罪行普遍性是否應在判刑時判斷？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v WONG FUNG-MING (D9) and MAK WAI-MEI (D11) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Stuart-Moore 副庭長、楊振權上訴法官及 Suffiad 法官 - 判決日期：2002年12月5日 ### 案情摘要 本案申請人（D9和D11）因串謀詐騙罪在區域法院被定罪。該詐騙案涉及一間名為Link Legend Enterprise Limited的公司，該公司虛假聲稱從事倫敦金屬交易（Loco London Silver），誘騙受害人（多為教育程度不高、缺乏技能的員工）投資。受害人被告知投資失利，並被要求彌補「損失」，否則工資將被扣押。警方於1999年7月15日突擊搜查該公司辦公室，發現十名受害人共損失約200萬港元。D9被指控為接待員及面試官，D11則與D9一同被定罪並判刑。 ### 核心法律爭議 D9就定罪提出上訴，質疑法官僅憑其進行簡短面試及知悉辦公室密碼的證據，便推斷她知情並參與串謀詐騙是否穩妥。D9和D11均就判刑提出上訴，主要爭議點是原審法官在判刑時，是否錯誤地根據《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》（Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 455, OSCO）第27條，因案件「普遍性」（prevalence）而加重刑罰，尤其是在控方後來承認該罪行在判刑時已不再普遍的情況下。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭維持D9的定罪，認為原審法官對該公司為「完全虛假運作」（wholly sham operation）的判斷，以及D9在其中的角色是準確的，並無不穩妥之處。對於判刑上訴，法庭裁定《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》第27條中「普遍性」的判斷應以判刑時而非犯罪時為準。由於控方承認在判刑時該罪行已不再普遍，原審法官錯誤地加重了刑罰。法庭強調，加重刑罰的權力應審慎行使，且不應在阻嚇需求已減弱時施加。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了HKSAR v Tam Wai-pio [1998] 2 HKLRD 949，原審法官在判刑時遵循了該案的指引。此外，法庭還參考了HKSAR v Chiang Chun-wai, CACC 11/2001（未經報導）及HKSAR v Sam Wai-keung, [2000] 1 HKC 149，以確定適當的量刑起點。對於良好品格的處理，法庭引用了Secretary for Justice v Au Man-kei, Alex, CAAR 2/2000（未經報導）及Shum Ming and others and The Queen (1978) HKLR 41，指出對於首次犯案但涉及一系列罪行者，不應輕易給予「初犯者」的減刑。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回D9就定罪提出的上訴。就判刑上訴，法庭批准D9和D11的上訴許可，並將兩人的監禁刑期從五年減至四年，以消除因「普遍性」而錯誤施加的加重刑罰部分。法庭亦指示控方通知本案其他被告此判決，以便他們考慮提出上訴。 ### 判決啟示 本案明確指出，根據《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》第27條加重刑罰時，罪行的「普遍性」應以判刑時而非犯罪時的統計數據為準。控方有責任確保在申請加重刑罰時，所依據的數據能準確反映判刑時的實際情況，避免誤導法庭。此外，法庭重申，對於涉及一系列罪行的被告，即使是首次出庭，也不應輕易視為「初犯者」而給予大幅度減刑。 --- ### 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 WONG FUNG-MING (D9) and MAK WAI-MEI (D11) - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Stuart-Moore VP, Yeung JA and Suffiad J - Date of Judgment: 5 December 2002 ### Factual Background The applicants (D9 and D11) were convicted in the District Court of conspiracy to defraud. The fraud involved a company named Link Legend Enterprise Limited, which falsely represented itself as trading in Loco London Silver, luring victims (mostly employees with poor educational backgrounds and skills) to invest. Victims were told their investments had failed and were asked to cover 'losses,' or their wages would be withheld. Police raided the company's office on 15 July 1999, finding that ten victims had lost approximately HK$2 million. D9 was identified as a receptionist and interviewer, and D11 was also convicted and sentenced alongside D9. ### Key Legal Issues D9 appealed against conviction, questioning whether the judge erred in inferring her knowledge and participation in the conspiracy solely from evidence of a brief interview and knowledge of an office access code. Both D9 and D11 appealed against sentence, primarily arguing that the trial judge wrongly enhanced their sentences under section 27 of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance (OSCO) due to the 'prevalence' of the offence, especially after the prosecution later conceded that the offence was no longer prevalent at the time of sentencing. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal upheld D9's conviction, finding the trial judge's assessment of the company as a 'wholly sham operation' and D9's role within it to be accurate and safe. Regarding the sentence appeal, the court ruled that the determination of 'prevalence' under section 27 of OSCO should be made at the time of sentencing, not at the time of the offence. As the prosecution conceded the offence was no longer prevalent at sentencing, the trial judge had erred in enhancing the sentences. The court emphasized that the power to enhance sentences should be used sparingly and not when the need for deterrence has diminished. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment cited HKSAR v Tam Wai-pio [1998] 2 HKLRD 949, which the trial judge followed for sentencing guidance. Reference was also made to HKSAR v Chiang Chun-wai, CACC 11/2001 (unreported) and HKSAR v Sam Wai-keung, [2000] 1 HKC 149 for determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing. For character assessment, Secretary for Justice v Au Man-kei, Alex, CAAR 2/2000 (unreported) and Shum Ming and others and The Queen (1978) HKLR 41 were cited, indicating that those appearing for the first time but charged with multiple offences should not be readily treated as 'true first offenders' for significant mitigation. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed D9's appeal against conviction. For the sentence appeals, leave was granted, and the appeals were allowed to the extent that the sentences of five years' imprisonment for both D9 and D11 were reduced to four years' imprisonment, removing the element of enhancement. The court also directed the prosecution to inform other co-defendants of this decision so they could consider filing late appeals against sentence. ### Key Takeaways This case clarifies that for sentence enhancement under section 27 of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance, the 'prevalence' of an offence must be assessed at the time of sentencing, not at the time the offence was committed. The prosecution bears the responsibility to ensure that statistical evidence presented for sentence enhancement accurately reflects the situation at sentencing to avoid misleading the court. Furthermore, the court reiterated that defendants involved in a series of offences, even if appearing in court for the first time, should not be easily regarded as 'first offenders' for substantial mitigation. --- ### 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.