LawHero
  • 案例庫
  • 指標案例
  • 收藏案例
  • 法例
歷史記錄
    暫無對話記錄

LawHero 提供嘅資訊只係一般性法律資訊，唔係法律意見。

條款|私隱

案例庫

瀏覽香港法律案例（共 20+ 個結果）

載入中...

HKSAR v. GURUNG PRAKASH

DCCC423/2009區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Tallentire8/7/2009

HKSAR v. AU YEUNG CHI HO, FRANKY

DCCC784/2008區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Dufton7/7/2009

HKSAR v. MA TAT

DCCC547/2009區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Dufton in Court Date of Sentence: 6 July 2009 Present: Ms Patty Lee, SPP for the Department of Justice Mr. Michael Vidler assigned by DLA for the Defendant. Charge: Attempted Robbery(企圖搶劫罪) REASONS FOR SENTENCE 1. The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of attempted robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210 and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Chapter 200. 2. In summary at about 11:15 am on the 4th April this year the defendant, armed with a folding saw, entered the Li Yuen Beauty Salon in Wong Tai Sin. The defendant went into Room 1 where Madam Lam was serving a customer and took out the folding saw from his rucksack, which he pointed at Madam Lam and declared robbery. The defendant then put the folding saw back in his rucksack and tied up Madam Lam with a pair of plastic cuffs. 3. Meanwhile Madam Leung who was serving another customer in Room 2 heard some noise coming from Room 1 and called the police. After tying up Madam Lam the defendant went to Room 2. Before the defendant reached Room 2 Madam Lam managed to release the cuffs and ran to the main door of the salon and raised a hue and cry. The defendant chased after Madam Lam and grabbed hold of her clothes to pull her back inside the salon. Madam Leung got hold of the defendant’s jacket whilst Madam Lam scratched the defendant’s face. Madam Lam was then able to leave the salon and ran onto the street screaming for help and shouting robbery. 4. The defendant then left the salon and ran towards Wong Tai Sin Temple. Madam Lam chased after the defendant but fell down and soon lost sight of him. The defendant had however in the process of the robbery dropped his wallet in the salon, inside which was his identity card and address. The defendant also left behind a plastic bag, which I am told contained 97 plastic strips, similar to the one used to tie up Madam Lam. 5. The police went to the address where they lay ambush. At 12.09 the same day the defendant returned to the address and was arrested by the police. Under caution the defendant admitted committing the robbery because he owed $100,000 in credit card debts. The defendant said he had bought the folding saw and the plastic cuffs that morning and then drove the company car looking for a target shop. The folding saw was recovered from the company car. 6. In passing sentence I have carefully considered everything said on the defendant’s behalf by Mr Vidler together with the letters submitted to court. I take into account the defendant was in financial difficulties and being faced with medical fees to pay for his son decided to commit the robbery. I accept the defendant is remorseful for what he has done and that he did not intend to hurt any of his victims. I also take into account that the defendant has not been before the court for almost 17 years. One cannot however overlook that the defendant’s previous conviction is also for robbery, for which he was sentenced to training centre. 7. In R v MO Kwong-sang [1981] HKLR 610 the Court of Appeal laid down guidelines for armed robberies. The appropriate sentence in an ordinary case of armed robbery where the accused carried a knife or other dangerous weapon, which he displays to his victim, should be five years imprisonment. 8. The weapon used by the defendant has been called a folding saw. In HKSAR v AU Chi-hang & others [2006] 2 HKLRD 310 the court considered whether iron and wooden rods were dangerous weapons and thus fell within the guidelines for armed robberies laid down in R v MO Kwong-sang. The Court of Appeal held that dangerous weapons should mean objects, which could be compared to a knife in terms of capability of inflicting immediate death or serious injuries in the course of robbery, so that faced with such an object, the victim could only choose between succumbing to the robber or sustaining serious injury. The emphasis is on the degree of fear to which the object could make the victim subject. Factors affecting the degree of fear include the nature (including the size and weight) of the object and the circumstances of the offence. 9. Having had the opportunity of looking at photographs of the folding saw, to anyone confronted with a robbery this would have all the appearances of a knife. I am satisfied this is clearly a dangerous weapon which could have caused serious injury. Indeed Mr Vidler concedes the folding saw is a dangerous weapon. 10. The starting point of five years is to be increased where the robbery involves invasion of private premises, which includes business premises and physical violence is used, including the tying up of victims. The Court of Appeal R v MO Kwong-sang suggested in such circumstances a sentence of seven years imprisonment should be considered. 11. Whilst Madam Lam fortunately received only minor injuries the folding saw was pointed at her and she was tied up, albeit not very well resulting in her being able to free herself almost immediately and thus prevent the robbery. The bravery of Madam Lam and Madam Leung, being confronted with a man yielding a folding saw, is to be commended. In all the circumstances I am satisfied the proper starting point after trial is one of six years imprisonment 12. Giving the defendant full credit for his plea of guilty he is sentenced to four years imprisonment. (D. J. DUFTON) Deputy District Judge5/7/2009

