香港特別行政區 訴 蔡偉熙

DCCC 1291/2025

[2026] HKDC 1728

香港特別行政區

區域法院

刑事案件2025年第1291號

---------------------------------

---------------------------------

------------------------

判刑理由書

------------------------

1.被告人面對 2 項控罪：

(a) 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（控罪 1）；

(b) 管有毒藥表第1部所列毒品，違反香港法例第 138 章《藥劑業及毒藥條例》第 23(1)、33 (1) 及 34 條（控罪 2）。

2.被告人承認控罪 1。控方同意將控罪 2 留檔；除非獲法庭批准，否則不可繼續予以起訴。

案情撮要

3.被告人承認的「修訂案情撮要」如下：

(1) 2025 年 1 月 24 日晚上約 11 時 25 分，登記號碼 WC1812 私家車（WC1812）停泊在香港新界調景嶺翠嶺里迴旋處BE 1915 號燈柱附近。WC1812 車頭燈亮着，引擎開着，被告人坐在司機位，車上無其他人，當時司機位車窗降下，被告人四處張望。

(2) 警員 19701 （控方第一證人）與隊員身穿便裝乘坐無標記警車巡邏。控方第一證人上前截查被告人，要求他從 WC1812 下車。

(3) 警員 24233 （控方第二證人）對被告人初步搜身。晚上約 11 時 28 分，控方第一證人搜查 WC1812，在司機位車門發現以下物品：

(a) 一個 “eclipse” 品牌藍色金屬盒，內有 5 個可再封口透明膠袋，每個均有綠色樹木圖案，載有內含 4.21 克氯胺酮的共 4.87 克固體（證物1）；及

(b) 一個 “ eclipse” 品牌綠色金屬盒，內有 8 個可再封口透明膠袋，其中 7 個有紅色小豬圖案，一個則開口有一條藍線，載有內含 6.80 克氯胺酮的共 7.88 克固體（證物 2）。

(4) 晚上 11 時 31 分，被告人被控方第一證人拘捕，在警誡下承認管有證物 1 及 2 的危險藥物。控方第一證人其後請求警犬隊協助。

(5) 2025 年 1 月 25 日深夜 12 時 45 分，警員 10093 （控方第三證人）在緝毒犬協助下搜查 WC1812，在中央控制台的暗格內發現一個可再封口膠袋，內有 10 個可再封口透明膠袋，每個均有黑色骷髏圖案，載有內含 3.42 克可卡因的共 3.59 克固體（證物 3）。

(6) 深夜 12 時 51 分，被告人被控方第一證人再拘捕，在警誡下承認管有證物 3 的危險藥物。證物 1 至 3 其後被送往政府化驗所化驗，而政府化驗師證明上述危險藥物的成份及重量。

(7) 證物 1 至 3 的毒品成份總計為 11.01 克氯胺酮和 3.42 克可卡因。證物 1 至 3 於 2025 年 1 月的估計總零售價值為港幣 9,563.46 元。

(8) 深夜約 1 時 29 分，控方第一證人向被告人進一步搜身，在他身上發現現金港幣 21,965 元及人民幣 250 元。

(9) WC1812 由被告人母親 蔡梅笑 Sanjo 擁有。她於 2025 年 1 月 24 日下午約 6 時把 WC1812 借給被告人。

(10) 案發當日，被告人管有證物 1 至 3 的危險藥物的目的為非法販運。

被告人的背景

4.被告人現年 33 歲，獨居。被告人向警方表示曾接受至中六程度教育，但大律師指被告人曾接受教育至毅進程度。被告人向警方表示任職電工，月入約港幣 50,000 元。大律師則指 2024 年 8 月 1 日至 2024 年 12 月 31 日，被告人任職電器技工兼地盤機電科文，月入港幣 50,000 多元。另外，大律師指被告人一直以自由工作者方式承接外判裝修工程，每月賺取 18,000 多元。大律師指案發當日被告人身上的 21,950 元是承接外判裝修工程的工資。

