危險駕駛與阻撓警務人員罪的量刑？加刑

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：律政司司長 訴 CHAN HING TUNG (陳興東) - 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31日 ### 案情摘要 答辯人陳興東承認四項控罪：危險駕駛、故意阻撓在正當執行職務的警務人員、於取消駕駛資格期間駕駛、沒有第三者保險而使用汽車。原審區域法院法官判處答辯人總監禁期10個月。律政司司長不服刑期過輕，向上訴法庭申請刑期覆核。答辯人在申請覆核期間已刑滿獲釋。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議點在於原審法官對各項控罪的量刑基準是否恰當，以及將四項控罪的監禁期全部同期執行的決定是否犯了原則性錯誤或明顯過輕。申請人認為控罪1（危險駕駛）和控罪2（阻撓警務人員）的量刑基準過低，且兩罪應分期執行。控罪3和4（於取消駕駛資格期間駕駛及沒有第三者保險）亦應與控罪1和2分期執行，因其性質不同。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭裁定，原審法官在處理控罪1（危險駕駛）時，將控罪2至4的元素納入考慮，做法令人費解，因控罪1和2在造意或行為上完全不同。法庭強調，將汽車用作逃走或犯法工具是駕駛罪行的加重罪責因素。對於控罪2（阻撓警務人員），法庭認為其情節比辯方引用的案例更嚴重，原判刑期過輕。最終，法庭根據各控罪的獨立性質和嚴重程度，重新評估了量刑基準，並裁定控罪1和2應部分分期執行，而控罪1、2與控罪3、4應完全分期執行，以反映答辯人的整體罪責，同時顧及數罪併罰不能過重的原則。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多個案例來確立量刑原則： - 《律政司司長 訴 房濟民》 [2008] 3 HKLRD 493：強調危險駕駛罪的阻嚇作用及以案件整體情況和被告整體刑責為依歸。 - 《HKSAR v Chan Chi Man》 [2019] 1 HKLRD 750：參考危險駕駛罪的量刑起點。 - 《SJ v Ko Wai Kit Paul》 [2001] 3 HKLRD 751：指出拒捕罪判刑須具阻嚇性，並應與危險駕駛罪分期執行。 - 《HKSAR v Tam Lap Fai》 (2005) 8 HKCFAR 216：關於阻撓警務人員罪的量刑考慮因素。 - 《HKSAR v Poon Wing Kay》 [2007] 1 HKLRD 660：評估危險駕駛案嚴重性時，被告整體罪責是主要因素。 - 《HKSAR v Pang Ho-yin Patrick》 CACC 283/2013：確認Ko Wai Kit案中關於分期執行的原則。 - 《HKSAR v Ngai Yiu Ching》 [2011] 5 HKLRD 690：關於控罪刑期分期執行的原則。 - 《HKSAR v Chung Ho Yin》 [2021] HKCA 1265：關於重犯刑期應分期執行的原則。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭批准律政司司長的刑期覆核申請，將答辯人的總監禁期由原審的10個月改判為19個月。控罪1（危險駕駛）刑期改為16個月，控罪2（阻撓警務人員）刑期改為4個月，控罪3（取消駕駛資格期間駕駛）刑期改為4個月，控罪4（沒有第三者保險）刑期改為4個月。控罪1和2部分分期執行2個月，控罪3和4同期執行，控罪1、2與控罪3、4完全分期執行。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了危險駕駛罪和阻撓警務人員罪的量刑原則，特別強調了兩罪在性質上的區別，以及在判刑時應考慮分期執行的必要性，即使兩罪之間存在關聯。法庭亦指出，將汽車用作逃走或犯法工具是加重駕駛罪行罪責的因素。此外，本案在覆核時酌情下調了總刑期，以顧及數罪併罰不能過重的原則。 --- ### 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 CHAN HING TUNG - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Pang J.A., Hon Poon J.A., Hon Pang J.A. - Date of Judgment: 31 August 2022 ### Factual Background The respondent, Chan Hing Tung, pleaded guilty to four charges: dangerous driving, wilfully obstructing a police officer in the due execution of duty, driving whilst disqualified, and using a motor vehicle without third-party insurance. The original District Court judge sentenced the respondent to a total of 10 months' imprisonment. The Secretary for Justice applied to the Court of Appeal for a review of the sentence, arguing it was unduly lenient. The respondent had already completed his sentence by the time of the review application. ### Key Legal Issues The main legal issues in this case were whether the sentencing benchmarks applied by the original judge for each charge were appropriate, and whether the decision to order all four sentences to run concurrently was wrong in principle or manifestly lenient. The applicant argued that the sentencing benchmarks for dangerous driving (Charge 1) and obstructing a police officer (Charge 2) were too low, and that these two charges should have been ordered to run consecutively. Charges 3 and 4 (driving whilst disqualified and without third-party insurance) should also have been ordered to run consecutively with Charges 1 and 2 due to their distinct nature. