E E
身用品；被告人並非有預謀犯案。控方第一證人倒地後，被告人並沒
F 再用木拐杖作出襲擊。 F
G G
11. 大律師指：
H H
I (1) 被告人案發時過分魯莽衝動，而且用武力過度。他 I
完全沒有預謀犯案；
J J
K (2) 被告人的動機是制止控方第一證人與妻子在公眾 K
L 地方互相指罵及扔雜物； L
M M
(3) 被告人認為控方第一證人對妻子的行為不對。控方
N 第一證人認為他的行為與其他人無關，對上前制止 N
O 的被告人是一種挑釁； O
P P
(4) 被告人最初的表現克制，只是開聲制止，站在兩人
Q 中間；後來才變成指罵及動武； Q
R R
(5) 被告人所用的武器只是隨身的拐杖；
S S
T (6) 雖然控方第一證人的傷勢嚴重，住院二十天，但根 T
據醫療報告；大部份傷勢已經痊愈；
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
C (7) 本案與黑社會並無關係。 C
D D
12. 本席同意被告人犯案並非早有預謀。被告人最初可能是
E 打算勸說控方第一證人及妻子和解，但他上前不久後便使用武力，以 E
F
拐杖「戳住」控方第一證人的左胸；引致兩人發生口角。被告人與控 F
方第一證人素未謀面，對控方第一證人及妻子之間的爭拗全不知情；
G G
控方第一證人認為與妻子的衝突與他人無關根本並不構成對被告人
H H
的挑釁。本席不接受控方第一證人對被告人作出挑釁。就算可被視為
I 挑釁，也不足以令被告人作出如此嚴重的攻擊。案發於公眾地方；控 I
方第一證人手無寸鐵，被告人在光天白曰及眾目睽睽下嚴重襲擊控方
J J
第一證人，不但拳打腳踢，還使用木拐杖，而且是集中攻擊控方第一
K K
證人的頭部，完全目無法紀。大律師指被告人轉身離開，似乎是指事
L 件本可平息，但控方第一證人捉着被告人的衣服，被告人才再次作出 L
襲擊。本席不敢苟同。被告人對控方第一證人作出嚴重襲擊，難道控
M M
方第一證人應該讓被告人逃之夭夭？當時控方第一證人已受傷，被告
N N
人再將控方第一證人推到地上，在控方第一證人全無還擊能力下繼續
O 作出襲擊，直至控方第一證人失去知覺。控方第一證人的傷勢嚴重， O
曾經須入住深切治療部，住院共 20 天；雖然大部份傷勢已痊愈，但
P P
右眼的視力受損、頸部移動幅度亦有限制。綜觀本案所有案情，本席
Q Q
認為適當的量刑基準為 4 年監禁。另外，被告人並非初犯。他有共 11
R 項刑事定罪紀錄，涉及 14 項控罪，其中 6 項與暴力有關，是涉及暴 R
S 力控罪的積犯。因此，本席將量刑基準上調 6 個月，即量刑起點為 4 S
年半監禁。
T T
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
減刑
C C
13. 被告人適時認罪可獲三份一的扣減；刑期減為 3 年監禁。
D D
除此之外，並無其他減刑因素。
E E
F
刑期 F
G G
14. 本席下令被告人監禁 3 年。
H H
I I
J J
K K
（ 謝沈智慧 ）
L 區域法院法官 L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 904/2023
C [2024] HKDC 1154 C
D D
香港特別行政區
E 區域法院 E
刑事案件 2023 年第 904 號
F F
G G
---------------------------------
H 香港特別行政區 H
訴
I I
朱春魁(又名朱振魁、林春葵及林春癸)
J J
---------------------------------
K K
主審法官： 區域法院法官謝沈智慧
L L
日期： 2024 年 7 月 16 日
M 出席人士： 李凱萍女士，律政司檢控官，代表香港特別行政區 M
N
黃信彥先生，由法律援助署委派的勞超傑律師事務所延 N
聘，代表被告人
O O
控罪： 有意圖而傷人（Wounding with intent）
P P
Q Q
---------------------
R R
判刑理由書
S --------------------- S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. 被告人承認一項「有意圖而傷人」，違反香港法例第 212
C 章《侵害人身罪條例》第 17(a)條。 C
D D
案情撮要
E E
F
2. 被告人承認的經修訂案情撮要如下： F
G G
