香港特別行政區 訴 廖有光
Read the full judgment text of CACC 46/2019 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 7 August 2019 before 彭偉昌.
Criminal law – sentencing – illegal export of agarwood – protection of endangered species – application of sentencing benchmark from agarwood theft case – whether 3-year starting point appropriate – 'levelling off' principle – whether arguable ground for leave to appeal – Criminal Procedure Ordinance s.83W warning on '扣時' risk. The applicant pleaded guilty to one count of illegal export of agarwood involving 2.596 kg of agarwood, a quantity described as extremely large, and was sentenced to 2 years' immediate imprisonment in the District Court. The sentencing judge, having no direct sentencing precedent for illegal export of agarwood, adopted the 3-year benchmark from HKSAR v Xie Jinbin [2011] 2 HKLRD 631, a classic case of theft of agarwood, and reduced the sentence by one-third for the guilty plea. The Court of Appeal upheld this approach, holding that the sentencing benchmark for theft of agarwood applies to illegal export of agarwood. The appellate court reasoned that the purpose of sentencing in agarwood-related offences is to protect this endangered plant, and that various criminal roles — theft, handling, and smuggling — all contribute to the species' endangerment, making meaningful distinctions in culpability difficult. This contrasts with ordinary theft and handling stolen goods cases, which involve diverse property and may differ in culpability. The 3-year starting point was found appropriate given the extremely large quantity of agarwood involved. The court further noted that HKSAR v Wen Zelang [2006] 4 HKLRD 460, which involved more offenders and even more agarwood, also used 3 years as the benchmark, illustrating the 'levelling off' principle that sentences should not rise indefinitely with quantity. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed as having no arguable ground. The applicant was warned in court about the risk of '扣時' under section 83W of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance.
Legal issues: Application of agarwood theft sentencing benchmark to illegal export of agarwood · Appropriateness of 3-year starting point given quantity of agarwood
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed; the applicant's sentence of 2 years' immediate imprisonment for illegal export of agarwood stands.
Cited by 5 cases · Cites 2 cases
|
CACC 46/2019 [2019] HKCA 896 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 刑事司法管轄權 不服刑罰上訴許可申請 刑事上訴案件2019年第46號 (原區域法院刑事案件2018年第733號) __________________
__________________
判案書 1.申請人承認一項簡稱‘非法出口沉香’罪，涉及2.596千克沉香，處即時入獄2年。 2.‘非法出口沉香’的判刑沒有案例，原審法官乃援引以沉香為標的之‘盜竊’罪經典案例 HKSAR v Xie Jinbin [2011] 2 HKLRD 631，採納3年為本案的量刑基準，並因申請人認罪而給予其三份一的扣減至2年。 3.我認為原審法官的判斷正確。 4.正如原審法官按上訴法庭在Xie案的思路指出，判罰與沉香有關的各種罪行，關鍵在保護沉香這種瀕危植物。從這個角度考慮，無論是偷取、處理及把沉香偷運出境等行為，在罪責上都很難作出有意義的區別，理由是上述各種犯罪行為或角色皆為導致這種植物瀕危的重要環節。這與‘盜竊’和‘處理贓物’涉及各式各樣不同財物及兩罪之間在罪責上或許有所不同，不能同日而語。 5.原審法官也謹慎及正確地補充，由於涉及本案的沉香數量極大，所以就算本案不比Xie案的犯案人數眾多及/或準備充足，3年的量刑基準在本案也毫不為過。至於HKSAR v Wen Zelang [2006] 4 HKLRD 460，犯案人士多而涉案沉香更多，卻仍然以3年為量刑基準，我認為只是不能因應數量增加而不斷把刑期推高的原則（即英語裡的‘levelling off’）的彰顯。 6.我認為，就刑期而言，申請人實無合理可供辯的理據以支持他的上訴，所以駁回他的上訴許可申請。 7.在庭上，我已就《刑事訴訟程序條例》第83W條有關‘扣時’的風險向申請人作出警告。
申請人： 由法律援助署委派曾藹琪大律師代表 答辯人： 由律政司署理助理刑事檢控專員余國慧女士代表 | |||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case