意圖傷人罪的量刑是否過輕？加刑

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：ATTORNEY GENERAL v LOW WING-WAH - 法院：上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Mortimer 及 Mayo 上訴法官及 Bewley 高等法院原訟法庭法官 - 判決日期：1995年11月30日 ### 案情摘要 本案源於一宗在餐廳因爭奪椅子而起的微不足道爭執。答辯人與受害人發生口角後，答辯人離開並揚言會帶人回來。他其後帶著另一名男子返回，並亮出一把切肉刀。受害人嘗試逃跑時跌倒，答辯人隨即用刀襲擊受害人，導致受害人眼部嚴重受傷，最終失去一隻眼睛，需安裝義眼。答辯人被裁定「意圖傷人」(wounding with intent) 罪名成立。 ### 核心法律爭議 律政司申請覆核原審法庭對答辯人判處的2年9個月監禁刑罰，認為該刑罰明顯不足。律政司一方認為，儘管每宗案件的具體事實不同，但本案的判刑明顯過輕。答辯人一方則強調其年齡、良好品格、失去工作和退休金等求情因素，以及他曾願意承認較輕罪行。 ### 判決理由 法庭在審視判刑時，考慮了原審法官已納入的求情因素，包括答辯人年齡、良好品格、非預謀襲擊、以及襲擊並非持續性。然而，上訴法庭認為原審法官未能充分考慮罪行的嚴重性，特別是受害人因襲擊而永久失去一隻眼睛的嚴重後果。儘管考慮到所有求情因素，法庭認為原審法官應以約5年監禁作為量刑起點，最終判處4年監禁。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭批准律政司的覆核申請，撤銷原審法庭判處的2年9個月監禁刑罰，改判答辯人監禁4年。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調了在處理涉及使用致命武器的嚴重傷人案件時，即使有顯著的求情因素，法庭仍需充分反映罪行的嚴重性及對社會的影響。上訴法庭重申，量刑時應以罪行的嚴重程度作為主要考量，並在適當情況下調整原審法官的量刑起點。 --- ### 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 LOW WING-WAH - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Mortimer and Mayo JJA and Bewley J - Date of Judgment: 30 November 1995 ### Factual Background This case arose from a trivial dispute over chairs in a restaurant between the respondent and the victim. After an argument, the respondent left, threatening to return with assistance. He later came back with another man and revealed a chopper from his waistband. As the victim tried to escape, he fell over a chair, and the respondent struck him with the chopper, causing a deep lacerated wound to the victim's eyebrow and eye. The victim subsequently lost his eye and now has a glass eye. The respondent was convicted of wounding with intent. ### Key Legal Issues The Attorney General sought a review of the sentence of 2 years and 9 months' imprisonment imposed by the District Court, arguing that it was manifestly inadequate. The prosecution contended that while each case depends on its specific facts, the sentence in this instance was clearly too lenient. The respondent's counsel highlighted mitigating factors such as his age, good character, loss of employment and pension, and his willingness to plead guilty to a lesser offence. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court, in reviewing the sentence, considered the mitigating factors acknowledged by the trial judge, including the respondent's age, good character, the attack not being entirely cold-blooded, and its non-sustained nature. However, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge failed to adequately account for the full severity and seriousness of the offence, particularly the permanent loss of the victim's eye. Despite substantial mitigation, the Court determined that the judge should have considered a starting point of around 5 years' imprisonment, ultimately substituting a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal allowed the Attorney General's application for review, setting aside the original sentence of 2 years and 9 months' imprisonment and substituting it with a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment. ### Key Takeaways This judgment underscores that in serious cases involving the use of lethal weapons, even with significant mitigating factors, the court must adequately reflect the gravity of the offence and its impact on society. The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that sentencing should primarily consider the severity of the crime, adjusting the trial judge's starting point where appropriate. --- ### 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.