電話詐騙案刑期加幅的恰當性？減刑

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 楊鎧駿 - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：潘敏琦法官、彭寶琴法官 - 判決日期：2025年6月11日 ### 案情摘要 申請人楊鎧駿承認一項串謀詐騙罪，涉及一宗電話詐騙案。2023年3月8日至10日期間，陳女士接到自稱是其女婿的詐騙電話，並在三天內分三次向申請人交付共計港幣50萬元。陳女士最終發現被騙並報警，申請人於第三次交收時在警方監控下被捕。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議點在於原審法官對電話詐騙案的刑期加幅是否恰當。申請方認為原審法官將刑期加幅至三分之二（20個月）過高，並未充分解釋其理據，且未給予辯方陳詞機會。答辯方則援引警方數據，指出電話騙案自2022年起顯著飆升，支持原審法官的加刑決定。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭認為，原審法官在未有最新數據支持下，大幅調高電話詐騙案的刑期加幅至三分之二屬量刑原則有錯，判刑明顯過重。法庭強調，控方若以罪行普遍程度申請加刑，必須提供最貼近判刑日期的統計數據。此外，在考慮大幅度加刑前，必須給予辯方陳詞機會。本案中，原審法官未有預警便大幅加刑，且缺乏理據支持，故推翻原判。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多宗案例，包括《香港特別行政區 訴 洪永俊》[2011] 2 HKLRD 167 和《香港特別行政區 訴 楊家誠》[2011] 3 HKLRD 602，以確立量刑起點和加刑原則。此外，亦引用了《律政司司長 訴 陳皓傑》[2024] HKCA 409，強調在電話騙案中加刑三分之一的慣常做法。法庭亦提及《HKSAR v Wong Fung-ming & Anor》CACC 515/2001，2002 年 12 月 5 日，未經彙編，以說明提供最新數據的重要性。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭接納申請人的上訴許可申請，並視之為正式上訴。法庭撤銷原審法官判處的50個月監禁刑期，改判為40個月監禁。法庭推翻了原審法官三分之二的加幅，沿用三分之一的加幅。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了在涉及《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》(Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance) 指明罪行的案件中，法庭在考慮加刑幅度時，必須獲得最貼近判刑日的統計數據，並在大幅度加刑前給予辯方陳詞機會。法庭亦指出，案件的嚴重性應反映在調高量刑基準，而非過度增加加刑幅度。 --- ### 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 Yeung Hoi Chun - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Pang J.A., Hon Poon J.A. - Date of Judgment: 11 June 2025 ### Factual Background The applicant, Yeung Hoi Chun, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud, related to a telephone deception case. Between 8 and 10 March 2023, Ms. Chan received scam calls from someone impersonating her son-in-law. Over three days, she handed over a total of HK$500,000 to the applicant in three separate transactions. Ms. Chan eventually realized she had been defrauded and reported it to the police. The applicant was arrested during the third money handover under police surveillance. ### Key Legal Issues The main legal issue was whether the sentencing judge's uplift in sentence for telephone deception was appropriate. The applicant argued that the judge's two-thirds uplift (20 months) was excessive, lacked sufficient reasoning, and that the defence was not given an opportunity to make submissions on the uplift. The respondent cited police data indicating a significant surge in telephone deception cases since 2022, supporting the judge's decision to impose an uplift. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by significantly increasing the sentencing uplift for telephone deception to two-thirds without up-to-date data to support the claim of a continuing surge in offences. The court emphasized that if the prosecution seeks an uplift based on the prevalence of an offence, the most recent statistical data closest to the sentencing date must be provided. Furthermore, the defence must be given an opportunity to make submissions before a substantial uplift is imposed. In this case, the judge imposed a significant uplift without prior warning or sufficient justification, leading to an excessive sentence. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited several precedents, including HKSAR v Hung Wing Chun [2011] 2 HKLRD 167 and HKSAR v Yeung Ka Sing [2011] 3 HKLRD 602, for establishing starting points and uplift principles in sentencing. HKSAR v Chan Ho Kit [2024] HKCA 409 was also referenced, highlighting the common practice of a one-third uplift in telephone deception cases. The court also referred to HKSAR v Wong Fung-ming & Anor CACC 515/2001, 5 December 2002, unreported, to illustrate the importance of providing up-to-date data. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal and treated it as a full appeal. The court quashed the original sentence of 50 months' imprisonment and substituted it with a sentence of 40 months' imprisonment. The court overturned the two-thirds uplift applied by the original judge, applying instead a one-third uplift. ### Key Takeaways This case reaffirms that in cases involving specified offences under the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, courts must obtain the most current statistical data closest to the sentencing date when considering an uplift in sentence due to prevalence. It also highlights the procedural requirement for the defence to be given an opportunity to make submissions before a substantial uplift is imposed. The court also noted that the seriousness of a case should primarily be reflected in the starting point of the sentence, rather than an excessive uplift. --- ### 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.