(1) 2022 年 9 月 22 日約 1800 時，梁池輝先生（控方第
H 一證人）與妻子在香港北角糖水道近春秧街天橋底 H
I
發生爭執。控方第一證人不認識的被告人行近控方 I
第一證人，用木拐杖戳控方第一證人左胸，罵控方
J J
第一證人「蝦女人、打女人」。控方第一證人對被
K 告人說那是他的妻子。控方第一證人與被告人發生 K
L 口角。被告人之後用右拳打控方第一證人的頭部及 L
臉部 4-5 下，其後用木拐杖打控方第一證人的頭部
M M
及臉部 2-3 下，再用右拳打控方第一證人左胸 2-3
N N
下。之後，被告人轉身離開。控方第一證人捉住被
O 告人的衣服；被告人把控方第一證人推跌在地上， O
還踢了控方第一證人的胸部數下。控方第一證人失
P P
去知覺；
Q Q
R (2) 於附近購物的陳錦美 Theresa 女士（控方第二證人） R
目擊後半部份襲擊過程，向警方報案；
S S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
(3) 於附近工作的建築工人李嘉杰先生（控方第三證
C 人）目擊襲擊過程，並拍下襲擊錄像； C
D D
(4) 控方第一證人送往醫院，傷勢如下：(1) 右眼眶壁骨
E E
折；(2) 右上頸椎骨折；(3) 右前頭皮及右前額裂傷；
F (4)頭皮血腫；(5) 臉部瘀傷；(6) 臉部及左膝擦傷及 F
(7) 頸部及胸壁疼痛。控方第一證人於 2022 年 9 月
G G
22 日送入深切治療部，2022 年 9 月 23 日轉往病房，
H H
留院 20 天，2022 年 10 月 12 日出院；
I I
(5) 控方第三證人拍攝的錄像長約 4 分鐘。錄像拍攝到
J J
控方第一證人及被告人（穿戴口罩、白色 T 恤、牛
K K
仔褲及一個斜孭袋，帶着一支木拐杖）正在口角。
L 被告人用木拐杖企圖打控方第一證人，控方第一證 L
人擋開。被告人一度除下口罩，面容被拍攝下來。
M M
被告人用右拳不斷打控方第一證人的臉部及身體。
N N
控方第一證人跌在地上，捉住被告人衣服。最後，
O 被告人離開現場。控方第一證人躺在地上，臉上有 O
血。由於有物體阻擋鏡頭視線，錄像拍攝不到部份
P P
襲擊過程；
Q Q
R (6) 相關的閉路電視拍攝到被告人案發當日離開所住 R
大廈直至到達北角碼頭時所穿的衣着都與控方第
S S
三證人拍攝到的男子（即被告人）的衣着相同；
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
(7) 2022 年 9 月 23 日約 2145 時，偵緝警員 14459 拘捕
C 被告人，罪名是「傷人」。警方搜查被告人住所， C
期間發現一支木拐杖、一個斜孭袋及與施襲期間被
D D
告人所穿衣物吻合的衣物；
E E
F (8) 2022 年 9 月 24 日，被告人進行警誡錄影會面，承 F
認擁有在他住所檢獲的木拐杖、斜孭袋及衣物，又
G G
聲稱不認識控方第一證人；
H H
I (9) 2022 年 11 月 11 日，控方第一證人在列隊證人手續 I
中認出被告人；
J J
K (10) DNA 檢驗顯示，案中檢獲的斜孭袋上的血跡可能源 K
L 自控方第一證人。 L
M M
被告人的背景
N N
3. 被告人現年 65 歲，從未接受教育，已退休，倚靠綜援生
O O
活，獨居。他曾有 11 次刑事定罪紀錄，涉及共 14 項罪名，其中 6 項
P P
罪名與暴力有關。
Q Q
判刑原則
R R
S S
4. 「有意圖而傷人」是嚴重控罪，最高判刑為終身監禁。雖
T 然沒有量刑指引，但一般的刑期為 3 至 12 年監禁：HKSAR v Tse Hoi- T
lam [2005] HKLRD (Yrbk) 344。
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
C 5. 於 HKSAR v Nguyen Van Phuong [2006] HKCU 423 (CACC C
341/2005，9 March 2006，unreported)，上訴法院指出：
D D
E “All offences contrary to section 17 of Cap 212 are serious E
because they all contain the ingredient that the offender intended
to inflict really serious injury at the time”.
