香港特別行政區 訴 姚紅菊

CACC 166/2022，[2023] HKCA 1024

原案件：[2022] HKDC 1096

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2022年第166號

(原區域法院刑事案件2021年第1133號)

__________________

__________________

__________________

判 案 理 由 書

__________________

1.申請人承認一項‘販運危險藥物’罪，涉及11.47克的冰，被原審法官判囚4年8個月。申請人不服，就判刑提出上訴許可申請。

相關事實

2.2021年6月12日，申請人被警方截查及發現她戴著的口罩內有四包冰毒。

3.該批毒品市值6,564元而申請人則被搜出3,083.8元現金和一部iPhone。

4.申請人在警誡下聲稱，毒品是供她自用的，剛從公園以2,800元買來，被捕時她正前往地鐵站搭地鐵回家。但她又同時承認自己失業，一家靠綜援和丈夫打散工的收入維生。

5.明顯為針對申請人的警誡供詞，供答辯用的《案情撮要》清楚標明申請人管有案中毒品作非法販運用途。

背景及輕判請求

6.判刑時申請人49歲，有多項包括藏毒和盜竊在內的刑事定罪記錄，其中一項更是販毒。她因該項定罪被判入獄41個月，刑期在2020年7月30日服畢，亦即在出獄後十一個月便再犯下本案。

7.申請人在被捕後提供的尿液樣本含有安非他明，反映她在案發前曾服食冰毒。

8.申請人以部分涉案毒品乃自用為由，要求原審法官減刑。

原審判刑

9.原審法官表示，控罪和《案情撮要》皆指涉案毒品是用作販運的，申請人在答辯時沒有爭議，立場和她在請求輕判時的講法亙不相容，所以不接納部份毒品乃自用為求情理由。

10.原審法官適用HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691的量刑指引，以7年為量刑基準，經認罪可得的三分一扣減，最終的刑期便為4年8個月。

上訴理由

11.申請人認為，原審法官原則犯錯，誤以為申請人指部份毒品乃自用的講法和她承認的《案情撮要》相違背，以致影響到最終的判刑。

12.原審法官在《判刑理由書》第10段是這樣說的：

「 10. 本席明白申請人在答辯時已承認罪行詳情所指全部份量都是用作販運用途，也接納案情撮要所指該4包冰毒全是用作販運用途，但在求情時卻說有一部分是自用。兩種說法亙不相容，本席並不接納申請人自用一部分作為減刑因素。」 （下劃線後加）

13.申請人認為原審法官應該但沒有按照上訴法庭在HKSAR v Wong Suet Hau & Another [2002] 1 HKLRD 69判詞第34段的指引來處理相關的求情理由：

“ 34. Arising from these considerations:

(1) Where, after a plea of guilty to trafficking in dangerous drugs, it is suggested in mitigation, that a significant proportion of the drugs was intended for the consumption of the defendant and not for trafficking, and where it is apparent from the circumstances as a whole that the contention, if true, may well make a difference to sentence, the sentencing court should address the issue.

(2) Having regard to the dangers of the abuse of this avenue of mitigation, the judge should look with the greatest care at all the surrounding circumstances in order to decide whether or not to accept the contention.

(3) In determining whether to accept the contention, the normal rules for determining the factual basis for sentence apply. The factors to be considered will include:

(a) the quantity of drugs and, if known, their value;

(b) the general circumstances, including how the drugs are wrapped, and how many wraps or packets are found;

(c) where the drugs have been discovered, whether at a residential address owned or rented in the trafficker’s own name or in someone else’s name, or whether they were being carried in a public place;

(d) the presence of paraphernalia associated with the drugs, including, on the one hand, items used for packaging, weighing and diluting drugs and, on the other, items which are used for the consumption of drugs;

(e) whether the defendant is an addict, or is otherwise accepted to have been an habitual user of the drug in question;

(f) the explanation given by the defendant following arrest;

(g) the defendant’s general means and his ability to pay for his drugs, otherwise than by trafficking in them; and

(h) the defendant’s criminal record, if any, in relation to previous drug offences.

Usually, a court will be able to determine the issue from these factors without a Newton hearing (see also: Archbold: Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice 2002 para.5-20).

