危駕致重傷量刑原則？加刑

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：律政司司長 訴 溫達揚 - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：彭偉昌法官、潘敏琦法官、彭寶琴法官 - 判決日期：2022年8月26日 ### 案情摘要 答辯人溫達揚承認一項危險駕駛引致他人身體受嚴重傷害罪。案發時，答辯人駕駛輕型貨車在北大嶼山公路以時速100公里從後撞向一輛因交通意外停在路上的的士，導致的士上兩名乘客嚴重受傷，其中一人需送往深切治療部。原審裁判官判處答辯人200小時社會服務令及停牌兩年。律政司司長不服刑期過輕，向上訴法庭申請刑期覆核。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於原審裁判官判處的社會服務令是否原則上錯誤及明顯不足，未能反映危險駕駛罪行的嚴重性及答辯人的罪責。律政司認為答辯人駕駛態度極劣，且有加刑因素，應判處即時監禁。答辯人則辯稱其不專注時間短暫，且已履行社會服務令，不應改判即時監禁。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭裁定原審裁判官在量刑時原則上錯誤。法庭指出，原審裁判官錯誤地側重於答辯人過往良好紀錄而判處社會服務令，並錯誤地引用區域法院的判刑作為「案例」，這些判刑對量刑既無約束力亦無參考價值。法庭強調，即使被告有良好品格，亦非判處非監禁式刑罰的理由。答辯人因聽音樂導致分心駕駛，屬「可避免」的分神，其行為極不負責任，且事故造成嚴重傷害，判刑必須具阻嚇性。因此，社會服務令明顯不足以反映罪行的嚴重性。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用了《刑事訴訟程序條例》第81B條，確立上訴法庭覆核刑期的法理基礎。此外，法庭引用了Secretary for Justice v Chu Wing Yin Christine [2020] 1 HKLRD 771、HKSAR v Lee Yau Wing [2013] 1 HKC 572、關韻琪 [2020] 5 HKLRD 425 及 Secretary for Justice v Poon Wing Kay [2007] 1 HKLRD 660 等案例，闡述危險駕駛罪的量刑原則，包括受責性、對受害人造成的傷害及阻嚇性。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭批准律政司的刑期覆核申請，撤銷原有的200小時社會服務令，改判答辯人即時入獄三個月。法庭考慮到答辯人已完成社會服務令，以及事發至今已有一段時間，酌情減免了部分刑期。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了危險駕駛引致他人身體受嚴重傷害罪的量刑原則，強調即使被告有良好品格，亦不應輕判。法庭批評下級法院不應將區域法院的判刑視為具約束力或參考價值的「案例」。判決亦提醒下級法院在量刑時應充分考慮罪行的嚴重性、被告的受責性及對受害人造成的傷害，以確保判罰具阻嚇性並維護公眾對司法制度的信心。 --- ### 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: Secretary for Justice v Wan Tat Yeung - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Pang Wai Cheong JA, Hon Poon Siu Man JA, Hon Pang Po Kam JA - Date of Judgment: 26 August 2022 ### Factual Background The respondent, Wan Tat Yeung, pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm. The respondent, driving a light goods vehicle at 100 km/h on North Lantau Highway, collided with a taxi that had stopped due to an earlier accident. Two passengers in the taxi sustained serious injuries, one requiring intensive care. The original magistrate imposed a community service order of 200 hours and a two-year disqualification. The Secretary for Justice applied for a review of the sentence, arguing it was unduly lenient. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the community service order imposed by the original magistrate was wrong in principle and manifestly inadequate, failing to reflect the seriousness of the dangerous driving offence and the respondent's culpability. The Secretary for Justice argued the respondent's driving was appalling and aggravating factors warranted immediate imprisonment. The respondent contended his inattention was brief and he had completed the community service order, thus immediate imprisonment should not be imposed. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal found that the original magistrate erred in principle during sentencing. The court noted the magistrate wrongly focused on the respondent's clean record and incorrectly relied on District Court sentences as 'precedents,' which held no binding or persuasive value for sentencing. The court emphasized that a defendant's good character is not a reason to impose a non-custodial sentence for such offences. The respondent's distracted driving due to listening to music was an 'avoidable' distraction, constituting highly irresponsible conduct. Given the severe injuries caused, the sentence must have a deterrent effect. Therefore, the community service order was manifestly inadequate to reflect the gravity of the offence. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment primarily cited section 81B of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, establishing the legal basis for the Court of Appeal's power to review sentences. Additionally, the court referred to Secretary for Justice v Chu Wing Yin Christine [2020] 1 HKLRD 771, HKSAR v Lee Yau Wing [2013] 1 HKC 572, HKSAR v Kwan Wan Ki [2020] 5 HKLRD 425, and Secretary for Justice v Poon Wing Kay [2007] 1 HKLRD 660, among others, to elaborate on sentencing principles for dangerous driving, including culpability, harm to victims, and deterrence. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal granted the Secretary for Justice's application for sentence review, quashed the original 200-hour community service order, and substituted it with a sentence of three months' immediate imprisonment. The court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence, considering that the respondent had completed the community service order and the significant time elapsed since the incident. ### Key Takeaways This case reaffirms sentencing principles for dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm, emphasizing that good character does not warrant leniency. The court criticized lower courts for treating District Court sentences as binding or persuasive 'precedents.' The judgment also reminds lower courts to adequately consider the gravity of the offence, the defendant's culpability, and the harm caused to victims when sentencing, ensuring deterrent sentences and maintaining public confidence in the justice system. --- ### 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.