F F
G 6. 於 HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat [2013] 6 HKC 225，上訴法庭 G
指出：
H H
I “44. This court has said on innumerable occasions that the I
sentences for this offence are very much case and fact specific
J
and hence the wide range of 3-12 years for the usual type of J
wounding with intent… although cases attracting a starting point
towards the top of this range will often be cases involving severe
K injuries and/or severe residual disabilities it cannot be said that K
only cases with these features are appropriate candidates for
such a high starting point.
L L
45. Consequently, we are of the view that little is to be
M gained in embarking upon a comparative analysis of other cases. M
We believe it is more helpful to identify the relevant sentencing
principles and by properly applying them arrive at a just
N sentence. The starting point for this is an examination of the N
offence itself.
O O
46. The reason that offences contrary to section 17 are
serious is because they are committed with the intention of
P inflicting grievous bodily harm on the victim. In helping the lay P
person to understand what this legal phrase means the courts
have said that it means not just serious bodily harm but “really
Q Q
serious bodily harm”, laying emphasis on the qualifying word
“really”. It must be remembered that an intent to inflict this level
R of harm will have the consequence, should the victim die from R
the assault, of rendering the assailant liable to conviction for
murder. In upholding the grievous bodily harm rule as a basis
S of liability for murder the Court of Final Appeal in Lau Cheong S
& Anor v HKSAR (2002) 5 HKCFAR 415 made the important
T point that an assailant intending to inflict this level of harm may T
not be able to control the consequences to the victim. At page
437 C - D it said:
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
“A person may not subjectively intend or even foresee
C that he will cause death. He may desire to limit the C
consequences of his actions to the infliction of grievous
bodily injury. However, as a matter of commonsense it
D is impossible to predict that the consequences of an D
intentional infliction of really serious bodily harm will
E
necessarily be successfully limited and will not prove to E
be life threatening.”
F 47. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the offence is F
regarded as such a serious one. Indeed, the fact that the usual
range of sentence is 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment reflects that
G G
very seriousness. For this range indicates that not only will
imprisonment usually be the norm but also that the minimum
H period of imprisonment will usually be 3 years. H
48. Thus in determining the gravity of the offence, the factor
I of primary importance is the intent of the assailant to cause the I
victim really serious bodily harm. Whether that intent was fully
J realized in the injuries sought to be inflicted has been said to be J
of “secondary significance”. That must be so for, as the Court
of Final Appeal pointed out in the Lau Cheong case, the
K consequences to the victim may not be as the assailant intended. K
Tragically, they may be worse, but even when they are not or
they are not as bad as the assailant hoped to achieve that may not
L L
lessen the gravity of the offence. For the failure of the offender
to achieve the level of harm he intended may be due to resistance
M by the victim, the intervention of others, speedy medical M
attention or purely unanticipated fortuitous circumstances. That
is why, even though the consequences to the victim will always
N be an important factor, the gravity of the offence lies in the N
deliberate resort to violence with the intent by the offender to
O inflict by such violence really serious harm on the victim. O
49. Consequently, many of the factors to which a court will
P have regard in determining the gravity of a section 17 offence P
and the culpability of the offender will relate to the type of harm
Q
intended to be inflicted, the means by which that harm was Q
inflicted and the circumstances generally surrounding the
assault. Thus, without attempting to exhaustively identity all the
R relevant factors, the usual ones will be the extent to which the R
assault was premeditated, the reasons or motivation underlying
the assault upon the victim, the mental or emotional state of the
S S
assailant at the time of the assault, whether alcohol or drugs
contributed to the actions of the assailant, whether the assault
T was committed by the assailant alone or as part of a group, the T
type of weapons employed, the level of force or aggression and
the persistence with which the assault was pressed home, the
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B injuries caused to the victim and the effect of the assault upon B
the victim and those close to him or her.