5.被告人向警方聲稱過往 3 年有吸食毒品的習慣，但很少吸食。被捕後的驗尿報告亦顯示被告人體內沒有任何毒品。

6.被告人在香港沒有任何刑事定罪紀錄。

判刑原則

7.「販運危險藥物」是極嚴重的控罪，一經循可公訴程序被定罪，最高刑期為終身監禁及罰款 500 萬元。

8.上訴法庭已就不同類型的危險藥物訂定量刑指引：

(1) 販運 10 克或以下的可卡因的量刑基準為 2 至 5 年監禁。販運 10 至 50 克可卡因的量刑基準為 5 至 8 年監禁；

(2) 販運 10 至 50 克氯胺酮的量刑基準為 4 至 6 年監禁。

9.當案件涉及超過一類毒品時，法庭可採納 2 個不同的方式釐定量刑基準，即個別方式（individual approach）或綜合方式（combined approach）：見 HKSAR v Yip Wai Yin and Anor [2004] 3 HKC 367 及 HKSAR v Islam S M Majharul [2019] HKCU 4447 等案。一般而言，綜合方式最為公平和合理。

10.於 HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290，上訴法庭訂定「販運危險藥物」的 6 步量刑步驟：

“(3) The first step when approaching sentence for an offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs was for the judge to identify the relevant guideline band (or bracket) applicable to the quantity of drug concerned;

(4) The second step was an assessment of the defendant’s role and culpability based upon the evidence. The common categories of trafficking are likely to be encountered in practice included, in order of culpability: (i) the courier or storekeeper, being the lowest rank in the hierarchy - while the guidelines were based upon the courier or storekeeper, the term “courier” is not to be stretched, simply because it was the lowest rank, to embrace the defendant whose actions might fall short of the term; (ii) the defendant who could be shown to be dealing in dangerous drugs, to other others, in the sense of actual or direct trafficking - such a defendant, was not a courier or storekeeper, and was in a more serious position; (iii) the manager, or organizer of those dealing in, or distributing drugs on his behalf; (iv) the operator or financial controller, who made substantial gains; and (v) the organizer or controller of a large and lucrative operation, transcending jurisdictional boundaries;

(5) The third step was to identify where in the relevant band the defendant came, bearing in mind that it might be necessary to go outside that band, whether above or below, given the circumstances of the offence and role of the defendant;

(6) The fourth step required a consideration of aggravating factors bearing upon the “notional sentence after trial” which might justify enhancement of the starting point. While this assessment was within the judge’s discretion, any significant departure from the arithmetically determined starting point ought to be explained;

(7) The fifth step was to consider all mitigating factors simultaneously when assessing the overall discount from the notional sentence, bearing in mind that, in this particular branch of sentencing, personal circumstances would generally count for little. Although a one-third discount for a guilty plea was ordinarily the “high watermark”, it was not an impenetrable ceiling if good reasons in the proper exercise of discretion existed to go beyond it;

(8) The sixth step was to observe the overall sentence passed to ensure that it was fair, just and balanced in all the circumstances of the offence and the offender. When more than one count, or aggravating factor, was involved, care had to be taken that the ultimate sentence was not out of proportion to the defendant’s overall criminality.”

11.於 HKSAR v Yau Kai Fung [2026] HKCA 885：

(1) 上訴人承認一項「販運危險藥物」，涉及內含112.66 克氯胺酮的 130.44 克固體及內含 1.95 克可卡因的 6.57 克固體；

(2) 原審法官以 112.66 克氯胺酮作為基礎毒品，按純數學計算得出 6 年 9 個月的量刑基準。因上訴人亦販運 1.95 克可卡因，法官將量刑基準上調 9 個月，即量刑基準為 7 年 6 個月。原審法官考慮上訴人於案中的角色，指他並非「跑腿」，而是負責直接於酒吧出售毒品。因此再將量刑基準上𧬘 6 個月，即量刑基準為 8 年監禁。上訴人承認控罪，獲三份一扣減。法官判處上訴人 5 年 4 個月監禁。上訴人不服判刑，提出上訴；

(3) 上訴法庭對之前用作測試的 3 種方式作覆核，包括荒謬法（absurdity test）、比例法（ratio test）及對換法（conversion test）；

(4) 上訴方指按比例法，量刑基準為 6 年 11 個月監禁，再因上訴人的角色上調 6 個月，量刑基準應為 7 年 5 個月監禁。因可卡因的數量極少，法庭不應再將量刑基準上調。扣除三份一的認罪折扣後，適當的刑期為 4 年 11 個月監禁；

(5) 上訴法庭指：

“30. In Chan Yuk Leong, the three “check tests” for trafficking in a cocktail or combination of drugs were described by the Court as “only methods whereby the court cross checks whether the total sentence is appropriate”, and not as primary mechanisms for fixing the notional sentence after trial. They were properly applied in that limited way in Islam SM Majharul, where all three were used as benchmarks when adjusting from a base drug starting point, rather than as the source of that starting point.

