多項毒品罪行刑期是否同期執行？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v Sum Ka Wa (岑嘉華) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Macrae 副庭長 (VP) - 判決日期：2024年3月1日 ### 案情摘要 申請人岑嘉華因販運危險藥物及製造危險藥物被定罪。2018年10月19日，警方截查同案第一被告程啟峰，在其身上搜出大量可卡因。隨後警方在元朗一單位內拘捕申請人，並搜獲更多危險藥物（包括可卡因、海洛英、氯胺酮及冰毒）及製毒工具。申請人於2020年8月24日在裁判法院認罪，其後案件轉介高等法院判刑。2023年2月23日，申請人於高等法院法官席前確認對販運危險藥物（第2項控罪）及製造危險藥物（第4項控罪）的認罪，並與程啟峰共同確認對另一項販運危險藥物（第3項控罪）的認罪。最終，申請人被判處總刑期26年10個月監禁。 ### 核心法律爭議 申請人提出上訴，主要爭議總刑期過高，且判刑原則錯誤及/或明顯過重。具體而言，申請人質疑法官未有將第2項及第3項控罪的刑期完全同期執行，以及未有將第4項控罪的刑期與第2項及第3項控罪的刑期完全同期執行。控方承認第3項控罪部分刑期與第2項控罪同期執行是原則性錯誤，但認為製造危險藥物比販運危險藥物更嚴重，故第4項控罪部分刑期應與其他控罪分期執行。 ### 判決理由 法庭審視了案件的嚴重性，包括涉及多種類型的危險藥物、龐大的街頭市值（超過3,800萬港元）以及申請人曾有販運危險藥物的案底。儘管如此，原審法官在判刑理由中未有提及涉案藥物種類繁多及申請人的過往案底。控方承認原審法官在處理第2項及第3項控罪的刑期是否同期執行時存在原則性錯誤。鑑於控方承認判刑方法有誤，且申請人及時認罪後判處的總刑期（26年10個月）暗示了一個極高的量刑起點（超過40年），上訴法庭認為申請人的上訴理據有合理可爭辯之處。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了HKSAR v Lam Chi Wa [2009] 1 HKLRD 483、HKSAR v Wan Lau Mei [2014] 4 HKC 75、HKSAR v Kwok Shiu To [2006] 2 HKLRD 272、R v Cheung Wai Kwong & Another [1997] 1 HKLRD 344及HKSAR v Kan Kong Fai [2009] 3 HKLRD 582等案例，主要涉及判刑原則及刑期是否同期執行的考量。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭批准申請人就所有上訴理由提出上訴的許可。法庭亦提醒申請人遵守《實務指示》5.5，關於向上訴法庭提交案例時應引用已刊載的法律報告。 ### 判決啟示 本案的關鍵在於控方承認原審法官在處理多項控罪的刑期是否同期執行時存在原則性錯誤，這為申請人上訴提供了有力基礎。法庭亦強調了遵守《實務指示》5.5的重要性，即應優先引用已刊載的法律報告，而非未經報導的判決書，以確保所有相關方能從案例的摘要中獲益。 --- ### 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 Sum Ka Wa (岑嘉華) - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Macrae VP - Date of Judgment: 1 March 2024 ### Factual Background The applicant, Sum Ka Wa, was convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs and manufacturing dangerous drugs. On 19 October 2018, police intercepted co-defendant Cheng Ke-fung, finding a substantial amount of cocaine. Subsequently, the applicant was arrested inside a flat in Yuen Long, where even larger quantities of dangerous drugs (including cocaine, heroin, ketamine, and Ice) and manufacturing paraphernalia were found. The applicant pleaded guilty before a magistrate on 24 August 2020, and the case was committed to the High Court for sentencing. On 23 February 2023, the applicant confirmed his guilty pleas before Toh J to one count of Trafficking in dangerous drugs (Count 2) and one count of Manufacturing a dangerous drug (Count 4), as well as a joint count with Cheng Ke-fung for Trafficking in dangerous drugs (Count 3). The applicant was sentenced to a total of 26 years and 10 months' imprisonment. ### Key Legal Issues The applicant appealed, arguing that the final sentence was too high, wrong in principle, and/or manifestly excessive. Specifically, the applicant contended that the judge erred by not ordering the sentences on Counts 2 and 3 to run wholly concurrently, and by not ordering the sentence on Count 4 to run wholly concurrently with those on Counts 2 and 3. The prosecution conceded that ordering part of the sentence on Count 3 to run consecutively to Count 2 was wrong in principle, but argued that manufacturing dangerous drugs is a more serious offence than trafficking, justifying a partly consecutive sentence for Count 4. ### Ratio Decidendi The court considered the gravity of the offences, which involved multiple types of dangerous drugs, a staggering street value (over HK$38 million), and the applicant's previous conviction for drug trafficking. However, the sentencing judge did not explicitly mention the multiplicity of drugs or the applicant's prior conviction in her reasons. The prosecution conceded that the judge's methodology regarding the concurrency of sentences for Counts 2 and 3 was wrong in principle. Given this concession and the fact that a timely guilty plea resulted in a total sentence of 26 years and 10 months, implying an exceptionally high starting point (over 40 years), the Court of Appeal found the applicant's grounds of appeal to be reasonably arguable. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited HKSAR v Lam Chi Wa [2009] 1 HKLRD 483, HKSAR v Wan Lau Mei [2014] 4 HKC 75, HKSAR v Kwok Shiu To [2006] 2 HKLRD 272, R v Cheung Wai Kwong & Another [1997] 1 HKLRD 344, and HKSAR v Kan Kong Fai [2009] 3 HKLRD 582, primarily concerning sentencing principles and the consideration of concurrent versus consecutive sentences. ### Decision & Orders Leave to appeal was granted to the applicant on all grounds of appeal. The court also reminded the applicant to comply with Practice Direction 5.5 regarding the submission of authorities to the Court of Appeal, specifically to cite reported decisions where available. ### Key Takeaways A key takeaway is the prosecution's concession that the sentencing judge made an error in principle regarding the concurrency of sentences for multiple charges, which significantly strengthened the applicant's appeal. The court also reiterated the importance of adhering to Practice Direction 5.5, emphasizing the use of reported legal reports over unreported decisions to ensure all parties benefit from the headnotes. --- ### 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.