C C
50. In arriving at an appropriate sentence the court will have
regard not just to the need to punish the offender for his conduct,
D but also to the sentencing principles of deterrence, both general D
and individual, and, in appropriate cases, the need to denounce
E
the resort to violence. Of course deterrence and denunciation E
are always important when there is resort to violence but there
may be particular situations that call for greater deterrence, such
F as in triad gang or contract attacks, or more denunciatory F
sentences, such as in domestic violence cases…
G G
53. It is simply that, as with any victim of crime, the court
will have regard to the effect and impact of the crime upon the
H victim. The victim’s attitude to the criminal may help the court H
in an understanding of the crime’s impact upon the victim by,
for example, revealing that the victim’s “psychological or
I mental suffering must be very much less than would normally I
be the case”…
J J
54. These points were made by Woo JA in HKSAR v Wong
Siu Kwan, CACC 166/2001, unreported 17 October 2001. At
K paragraph 25 he succinctly set out the correct approach: K
“While it is true that a sentence cannot be tailored
L L
according to the views of the victim because of the
intervention of the state and it is a matter for the court
M which will have to consider a wider sphere of public M
interest as well as reasoning and precedent, the court
should have regard to what the victim has to say, relating
N to how the offence was committed, how seriously he was N
hurt, mentally and physically, how he has been affected
O by the offence, and whether the imposition of a particular O
sentence would add to his distress or concern, especially
when the victim's views are rational and intelligent…”
P P
Q
7. 於 香港特別行政區 對 馬廸倫 CACC 112/2013 10 April Q
2014, unreported，上訴法庭指：
R R
S 「39. 本庭認為，把不同案件的判刑比較，並非對量刑的正 S
確處理方法，因為每宗案件的情節不盡相同，比較判刑的意
義不大。
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B 40. 上訴庭在 HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat [2013] 6 HKC 225 B
一案中，重申「有意圖而傷人」罪的嚴重性，判刑必須具阻
C 嚇性，而法庭須考慮的重要因素為： C
D
(a) 襲擊的預謀程度； D
(b) 襲擊的背後動機；
E E
(c) 襲擊者的精神狀態；
F F
(d) 襲擊者有否受酒精或藥物影響；
G (e) 襲擊是個人或群體行為； G
H (f) 使用的武器性質； H
(g) 武力使用的程度；
I I
(h) 受害人的傷勢；
J J
(i) 襲擊帶給受害人（及親人等）的影響。
K K
上訴庭亦指出對於某些暴力行徑，如牽涉三合會的團伙襲
擊，法庭必須作出強烈譴責及施以更強的阻嚇性刑罰。
L L
41. 另外，在這類傷人案件的加刑因素有：（一）被告是
M 事件的主腦；（二）有其他人夥同行兇；（三）襲擊並非源 M
於挑釁；（四）在公眾地方作案；（五）事主在跌倒後繼續
N
受襲；（六）事主在失去防衛能力後繼續受襲；（七）事主 N
受到嚴重及永久傷害； （八）被告被接見時就案情誤導警方，
顯 示 沒 有 悔 意 。 見 香 港 特 別 行 政 區 訴 徐 國 明 ， CACC
O O
380/2013（未經彙報），2014 年 3 月 27 日的判案理由書第
13 段。
P P
42. 誠如原審法官於判刑時指出，就「有意圖而傷人」罪
Q
的判刑，主要是取決該案的特有案情。而本案的嚴重之處， Q
乃是申請人一伙人的襲擊，引致陸遭受非常嚴重的傷害。綜
觀所有的醫療報告，只有一個結論：陸受到的傷害非常嚴
R R
重。…
S 44. 另外，申請人依賴一份 2013 年 3 月 11 日的醫療報 S
告，但這報告作用不大，因為它只是把先前的醫療報告綜合
T
而已，並沒有提及陸最新的情況。 T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
8. 於 HKSAR v Roka Sijan [2018] HKCA 986，上訴法庭指出：
C C
