香港特別行政區 訴 張海清

DCCC 621/2024

[2025] HKDC 688

香港特別行政區

區域法院

刑事案件2024年第621號

________________________

________________________

________________________

判刑理由書

________________________

1.被告人承認一項「販運危險藥物」，違反香港法例第134章《危險藥物條例》第4(1)(a)及(3)條。

案情撮要

2.被告人承認的案情撮要內容如下：

(i)  2024年1月30日早上約6時43分，警務人員在九龍深水埗元州街與南昌街交界附近看見被告人騎着單車高速行駛，於是截停被告人查問。

(ii)  經搜身，警員20957（控方第一證人）在被告人外套右袋內發現一個黑色膠袋，內有7個可再封口膠袋。該7個可再封口膠袋內有合共170 粒膠包，載有內含36.5克海洛英鹽酸鹽（一種海洛英鹽）的共46.4克混合劑（證物1）。

(iii)  同日早上約6時46分，控方第一證人拘捕被告人。被告人在警誡下表示：「有人叫我將啲嘢攞去通州街公園擺低」。

(iv)  控方第一證人在警署向被告人作進一步搜查，發現被告人身上有一部流動電話及現金港幣3,641.50元。

(v)  政府化驗師證實證物1的毒品成份。

(vi)  證物1於2024年1月30日估計市值港幣34,661元。

(vii)  被告人其後進行錄影會面，在警誡下說出以下事情：

(i)  有人指示被告人帶一個黑色膠袋到通州街公園，報酬港幣500元。該人向被告人表示到達後會有人聯絡被告人；

(ii)  被告人知道該黑色膠袋內有毒品；及

(iii)  在被告人身上發現的現金港幣3,641.50元是綜援金。

總結

(viii)  案發時，被告人非法販運危險藥物，即證物1。

被告人的背景

3.被告人現年63歲、離婚、沒有子女，獨居，依靠綜援為生。他患有哮喘，但因吸食毒品，沒有繼續食用哮喘藥。

4.被告人有25次刑事定罪紀錄，涉及37項控罪，其中23項與毒品有關，包括12項「販運危險藥物」。他最新近一次被定罪的日期為2019年9月13日，罪名為「販運危險藥物」，被判處30個月監禁，並於2020年8月15日刑滿出獄。

量刑

5.「販運危險藥物」是極嚴重的控罪，最高刑期為罰款500萬及終身監禁。上訴法庭亦已就販運不同種類的危險藥物訂明指引。

6.上訴法庭於HKSAR v Huang Ruifang（黃瑞芳）CACC 106/202（2025年3月5日）就販運海洛英訂定新的量刑指引。販運10至50克海洛英鹽酸鹽的量刑基準為5至8年監禁。

7.被告人有類同前科是加刑因素：HKSAR v Abdallah Anwar Abbas [2009] 2 HKLRD 437第42至43段、HKSAR v Lau Tsz Ho [2015] 1 HKC 492及HKSAR v Har Tsz Yui [2020] 1 HKLRD 307.

8.大律師亦承認該量刑起點適用於負責運送危險藥物的人士（couriers）：HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290。

討論

9.本案只涉及一類危險藥物。大律師指，根據上述量刑指引，適當的初步量刑基準為6.9年（即83個月監禁）。本席同意。

加刑因素

10.大律師承認被告人過往有多項「販運危險藥物」的刑事定罪紀錄；是一名名乎其實的積犯。大律師亦同意此乃加刑因素，但要求法庭只酌量加刑3個月了事。

11.於HKSAR v Butt Muhammad Gulzar [2020] HKCA 597（CACC 205/2019，2020年7月17日），上訴法庭指唯有大幅加刑才可達致阻嚇作用（the enhancement must be substantial to have a deterrent value）；少於6個月的加刑並無阻嚇作用（亦見HKSAR v Shah Syed Arif [2016] 4 HKLRD 664；HKSAR v Ali Saif [2018] HKCA 358（CACC 309/2017，2018年6月14日）及HKSAR v Joof Saihou [2018] 3 HKLRD 456。

12.被告人過往有共12項「販運危險藥物」的刑事定罪紀錄。他多次被判處監禁，但仍冥頑不靈。本席提及上述案例後，大律師接受最少加刑6個月。本席將量刑基準上調7個月，即量刑起點為90個月監禁。

減刑因素

13.被告人適時認罪，可獲三分一的扣減，刑期減為60個月監禁（即5年監禁）。

14.於陳詞中，大律師指被告人被捕後一直和警員充分合作，亦於錄影會面中作出招認。大律師承認，認罪的扣減已是減刑的最高分水線（High Watermark），涵蓋悔意及所有其他求情因素（HKSAR v NGO Van Nam [2016] 5 HKC 231)。他亦撤回該陳詞。

15.大律師亦指被告人已過花甲之年，希望法庭可酌情減刑。

16.Sentencing in Hong Kong 11^th Edition解釋：

“[30-31] At some point, the more mature age an accused may start to operate as a mitigating factor… This is particularly so if combined with a clear record… In Secretary for Justice v Wong Hong Leung [2010] 1 HKLRD 226, 235… Stock VP said, in relation to an accused of good character aged 71, that:

[W]e will accord credit for the fact that until relatively late in life, this respondent was a hard-working family man who had committed no criminal offences and had made some positive contribution to society.”