31. Since Herry Jane Yusuph, sentencing has proceeded under a six-step structure anchored in guideline bands for each dangerous drug. In brief, the sentencing court should: (i) identify the relevant guideline band by reference to the type and quantity of drug (Step 1); (ii) assess the defendant’s role and overall culpability based on the evidence before the court (Step 2); (iii) identify where in that guideline band, or exceptionally outside it, the defendant should properly fall (Step 3); (iv) identify and reflect any aggravating factors that justify an upward adjustment from that provisional position (Step 4); (v) identify and assess any mitigating factors – including, but not limited to, plea and genuine assistance – that justify a downward adjustment from the notional sentence after trial (Step 5); and (vi) finally, stand back and review the overall sentence to ensure that, applying the totality principle in the manner explained in HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho, the court guards against an overall sentence that, through the aggregation of counts or aggravating factors, is inflated or out of proportion to the defendant’s criminality (Step 6).

32. As explained in Lee Ming Ho, Step 6 falls under the heading of “Totality” and is “specifically directed at the danger of arriving at an inflated starting point by means of multiple counts or multiple aggravating factors”. It also requires the judge to “stand back and look at the overall sentence passed in order to ensure that it is a fair, just and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of the offence and the offender”.

33. The Court in Lee Ming Ho made clear that Herry Jane Yusuph was “not advocating some form of unprincipled, final reduction whenever a sentencing judge feels the sentence might be an overbearing or crushing one”, but was “warning of the danger of adding up the sentences for multiple counts or multiple aggravating factors leading to an inflated overall starting point out of proportion to the defendant’s criminality”. Many sentences “may be considered overbearing or crushing for certain defendants, but that is not a reason to reduce a sentence otherwise dictated by the sentencing guidelines.” Properly understood, Step 6 thus operates, within the totality principle, as a safeguard against an “oppressive and overloaded sentence” that may arise from the aggregation of counts or aggravating factors, rather than as a general discretion to reduce sentences which are severe but nonetheless consonant with the applicable guidelines. …”

(6) 上訴法庭考慮了 3 種測試的利弊後指比例法測試最為合適及合理。

討論

12.根據 HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No3)[2025] 2 HKLRD 138，販運 10 克或以下可卡因的量刑基準為 2 至 5 年監禁。沒有爭議，按純數學計算，販運 3.42 克可卡因的量刑基準為 3 年零 9 天監禁（36.312 個月）。

13.根據 SJ v Hii Siew Cheng[2009] 1 HKLRD 1，販運 10 克至 50 克氯胺酮的量刑基準為 4 年至 6 年監禁。沒有爭議，按純數學計算，販運 11.01 克氯胺酮的量刑基準為 4 年零半個月監禁（48.606 個月）。

14.按「比例」測試，3.42 克可卡因和 11.01 克氯胺酮的總重量為 14.43 克；可卡因佔總重量約 23.7 %，而氯胺酮則佔約 76.3 %。雙方同意根據比例法測試，兩種毒品的量刑基準總和為：

危險藥物種類	假設全數危險藥物為同類的量刑起點	佔總重量比例	按比例計算後的量刑起點
可卡因	63.987 個月	23.7%	15.165 個月
氯胺酮	50.658 個月	76.3%	38.652 個月
			53.817 個月（總和） 約 4 年 5 個 月 25 日

15.這只是按毒品類別和數量的純數學計算，即Herry Jane Yusuph的第一步。

16.大律師力陳，沒有證據顯示被告人是屬於實際或直接販運危險藥物（actual or direct trafficking）。被告人並非幕後主腦、組織者、策劃者或經營者；其角色只限於一名倉庫管理員（storekeeper）或送遞員（courier）。被告人沒有刑事定罪紀錄。被告人是首次被判處監禁式刑罰。首 6 個月的監禁對在囚人士來說最艱難（Chan Chi Kong v R CACC 544/1969）。被告人初嘗監禁期間，羞恥感最為強烈，往後被告人或會逐漸適應他的處境。因此，大律師要求法庭採納低於 4 年 6 個月作為量刑基準。

