Sentencing Council判刑委員會

由水官判案引起爭論以來, 我一直撐她, 律政司已獲上訴庭批出判刑覆核, 我理應等待結果而不宜再講的, 但有網友提出香港應該成立判刑委員會來制衡法官的權力, 也有人認為就算對判刑上訴, 也難保證判刑公道, 這方面我不懂回應, 因為大家懂的事不同, 我不懂就不想亂講。

甚麼是判刑委員會? 別搞錯, 不是法官審案後由判刑委員會來負責判刑, 判刑的責任一直都屬於法官的。以英國為例, 判刑委員會只是訂立量刑指引的機構, 成員主要是法官, 其他成員包括刑事檢控專員、警方代表、犯罪學學者及感化官。他們定期開會, 更新判刑的指引, 目的是減低法官之間在刑罰上的分歧, 有系統地詳細列出各項元素, 並予以分類, 再因應個別犯人的因素再加減刑期。判刑委員會的指引具法律約束力的, 除了特殊原因或鑑於公眾利益, 否則法官必須跟隨這指引來判刑。

我借用水佳麗判少年縱火案為例, 採用英國判刑委員會的最新指引(1 October 2019)來比較結果。

Arson (criminal damage by fire)

Step 1 – Determining the offence category

Culpability demonstrated by one or more of the following

A – High culpability

• High degree of planning or premeditation
• Revenge attack
• Use of accelerant
• Intention to cause very serious damage to property
• Intention to create a high risk of injury to persons

B – Medium culpability

• Some planning
• Recklessness as to whether very serious damage caused to property
• Recklessness as to whether serious injury caused to persons
• Other cases that fall between categories A and C because:
  • Factors are present in A and C which balance each other out and/or
  • The offender’s culpability falls between the factors described in A and C

C – Lesser culpability

• Little or no planning; offence committed on impulse
• Recklessness as to whether some damage to property caused
• Offender’s responsibility substantially reduced by mental disorder or learning disability
• Involved through coercion, intimidation or exploitation

Harm

The level of harm is assessed by weighing up all the factors of the case.

Category 1

• Serious physical and/or psychological harm caused
• Serious consequential economic or social impact of offence
• High value of damage caused

Category 2

• Harm that falls between categories 1 and 3

Category 3

• No or minimal physical and/or psychological harm caused
• Low value of damage caused

***********************************************************************************************************************

Step 2 – Starting point and category range

In exceptional cases within category 1A, sentences of above 8 years may be appropriate.

Harm		Culpability
	A	B	C
Category 1	Starting point4 years’ custody	Starting point 1 year 6 months’ custody	Starting point9 months’ custody
	Category range2 – 8 years’ custody	Category range9 months – 3 years’ custody	Category range6 months – 1 year 6 months’ custody
Category 2	Starting point2 years’ custody	Starting point 9 months’ custody	Starting pointHigh level community order
	Category range1 – 4 years’ custody	Category range6 months – 1 year 6 months’ custody	Category rangeMedium level community order – 9 months’ custody
Category 3	Starting point1 year’s custody	Starting pointHigh level community order	Starting pointLow level community order
	Category range 6 months – 2 years’ custody	Category rangeMedium level Community order –  9 months’ custody	Category rangeDischarge – High level community order

Factors reducing seriousness or reflecting personal mitigation

• No previous convictions or no relevant/recent convictions
• Steps taken to minimise the effect of the fire or summon assistance
• Remorse
• Good character and/or exemplary conduct
• Serious medical condition requiring urgent, intensive or long-term treatment
• Age and/or lack of maturity
• Mental disorder or learning disability (where not taken into account at step one)
• Sole or primary carer for dependent relatives
• Determination and/or demonstration of steps having been taken to address addiction or offending behaviour

這少年屬Category A的嚴重性, 因為汽油彈屬 Category A裏的"use of accelerant", 半夜擲汽油彈在馬路上, 傷害(harm)屬Category 3, 破壞性低類別, 判刑屬A3類別, 即是6個月至兩年監禁。但這指引是應用在成人判刑身上的, 18歲以下要另作考慮, 英國判刑委員會也列出焦點:

Sentencing principles (Sentencing Children and Young People)

1.1 When sentencing children or young people (those aged under 18 at the date of the finding of guilt) a court must1 have regard to:

• the principal aim of the youth justice system (to prevent offending by children and young people); and
• the welfare of the child or young person.

1.2 While the seriousness of the offence will be the starting point, the approach to sentencing should be individualistic and focused on the child or young person, as opposed to offence focused. For a child or young person the sentence should focus on rehabilitation where possible. A court should also consider the effect the sentence is likely to have on the child or young person (both positive and negative) as well as any underlying factors contributing to the offending behaviour

.....

這少年承認控罪, 判刑時未夠16歲, 水官先索取勞役中心及感化報告, 勞役中心建議判他入去, 而感化官建議18個月感化。他已被收押了4個月, 入過勞役中心兩星期嚐了short sharp shock的滋味, 18個月的感化還要有一半時間住在屯門兒童及青少年院, 我相信律政司的上訴理據是要爭取判他入勞役中心, 水官判18個月感化犯了原則上錯誤嗎? 以本案而言, 採取英國判刑委員會的考慮準則, 也不見得水官犯錯。Why does DoJ all of a sudden become a wolf warrior too? 上週另一暴動案, 少年轉介區域法院審, 就算定罪, 也大有可能轉到少年庭判刑的。

話說回頭, 香港為何不成立判刑委員會? 我沒資格回答, 這問題不久前JA在立法會答了官腔的答法, 標少草民的答法是: 香港處境敏感, 成立一個律政司和警方有份的委員會來量刑, 頗有在3權合作聯手對付犯人的感覺。一個有經驗的法官, 理論上會在腦海中考慮一切量刑應該考慮的因素, 司法機構的內聯網也分門別類列出量刑的案例, 司法獨立抑或獨大, 可各自表述。

一再批評水佳麗就不太公平了, 所以我一再撐她。