施以終身監禁?

法庭：「鞋帶色魔」倘再犯將囚終身

【本報訊】有孌童癖及虐待癖的卡拉OK男侍應，因性侵犯六名十三至十九歲女童，去年被判監十八年。這名因嗜好用鞋帶綁起受害人、被稱為「鞋帶色魔」的被告，上月申請上訴，獲上訴庭減刑至十五年。上訴庭昨頒發書面判決理由，指被告承認大部分控罪，判監十五年已能反映案件嚴重性，但強調如他出獄後再犯，法庭將會判他終身監禁。
(4/9/2012 東方日報)

This news relates to 香港特別行政區 對 歐永傑(AU WING KIT) CACC40/2011, newly uploaded on 4/9/2012. Without disrespect to the Court of Appeal(CA), I have to say don't be kidding me. Let's see what Yeung VP says when delivering judgment for the court. In paragraphs

94. 本庭認為以本案的背景，包括申請人承認了20項罪中的18項，總判刑15年已足夠反映案件的嚴重性，而該隔離期應足夠保護年輕女童避免她們再受申請人的侵犯，亦希望能足夠令申請人接受適當治療，以改變其精神及心理病態。

95. 但本庭需強調，如申請人經過長期隔離和治療，仍不能改變其變態行為，在再犯的情況，則唯一可行的處理方法是對他施以終身監禁。

Her Lady Maggie Poon sentenced the defendant to 18 years in total including one charge of Rape and another of Attempted Rape the defendant contested. The original sentence of 18 years may be on the high side of the scale, but the interference of CA is questionable. When tampering with the sentence by reducing it, CA does not seem to rely on any precedents to consider the appropriate quantum. In paragraph 95, when CA says ,'在再犯的情況，則唯一可行的處理方法是對他施以終身監禁' are only empty words. CA, when emphasizing the only option is to give him a life sentence, refers only to Rape. However, when we look at the sentencing precedents, there were occasions rapist being sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum of 20 years ( HKSAR and Cheung Lai Man CACC533/2002) or life imprisonment with a minimum of 18 years (HKSAR and Chan Li Fat CACC308/2009). The former's life sentence was quashed when regarded as wrong in principle and the latter was upheld but involving facts of far more serious nature.

In the instant case, given the discount for good behaviour during the incarceration, the defendant is actually serving 10 years. If he is to re-offend after his release, I don't believe he would be sentenced to life imprisonment involving similar facts. What if he only commits Indecent Assault and Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with Girl under 16, it is impossible to sentence him to life. The maximum for Indecent Assault is 10 years and that of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with Girl under 16 is only 5 years. Is it justifiable for me to say the CA is kidding this time? I would rather CA uphold Maggie's original sentence instead of empty threats.