香港特別行政區 訴 吳志洪

DCCC1175/2008區域法院（刑事）區域法院法官邱智立3/7/2009

香港特別行政區 訴 SANTOS EDWARD FRANCIS

DCCC533/2009區域法院（刑事）區域法院法官邱智立29/6/2009
Robbery and TheftSentencingCriminal Procedure

香港特別行政區 訴 劉文芬

DCCC517/2009區域法院（刑事）首席區域法院法官李瀚良25/6/2009
Robbery and TheftSentencingCriminal Procedure

香港特別行政區 訴 陳偉坤

DCCC237/2009區域法院（刑事）首席區域法院法官李瀚良24/6/2009
Robbery and TheftSentencingCriminal Procedure

HKSAR v. STAVTSEV MARK AND ANOTHER

DCCC1021/2008區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge A. Kwok21/6/2009

香港特別行政區 訴 劉幸航及另一人

DCCC902/2008區域法院（刑事）區域法院暫委法官郭啓安19/6/2009

HKSAR v. CHOY CHI CHUEN

DCCC501/2009區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Tallentire18/6/2009

香港特別行政區 訴 張志輝

DCCC1085/2008區域法院（刑事）區域法院暫委法官葉佐文 日期: 2009 年 6 月 17 日上午 10 時 24 分 出席人士: 王寶榮大律師,為外聘主控官,代表香港特別行政區 羅志霖大律師,由周成康律師行轉聘,代表被告 控罪: 1-2)欺詐罪(Fraud) 判刑理由 控罪 1. 被告否認兩項欺詐罪，經審訊後被定罪。 2. 控罪陳述指他違反香港法例第210章《盜竊罪條例》第16A條，罪行詳情指他於2006年5月15日至[相關第一項控罪之]2007年9月7日期間及[相關第二項控罪之]2007年10月8日期間，藉作欺騙，（即向其僱主大昌貿易行有限公司[“大昌行”]隱瞞和沒有向大昌行披露他或他父母在[相關第一項控罪之]金滙管理顧問有限公司[“金滙”]及[相關第二項控罪之]灝鍶國際有限公司[“灝鍶”]的權益，而當時被告是大昌行的僱員，有責任全面披露任何與大昌行之間現有或潛在的利益衝突），並意圖詐騙而誘使大昌行聘用[相關第一項控罪之]金滙及[相關第二項控罪之]灝鍶向大昌行提供訓練及顧問服務，導致[相關第一項控罪之]金滙及[相關第二項控罪之]灝鍶獲得利益，或導致大昌行蒙受不利或相當程度的可能性會蒙受不利。 案情 3. 2002年6月24日，被告入職大昌行為培訓經理，隸屬大昌行之人力資源部，直至廉政公署人員拘捕之前仍任此職。 4. 控方第一證人周可儀於1993年6月15日加入大昌行，時任大昌行之人力資源及行政總經理之秘書，當時大昌行已有與本案相同之〈紀律守則〉，在人力資源部員工或經理級之員工入職時派發，但不須簽收。時移世易的人事變更令接受滙報者的名字須不時更新，與本案相關的版本於2006年4月印畢，並於2006年5月派發給被告。 5. 金滙成立於1997年8月29日，被告的父親張幹及母親梁潤妹均是其註冊的唯一股東及董事，亦是其設立於南洋商業銀行來往戶口之授權操作人。 6. 灝鍶成立於1998年11月30日，被告的父親張幹及母親梁潤妹均是其註冊的唯一股東及董事，亦是其設立於東亞銀行來往戶口之授權操作人。 7. 控方第三證人蘇靜雯與被告於1997年結婚，金滙及灝鍶自成立以來，直至2003年均是由被告及蘇靜雯打理業務，被告負責籌劃訓練課程 ，並支付這兩間公司的秘書公司Hong Kong Executive Centre Limited服務費用，蘇靜雯則負責文件處理及內務。被告雙親並沒有打理金滙及灝鍶的業務。2003年蘇靜雯與被告正式離婚，其後蘇靜雯沒再打理金滙及灝鍶的業務。 8. 控方第二證人王海銘於2005年6月6日入職大昌行為人力資源及行政總經理，被告是他的直系下屬，被告會向他推薦合適的課程承辦商及付款安排，他是大昌行這方面的決策人，他會考慮承辦商的資歷、技巧及價錢，他會以口頭方式向被告批核。 9. 2006年5月15日至2007年10月8日期間，被告曾向他推薦合適的12項課程承辦商及付款安排，但從來沒有向大昌行申報有關自己在金滙及灝鍶的利益。大昌行以支票形式付款予金滙或灝鍶。 10. 金滙收到其中共$1,056,500.00之7項付款，灝鍶則收到其中共$670,996.05之5項付款。 11. 控方第二證人王海銘指出，若他批核被告所推薦的課程時知道被告的利益，他不會同意將合約承判給金及灝鍶。被告沒有申報利益，亦令致大昌行沒有機會考慮邀請投標或拒絕推薦。 求情陳詞 12. 被告現年42歲，先前沒有刑事定罪紀錄，經過多年奮鬥，被告學歷達至博士程度，更擁有多張證書及文憑，被補時任大昌行培訓經理。他的父母在堂，另有一名兄長及兩名姊姊，他與第一任太太離婚後已再婚，現任太太是國內人，與一子一女住在深圳，被告經常到深圳與他們團聚。他與家中各人相處融洽。 13. 被告多年來多次義務提供培訓講座，包括由勞工處所舉辦的研討會，並參與大昌行所舉辦的社區活動，例如關懷長者行動。 14. 辯方大律師求情時指沒有證供顯示金滙及灝鍶的服務質素低劣，又或是大昌行付了極為不合理的高價。 判刑原則 15. 雖然被告違反誠信，而根據 香港特別行政區 訴 張美嬌CACC 99/2006，破壞誠信罪行若令受害人損失界乎$220,000至$1,250,000，須判處2 至 3 年監禁，但是有別於張美嬌 的是大昌行並不是損失了這個金額。所以該指引難以應用於本案，極本量只能作為最高判刑參考。 本案判刑 16. 本案的嚴重性在於被告是金滙及灝鍶的創辦人及運作者，他的父母作為作為其董事及股東之身份純是掩人耳目的假像。被告熟識大昌行處理訓練課程的方法，包括不經招標而接受單一公司申請提供訓練課程。結合了金滙及灝鍶上述的假像及大昌行的處事方法，被告在毫無對手之下於1年以上時間獲得本案相關12個課程的合約，金滙（相關第一項控罪）他共收到共$1,056,500.00之7項付款，灝鍶（相關第二項控罪）他則收到共$670,996.05之5項付款。 17. 本席同意辯方大律師求情時所指沒有證供顯示金滙及灝鍶的服務質素低劣，又或是大昌行付了極為不合理的高價，這點可在判刑起點反映出來。 18. 就第一及第二項控罪而言，本席均以12個月作為判刑起點，被告多年來提供專業義務工作及社區服務，本席扣減1 個月，除此之外，沒有求情因素，本席判被告就各項控罪入獄11個月。 19. 兩項控罪罪行手法及目標雖一致，但不能視為單一項目，理應分期執行刑期。可是，考慮到刑期的整體性，本席現下令： （1）第一項控罪，入獄11個月； （2）第二項控罪，入獄11個月，當中7個月與第一項控罪同期執行，其餘4個月則分期執行； （3）被告共入獄15個月。 葉佐文 區域法院暫委法官 區域法院暫委法官葉佐文17/6/2009
Criminal LawFraud and Financial CrimeSentencing

