串謀販毒量刑起點的確定？維持原判

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v CHUNG Yat-ho (鍾逸豪) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：楊振權副庭長及夏正民上訴法庭法官 - 判決日期：2011年7月28日 ### 案情摘要 申請人鍾逸豪（第三被告）與另外兩名被告（第一及第二被告）被控串謀販運危險藥物（氯胺酮）及管有危險藥物。警方於2009年9月3日發現兩名男子駕駛輕型貨車，車內藏有氯胺酮。兩名司機承認受申請人招募分銷氯胺酮。本案涉及的氯胺酮總量為228.59克。申請人承認兩項控罪，並就串謀販運危險藥物罪被判處8年8個月監禁，管有危險藥物罪被判處6個月監禁，兩罪同期執行。申請人就串謀販運危險藥物罪的判刑申請上訴許可，認為判刑原則上錯誤及/或明顯過重。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於原審法官在判處串謀販運危險藥物罪時，是否錯誤地採用了過高的量刑起點。申請人一方認為，量刑起點不應高於僅販運所發現毒品重量的量刑指引，且本案串謀性質不應導致判刑超出《律政司司長訴許紹成》案的指引。控方則認為，串謀販運的罪責應考慮協議的性質及所採取的行動，而非僅限於被截獲的毒品數量。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭認為，原審法官在判刑時並無錯誤。法庭指出，串謀販運危險藥物罪的本質在於協議本身及其為實施該協議所採取的行動，而非僅限於被截獲的特定毒品數量。本案中的串謀協議是建立一個無限期的分銷網絡，而非一次性販運。申請人作為主導者，其罪責較高。因此，即使量刑起點高於僅販運所發現毒品重量的指引，亦屬恰當，並未超出《律政司司長訴許紹成》案的量刑指引所涵蓋的範圍。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了《律政司司長訴許紹成》[2009] 1 HKLRD 1 (Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1) 案，該案為販運氯胺酮的量刑指引提供了基礎。上訴法庭在分析本案量刑時，考慮了該指引，並認為原審法官的量刑起點並未超出該指引的涵蓋範圍。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回了申請人就串謀販運危險藥物罪的判刑提出的上訴許可申請。法庭認為原審法官的判刑並無原則性錯誤，亦非明顯過重。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申，串謀販運危險藥物罪的量刑應考慮串謀協議的性質和範圍，而不僅限於被截獲的實際毒品數量。若串謀涉及建立一個持續的分銷網絡，即使實際截獲的毒品數量相對較少，量刑起點仍可較高，以反映其較大的罪責。主導者的角色亦會導致更高的量刑起點。 --- ### 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 CHUNG Yat-ho (鍾逸豪) - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Yeung VP and Hartmann JA - Date of Judgment: 28 July 2011 ### Factual Background The applicant, Chung Yat-ho (D3), along with two co-defendants (D1 and D2), pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic in a dangerous drug (ketamine) and possession of a dangerous drug. On 3 September 2009, police observed two men in light goods vehicles, finding ketamine inside. The drivers admitted being recruited by the applicant to distribute ketamine. The total amount of ketamine seized was 228.59g. The applicant was sentenced to 8 years and 8 months' imprisonment for conspiracy to traffic and 6 months for possession, to be served concurrently. The applicant sought leave to appeal the sentence for conspiracy, arguing it was wrong in principle and/or manifestly excessive. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the trial judge erred in adopting an excessively high starting point for sentencing the applicant for conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs. The applicant contended that the starting point should not exceed the guidelines for trafficking only the amount of drugs found, and that the nature of the conspiracy did not warrant a sentence beyond the Hii Siew Cheng guidelines. The prosecution argued that culpability for conspiracy should consider the nature of the agreement and actions taken, not just the quantity of drugs seized. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's sentencing. The court held that the essence of conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs lies in the agreement itself and the actions taken in pursuance of that agreement, not solely the specific quantity of drugs intercepted. In this case, the conspiracy involved establishing an indefinite distribution network, not a one-off trafficking operation. The applicant, as the person in control, bore greater culpability. Therefore, a higher starting point, even if exceeding guidelines for trafficking the seized amount, was appropriate and within the contemplation of the Hii Siew Cheng sentencing guidelines. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, which provides sentencing guidelines for trafficking in ketamine. The Court of Appeal considered these guidelines in its analysis of the sentence and found that the trial judge's starting point was within the contemplation of those guidelines. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed for conspiracy to traffic in a dangerous drug. The court found that the trial judge's sentence was not wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms that sentencing for conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs should consider the nature and scope of the conspiratorial agreement, not just the actual quantity of drugs seized. If the conspiracy involves establishing an ongoing distribution network, a higher starting point may be justified, reflecting greater culpability, even if the seized quantity is relatively small. The role of the principal or leader also warrants a higher starting point. --- ### 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.