販運危險藥物部分自用如何量刑？減刑

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 卓健文 - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：鄧國楨副庭長、關淑馨法官、張慧玲法官 - 判決日期：2010年6月29日 ### 案情摘要 申請人卓健文被控販運危險藥物罪。警方在公廁內發現申請人與另一男子形跡可疑，並在申請人褲袋內搜出60小包海洛英。申請人被捕後聲稱毒品是剛向陳惠強購買，用於自食，並支付了13,200元。政府化驗師證實毒品內含15.77克海洛英鹽酸鹽。申請人認罪，但聲稱部分毒品供自用。原審法官進行紐頓聆訊 (Newton Hearing) 後，裁定申請人為賣家而非買家，並判處3年7個月監禁。申請人就判刑提出上訴。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於，當被告承認販運危險藥物但聲稱部分毒品供自用時，應如何處理其求情理由。控方在原審時接納申請人為買家，但原審法官在紐頓聆訊中裁定申請人為賣家。上訴法庭需審視原審法官的裁定是否恰當，以及在部分毒品自用的情況下，量刑應如何調整。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭指出，原審法官在紐頓聆訊中裁定申請人為賣家，但未有清楚表明不接納控辯雙方對申請人買家身份的立場。儘管申請人就資金來源撒謊，這不必然推翻其買家身份。考慮到控方在原審時接納申請人為買家，上訴法庭決定以申請人為買家作基礎處理。法庭重申，即使部分毒品自用，量刑扣減幅度不會很大，因為自用毒品仍有被販運的潛在風險。本案中，考慮到申請人為癮君子且有管有危險藥物前科，部分毒品會自用，故給予適當扣減。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了HKSAR v Wong Suet Hau and Anor [2002] 1 HKLRD 69 和 香港特別行政區 訴 鄭文波 [2008] 4 HKLRD 841 兩宗案件，以處理被告承認販運危險藥物但以部分毒品自用為求情理由的問題。這些案例確立了即使部分毒品自用，量刑時應給予恰當扣減，但幅度不會很大的原則。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭批准申請人的上訴許可申請，並將其視為正式上訴。上訴得直，法庭將申請人的刑期由原審的3年7個月減至3年。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了在販運危險藥物案件中，被告聲稱部分毒品自用時的量刑原則。即使有自用因素，量刑扣減幅度有限，因為自用毒品仍存在販運風險。此外，法庭強調在紐頓聆訊中，法官應清晰表明對控辯雙方立場的態度，並避免僅因被告在某些細節上撒謊而推翻其主要陳述，尤其當控方已接納該陳述時。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: HKSAR v Cheuk Kin-man - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Tang VP, Hon Kwan JA, Hon Cheung J - Date of Judgment: 29 June 2010 ### Factual Background The applicant, Cheuk Kin-man, was charged with trafficking in dangerous drugs. Police observed the applicant and another man acting suspiciously in a public toilet and found 60 small packets of heroin in the applicant's pocket. Upon arrest, the applicant claimed he had just bought the drugs from Chan Wai-keung for personal consumption, paying $13,200. Government chemists confirmed the drugs contained 15.77 grams of heroin hydrochloride. The applicant pleaded guilty but claimed part of the drugs were for his own use. The trial judge conducted a Newton Hearing and ruled the applicant was a seller, not a buyer, sentencing him to 3 years and 7 months imprisonment. The applicant appealed against the sentence. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue in this case was how to handle a defendant's plea of mitigation in dangerous drug trafficking cases where they admit to trafficking but claim part of the drugs were for personal use. The prosecution had accepted the applicant's status as a buyer at trial, but the trial judge ruled him a seller after a Newton Hearing. The Court of Appeal had to determine if the trial judge's finding was appropriate and how sentencing should be adjusted for personal use. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal noted that the trial judge, in the Newton Hearing, found the applicant to be a seller without clearly indicating disagreement with the prosecution and defence's position that the applicant was a buyer. The court held that even if the applicant lied about the source of funds, it did not necessarily negate his status as a buyer. Given the prosecution's acceptance of the applicant as a buyer at trial, the Court of Appeal proceeded on that basis. The court reiterated that even if part of the drugs were for personal use, the sentencing reduction would not be substantial due to the potential risk of trafficking. In this case, considering the applicant's addiction and prior drug possession record, a portion of the drugs would be for personal use, warranting a reduction. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited HKSAR v Wong Suet Hau and Anor [2002] 1 HKLRD 69 and HKSAR v Cheng Man Po [2008] 4 HKLRD 841. These cases addressed the issue of a defendant admitting to drug trafficking but pleading that part of the drugs were for personal use. They established the principle that while a reduction in sentence is appropriate for personal use, the extent of the reduction should not be significant due to the inherent trafficking risk. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal granted the applicant leave to appeal and treated it as a substantive appeal. The appeal was allowed, and the applicant's sentence was reduced from 3 years and 7 months to 3 years. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the sentencing principles in dangerous drug trafficking cases where a defendant claims part of the drugs are for personal use. Even with a personal use factor, the sentencing reduction is limited due to the inherent risk of trafficking. Furthermore, the court emphasized that in a Newton Hearing, the judge should clearly communicate their stance on the positions taken by the prosecution and defence, and not necessarily overturn a defendant's primary statement solely because they lied about certain details, especially when the prosecution has accepted that statement. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.