DCCC707/2019

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 李為民及其他人 - 法院：區域法院 - 法官：勞潔儀 - 判決日期：2021年10月22日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及 2016 年立法會資訊科技界功能界別選舉的賄選計劃。第一被告人 (D1) 及其他被告人串謀透過提供金錢（每人約 1,000 港元）誘使他人申請成為 IEEE 會員並登記為選民，以按指示投票給特定候選人。被告人利用虛假專業資格及學歷資料替約 240 人申請會籍，其中 118 人成功登記為選民。部分被告人負責招募、整理資料及支付會費，而部分青年被告人則接受利益並登記。 ### 核心法律爭議 核心 legal issue 在於如何對涉及「種票」及選舉舞弊的被告人量刑。控方指控被告人違反《選舉（舞弊及非法行為）條例》及普通法下的串謀詐騙。辯方則主張：(1) 被告人並非參選者或助選者，未獲個人政治利益；(2) 涉案金額較低且未實質影響選舉結果；(3) 部分被告人僅是服從上級指示或受親屬影響，參與程度有限。 ### 判決理由 法官認為選舉制度是民主基石，必須採取阻嚇性懲罰以維護廉正。法官分析各被告人的角色：D1 作為組織者罪責最重；D2 及 D3 雖屬下屬但參與了關鍵的資料處理及付款過程；D5、D6 及 D9 則涉及招募及提供利益。法官引用「種票」案例，認定即使未影響結果，破壞選舉完整性亦屬嚴重。量刑時考慮了認罪折扣 (plea discount)、正面品格及被告人的年齡（尤其是青年被告）。 ### 引用案例與條文 引用了 HKSAR v Wong Kwok Pong, Keith Paul 等多宗「種票」案例確立監禁起點；參考 Secretary for Justice v Kan Ping Chee Brain 比較涉案金額及影響力；引用 R v Phillips 確立對選舉罪行重視監禁的原則。 ### 裁決與命令 各被告人被判處不同刑期：D1 總刑期 12 個月監禁；D2 判入獄 8 個月；D3 判入獄 7 個月；D5 總刑期 7 個月監禁；D6 判入獄 3 個月 12 日；D9 判入獄 3 個月；D10 判入獄 3 個月；D11 及 D12 各判入獄 6 星期；D13 判入獄 8 星期。此外，D6, D9, D5, D14, D10, D13 須向法庭繳付收受的利益金額。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調即使賄選規模相對較小且未改變選舉結果，法庭仍堅持即時監禁原則，以達到 deterrence 效果，特別是針對破壞選舉廉潔性的行為，青年初犯者亦難以獲得非監禁式刑罰。 --- ### 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 Lee Wai Man and Others - Court: District Court - Judge: Lau Kit Yee - Date of Judgment: 22 October 2021 ### Factual Background The case concerned a vote-buying scheme during the 2016 Legislative Council election for the Information Technology functional constituency. The defendants conspired to induce individuals to become IEEE members and register as voters by offering payments of approximately HKD 1,000 each, with the intent that they vote for a specific candidate. They submitted false professional and educational qualifications for about 240 applicants, resulting in 118 successful voter registrations. ### Key Legal Issues The primary legal issue was the determination of appropriate sentences for conspiracy to engage in corrupt conduct at an election and conspiracy to defraud. The defense argued that the defendants were not candidates or campaign agents, the sums involved were small, the election result was not materially affected, and some defendants acted under orders or family influence. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge emphasized that the electoral system is a cornerstone of democracy and requires deterrent sentencing to maintain integrity. The court analyzed the level of culpability based on roles: D1 as the organizer had the highest culpability; D2 and D3 provided critical administrative support; D5, D6, and D9 handled recruitment. The judge ruled that 'vote-planting' is a serious offense regardless of whether the overall result was changed, though mitigating factors like plea discounts and good character were considered. ### Key Precedents & Statutes Cited HKSAR v Wong Kwok Pong, Keith Paul and other 'vote-planting' cases for sentencing benchmarks; referenced Secretary for Justice v Kan Ping Chee Brain regarding the scale of influence; and applied the principle from R v Phillips emphasizing the seriousness of electoral offenses. ### Decision & Orders Various custodial sentences were imposed: D1 (12 months), D2 (8 months), D3 (7 months), D5 (7 months), D6 (3 months 12 days), D9 (3 months), D10 (3 months), D11 & D12 (6 weeks each), and D13 (8 weeks). Defendants D5, D6, D9, D10, D13, and D14 were ordered to pay the received advantages back to the court. ### Key Takeaways The judgment reinforces that immediate imprisonment is generally mandatory for electoral fraud to ensure deterrence, even for young first-time offenders, as the integrity of the democratic process outweighs personal mitigating 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.