[30-32] The point at which the maturity of the accused is relevant as mitigation is sometimes said to have been reached at the age of 60… However, in HKSAR v Chow Chi Ming [2006] HKCU 398 (HCMA 1247/2005, 21 February 2006, unreported), Leung DJ said it was generally accepted that ‘old age, less extremely advanced in age, is generally not a mitigating factor’. In HKSAR v Lau Yuk Huen [2008] HKCU 864 (CACC 37/2008, 5 June 2008, unreported), it was said that the 66-year-old accused was not to be regarded as old.…

[30-34] In some circumstances, the advanced age of the accused will count for little, as in HKSAR v Kwok Sau Chun [2010] HKCU 1901 (HCMA 543/2010, 28 August 2020, unreported), where the 82 year old offender, a recidivist, committed the offence ‘with eyes wide open’. In R v Clarke; R v Cooper [2017] EWCA Crim 393…, the English Court of Appeal, in considering cases involving accused aged 101 and 97, held that although an offender’s life expectancy, age, health and prospect of dying in prison where factors legitimately to be taken into account in sentencing, they had to be balanced against the gravity of the offending…, and the public interest in seeing adequate punishment for very serious crimes…

[30-35] In R v Chen Chun Yeh [1997] HKCU 144 (CACC 513/1996, 12 February 1997, unreported), an 88-year-old heroin trafficker who challenged his sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment was told that there was nothing the Court of Appeal could do as leniency would encourage the syndicate to recruit aged persons. A 78-year-old drug trafficker received short shrift when he sought to pray in aid his age as mitigation in HKSAR v Wong Wan [2001] HKCU 117 (CACC 384/2000, 20 February 2001, unreported)  (see also HKSAR v Lau Wai Ping [2009] HKCU 1914 (CACC 303/2008, 30 October 2009, unreported). Were it otherwise, ‘those who are inveigled into taking part in the manufacture and trafficking of dangerous drugs will be the lame, the halt, the blind, the young and the old - people who may have some ground for pleading for the mercy of the court if they are in fact, arrested’: Lam Hak Hung v R (CACC 724/1972, 20 March 1973, unreported), as approved in Attorney General v Chan Chi Mei Wah [1990] 1 HKLR 190, 193…

[30-36] In HKSAR v Lau Wai Ping [2009] HKCU 1914 (CACC 303/2008, 30 October 2009, unreported), Yeung JA said ‘the judge took the view that old age was of no or little weight in drug trafficking cases. The judge was right’ (See also HKSAR v Cheng Wing Shui [2004] HKCU 906 (CACC 169/2004, 6 August 2004, unreported); R v Aramah (1982)  76 Cr App R 190; R v Hanouda (1982)  4 Cr App R (S)  137.)

17.大律師接受上述法律原則，撤回他的陳述。

18.大律師另指出2022年至2023年間，被告人因吐血而住院10多天。首先，就算根據辯方的陳詞，被告人現在沒有服藥。再者被告人的身體狀況並非減刑因素。

19.Sentencing in Hong Kong 11^th Edition指出：

“[30-174] The ill health of an accused ‘is not a license to commit crime’: Clarkson v R (2007)  171 A Crim R 1, 49.

[30-175] In Yip Kai Foon v HKSAR [2000] 1 HKC 335, 339 … Li CJ said: ‘Under the guidelines and principles evolved by the court, medical grounds will seldom, if ever, be a basis for reducing the sentence for crimes of gravity’. …

[30-176] The objective criminality of particular offences will often be such that the sentence of imprisonment which is otherwise appropriate is necessary, irrespective of health factors: HKSAR v Tong Fuk Sing [1999] 3 HKC 332, 336 … The Correctional Services Department operates ‘excellent’ medical facilities: HKSAR v Wong Chi Choi [2005] HKCU 1443 (HCMA 628/2005, 6 October 2005, unreported). In HKSAR v Woo Shun cheong and Anor [1998] HKCU 2082 (CACC 120/1998, 10 December 1998, unreported), an aged offender who complained of ill health was told that his condition could be ‘adequately dealt with in prison’.

[30-177] In HKSAR v Tam Yuen Tong [2007] 1 HKLRD 894, 896 …, McMahon J made the point that ‘as a matter of reality most prisoners receive medical attention in prison of an equal or better standard than they would otherwise receive’. In HKSAR v Chan Kau Tai [2008] 3 HKC 78, 89 … , it was noted that the accused who needed a liver transplant was being attended to in the custodial ward at Queen Mary Hospital and was ‘in good hands’. Save in the rarest of cases, a ‘prisoner’s medical condition is not a matter to which this court will have regard for mitigation of a proper sentence’: R v Ho Mei Lin [1996] 4 HKC 491, 493. …

[30-179] In HKSAR v Bayanmunkh [2012] 2 HKC 233, 238, McWalters J said that the sound policy reasons which underpinned this approach to the sentencing of offenders were:

(1)  the courts could not by their sentences appear to endorse the view that ill-health was a license to commit crime or in some way shield an accused from the consequences of his conduct; …

[30-180] In Attorney General v So Chee Kong, Eddie [1994] HKCU 75 (CAAR 9/1992, 8 June 1994, unreported), the court, having been told that if the sentence of the accused was to be extended his mental health would suffer, responded that ‘it would not, we are satisfied, be proper for us to give weight to possible deterioration in his health. It is a matter for the Prison Authorities to see that he receives proper medical attention’ (approved in HKSAR v Cheung Suet Ting [2010] 6 HKC 249, 261 …”

20.大律師指被告人為了500元報酬而犯案。眾所周知，因經濟原因而犯案並非減刑原因。換言之，本案中除了適時認罪之外，並無其他減刑因素。本席下令判處被告人60個月監禁（即5年監禁）。