香港特別行政區 訴 唐國輝

Case No.DCCC 1028/2009
Court
District Court
Date11 Mar 2010
Judge
Case Document
100%

DCCC 1028/2009

香港特別行政區

區域法院

刑事案件2009年第1028號

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

  香港特別行政區  
   
  唐國輝  

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

主審法官:

區域法院法官葉佐文

日期:

2010年3月11日上午9時44分

出席人士:

律政司檢控官霍莎莎小姐,代表香港特別行政區
是香緩小姐,由法律援助署委派的M/s. Cheng Chan & Co.延聘,代表被告

控罪:

販運危險藥物(Trafficking in dangerous drugs)

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

判刑理由

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

控罪及案情

1.被告承認販運毒品罪。2009年3月15日晚上9時45分,被告駕駛私家車(登記號碼CS893)時被警方截查,車上另有兩名男子。警方在軚盤後面的一個暗格搜出:

(1)  2包粉末,共重26.26克,內含共21.27克氯胺酮;

(2)  1個膠袋,內有5包固體,共重1.29克,內含共1.12克可卡因。

2.經拘捕及警誡後,他承認氯胺酮是供他與另二人自用,而可卡因是屬於他身旁坐著的男子擁有。

求情陳詞

3.被告現年25歲,中五程度,2008年犯下藏毒罪,被判罰款。他的父親經營裝修公司,事發時他在該公司任裝修工人。他於2007年起染上毒癮,原因是要長時間照顧患上羊癇症的姊姊,以防止她自殺,令他感到極大壓力,唯有藉著吸毒減壓。他的母親在求情信中確認了這些背景。

4.辯方大律師陳詞指警方截查之前一刻,他身旁的朋友才突然將該批可卡因交給他保管,被告不爭議其零售價是$1,161。那批氯胺酮是他以$1,400買來自用及免費請朋友服用。

判刑原則

5.上訴法院在Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng(許守城)[2009] 1 HKLRD 1作出指引,販運10至50克氯胺酮之刑期為4至6年。

6.邵奇副庭長在Attorney General v Rojas [1994] 1 HKC 342 一案言明,可卡因對濫藥者的為害與海洛英相近,固此R v Lau Tak-ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370 一案就販運海洛英所訂之判刑指引可予應用。根據Lau Tak-ming的判刑指引,10克以下海洛英之刑期為2 至5年。

同一項控罪具有不同性質的毒品

7.HKSAR v Yip Pik Kwai [1999] 3 HKLRD 42中的單一項控罪涉及15.67克“冰”及12.05克海洛英。原審法官按照有關“冰”本身的判刑指引,以7年監禁作為起點,另按照有關海洛英本身的判刑指引,以5年監禁作為起點,合共以12年作為該項控罪的起點。梅賢玉法官在上訴法庭指出,若同一控罪具有不同性質的毒品,應先從整體刑期作出發點,先決定該批引致較重刑期的毒品的刑期,才將該批引致較輕刑期的毒品,附加在前者作一併考慮。若後者份量微少,甚至可不用附加在整體刑期上。原文如下(第9段):

“(1)  We think it appropriate to adopt the combined approached used in Cheung Kwok Leung Lowence [CACC 539/2002].

(2)  The 'combined' approach whereby the Court looks at the overall quantity of drugs rather than individual parcels. In taking a global view, the Court is then able to assess, realistically and fairly, the appropriate sentence. For example, sentencing on the basis of individual drugs may lead to absurdity where the addition of the sentences for each individual drug leads to a higher overall sentence than if the whole quantity of the cocktail or batch merely contained the more or most serious of the various drugs : see HKSAR v Wong Kam Wo [2001] 2 HKLRD 290.

(3)  The methodology of this 'combined' approach is first to calculate the applicable sentence for the more or most serious drug, and then adjust the sentence upwards to take into account significant quantities of the other (less serious) drugs :- see HKSAR v Cheung Kwok Leung Lowence, unreported, CACC 539 of 2002, 22 April 2003, Court of Appeal. By "the more or most serious drug", we are not referring to quantities but to seriousness in terms of the potency of the drug. Thus, for example, where significant quantities of Ice and Ketamine are found in a cocktail, the more serious drug is taken to be Ice even in terms of quantity, it may be less than the Ketamine.

(4)  We have so far used the term 'significant' quantities in a cocktail. This is in contrast to insignificant amounts, in which case the Court may choose to ignore such small quantities for the purpose of sentencing.”

本案判刑

8.就21.27克氯胺酮而言,本席以4年6個月作為量刑基準,另所涉可卡因份量不多,本席並不附加刑期。扣除認罪可得之三分之一減刑,被告之刑期是3年。

  ( 葉佐文 )
  區域法院法官

Related Cases
Ranked by citation overlap · cases that cite each other appear first

香港特別行政區 訴 胡少軒 Hennessy

DCCC 494/2012 · District Court
02 Aug 2012
5 shared citations

HKSAR v. Chan Yuk Leong

CACC 318/2013 · Court of Appeal
08 Apr 2014
6 shared citations
Full analysis

HKSAR v. Leung Chun Pong

CACC 5/2009 · Court of Appeal
26 May 2009
4 shared citations
Full analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 湯輝強

DCCC 474/2014 · District Court
28 Aug 2014
3 shared citations