入屋犯法罪量刑時居所無人是否減刑因素？減刑

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 劉謀奮 - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：楊振權副庭長、彭偉昌法官 - 判決日期：2016年3月1日 ### 案情摘要 受害人何女士居住在彩虹邨，上訴人劉謀奮是其鄰居。2014年11月13日，何女士離家時將鎖匙放在鐵閘與木門之間的罅隙。同日下午，何女士返家發現居所被搜掠，損失4萬元現金、一個價值200元的視像鏡頭和一個價值2,000元的桌面電腦。警方調查後證實上訴人犯案，他承認趁何女士不在家時，從罅隙取出鎖匙進入居所盜竊，並將贓物棄置或用於還債。上訴人其後在區域法院承認一項入屋犯法罪 (burglary)，被判入獄26個月，他不服判刑並提出上訴。 ### 核心法律爭議 上訴人認為原審法官在判刑時，忽略了其犯案時居所無人，不會導致與人對抗或令人受驚，故量刑基準應較低。他亦爭議失物未能尋回並非加重罪責因素，並指法庭應考慮其年齡、背景、初犯及即時認罪，給予改過自新機會，考慮非監禁式判罰或較低的監禁刑期。答辯方則強調入屋犯法是嚴重罪行，即使初犯，住宅爆竊的量刑基準仍為3年監禁，並認為原審法官因受害人年長及損失巨大而加重罪責是合理的。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭裁定，住宅入屋犯法罪 (burglary) 雖然嚴重，但本案上訴人是在確保居所無人時犯案，其行為不會令受害人面對特別強烈的恐慌，此為減輕罪責因素。法庭認為，將量刑基準定為3年3個月明顯過重，因這會導致在涉及更多加重罪責因素的案件中難以訂出恰當的量刑。考慮到上訴人年輕（23歲）、沒有犯罪記錄、極可能只是一時貪念，且本案屬住宅爆竊案中較輕微的一宗，法庭認為無須處以具阻嚇性的重罰。最終，法庭將量刑基準定為3年，並給予認罪三分一扣減。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了 R v Chan Yui Man, CACC 36/1988 案，該案確立了住宅入屋犯法罪即使犯案者是初犯且已成年，適當的量刑基準是3年監禁。此案例為答辯方的主要論點提供支持，但上訴法庭在本案中根據具體案情，對量刑基準的應用進行了調整。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭裁定上訴人上訴得直，將其判刑由原審的26個月監禁減至24個月監禁。法庭維持住宅入屋犯法罪的基本量刑基準為3年，但考慮到本案的特殊情況，採納了較寬大及仁慈的處理方法。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了住宅入屋犯法罪的嚴重性及其3年監禁的量刑基準，但同時強調法庭在判刑時需考慮案件的具體情節，特別是罪行對受害人造成的恐慌程度。若犯案者是在確保居所無人時犯案，此因素可被視為減輕罪責的理由，從而調整量刑。這為類似案件的判刑提供了更細緻的指引，避免因過高的基準導致在更嚴重案件中缺乏上調空間。 --- ### 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 Lau Mau Fun - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Yeung VP, Hon Pang JA - Date of Judgment: 1 March 2016 ### Factual Background The victim, Ms. Ho, resided in Choi Hung Estate, and the appellant, Lau Mau Fun, was her neighbour. On 13 November 2014, Ms. Ho left her flat, leaving the key between the iron gate and the wooden door. Later that afternoon, she returned to find her flat ransacked, with HK$40,000 in cash, a HK$200 webcam, and a HK$2,000 desktop computer missing. Police investigation identified the appellant as the perpetrator. He admitted to taking the key from the crevice and entering the flat when he knew Ms. Ho was absent, stealing the items, and then discarding them or using the money to repay debts. The appellant subsequently pleaded guilty to one count of burglary in the District Court and was sentenced to 26 months' imprisonment. He appealed against the sentence. ### Key Legal Issues The appellant argued that the sentencing judge overlooked that the flat was unoccupied during the burglary, meaning there was no confrontation or fear caused to the victim, and thus a lower sentencing starting point should apply. He also contended that the failure to recover stolen items was not an aggravating factor, and that considering his age, background, clean record, and early guilty plea, he should be given a chance for rehabilitation, possibly a non-custodial sentence or a shorter imprisonment. The respondent emphasized the seriousness of residential burglary, arguing that even for first-time offenders, the starting point is 3 years' imprisonment, and that the judge's aggravation based on the victim's age and significant loss was reasonable. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal ruled that while residential burglary is a serious offence, the appellant committed the crime when he was certain the flat was empty. This meant his actions did not cause the victim the intense fear of confronting an intruder, which could be a mitigating factor. The court found that a starting point of 3 years and 3 months was manifestly excessive, as it would make it difficult to set appropriate sentences for cases involving more aggravating factors. Considering the appellant's youth (23 years old), lack of prior convictions, and the likelihood of it being an impulsive act, the court deemed this case to be on the lower end of residential burglaries, not warranting a heavy deterrent sentence. The court ultimately set the starting point at 3 years, applying a one-third discount for the guilty plea. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited R v Chan Yui Man, CACC 36/1988, which established that for residential burglary, even for adult first-time offenders, the appropriate sentencing starting point is 3 years' imprisonment. This precedent supported the respondent's main argument, but the Court of Appeal adjusted its application based on the specific circumstances of the present case. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal allowed the appellant's appeal, reducing his sentence from 26 months' imprisonment to 24 months' imprisonment. The court affirmed the basic sentencing starting point of 3 years for residential burglary but adopted a more lenient approach given the specific circumstances of this case. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the seriousness of residential burglary and its 3-year sentencing starting point but highlights the importance of considering specific case facts, particularly the degree of fear caused to the victim. If the offender commits the crime when the residence is known to be unoccupied, this can be a mitigating factor, allowing for an adjustment to the sentence. This provides more nuanced guidance for sentencing in similar cases, ensuring that higher starting points are reserved for more aggravated circumstances. --- ### 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.