多項控罪的總監禁刑期是否過重？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v WABHI TRI-WAHYU (又名 WAHYU WABHI TRI, SUPRI YATNAK 及 SUPRIYATNAK) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Macrae JA - 判決日期：2015年8月6日 ### 案情摘要 申請人於2014年9月30日在區域法院承認三項控罪：向入境事務主任作虛假申述、盜竊及違反遞解離境令。他被判處總共36個月（即3年）監禁。第一項控罪涉及他於2014年6月30日使用虛假出生日期護照入境香港。第二項控罪涉及他於2014年7月8日在上水偷竊受害人背包內港幣10萬元現金，該筆款項未能尋回。第三項控罪是他於2012年2月23日被發出遞解離境令後，仍於2014年6月再次入境香港。 ### 核心法律爭議 申請人就其36個月的總監禁刑期申請上訴許可，認為刑期過高。他提出多項理由，包括真誠悔意、語言障礙導致的監獄困境、家庭經濟困難，以及其他類似案件的被告獲判較短刑期。申請人還爭辯指，第一項和第三項控罪的刑期與第二項控罪的刑期之間應有部分同期執行，否則總刑期明顯過重或原則上錯誤。 ### 判決理由 法官認為，就第一項控罪，原審法官採納的18個月監禁量刑起點，經認罪減刑至12個月，符合上訴法庭的判例。就第二項盜竊控罪，原審法官考慮了多項加重情節，包括有國際元素、與同謀犯案、有預謀地針對受害人、涉及大額金錢且未能尋回，以及申請人有類似前科。法官認為原審法官採納的27個月量刑起點，經認罪減刑至18個月，實際上是寬鬆的。就第三項違反遞解離境令控罪，原審法官採納的27個月量刑起點，經認罪減刑至18個月，亦符合上訴法庭的判例。法官裁定，考慮到向入境事務主任作虛假申述及違反法庭命令的嚴重性，原審法官命令各控罪刑期分期執行是正確的。總體刑期並無明顯過重或原則上錯誤。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多宗案例以支持量刑原則： - HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy [2005] 2 HKLRD 1：確立扒竊罪的量刑起點及加重情節。 - HKSAR v Wong Kang Sun [2014] 1 HKLRD 622：重申扒竊罪的量刑原則。 - HKSAR v Pahila [2007] 1 HKLRD 410：涉及向入境事務主任作虛假申述罪的量刑。 - HKSAR v Ji Guobin (unrep., HCMA 243/2014, 30 July 2014)：涉及向入境事務主任作虛假申述罪的量刑。 - HKSAR v Sandagdorj Altankhuyag & another [2014] 1 HKC 206：關於量刑起點並非不可逾越的上限。 - HKSAR v Gabriel, Malou Lantin [2004] HKEC 1072：涉及首次違反遞解離境令的量刑。 - HKSAR v Ta Dinh Son (unrep., CACC 348/2013)：涉及違反遞解離境令的量刑。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭拒絕了申請人就其總監禁刑期36個月的上訴許可申請。法官認為原審法官的判刑並無不妥，個別控罪的刑期甚至可被視為寬鬆，且總刑期並非明顯過重或原則上錯誤。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了在處理涉及多項控罪（特別是向入境事務主任作虛假申述、盜竊及違反遞解離境令）的量刑時，法庭會考慮各項加重情節，並可命令刑期分期執行以反映罪行的嚴重性。即使有認罪，若罪行情節嚴重，仍會判處較重刑罰。法庭亦強調了對入境管制及法庭命令的尊重。 --- ### 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 WABHI TRI-WAHYU (also known as WAHYU WABHI TRI, SUPRI YATNAK and SUPRIYATNAK) - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Macrae JA - Date of Judgment: 6 August 2015 ### Factual Background The applicant pleaded guilty on 30 September 2014 in the District Court to three charges: making a false representation to an Immigration Officer, theft, and breach of a deportation order. He was sentenced to a total of 36 months' (3 years') imprisonment. Charge 1 involved using a passport with a false date of birth to enter Hong Kong on 30 June 2014. Charge 2 concerned the theft of HK$100,000 cash from the victim's rucksack in Sheung Shui on 8 July 2014, which was not recovered. Charge 3 was for re-entering Hong Kong in June 2014 despite being subject to a deportation order issued on 23 February 2012. ### Key Legal Issues The applicant sought leave to appeal against his total sentence of 36 months' imprisonment, arguing it was excessive. His grounds included genuine remorse, hardship in prison due to language barriers, family financial difficulties, and shorter sentences in other similar cases. The applicant also contended that there should have been a concurrent element between the sentences for Charges 1 and 3 and the sentence for Charge 2, and that without it, the overall sentence was manifestly excessive and/or wrong in principle. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge found that the starting point of 18 months' imprisonment for Charge 1, reduced to 12 months for a guilty plea, was in line with appellate authority. For Charge 2 (theft), the judge considered several aggravating factors, including an international element, acting with an accomplice, premeditated targeting of the victim, a large unrecovered sum, and previous similar convictions. The judge concluded that the starting point of 27 months, reduced to 18 months for a plea, was lenient. For Charge 3 (breach of deportation order), the starting point of 27 months, reduced to 18 months for a plea, was also consistent with appellate authority. The judge ruled that given the seriousness of making false representations to immigration officers and breaching court orders, the sentencing judge was correct to order consecutive sentences. The overall sentence was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited several precedents to support sentencing principles: - HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy [2005] 2 HKLRD 1: Established starting points and aggravating factors for pickpocketing. - HKSAR v Wong Kang Sun [2014] 1 HKLRD 622: Reaffirmed sentencing principles for pickpocketing. - HKSAR v Pahila [2007] 1 HKLRD 410: Sentencing for making false representations to immigration officers. - HKSAR v Ji Guobin (unrep., HCMA 243/2014, 30 July 2014): Sentencing for making false representations to immigration officers. - HKSAR v Sandagdorj Altankhuyag & another [2014] 1 HKC 206: Regarding starting points not being an impenetrable ceiling. - HKSAR v Gabriel, Malou Lantin [2004] HKEC 1072: Sentencing for first breach of a deportation order. - HKSAR v Ta Dinh Son (unrep., CACC 348/2013): Sentencing for breach of a deportation order. ### Decision & Orders The court refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal against his total sentence of 36 months' imprisonment. The judge found no fault with the sentencing judge's approach, noting that individual sentences could even be considered lenient, and the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. ### Key Takeaways This case reiterates that when sentencing for multiple offences, especially those involving false representations to immigration officers, theft, and breach of deportation orders, courts will consider various aggravating factors and may order consecutive sentences to reflect the gravity of the crimes. Even with a guilty plea, severe circumstances warrant substantial penalties. The judgment also underscores the importance of respecting immigration controls and court orders. --- ### 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.