入屋犯法罪刑期是否過重？減刑

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 李六香 - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：楊振權副庭長、潘敏琦法官 - 判決日期：2021年3月24日 ### 案情摘要 上訴人李六香承認三項「入屋犯法」罪，涉及在九個月內三次進入屋邨居所搜掠並偷取財物。控罪一中，上訴人從張女士單位偷取約港幣13萬元現金，現場留下指模。控罪二和三中，上訴人以相若手法，先後與黎先生及周先生搭訕，藉詞進入他們住所，趁其不備偷取財物，包括頸鏈、戒指、現金港幣4,400元及人民幣10萬元。原審法官判處上訴人總刑期58個月監禁。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案核心法律爭議在於原審法官判處上訴人三項「入屋犯法」罪的總刑期58個月監禁是否明顯過重。上訴方認為，原審法官的量刑基準過高，且未充分考慮到部分盜竊發生在受害人邀請上訴人進入其住所後，與一般入屋犯法罪的「侵入者闖入」情節不同。答辯方則認為，原審法官已考慮了上訴人預謀犯案、破壞誠信、受害人為基層長者及財物貴重等加刑因素，判刑並無原則性錯誤。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭分析認為，雖然本案涉及住宅入屋犯法罪，情節嚴重，但原審法官採用的總量刑基準（經四分之一認罪扣減後為77.3個月）明顯過高。法庭指出，上訴人刻意結識受害人並騙取信任進入住所盜竊，構成「處心積慮」的加刑因素，但這與一般強行闖入的入屋犯法罪有所區別。法庭參考了同類案件的判刑幅度，認為即使情節嚴重，68個月的總量刑基準已足夠。因此，在給予四分之一認罪扣減後，判刑應為51個月。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多宗案例以確立「入屋犯法」罪的量刑原則，包括《香港特別行政區訴劉謀奮》(CACC 112/2015) 指出爆竊住宅的嚴重性及其對受害人的影響；《香港特別行政區訴陳慶南》(CACC 213/2019) 關於比較同類案例以辨識判刑一般幅度的指導；以及《香港特別行政區訴朱俊文》(CACC 415/2009) 和《HKSAR v Lau Hiu Man》(CACC 396/2012) 關於兩至三項住宅入屋犯法罪的判刑基準。這些案例協助法庭判斷本案的量刑是否超出合理範圍。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭判處上訴人上訴得直。個別控罪的刑期維持不變，但下令控罪二和控罪三中各自的12個月刑期與控罪一的27個月刑期分期執行。最終，上訴人的總刑期由原審的58個月減至51個月監禁。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了住宅「入屋犯法」罪的嚴重性，但同時強調量刑時需仔細區分犯案手法，例如「處心積慮」騙取信任進入與強行闖入的區別。判決指出，即使情節嚴重，總量刑基準仍需在合理範圍內，並應參考同類案例以確保判刑一致性。這對處理類似涉及「破壞誠信」(breach of trust) 元素的入屋犯法案件具有指導意義。 --- ### 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 Li Luk Heung - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Yang VP, Hon Poon J - Date of Judgment: 24 March 2021 ### Factual Background The appellant, Li Luk Heung, pleaded guilty to three counts of 'burglary' (入屋犯法罪) committed within a nine-month period, involving searching and stealing property from residential units in housing estates. In Count 1, the appellant stole approximately HK$130,000 in cash from Ms. Cheung's unit, leaving fingerprints. In Counts 2 and 3, the appellant used a similar modus operandi, befriending Mr. Lai and Mr. Chow, gaining entry to their homes under false pretenses, and stealing items including necklaces, rings, HK$4,400, and RMB100,000 while they were distracted. The original judge sentenced the appellant to a total of 58 months' imprisonment. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was whether the total sentence of 58 months' imprisonment for three counts of 'burglary' imposed by the original judge was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the sentencing starting point was too high and that the judge failed to adequately consider that some thefts occurred after the victims invited the appellant into their homes, differing from typical burglary involving forced entry. The respondent contended that the judge had considered aggravating factors such as premeditation, breach of trust, the victims being elderly grassroots individuals, and the high value of stolen property, and thus the sentence was not wrong in principle. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal analyzed that while the residential burglaries were serious, the overall sentencing starting point adopted by the original judge (77.3 months after a one-quarter discount for plea) was manifestly excessive. The court noted that the appellant deliberately befriended the victims and gained their trust to enter their homes for theft, constituting a 'premeditated' aggravating factor. However, this differed from burglaries involving forced entry. By referring to sentencing ranges in similar cases, the court determined that a total starting point of 68 months would be sufficient, even with serious circumstances. Therefore, after applying the one-quarter discount for the guilty plea, the appropriate sentence should be 51 months. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited several precedents to establish sentencing principles for 'burglary'. These included HKSAR v Lau Mau Fan (CACC 112/2015), which highlighted the seriousness of residential burglary and its impact on victims; HKSAR v Chan Hing Nam (CACC 213/2019), providing guidance on comparing similar cases to identify the normal range of sentences; and HKSAR v Chu Chun Man (CACC 415/2009) and HKSAR v Lau Hiu Man (CACC 396/2012) concerning sentencing benchmarks for two to three counts of residential burglary. These cases helped the court assess whether the sentence in the present case fell within a reasonable range. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal allowed the appellant's appeal. The individual sentences for each count remained unchanged, but the court ordered that 12 months of the sentences for Count 2 and Count 3 be served consecutively to the 27-month sentence for Count 1. Consequently, the appellant's total sentence was reduced from 58 months to 51 months' imprisonment. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the seriousness of residential 'burglary' but emphasizes the need to differentiate sentencing based on the method of commission, such as 'premeditated' entry through deception versus forced entry. The ruling indicates that even in serious cases, the total sentencing starting point must remain within a reasonable range, guided by similar precedents to ensure consistency. This provides important guidance for handling similar burglary cases involving elements of 'breach of trust'. --- ### 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.