販毒及管有他人身份證的量刑原則？維持原判

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v FAN KING LAM (樊憬霖) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Hon Hartmann and Fok JJA and Tong J - 判決日期：2011年8月17日 ### 案情摘要 申請人樊憬霖被控兩項罪名：販運危險藥物及管有他人身份證。她對兩項控罪均認罪，並承認案情。原審法官判處她總刑期為6年8個月監禁。申請人現申請上訴許可，認為判刑過重。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議為原審法官在判處販運危險藥物罪及管有他人身份證罪的刑期時，是否存在偏見或判刑過重。申請人質疑法官的言論顯示偏見，並引用其他案例指管有他人身份證的刑期應較短。上訴法庭需審視原審法官的量刑原則及刑期是否恰當。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭認為，原審法官的言論僅是對販毒行為的批評，並解釋法院對此類罪行採取嚴厲態度，並無偏見。對於販運危險藥物罪，法庭確認原審法官以25.79克「冰」毒為基礎，採納7年9個月的量刑起點，並因其他毒品而上調9個月，屬恰當。對於管有他人身份證罪，法庭重申上訴法庭在HKSAR v Li Chang Li [2004-2005] HKCLRT 193案中確立的12個月監禁量刑起點，即使申請人為香港永久居民，此量刑起點亦適用。兩罪刑期分期執行亦屬恰當。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多個案例以支持其判決： - AG v Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2 HKCR 124：用於確立販運危險藥物罪的量刑起點。 - HKSAR v Cheung Kwok Leung [2003] 3 HKLRD 542 及 HKSAR v Cheng Yat Ming, CACC455/2006：用於支持販毒罪刑期上調的原則。 - HKSAR v Chan Man Mo [2001] 1 HKLRD 121：申請人引用此案，但法庭認為其已在HKSAR v Li Chang Li中被重新審視。 - HKSAR v Li Chang Li [2004-2005] HKCLRT 193：確立了管有他人身份證罪的量刑起點為12個月監禁。 - HKSAR v Lau Kwok Wo, CACC181/2008：重申了管有他人身份證罪的量刑原則，即使是香港永久居民亦適用。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回申請人就刑期提出的上訴許可申請。法庭維持原審法官判處的總刑期6年8個月監禁，認為判刑並無原則性錯誤或明顯過重。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了香港法院對販運危險藥物罪的嚴厲量刑政策，以及管有他人身份證罪的量刑指引，即便是香港永久居民，其量刑起點通常為12個月監禁。法庭強調，即使被告表示悔意並積極改過，亦不足以進一步減輕恰當的刑期。 --- ### 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 FAN KING LAM (樊憬霖) - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Hartmann and Fok JJA and Tong J - Date of Judgment: 17 August 2011 ### Factual Background The applicant, Fan King Lam, was charged with two offences: trafficking in dangerous drugs and possession of identity cards belonging to other persons. She pleaded guilty to both counts and admitted the facts. The trial judge sentenced her to a total term of 6 years and 8 months imprisonment. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, contending it was too heavy. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal questions in dispute were whether the trial judge exhibited bias or imposed an excessive sentence for the offences of trafficking in dangerous drugs and possession of identity cards belonging to other persons. The applicant challenged the judge's remarks as biased and cited other cases suggesting shorter sentences for identity card offences. The Court of Appeal had to review the sentencing principles applied by the trial judge and the appropriateness of the sentences. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's remarks were merely a criticism of drug trafficking conduct and an explanation of the courts' serious view on such offences, not bias. For drug trafficking, the court affirmed the judge's starting point of 7 years and 9 months for 25.79 grams of "ICE," with a 9-month upward adjustment for other drugs, as appropriate. For possession of identity cards, the court reiterated the 12-month starting point established in HKSAR v Li Chang Li [2004-2005] HKCLRT 193, which applies even to Hong Kong permanent residents. The consecutive nature of the sentences was also deemed appropriate. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited several precedents to support its decision: - AG v Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2 HKCR 124: Used to establish the starting point for drug trafficking offences. - HKSAR v Cheung Kwok Leung [2003] 3 HKLRD 542 and HKSAR v Cheng Yat Ming, CACC455/2006: Supported the principles for upward adjustment of drug trafficking sentences. - HKSAR v Chan Man Mo [2001] 1 HKLRD 121: Cited by the applicant, but the court noted it had been re-evaluated in HKSAR v Li Chang Li. - HKSAR v Li Chang Li [2004-2005] HKCLRT 193: Established the starting point of 12 months imprisonment for possession of identity cards belonging to other persons. - HKSAR v Lau Kwok Wo, CACC181/2008: Reaffirmed the sentencing principles for possession of identity cards, applicable even to Hong Kong permanent residents. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence. The court upheld the total sentence of 6 years and 8 months imprisonment imposed by the trial judge, finding no error in principle or manifest excessiveness in the sentencing. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the stringent sentencing policy of Hong Kong courts for drug trafficking offences and the sentencing guidelines for possession of identity cards belonging to other persons, where a starting point of 12 months imprisonment is generally applicable even to Hong Kong permanent residents. The court emphasized that remorse and a genuine desire for change, while noted, would not justify a further reduction in an otherwise appropriate sentence. --- ### 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.