勒索罪的量刑起點是否過高？減刑

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v FONG King-choi (方瓊財) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Hon Macrae VP and Zervos JA - 判決日期：2019年7月10日 ### 案情摘要 上訴人方瓊財於2017年10月30日凌晨進入一間7-Eleven便利店，向女店員聲稱收取保護費，並拍打收銀桌。店經理上前與其對質，上訴人仍不斷重複要求保護費，並自稱來自該區。他曾要求100港元，但店經理表示她不是負責人。上訴人隨後離開商店，在街上叫喊及踢東西，然後又返回店內，咒罵並威脅店經理，稱若報警他會再來。店內當時有顧客。他其後拿取兩罐啤酒，拍在收銀桌上，自稱「陀地」。店經理堅持他須付款，他留下20港元後離開，繼續在店外叫罵。約6時28分，上訴人被警方截停及拘捕。事件全程被閉路電視拍下。上訴人承認事發時醉酒且行為粗魯。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案核心法律爭議在於原審法官對勒索罪（blackmail）的量刑起點是否過高及原則上錯誤。上訴人一方認為，原審法官錯誤地將3年監禁視為沒有加重情節的勒索案件的普遍量刑起點，並採納了2年6個月的量刑起點，這明顯過高且原則上錯誤。答辯方則認為，原審法官已考慮到本案情節較輕，故採納了較低的量刑起點，判刑並無不當。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭認為，原審法官在量刑時錯誤地將 "HKSAR v Wong Yin Chak" 案（CACC 126/2004）中提及的3年監禁視為勒索罪的普遍量刑指引，尤其是在沒有加重情節的情況下。法庭強調，勒索罪並無既定的量刑指引。上訴法庭參考了 "Lui Chun Yeung" 案（[2014] 2 HKLRD 993）的觀察，該案對勒索罪的嚴重性有更為恰當的評估，並指出 "Wong Yin Chak" 案對勒索罪嚴重性的判斷可能不夠準確。法庭考慮了勒索罪的嚴重性因素，包括勒索的性質和金額、實施方式、是否有三合會背景暗示、對受害人的影響等。儘管本案上訴人行為惡劣，但法庭認為原審法官採納的2年6個月量刑起點過高，更合適的起點應為21個月監禁。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用了以下案例： - HKSAR v Wong Yin Chak (CACC 126/2004)：原審法官錯誤地將此案中提及的3年監禁視為勒索罪的普遍量刑指引。 - HKSAR v Lui Chun Yeung ([2014] 2 HKLRD 993)：上訴法庭認同此案對勒索罪嚴重性的觀察，並以此作為評估本案量刑的參考。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭裁定上訴得直，撤銷原審法官判處的20個月監禁刑罰，改判為14個月監禁。法庭認為原審法官採納的量刑起點過高。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申勒索罪並無既定判刑指引，量刑須根據案件具體情節，特別是勒索的性質、金額、實施方式及是否涉及三合會背景等因素綜合判斷。法庭亦強調，即使是最低程度的勒索行為，法院也會嚴肅處理，特別是針對便利店女店員的威脅行為。 --- ### 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 FONG King-choi (方瓊財) - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Macrae VP and Zervos JA - Date of Judgment: 10 July 2019 ### Factual Background The appellant, Fong King-choi, entered a 7-Eleven store in Mongkok in the early morning of 30 October 2017, repeatedly claiming to a female staff member that he was collecting protection money and thumping his hand on the cashier table. The store manager confronted him, but he persisted, stating he was from the region and demanding $100. The manager said she was not in charge. He then left, shouted and kicked things outside, returned, swore, and threatened the manager if she called the police. Customers were present. He later took two cans of beer, slammed them on the table, and called himself a "tor-tei" (local bully). The manager insisted he pay for the beer, which he did by leaving $20. He remained outside, shouting abuses, and was arrested by police around 6:28 am. The incident was captured on CCTV. The appellant admitted to being intoxicated and boorish. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was whether the sentencing judge erred in principle and imposed a manifestly excessive starting point for the blackmail offence. The appellant argued that the judge wrongly treated a 3-year imprisonment as a general starting point for blackmail cases without aggravating features and that the adopted starting point of 2 years and 6 months was excessive. The respondent contended that the judge appropriately distinguished the case by adopting a lower starting point, reflecting its gravity. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred by treating the 3-year imprisonment mentioned in "HKSAR v Wong Yin Chak" (CACC 126/2004) as a general sentencing guideline for blackmail, especially for cases without aggravating features. The Court emphasized that there are no sentencing guidelines for blackmail. It referred to observations in "Lui Chun Yeung" ([2014] 2 HKLRD 993), which provided a more appropriate assessment of blackmail severity, suggesting that "Wong Yin Chak" might have underestimated the seriousness. The Court considered factors bearing on the gravity of blackmail, including the nature and amount of the demand, circumstances of the demand, implied triad connection, and impact on the victim. Despite the appellant's bad behaviour, the Court concluded that the judge's starting point of 2 years and 6 months was too high, and a more appropriate starting point was 21 months' imprisonment. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The main precedents cited were: - HKSAR v Wong Yin Chak (CACC 126/2004): The trial judge mistakenly used this case's reference to 3 years' imprisonment as a general sentencing guideline for blackmail. - HKSAR v Lui Chun Yeung ([2014] 2 HKLRD 993): The Court of Appeal agreed with this case's observations on the seriousness of blackmail, using it as a reference for assessing the present sentence. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the appellant's sentence of 20 months' imprisonment and substituting it with a sentence of 14 months' imprisonment. The Court found the original starting point adopted by the judge to be too high. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reiterates that there are no fixed sentencing guidelines for blackmail. Sentencing must be determined by the specific facts of each case, considering factors such as the nature and amount of the demand, the manner in which it was made, and any implied triad connections. The court also stressed that even low-level blackmail, particularly threatening female staff in public places, will be met with serious punishment. --- ### 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.