性侵精神無行為能力人士的量刑原則？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 梁炳權 - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：張澤祐法官 - 判決日期：2019年8月15日 ### 案情摘要 申請人梁炳權被裁定三項控罪罪名成立，包括兩項「猥褻侵犯另一人」罪及一項「企圖與精神上無行為能力的人非法性交」罪。受害人女子X是一名19歲精神上無行為能力人士，智商為50，適應行為僅達六歲四個月小孩的程度。申請人於2017年10月15日在粉嶺一屋邨的升降機內猥褻侵犯X，隨後在梯間企圖與她非法性交並再次猥褻侵犯她。申請人承認曾以陽具「撩」X的下體但未插入。法醫報告顯示X有擦傷，與性行為或以陽具「撩」下陰的行為脗合。原審法官潘兆童判處申請人總刑期四年監禁。 ### 核心法律爭議 申請人就原審法官潘兆童判處的四年監禁刑期提出上訴許可申請。申請人爭辯其年邁、體弱多病、已盡量克制未插入受害人私處、以及在獄中表現良好並深感後悔，應獲酌情減刑。本席需審視原審判刑是否明顯過重，以及申請人提出的減刑理由是否成立。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭指出，性侵犯未成年兒童的量刑原則適用於性侵犯精神上無行為能力人士的案件，法庭必須保護這些易受傷害的人士。雖然本案不涉及違反誠信，但受害人X完全是被動及受申請人擺布凌辱，與L.C.H.案中受害人有一定行為不同。本席認為原審法官判處的四年監禁總刑期並非明顯過重。此外，法官裁定被告人的年紀在此類案件中不構成求情理由，此觀點亦有案例支持。因此，本席駁回申請人的上訴許可申請。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多宗案例來確立量刑原則： - HKSAR v CHAN Ching-ho [2000] 3 HKLRD 476：確立性侵犯兒童案件需採取具阻嚇性刑期。 - 香港特別行政區 訴 曾昭德 [2013] 1 HKLRD 422：重申保護兒童免受性侵犯的原則。 - HKSAR v L.C.H. CACC 435/2015：討論性侵犯精神上無行為能力人士案件的量刑起點，並指出受害人行為是被告人是否強行侵犯的考慮因素。 - R v Waddingham (1983) 5 Cr App R (S) 66 及 R v Lo Yim Kai [1966] HLKR 414：關於上訴法庭在原審判刑無特定錯誤下仍可裁定錯誤行使量刑酌情權的原則。 - HKSAR v CHOW Chi-ming HCMA 1247/2005：支持被告人年紀在此類案件不構成求情理由的觀點。 ### 裁決與命令 本席駁回申請人梁炳權就其四年監禁刑期提出的上訴許可申請。本席亦忠告申請人，若其申請最終被上訴法庭駁回，上訴法庭有權命令其在羈留期間的部分時間不當作刑期的一部分，可能導致服刑更長。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了性侵犯精神上無行為能力人士的案件，應適用性侵犯未成年兒童的量刑原則，即法庭必須採取具阻嚇性的刑期以保護弱勢社群。此外，被告人的年紀在此類案件中通常不構成減刑理由。法庭強調了受害人是否被動受凌辱，是量刑時的重要考慮因素。 --- ### 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 LEUNG Ping Kuen - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Cheung J.A. - Date of Judgment: 15 August 2019 ### Factual Background The applicant, Leung Ping Kuen, was convicted of three charges: two counts of "indecent assault on another person" and one count of "attempted unlawful sexual intercourse with a mentally incapacitated person." The victim, X, was a 19-year-old mentally incapacitated person with an IQ of 50, whose adaptive behaviour was equivalent to that of a 6-year-4-month-old child. On 15 October 2017, the applicant indecently assaulted X in a lift in a housing estate in Fanling, then attempted unlawful sexual intercourse and further indecently assaulted her in a stairwell. The applicant admitted to 'poking' X's private parts with his penis but not penetrating. A forensic medical report indicated abrasions on X, consistent with sexual activity or 'poking' with a penis. The original trial judge, Poon J., sentenced the applicant to a total of four years' imprisonment. ### Key Legal Issues The applicant sought leave to appeal against the four-year imprisonment sentence imposed by the trial judge, Poon J. The applicant argued that his advanced age, poor health, self-restraint in not penetrating the victim, and good conduct and remorse in prison should be considered for a discretionary reduction in sentence. The court needed to determine whether the original sentence was manifestly excessive and if the applicant's mitigating factors were valid. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal noted that sentencing principles for sexual offences against minors apply to cases involving mentally incapacitated persons, emphasizing the court's duty to protect vulnerable individuals. While there was no breach of trust in this case, the victim X was entirely passive and subjected to the applicant's abuse, differing from the victim's behaviour in L.C.H. The court found that the total sentence of four years' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive. Furthermore, the judge's ruling that the defendant's age does not constitute a mitigating factor in such cases is supported by precedent. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited several precedents to establish sentencing principles: - HKSAR v CHAN Ching-ho [2000] 3 HKLRD 476: Established the need for deterrent sentences in child sexual assault cases. - HKSAR v Tsang Chiu Tak [2013] 1 HKLRD 422: Reaffirmed the principle of protecting children from sexual assault. - HKSAR v L.C.H. CACC 435/2015: Discussed starting points for sentencing in cases of sexual assault against mentally incapacitated persons, noting the victim's behaviour as a factor in determining whether the defendant used force. - R v Waddingham (1983) 5 Cr App R (S) 66 and R v Lo Yim Kai [1966] HLKR 414: Principles regarding the Court of Appeal's power to find an erroneous exercise of sentencing discretion even without specific errors in the original judgment. - HKSAR v CHOW Chi-ming HCMA 1247/2005: Supported the view that the defendant's age is not a mitigating factor in such cases. ### Decision & Orders The court dismissed the applicant Leung Ping Kuen's application for leave to appeal against his four-year imprisonment sentence. The court also advised the applicant that if his application were ultimately dismissed by the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal has the power to order that part of his time in custody not count towards his sentence, potentially leading to a longer period of imprisonment. ### Key Takeaways This case reaffirms that sentencing principles for sexual offences against minors apply to cases involving mentally incapacitated persons, emphasizing the need for deterrent sentences to protect vulnerable individuals. Furthermore, the defendant's age is generally not a mitigating factor in such cases. The court highlighted that the victim's passivity and subjection to abuse are crucial considerations during sentencing. --- ### 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.