襲警罪「睇水」的罪責與判刑？加刑

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v Lee Ping Hei (李炳希) and Lee Tsz Hang (利子恆) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：潘兆初首席法官、彭偉昌上訴法官、潘敏琦原訟法庭法官 - 判決日期：2021年3月17日 ### 案情摘要 2020年1月1日晚上，兩名答辯人李炳希和利子恆在旺角與一群黑衣人堵路。一名便衣警員（PW1）在拍攝時被發現，隨後被兩名答辯人及其他人追趕。PW1在山東街與通菜街交界處被拳打腳踢，導致頭部受傷、短暫失去知覺，以及身體多處擦傷和瘀傷，共獲36天病假。兩名答辯人於2020年2月被捕，並在警誡下承認擔任襲擊者的「睇水」（lookouts）。原審裁判官裁定兩人襲警罪成，判處三個月監禁。律政司不服判決，申請覆核刑罰。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議點在於原審裁判官在判刑時是否犯了原則性錯誤，以及判處的三個月監禁是否明顯不足。律政司（申請人）認為，裁判官未充分考慮襲警罪的阻嚇性刑罰原則，錯誤評估兩名答辯人的罪責，並認為三個月的量刑起點未能反映案情嚴重性。答辯人則辯稱，裁判官已考慮阻嚇性原則，且其判刑並無原則性錯誤或明顯不足，並強調其參與程度較低且無預謀。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭裁定原審裁判官在判刑時犯了原則性錯誤，且刑罰明顯不足。法庭指出，裁判官在確定量刑起點時，未有遵循正確的判刑步驟，即先確定量刑起點再考慮加重和減輕因素。法庭強調襲警是嚴重罪行，須判處具阻嚇性的即時監禁刑罰，以保障警員安全及維護法治。法庭認為，兩名答辯人作為「睇水」的角色至關重要，其罪責與實際施襲者相若，並非如裁判官所指處於最低程度。此外，初犯和對法律無知等因素，在不認罪的案件中通常不構成大幅減刑理由。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多宗案例以確立襲警罪的判刑原則及共同犯罪的罪責評估： - HKSAR v Fok Ka Po Joe (No 2), [2019] 2 HKLRD 1：闡明量刑起點的定義及判刑步驟。 - HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph, CACC 93/2019, [2020] HKCA 974：指出量刑起點應考慮被告在案件中的角色。 - HKSAR v Choi Ping Chiu, CACC 312/2010：強調襲警罪須判處阻嚇性刑罰以維護法治。 - HKSAR v Chan Pak Yeung, [2018] 2 HKLRD 386：重申襲警罪的嚴重性及阻嚇性判刑的必要性。 - Secretary for Justice v Law Man Chung, CAAR 4/2019, [2020] 4 HKLRD 941：判刑時需考慮案發時間、地點、人數及鼓勵他人參與的可能性。 - SJ v Tso Tsz Kin, [2004] 2 HKC 139 及 HKSAR v Liu Hiu Zhi, CACC 184/2008：支持「睇水」的罪責與實際施襲者相若的觀點。 - HKSAR v Wong Cho Shing & Ors, CACC 38/2017, [2019] HKCA 839：說明在共同犯罪中，法庭可根據參與程度判處不同刑罰，但本案情況不同。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭裁定律政司的覆核申請成立，撤銷原審裁判官判處的3個月監禁刑罰。考慮到襲警罪的最高刑罰為2年監禁，法庭認為實際施襲者的適當刑罰為15個月監禁，而兩名答辯人的適當刑罰為12個月監禁。由於是刑罰覆核且答辯人已服畢刑期，法庭進一步減刑2個月，最終判處兩名答辯人各10個月即時監禁。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了襲警罪的嚴重性，以及法庭在判刑時必須判處具阻嚇性的即時監禁刑罰。它強調了「睇水」在共同犯罪中的關鍵作用，其罪責可能與實際施襲者相若。此外，法庭明確了判刑時應遵循的正確步驟，即先確定量刑起點再考慮加重和減輕因素，並指出初犯和對法律無知等因素在不認罪案件中通常不構成大幅減刑理由。本案對未來涉及共同犯罪和襲警案件的判刑具有指導意義。 --- ### 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 Lee Ping Hei (李炳希) and Lee Tsz Hang (利子恆) - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Poon CJHC, Hon Pang JA, Hon M Poon J - Date of Judgment: 17 March 2021 ### Factual Background On the evening of 1 January 2020, the two respondents, Lee Ping Hei and Lee Tsz Hang, were involved in blocking roads in Mong Kok with a group of people dressed in black. A plainclothes police officer (PW1) was discovered while recording and subsequently chased by the two respondents and others. PW1 was punched and kicked at the junction of Shantung Street and Tung Choi Street, sustaining head injuries, temporary loss of consciousness, and multiple abrasions and contusions, resulting in 36 days of sick leave. The respondents were arrested in February 2020 and admitted to acting as "lookouts" under caution. The trial magistrate convicted them of assaulting a police officer and sentenced them to three months' imprisonment. The Department of Justice applied for a review of the sentence. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal questions were whether the trial magistrate erred in principle during sentencing and if the three-month imprisonment was manifestly inadequate. The applicant (HKSAR) argued that the magistrate failed to adequately consider the deterrent sentencing principle for assaulting a police officer, wrongly assessed the respondents' culpability, and that the starting point of three months did not reflect the gravity of the facts. The respondents contended that the magistrate had considered the deterrent principle and that the sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly inadequate, emphasizing their lesser involvement and lack of premeditation. