DCCC541/2025

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v Chau Tsz Fung - 法院：區域法院 (DC) - 法官：Tam - 判決日期：2025年12月2日 ### 案情摘要 被告 Chau Tsz Fung 於2024年7月18日在元朗天盈苑被捕。警方在其攜帶的紙袋中發現約1,128克大麻及部分大麻油。隨後警方在其女友租住的單位內搜獲約9,731克大麻、大麻油及大量包裝工具（如電子磅及真空泵）。被告承認經營大麻買賣以償還投資債務，涉案藥物街價超過200萬港元。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要涉及對販運危險藥物 (Trafficking in dangerous drugs) 的量刑問題。核心爭議在於如何計算不同形態大麻（草本及油狀）的總重量以確定 sentencing band，以及被告作為經營者而非單純 courier 的角色是否應導致 starting point 上調。 ### 判決理由 法官採取 HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph 確立的六步量刑法。首先，將大麻油按 3.3 倍權重轉換為草本大麻重量，得出總量約 12,163 克。根據 HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi 的 sentencing tariff，該重量對應的 arithmetical starting point 為 57.5 個月。由於被告經營包裝分發中心，法官將 starting point 上調 2.5 個月，隨後扣除 1/3 認罪折扣及 1 個月前科清白折扣。 ### 引用案例與條文 引用 HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi [2023] 1 HKLRD 1329 確立的大麻量刑標準 (sentencing tariff)；引用 HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 的六步量刑法 (six-step approach) 來分析被告角色及調整刑期。 ### 裁決與命令 被告被裁定兩項販運危險藥物罪名成立。第一項罪名判處監禁 8 個月，第二項罪名判處監禁 38 個月。法官命令其中一個月連續執行，最終總刑期 (aggregate sentence) 為監禁 39 個月。 ### 判決啟示 本案展示了法院在處理混合形態毒品時的重量轉換計算方法，特別是將大麻油轉換為草本大麻的權重因子 (weight factor)。同時強調了被告在毒品供應鏈中扮演的角色（如經營分發中心）會顯著增加刑期。 --- ### 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 Chau Tsz Fung - Court: District Court (DC) - Judge: Tam - Date of Judgment: 2 December 2025 ### Factual Background The defendant, Chau Tsz Fung, was arrested on 18 July 2024 in Yuen Long. Police found approximately 1,128g of herbal cannabis and cannabis oil in his possession. A subsequent search of a flat used by the defendant revealed another 9,731.23g of herbal cannabis, cannabis oil, and various packing equipment. The defendant admitted to operating the cannabis business to repay investment debts, with the drugs' street value exceeding HK$2 million. ### Key Legal Issues The primary issue was the determination of the appropriate sentence for trafficking in dangerous drugs. This involved calculating the aggregate weight of different forms of cannabis to identify the correct sentencing band and determining if the defendant's role as an operator (rather than a mere courier) warranted an upward adjustment of the starting point. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge applied the six-step approach from HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph. Cannabis oil was converted to herbal cannabis weight using a factor of 3.3, resulting in a total equivalent weight of 12,163g. Based on the tariff in HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi, the arithmetical starting point was 57.5 months. This was enhanced by 2.5 months because the defendant operated a distribution centre, followed by a 1/3 discount for the guilty plea and a 1-month discount for a clear record. ### Key Precedents & Statutes HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi [2023] 1 HKLRD 1329 was used for the cannabis sentencing tariff. HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290 provided the six-step sentencing framework and guidance on enhancing sentences for those operating distribution centres. ### Decision & Orders The defendant was sentenced to 8 months' imprisonment for Charge 1 and 38 months' imprisonment for Charge 2. With one month ordered to run consecutively, the final aggregate sentence is 39 months' imprisonment. ### Key Takeaways The judgment illustrates the specific weight conversion methodology for cannabis oil (3.3x factor) when determining sentencing bands. It also reaffirms that operating a packaging and distribution hub significantly increases the culpability and resulting sentence compared to simple possession or couriering. --- ### 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.