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal found that the original judge's approach of incorporating elements of Charges 2 to 4 into the sentencing consideration for Charge 1 (dangerous driving) was perplexing, as Charges 1 and 2 are distinct in their mens rea and actus reus. The court emphasized that using a vehicle as a tool for escape or crime is an aggravating factor for driving offences. For Charge 2 (obstructing a police officer), the court determined that the circumstances were more serious than the precedents cited by the defence, and the original sentence was manifestly lenient. Ultimately, the court re-evaluated the sentencing benchmarks based on the independent nature and severity of each charge, ruling that Charges 1 and 2 should run partially consecutively, and Charges 1 and 2 should run fully consecutively with Charges 3 and 4, to reflect the respondent's overall culpability while adhering to the principle against excessive totality of sentences. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited several precedents to establish sentencing principles: - Secretary for Justice v Fong Chai Man [2008] 3 HKLRD 493: Emphasized the deterrent effect of dangerous driving offences and the need to consider the overall circumstances and the defendant's culpability. - HKSAR v Chan Chi Man [2019] 1 HKLRD 750: Referenced for sentencing starting points in dangerous driving cases. - SJ v Ko Wai Kit Paul [2001] 3 HKLRD 751: Stated that sentences for resisting arrest must be deterrent and should run consecutively with dangerous driving sentences. - HKSAR v Tam Lap Fai (2005) 8 HKCFAR 216: Regarding factors to consider when sentencing for obstructing a police officer. - HKSAR v Poon Wing Kay [2007] 1 HKLRD 660: Held that the defendant's overall culpability is a primary factor in assessing the seriousness of dangerous driving cases. - HKSAR v Pang Ho-yin Patrick CACC 283/2013: Affirmed the principle of consecutive sentences from Ko Wai Kit. - HKSAR v Ngai Yiu Ching [2011] 5 HKLRD 690: Concerning the principle of consecutive sentencing for charges. - HKSAR v Chung Ho Yin [2021] HKCA 1265: Regarding consecutive sentences for repeat offenders. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal granted the Secretary for Justice's application for sentence review, increasing the respondent's total term of imprisonment from the original 10 months to 19 months. The sentence for Charge 1 (dangerous driving) was revised to 16 months, Charge 2 (obstructing a police officer) to 4 months, Charge 3 (driving whilst disqualified) to 4 months, and Charge 4 (no third-party insurance) to 4 months. Charges 1 and 2 were ordered to run partially consecutively for 2 months, Charges 3 and 4 concurrently, and Charges 1, 2 fully consecutively with Charges 3, 4. ### Key Takeaways This case reaffirmed the sentencing principles for dangerous driving and obstructing a police officer, particularly emphasizing the distinct nature of these two offences and the necessity of considering consecutive sentencing even when they are related. The court also highlighted that using a vehicle as a tool for escape or crime is an aggravating factor for driving offences. Additionally, the court exercised its discretion to reduce the total sentence during the review, adhering to the principle against excessive totality of sentences. --- ### 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.