17.首先，上訴法庭已於 Yau Kai Fung述明，之前的三個測試的目的是用作交叉核對刑期，而非訂定量刑基準的方程式（only methods whereby the court cross checks whether the total sentence is appropriate, and not as primary mechanisms for fixing the notional sentence after trial）。

18.就「比例測試」，上訴法庭於 Yau Kai Fung 指：

“39. By contrast, the ratio test is more readily aligned with the present framework than the conversion test. It operates by calculating the sentence that would be imposed for the whole quantity as if it consisted entirely of each individual drug in turn (using the relevant guideline bands), and then weighting these sentences according to each drug’s proportion of the total weight. In practical terms, the court first identifies, for each drug, the starting point that would apply if the entire quantity were sentenced under that drug’s guidelines. It then determines the weight ratio for each drug (the weight of that drug divided by the total weight of all drugs) and multiplies each starting point by the corresponding ratio. This produces a composite sentence calculated as a straightforward weighted average of the starting points, according to their respective weight ratios.

40. Under Herry Jane Yusuph, at Steps 1 to 3 of the structured approach, the court must identify the applicable guideline bands, assess the offender’s role and culpability, and fix a notional sentence after trial. In cases involving a cocktail or combination of drugs, this exercise necessarily requires translating more than one band into a single notional starting point. The primary task of fixing that notional sentence remains a matter of principled evaluative judgment, informed by the guideline authorities. Each drug is first matched to its own guideline band, using the revised guidelines in Huang Ruifang (No 3) for heroin and cocaine as well as Ice, and the bands in Hii Siew Cheng for ketamine and ecstasy (where appropriate, which remain to be reviewed in respect of large quantities). The sentencing court then assesses, in composite terms, the overall seriousness of the offending, considering both the potency and the quantity of each drug, and the relative contribution of hard and soft drugs. It then identifies a single notional sentence after trial that falls within a range consistent with the engaged bands.

41. Within that structure, the ratio test is appropriately deployed in a secondary role as a cross check. … It may assist the court in testing the provisional notional sentence for internal coherence and consistency with the underlying guideline bands. However, it should not be treated as a substitute for the guideline-based evaluative exercise required at Steps 1 to 3.

42. The ratio test nevertheless has limitations and must remain only a cross check. Applied mechanically, it may yield comparatively severe results, for example, where a very small quantity of a hard drug is mixed with larger quantities of softer drugs, or where a low-level courier is involved on a single occasion with a substantial cocktail or combination of drugs. In light of the structured approach set out in Herry Jane Yusuph and the revised sentencing guidelines in Huang Ruifang (No 3), the absurdity and conversion tests no longer serve any useful or principled purpose as cross checks; the ratio test, while conceptually straightforward and consistent with the differentiated guidelines for hard and soft drugs, is to be used only in that secondary role.…”

19.上訴法庭已清楚表明，「比例測試」並非用作計算量刑基準的方程式。它的結果只是按兩類毒品的類型、重量和適用指引而計算岀來的總和。這是初步量刑基準，仍未考慮被告人的角色、加刑及減刑因素。

20.另外，本席不接受被告人的角色是「倉務員」或「送遞員」。被告人承認他並非車主，案發當日只是借用涉案汽車。沒有爭議的是涉案毒品的包裝上有不同標記；包括「綠色樹木圖案」（證物 1）、「紅色小豬圖案」（證物 2）及「黑色骷髏圖案」（證物 3）。如被告只是「儲藏」或「運送」該些毒品，他根本不用將證物分門別類，收藏在車上的不同位置。考慮到整體案情，唯一及不可抗拒的推論是被告人是「直接」及「實際」的販賣者。

21.被告人沒有刑事定罪紀錄。這只顯示沒有加刑因素。況且，面對嚴重控罪，被告人的個人背景變得微不足道，他需要服刑亦是咎由自取。

22.於 Yau Kai Fung，上訴法庭衡量量刑基準時指：

“43. We would apply the combined approach, as the judge did, using 112.66 grammes of ketamine as the base drug and adopting a starting point of 6 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.

