酒店房間爆竊判刑是否等同住宅爆竊？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v Ng Wai-Hing - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal) - 法官：Stuart-Moore 副庭長、楊振權上訴法官、高嘉樂法官 - 判決日期：2003年4月29日 ### 案情摘要 申請人吳偉興在區域法院被控爆竊及意圖阻止合法逮捕而襲擊兩項罪名，並於2002年12月3日被定罪，判處監禁3年及4個月，同期執行。受害人方先生是一名內地導遊，入住都會海逸酒店509號房。凌晨時分，方先生被吵醒，發現申請人在其房間內翻找衣物。方先生追逐申請人，期間申請人兩次襲擊方先生，導致方先生眼鏡脫落及嘴部流血。最終申請人被酒店保安及方先生制服並交予警方。申請人否認爆竊，聲稱是尋找朋友，誤入房間。 ### 核心法律爭議 申請人就定罪提出上訴許可申請，質疑受害人方先生證供的可靠性，指出其視力受損及證供與書面證詞有出入，並聲稱方先生為避免被控襲擊而誣告他。申請人亦就判刑提出上訴，主要爭議酒店房間在判刑時應否被視為「住宅處所 (domestic premises)」。控方則認為酒店房間應至少與住宅處所同等看待，因其涉及對住客隱私的侵犯及對香港國際形象的影響。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭認為申請人的辯護「荒謬絕倫 (preposterous)」，其解釋不可信。法庭確認原審法官有權拒絕申請人的證供並接納方先生的證供。根據方先生的證供，申請人顯然是作為侵入者進入509號房意圖盜竊，並為阻止被逮捕而襲擊方先生，因此定罪並無不穩妥或不滿意之處。關於判刑，法庭認為酒店房間的爆竊應至少與住宅處所的爆竊判處相同刑罰，因為兩者都涉及對個人隱私的侵犯及受害人可能遭受的創傷。原審法官將酒店房間視為住宅處所並採用3年監禁的起點是正確的。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了 R v Wong Man Cr. App. 372 of 1992 及 R v Chan Yui-man Cr App 36 of 1988 兩宗案例，這些案例為非住宅及住宅處所爆竊罪的判刑提供了指引。法庭在分析酒店房間是否屬於住宅處所時，參考了這些案例所確立的原則，特別是關於侵犯隱私和受害人恐懼感的考量。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回申請人就定罪提出的上訴許可申請，並駁回其就判刑提出的上訴。法庭認為申請人就定罪提出的上訴許可申請完全沒有理據，並根據《刑事訴訟程序條例》第83W條命令，申請人等候上訴期間的其中三個月不計入刑期。 ### 判決啟示 本案確立了酒店房間的爆竊在判刑時應至少與住宅處所的爆竊同等看待，因為兩者均涉及對個人隱私的嚴重侵犯及可能對受害人造成創傷。這對未來處理酒店爆竊案件的判刑具有指導意義，強調了此類罪行對受害人及香港國際形象的負面影響。 --- ### 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 Ng Wai-Hing - Court: Court of Appeal - Judge: Hon Stuart-Moore VP, Hon Yeung JA, Hon Gall J - Date of Judgment: 29 April 2003 ### Factual Background The applicant, Ng Wai Hing, was convicted in the District Court of burglary and assault with intent to prevent lawful apprehension, receiving concurrent sentences of 3 years and 4 months imprisonment respectively on 3 December 2002. The victim, Mr. Fang, a Mainland tourist guide, was staying in Room 509 of the Metropole Hotel. He was woken in the early hours to find the applicant searching his cupboard. Mr. Fang pursued the applicant, who assaulted him twice, causing his glasses to fall off and his mouth to bleed. The applicant was eventually apprehended by hotel security and Mr. Fang, and handed over to the police. The applicant denied burglary, claiming he was looking for a friend and mistakenly entered the room. ### Key Legal Issues The applicant sought leave to appeal against conviction, challenging the reliability of Mr. Fang's testimony, citing his visual impairment and discrepancies between his evidence and written statements, and alleging Mr. Fang made false accusations to avoid being sued for assault. The applicant also appealed against sentence, primarily disputing whether a hotel room should be treated as "domestic premises" for sentencing purposes. The prosecution argued that hotel rooms should be treated at least on par with domestic premises due to the invasion of privacy and impact on Hong Kong's international image. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal found the applicant's defence "preposterous" and unbelievable. The court affirmed the trial judge's right to reject the applicant's evidence and accept Mr. Fang's. Based on Mr. Fang's evidence, the applicant clearly entered Room 509 as a trespasser with intent to steal and assaulted Mr. Fang to prevent apprehension, making the conviction safe and satisfactory. Regarding sentencing, the court held that burglary of a hotel room should attract at least the same sentence as that of domestic premises, given the invasion of privacy and potential trauma to victims. The trial judge was correct in adopting a starting point of 3 years for the burglary charge. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The court cited R v Wong Man Cr. App. 372 of 1992 and R v Chan Yui-man Cr App 36 of 1988, which provided sentencing guidelines for burglary of non-domestic and domestic premises. These cases informed the court's analysis of whether a hotel room should be categorized as domestic premises, particularly concerning the principles of privacy invasion and victim's fear. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal against conviction and his appeal against sentence. The court found the application for leave to appeal against conviction to be entirely without merit and ordered, under section 83W of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, that three months of the time the applicant served pending the application should not be reckoned as part of his sentence. ### Key Takeaways This judgment establishes that burglary of a hotel room should be treated at least on par with burglary of domestic premises for sentencing purposes, due to the severe invasion of privacy and potential trauma to victims. This provides guidance for future sentencing in hotel burglary cases, emphasizing the negative impact of such crimes on victims and Hong Kong's international image. --- ### 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.