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal found that the trial magistrate erred in principle during sentencing and that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The court noted that the magistrate did not follow the correct sentencing sequence of first determining a starting point before considering aggravating and mitigating factors. The court emphasized that assaulting a police officer is a serious offence requiring a deterrent sentence of immediate imprisonment to protect officers and uphold law and order. The court held that the respondents' role as "lookouts" was crucial, making their culpability comparable to actual assailants, not at the lowest end as the magistrate suggested. Furthermore, factors like clear record and ignorance of the law are generally not strong mitigating factors for defendants who plead not guilty. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited several precedents to establish sentencing principles for assaulting a police officer and assessing culpability in joint enterprises: - HKSAR v Fok Ka Po Joe (No 2), [2019] 2 HKLRD 1: Defined the starting point and sentencing steps. - HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph, CACC 93/2019, [2020] HKCA 974: Stated that the starting point should consider the defendant's role. - HKSAR v Choi Ping Chiu, CACC 312/2010: Emphasized deterrent sentences for assaulting police to maintain law and order. - HKSAR v Chan Pak Yeung, [2018] 2 HKLRD 386: Reaffirmed the seriousness of assaulting police and the need for deterrent sentences. - Secretary for Justice v Law Man Chung, CAAR 4/2019, [2020] 4 HKLRD 941: Sentencing must consider the date, time, location, occasion, number of people, and potential for encouraging others. - SJ v Tso Tsz Kin, [2004] 2 HKC 139 and HKSAR v Liu Hiu Zhi, CACC 184/2008: Supported the view that lookouts' culpability is similar to actual assailants. - HKSAR v Wong Cho Shing & Ors, CACC 38/2017, [2019] HKCA 839: Illustrated that different sentences can be imposed based on participation in a joint enterprise, but distinguished from the present case. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal allowed the Department of Justice's application for review, setting aside the original sentence of 3 months' imprisonment. Considering the maximum penalty of 2 years for assaulting a police officer, the court deemed an appropriate sentence for actual assailants after trial to be 15 months, and for the two respondents, 12 months. Given that it was a sentence review and the respondents had already completed their prison terms, a further reduction of 2 months was granted, resulting in a final sentence of 10 months' immediate imprisonment for each respondent. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the seriousness of assaulting a police officer and the necessity for courts to impose deterrent, immediate custodial sentences. It highlights the critical role of "lookouts" in joint enterprises, whose culpability may be comparable to actual assailants. The court clarified the proper sentencing sequence, emphasizing that a starting point should be determined before considering aggravating and mitigating factors. It also noted that factors like a clear record and ignorance of the law are generally not strong mitigating factors for defendants who plead not guilty. This case provides important guidance for future sentencing in joint enterprise and assault on police cases. --- ### 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.