(4) Where it is accepted that a significant proportion of the drugs were for the defendant’s own consumption, it is unnecessary, save in the most exceptional case, where the division is readily quantifiable, for the sentencing judge to specify the relative amounts or proportions, except perhaps in the very broadest of terms. In such circumstances, the court should so adjust sentence as to reflect the fact that not all the drugs were for trafficking. However, in doing so, the judge should keep well in mind:

(i) the fact that possession of dangerous drugs itself carries a term of imprisonment;

(ii) the requirement to enhance sentence for simple possession of drugs to reflect, where appropriate, the ‘latent risk’ factor (see: HKSAR v Mok Cho Tik [2001] 1 HKC 261) which takes into account the risk that some of the drugs intended for self-consumption may nevertheless find their way into the hands of others.

An application of considerations (i) and (ii) may well offset much of the practical value of the mitigation, particularly with certain dangerous drugs which are commonly used amongst friends at social functions, including ice (see: HKSAR v Lam Wai Ip (unrep., Crim App No 214 of 1997, [1997] HKLY 349) and ecstasy (see: HKSAR v Lee Tak Kwan [1998] 2 HKLRD 46 at p.52, [1998] 2 HKC 371 at p.376).

(5) Where the mitigation has necessitated the holding of a Newton enquiry, after which the mitigation is rejected, the court will be entitled to reduce, by an amount appropriate to the circumstances, the discount normally given, following a plea of guilty (see: R v Lee Chiu Pang [1995] 2 HKC 523 at p.526).

(6) Sentencers should remember as to ‘trafficking’ itself, that its gravity is not mitigated in those cases where the trafficker is trafficking in order to fund drugs intended to feed his own addiction (see: The Queen v Lau Tak Ming & Others [1990] 2 HKLR 370 at p.385). ”

14.申請人援引HKSAR v Cheung Wai Man [2019] 1 HKLRD 817 指出：刑期扣減在毒品中有顯著或極可觀的部份乃自用時適用，幅度為10%至25%，但法庭亦有酌情權在自用部份未達這幅度時給予某程度的減免。

15.申請人援引 HKSAR v Chong Chee-meng CACC 315/2007 指出：根據案例，被告雖然認罪，卻有權在求情階段提出全部或部份毒品乃自用作請求輕判的理由；法庭若然不接受而被告又堅持，法庭便須進行紐頓聆訊以處理相關的議題；當中的舉證責任由被告承擔，以民事的相對比較可能為標準。

16.問題是：原審法官在求情階段和辯方對話之中強調他不需要跟從上訴法庭的指引來處理有關的議題，認為指引缺乏邏輯（AB14B-17U）；結果是他既不接納部份毒品乃申請人自用，又沒有在辯方堅持該説法下展開紐頓聆訊。

17.申請人認為：按照涉案毒品的份量，合適的量刑起點是7年1個月；基於申請人過往有藏毒前科而尿液樣本中又有安非他明的事實，原審法官實應該給予她一些扣減，幅度是不少於10%。

答辯方回應

18.答辯方認為：原審法官表示不會跟從Wong Suet Hau一案，說法或許有商榷之處，但他處理本案的方法，實際上與Wong案甚或其後的案例同出一轍。

19.答辯方解釋：申請人透過其代表大律師在《辯方求情陳詞綱要》表明，她不肯定毒品中的自用份量（AB22），申請人既不是也不可能以極可觀部分的毒品乃自用為請求輕判的理由；原審法官在和辯方的對話中甚至指出，即使讓申請人作供，她也一定不能說服法庭（AB17P-V）。

20.答辯方援引香港特別行政區 訴 江達隆 [2018] 5 HKLRD 623指出（判詞第58至70段）：是否因為被告打算以小部份毒品作自用而給予扣減及其幅度，全屬法庭根據個別案件的情況而作出的酌情決定；被告在一般情況下不能以未能取得扣減或扣減幅度不足作上訴理由，要求上訴法庭作出進一步的減刑。

判決

21.原審法官對Wong Suet Hau等一系列的案例持不同意見，以致剝奪了自己考慮在‘顯著或極可觀的部份乃自用’的情況以外，酌情給予申請人若干扣減的空間。正如我在聆訊中指出，或許原審法官有一點是對的，即儘管申請人作供也未必能影響最終的判刑，但原審法官拒絕跟隨Wong案、拒絕召開紐頓聆訊，卻始終是個原則和程序的問題。我批准申請人就其刑期進行上訴。

申請人：由法律援助署委派陳淑雄律師行轉聘林芷瑩大律師代表

答辯人：由律政司高級檢控官李卓穎先生代表