“49. The judge in her sentencing remarks noted that there
D were no tariffs for such an offence and that sentences were case D
specific. However, she went on to note that there were relevant
factors that put the sentence to be imposed at the higher end of
E the scale. She said: E
F “Those include the fact the assault or the attack was in F
public. It was at 10 am on a Sunday and from CCTV
footage there were many people walking up and down
G that section of Hollywood Road, including children. The G
attack continued when PW1 was on the ground and
unable to defend himself at all. There was no evidence
H H
the defendant was provoked by PW1 to such an extent
that it could justify such a response. PW1 in particular
I suffered very serious and lasting injuries.” I
50. The judge considered that a global sentence of 5 years’
J J
imprisonment was appropriate. She sentenced the applicant to
5 years’ imprisonment on Charge 1, and 4 years’ imprisonment
K on Charge 2. She ordered both sentences to run concurrently, K
resulting in a total sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment.
L 51. We were of the view that the overall sentence of 5 years’ L
imprisonment was very lenient in the circumstances of the case,
M but in fairness to the judge, she may have felt constrained by the M
jurisdictional ceiling of the District Court of 7 years’
imprisonment.
N N
52. Any form of violence must be visited by condign
punishment in order to serve the purposes of retribution and
O O
deterrence. This is especially true in cases of wounding, where
the element of the offence is that the offender intended to inflict
P really serious injury on the victim. Whilst there are no P
sentencing guidelines for wounding, it has been said that the
usual range will be between 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment,
Q although this will very much depend on the particular Q
circumstances of each case. See HKSAR v Tse Hok Lam [2005]
R HKLRD 344 and HKSAR v Chun Sze Wing, CACC 289/2011, R
14 June 2012, unreported at paragraph 12. However, we would
add that in very serious cases of wounding, a sentence outside
S this range may well be warranted. S
53. Key factors in determining the appropriate level of
T T
sentence for the offence of wounding, include the nature and
circumstances of the assault, the use of a weapon and the
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B circumstances of its use, the defenceless state of the victim, and B
the nature and effect of the injuries suffered by the victim. For
C these factors, the judge in the present case should have imposed C
a much higher starting point.”
D D
9. 於 HKSAR and Tung Pak Fai [2022] HKCA 1470, 上訴法庭
E E
指出：
F F
“21. The relevant factors relevant to sentencing in wounding
G with intent cases were set out in HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat and G
endorsed in HKSAR v Jatinder Singh… The list is not meant to