44. The quantity of cocaine is relatively small, namely 1.95 grammes. It falls within the first band under the sentencing guidelines for trafficking in heroin or cocaine, namely up to 10 grammes, which carries a sentencing range of 2 to 5 years’ imprisonment. This band is structured both to provide a deterrent effect through the applicable range of imprisonment and to confer on the sentencing court a discretion, where appropriate, to adopt a starting point below 2 years’ imprisonment in cases involving very small quantities of the drug. In such circumstances, a sentencing court should undertake an evaluative assessment in determining an appropriate starting point, rather than simply engage in a purely mathematical exercise that treats 2 years as the baseline for sentencing. The circumstances in which such an offence of trafficking in very small quantities of the drug is committed will be of particular relevance in determining an appropriate starting point. For example, it is not uncommon for a street-level seller to be found in possession of only a small number of packets at any one time, and these circumstances will be an important consideration when fixing the starting point. In HKSAR v Mok Cho Tik, Stock JA (as Stock NPJ then was) explained that the sentencing guideline for possession of a dangerous drug was not an inflexible tariff and did not preclude the imposition of lesser terms for very small quantities where the circumstances so warrant.

45. In our view, having regard to the quantity of cocaine involved in the circumstances of the present case, an appropriate starting point is 18 months’ imprisonment.

46. We would enhance the base starting point of 6 years and 9 months’ imprisonment by 6 months to reflect the cocaine and by a further 4 months to reflect the appellant’s role and culpability, and, applying the totality principle, we would reduce the total enhancements from 10 months to 7 months, resulting in a notional starting point of 7 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

47. The ratio test, used as a cross check, yields a figure of about 6 years and 10 months’ imprisonment, therefore, the notional starting point of 7 years and 4 months’ imprisonment is appropriate, as the ratio test does not take into account the appellant’s role and culpability or the aggravating factor of the involvement of multiple drugs …”

23.本席現使用相同程序衡量本案的量刑基準。本案較大量的毒品為氯胺酮。以純數學計算，適當的量刑基準為 48.606 個月監禁（下捨為 48 個月）。另外，被告人亦販運 3.42 克可卡因。本席將量刑基準上調 6 個月，以反映本案的可卡因。於 Yau Kai Fung，警方是在上訴人的住所搜獲涉案的毒品。本案的被告人則已將毒品外帶。考慮到他的角色及罪責，本席將量刑基準上調 6 個月。顧及總刑期原則，本席將加重刑罰的 12 個月減為 9 個月，即量刑起點為 4 年 9 個月監禁（57 個月監禁）。

24.按「比例測試」，兩類毒品的總量刑基準為 53.817 個月監禁（約 4 年 5 個月）。這並未考慮被告人的角色、罪責及涉及超過一類毒品的加刑因素。因此，4 年 9 個月監禁的量刑基準合適。

減刑

25.被告人適時認罪，可獲三份一的扣減，刑期減為 38 個月監禁。

26.大律師援引 HKSAR v Wong Suet Hau [2002] 1 HKLRD 69 及 HKSAR v Cheung Wai Man [2019] 1 HKLRD 817，指被告人打算將全部涉案毒品作自用。大律師解釋，案發當晚，賣家趕着收工回家。因此給予被告人折扣，以港幣約 4,500 元將涉案的毒品賣給被告人。被告人準備於五天後的農曆新年假期吸食所有的涉案毒品；他於警誡下亦表示涉案毒品是自用的。

27.首先，如所有毒品均作自用，被告人根本不應該承認「販運危險藥物」。本席席前沒有任何證供指被告人稱毒品為自用，大律師不可為被告人作供。辯方的說法令被告人的認罪答辯不穩妥。另外，大律師的說法亦與被告人承認的案情撮要截然不同。於案情撮要的第 10 段，被告人承認案發當日，他管有涉案毒品的目的是為非法販運。

28.後來大律師撤回她的陳詞。被告人沒有刑事定罪紀錄，但認罪折扣已包括良好背景、悔意及所有其他求情因素，見HKSAR v Ngo Van Nam [2016] 5 HKC 231。

29.本案中除了適時認罪外根本沒有其他減刑因素。本席判處被告人 38 個月監禁。