香港特別行政區 訴 連鈞富
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 1115/2021 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 13 October 2022.
1. 被告在本席席前承認一項販運危險藥物罪，違反香港法例第134章《危險藥物條例》第4(1)(a)及(3)條。
Cites 4 cases
|
DCCC 1115/2021 [2022] HKDC 1165 香港特別行政區 區域法院 刑事案件2021年第1115號 ________________________
________________________
________________________ 判刑理由書 ________________________ 1.被告在本席席前承認一項販運危險藥物罪，違反香港法例第134章《危險藥物條例》第4(1)(a)及(3)條。 案情 2.2021年8月18日深夜0145時左右，警員看到被告步出尖沙咀加拿芬道25-31號國際商業信貸銀行大廈地下，左手拿着一個紙袋。被告看見警員後便立即退後返回大廈，並不時鬼祟地偷望警員。 3.警員其後截查被告，在上述紙袋內搜出一個膠袋，內有5個寫有“27g”字樣的膠袋，載有內含共87.8克氯胺酮的132克固體。 4.同日0154時，警員以販運危險藥物罪拘捕和警誡被告。 5.政府化驗師其後證實涉案毒品成分。涉案毒品估計市值港幣96,360元。 6.被告在案發當天管有涉案毒品作販運用途。 求情陳詞 7.被告現年37歲，與女朋友同居，育有一名14歲的兒子。被告被捕前為自僱人士，月入約港幣20,000元。他有兩項刑事定罪紀錄，與本案性質不類同。 8.辯方指被告已深感後悔，並坦白認罪，希望法庭予以輕判。 9.辯方亦指被告在還押期間參與了胡頌恆神父（Father Wotherspoon）的反毒品運動，希望法庭酌情給予扣減。 判刑 10.販運危險藥物是非常嚴重的罪行，一經定罪一般均處以即時監禁。 11.根據上訴庭的量刑指引，販運50至300克的氯胺酮，量刑起點為6至9年監禁（見 SJ v Hii Sew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1）。 12.上訴庭在HKSAR v Islam Majharul CACC 67/2019 列出算術運算程式以計算販運某個份量的毒品的量刑起點。根據該運算程式，販運87.8克氯胺酮的量刑起點應為77個月監禁。 13.關於胡頌恆神父的反毒品運動，原意是透過因販運毒品到香港而在囚的外籍人士寫信詳列是如何被騙而犯案及被拘捕及/或被判囚後對個人及對家庭的影響，以達致警惕他的同鄉，減少同鄉來港犯案的機會，從而減低他的犯罪行為對香港造成的傷害。從辯方援引的案例可見，即使辯方提出此點作為求情理由，並不表示法庭會自動給予三個月的刑期扣減。法庭必須小心評估被告實際上提供了的協助，對胡神父的反毒品運動是否構成有意義的貢獻（meaningful contribution）。法庭會考慮被告參與的方式及程度、被告的參與會否導致他或家人面對被傷害的風險，及他的參與對香港的幫助等[1]。若果被告的參與對該反毒品運動有重大貢獻，法庭可酌情給予不多於三個月的刑期扣減。 14.就本案而言，根據辯方提交的資料，被告的一封信件在胡神父其中兩個網站發放。本席有機會閱讀信件的內容，信件只簡單提及被告沒有後悔犯罪，只是後悔沒有時間陪伴家人。信件沒有提到被告是如何被他人誘騙參與販毒。信件內容簡單，其他實質的資料（包括被告何時開始參與這個運動，在被告參與這個運動後，相關本地人士干犯販毒的情況是否有改善等）也欠奉，本席不認為被告這封信件對該運動有重大貢獻。因此，本席不會就這點給予任何刑期扣減。 15.除了被告認罪外，本案沒有其他有效的求情理由可以把刑期進一步下調。基於被告認罪，刑期下調至51個月監禁。
[1] HKSAR v Kilima Abukakar Abbas, CACC 143/2016: “225. The question then becomes how to reward this form of meritorious conduct. In my view a court called upon to sentence a drug trafficker who seeks a sentencing discount for this form of assistance should first decide whether the actual assistance provided, over the time it has been provided, enables him to confidently form the view that the defendant has contributed meaningfully to Father Wotherspoon’s campaign. If it is too early for the judge to confidently form such a view then he should leave any sentencing discount to be subsequently assessed by the Executive. … 227. This will always be a matter of discretion for the sentencing judge. In exercising that discretion the judge will take into account the nature and extent of the applicant’s participation in Father Wotherspoon’s campaign, whether that participation has exposed him, or members of his family in his home country, to any risk of harm and the benefit that has flowed to Hong Kong from the campaign. This is not intended as an exhaustive list of the relevant considerations.” HKSAR v Fundi Furaha Giles, CACC 82/2017: “22. It is clear, following Kilima, that a sentencing court does have a discretion to award a ‘small additional’ discount (per Lunn VP, at paragraph 67), or a ‘token’ discount (per Macrae VP, at paragraphs 91 and 92), for making a significant contribution to Father Wotherspoon’s campaign. The discount afforded for this factor in the exercise of a judge’s discretion should be no more than 3 months. However, we wish to emaphsise here that the Court did not mean an automatic 3 months’ discount whenever this factor is raised in mitigation: that must be the limit of the discount depending on the extent and circumstances of the defendant’s contribution as determined by the judge, and this Court will not lightly interfere with the exercise of the judge’s discretion in this regard. That means that there will be cases when a judge considers, in the due exercise of his discretion, that no additional discount is appropriate for this factor.” |
Cases cited in this judgment