be exhaustive but it purely demonstrates that the culpability of
H an offender of a wounding with intent charge will relate to the H
type of harm intended to be inflicted, the means by which that
I harm was inflicted and the circumstances generally surrounding I
the assault. Given the many imponderables as to why an
assailant failed to achieve the injuries intended by him, the
J actual injuries caused is only one of the myriad of factors to be J
take into account. The gravamen of the offence is in the intent
to inflict really serious injuries, which is the same intent as that
K K
required for murder. The lack of serious injuries does not
necessarily reduce the gravity of the offence or offset the other
L aggravating factors… L
23. It is incorrect to say that the upper range of the usual
M M
sentence only reserved for cases involving very serious injuries
and long-term or sustaining impact done to the victim…
N N
24. Cases of extreme magnitude can warrant a starting point
well above that of the upper range of the 3-12 years range:
O HKSAR v Yip Kim Wah and Anor. O
P 25. Every case has to be directed on its own fact and the P
practice of comparing other cases are of little assistance for the
purpose of sentencing…”
Q Q
討論
R R
S S
10. 大律師指案發時，被告人路經北角春秧街天橋底，看見控
T 方第一證人正與一名女子爭執指罵，甚至掟雜物；當時已有街坊路人 T
圍觀。被告人認為男人不應該欺負女人；當他得悉控方第一證人是該
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
女子的丈夫時，感到更加憤怒，認為丈夫更不應該如此對待妻子。 於
C 是他便上前開聲制止，站在控方第一證人和妻子之間分隔兩人，被告 C
人用木拐杖「戳住」控方第一證人的左胸；兩人因此發生口角，雙方
D D
互罵動武，事情一發不可收拾。大律師指涉案的木拐杖是被告人的隨
E E
身用品；被告人並非有預謀犯案。控方第一證人倒地後，被告人並沒
F 再用木拐杖作出襲擊。 F
G G
11. 大律師指：
H H
I (1) 被告人案發時過分魯莽衝動，而且用武力過度。他 I
完全沒有預謀犯案；
J J
K (2) 被告人的動機是制止控方第一證人與妻子在公眾 K
L 地方互相指罵及扔雜物； L
M M
(3) 被告人認為控方第一證人對妻子的行為不對。控方
N 第一證人認為他的行為與其他人無關，對上前制止 N
O 的被告人是一種挑釁； O
P P
(4) 被告人最初的表現克制，只是開聲制止，站在兩人
Q 中間；後來才變成指罵及動武； Q
R R
(5) 被告人所用的武器只是隨身的拐杖；
S S
T (6) 雖然控方第一證人的傷勢嚴重，住院二十天，但根 T
據醫療報告；大部份傷勢已經痊愈；
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
C (7) 本案與黑社會並無關係。 C
D D
12. 本席同意被告人犯案並非早有預謀。被告人最初可能是
E 打算勸說控方第一證人及妻子和解，但他上前不久後便使用武力，以 E
F
拐杖「戳住」控方第一證人的左胸；引致兩人發生口角。被告人與控 F
方第一證人素未謀面，對控方第一證人及妻子之間的爭拗全不知情；
G G
控方第一證人認為與妻子的衝突與他人無關根本並不構成對被告人
H H
的挑釁。本席不接受控方第一證人對被告人作出挑釁。就算可被視為
I 挑釁，也不足以令被告人作出如此嚴重的攻擊。案發於公眾地方；控 I
方第一證人手無寸鐵，被告人在光天白曰及眾目睽睽下嚴重襲擊控方
J J
第一證人，不但拳打腳踢，還使用木拐杖，而且是集中攻擊控方第一
K K
證人的頭部，完全目無法紀。大律師指被告人轉身離開，似乎是指事
L 件本可平息，但控方第一證人捉着被告人的衣服，被告人才再次作出 L
襲擊。本席不敢苟同。被告人對控方第一證人作出嚴重襲擊，難道控
M M
方第一證人應該讓被告人逃之夭夭？當時控方第一證人已受傷，被告
N N
人再將控方第一證人推到地上，在控方第一證人全無還擊能力下繼續
O 作出襲擊，直至控方第一證人失去知覺。控方第一證人的傷勢嚴重， O
曾經須入住深切治療部，住院共 20 天；雖然大部份傷勢已痊愈，但
P P
右眼的視力受損、頸部移動幅度亦有限制。綜觀本案所有案情，本席
Q Q
認為適當的量刑基準為 4 年監禁。另外，被告人並非初犯。他有共 11
R 項刑事定罪紀錄，涉及 14 項控罪，其中 6 項與暴力有關，是涉及暴 R
S 力控罪的積犯。因此，本席將量刑基準上調 6 個月，即量刑起點為 4 S
年半監禁。
T T
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
減刑
C C
13. 被告人適時認罪可獲三份一的扣減；刑期減為 3 年監禁。
D D
除此之外，並無其他減刑因素。
E E
F
刑期 F
G G
14. 本席下令被告人監禁 3 年。
H H
I I
J J
K K
（ 謝沈智慧 ）
L 區域法院法官 L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V