被告張志輝任職於大昌貿易行有限公司 (大昌行) 擔任培訓經理，根據公司紀律守則有責任披露利益衝突。被告實際上創辦並運作金管理顧問有限公司及灝鍶國際有限公司，但將父母登記為唯一股東及董事以掩飾身份。在2006年至2007年間，被告利用職務之便向其上司推薦上述兩間公司承接12項培訓課程合約，且未向大昌行申報其利益，導致兩間公司共獲利超過172萬元。

香港特別行政區 訴 李鵬飛

DCCC489/2009區域法院（刑事）區域法院暫委法官沈小民16/6/2009
Robbery and TheftSentencingCriminal Procedure

HKSAR v. TSUI CHI MAN

DCCC403/2009區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Tallentire15/6/2009

HKSAR v. LUI MAN KIT

DCCC25/2009區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Dufton4/6/2009

香港特別行政區 訴 方世海

DCCC27/2009區域法院（刑事）區域法院暫委法官郭啟安4/6/2009

HKSAR v. FUNG YING HONG

DCCC451/2009區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Dufton3/6/2009

香港特別行政區 訴 劉永生

DCCC429/2009區域法院（刑事）區域法院法官邱智立3/6/2009

HKSAR v. CHENG PAK YIN

DCCC441/2009區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Dufton2/6/2009

HKSAR v. LEE KAM LOI

DCCC409/2009區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Dufton31/5/2009

HKSAR v. WONG KONG

DCCC406/2009區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Tallentire28/5/2009
上一頁第 212 頁下一頁

語義關鍵字搜尋 — 自動匹配意思相近的案例，例如搜「偷嘢」亦會找到「盜竊」相關判決。如需帶意圖地搜尋，請使用 AI 對話。

條例: Cap. 210