傷人罪刑期是否明顯不足？加刑

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Attorney General v Lam Yat Sing - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：傅雅德副庭長、包華上訴法官、麥杜高上訴法官 - 判決日期：1993年1月14日 ### 案情摘要 本案源於一宗傷人案，被告林逸星被控於1991年7月26日意圖造成他人身體嚴重傷害而傷人，違反《侵害人身罪條例》第17條。事發當日，受害人與兩名女子到被告住所，其中一名女子與被告是朋友，目的是取回手袋。其後，看更目睹被告手持切肉刀追逐受害人，並在受害人被困於大廈入口時，用切肉刀擊中其面部。受害人面部有兩處傷口，其中一處導致下顎輕微骨折，經治療後兩天出院，沒有永久傷殘。被告在警方到場後承認傷人並指認涉案兇器。被告曾於1982年因誤殺及傷人罪被判入教導所，但此後十年一直奉公守法。 ### 核心法律爭議 律政司申請覆核原審法官蔡氏在區域法院對被告林逸星判處的四個月監禁刑期。律政司認為該判決明顯不足及原則上錯誤，未能反映罪行的嚴重性，且未充分考慮阻嚇作用。被告方則認為原審法官已充分考慮所有情況，判決雖寬大但並無錯誤。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭認為，原審法官判處的四個月監禁刑期明顯不足，以致上訴法庭必須介入。法庭指出，儘管本案並非預謀犯案，且受害人傷勢並無永久損害，但被告使用兇器襲擊手無寸鐵之人，且擊中身體脆弱部位，罪行性質嚴重。法庭考慮到被告即將獲釋，根據 Attorney General v. Wong Kwok Wai 一案確立的原則給予「折扣」，最終將刑期由原審的四個月監禁改判為兩年監禁。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了 Attorney General v. Wong Kwok Wai [1991] 2 HKLR 384 一案，該案確立了在覆核刑期時，若被告即將獲釋，可給予「折扣」的原則，以調整最終判處的刑期。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭批准律政司的覆核申請，撤銷原審法官判處的四個月監禁刑期，改判被告兩年監禁。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調了上訴法庭在覆核刑期時，即使被告即將獲釋，若原審判決明顯不足，仍有權介入並改判。同時，法庭在改判時會考慮被告已服刑時間，並給予適當的「折扣」。 --- ### 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: Attorney General v Lam Yat Sing - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Fuad, V.-P., Power, J.A., Macdougall, J.A. - Date of Judgment: 14 January 1993 ### Factual Background This case arose from a wounding incident where the respondent, Lam Yat Sing, was convicted of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, contrary to section 17 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212, on 26 July 1991. The victim and two women visited the respondent's flat to retrieve a handbag. A caretaker witnessed the respondent chasing the victim with a chopper and striking him on the face while the victim was trapped at the building's entrance. The victim sustained two facial wounds, one causing a slight fracture of the left mandible, and was discharged after two days with no permanent disability. The respondent admitted to the police that he had committed the assault and identified the weapon. The respondent had a prior conviction for manslaughter and wounding in 1982 but had led a law-abiding life for ten years thereafter. ### Key Legal Issues The Attorney General applied to review the sentence of four months' imprisonment imposed by Judge Chua in the District Court, arguing it was manifestly inadequate and wrong in principle, failing to reflect the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence. The respondent contended that the judge had carefully considered all circumstances and that the sentence, though lenient, was not erroneous. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal found the original sentence of four months' imprisonment to be manifestly inadequate, necessitating intervention. The court noted that despite the incident not being premeditated and the victim suffering no permanent damage, the use of a dangerous weapon on a defenceless person and striking a vulnerable body part constituted a serious offence. Considering the respondent's imminent release, the court applied a "discount" based on the principles from Attorney General v. Wong Kwok Wai, ultimately substituting the original sentence with two years' imprisonment. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited Attorney General v. Wong Kwok Wai [1991] 2 HKLR 384, which established the principle of applying a "discount" to a sentence when reviewing it, particularly if the defendant is due for imminent release. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal allowed the Attorney General's application for review, setting aside the original sentence of four months' imprisonment and substituting it with a sentence of two years' imprisonment. ### Key Takeaways This judgment underscores the Court of Appeal's power to intervene in manifestly inadequate sentences, even when a defendant is nearing release. It also highlights the application of a "discount" principle in such reviews, balancing the need for a just sentence with the practicalities of the defendant's impending release. --- ### 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.