販運危險藥物罪的環境證據推論？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：LEE CHUN TAT v HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION - 法院：終審法院 (Court of Final Appeal, CFA) - 法官：李國能首席法官、包致金常任法官、陳兆愷常任法官 - 判決日期：2006年12月14日 ### 案情摘要 申請人於1985年2月犯下販運危險藥物罪行，但在保釋期間潛逃，並於2004年12月從美國引渡回港。2005年5月31日，區域法院裁定申請人販運危險藥物罪名成立。案情指申請人於1985年2月在灣仔被警員發現形跡可疑並逃跑，期間丟棄了10包懷疑危險藥物。這些藥物經證實為88.96克混合物，內含17.61克嗎啡酯鹽，足夠一名吸毒者約25天的供應量。申請人承認管有危險藥物，但否認意圖販運。上訴法庭以大比數駁回其上訴。 ### 核心法律爭議 申請人申請上訴許可，主要爭議點在於環境證據是否足以確立販運的「不可抗拒推論 (irresistible inference)」。申請人援引終審法院在Chan Chuen Ho v HKSAR一案中的判決，認為本案的藥物數量雖大，但不足以必然推斷為販運。答辯方則認為，原審法官作為事實審裁者，有權根據環境證據作出販運的推論，且上訴法庭的大多數意見認為該推論並無不妥。 ### 判決理由 終審法院指出，本案與Chan Chuen Ho案的背景不同。Chan Chuen Ho案是關於「但書 (proviso)」的應用，即在正確引導下，陪審團是否必然會定罪。而本案則關乎上訴法庭是否認為原審法官的定罪「不穩妥或不滿意 (unsafe or unsatisfactory)」。法院認為，原審法官有權從環境證據中得出販運的不可抗拒推論。上訴法庭大多數意見認為，由於沒有證據顯示申請人是吸毒者，且藥物以獨立包裝，數量相對較大，販運是自然且不可避免的推論。申請人沒有提供任何解釋，這也是評估證據時可考慮的因素。 ### 引用案例與條文 Chan Chuen Ho v HKSAR (1999) 2 HKCFAR 198：申請人援引此案，但終審法院指出其背景與本案不同，該案主要討論「但書 (proviso)」的應用，即在正確引導下，陪審團是否必然會定罪。 The Queen v Cheung Ping-chiu CACC 162/1993：此案未經報導，但其關於海洛英吸毒者平均消耗量的數據在本案中被引用以評估藥物數量。 ### 裁決與命令 終審法院駁回了申請人延長時間和上訴許可的申請。法院認為上訴法庭大多數意見的處理方式無可挑剔且明顯正確，申請人未能證明存在實質和嚴重不公的情況。 ### 判決啟示 null --- ### 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: LEE CHUN TAT v HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION - Court: Court of Final Appeal (CFA) - Judge: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ - Date of Judgment: 14 December 2006 ### Factual Background The applicant was convicted in the District Court on May 31, 2005, for possession of a dangerous drug for the purpose of unlawful trafficking, an offence committed in February 1985. He had absconded on bail and was extradited from the USA in December 2004. The admitted facts showed that in February 1985, police observed the applicant acting suspiciously in Wanchai, fleeing and discarding 10 packets of suspected dangerous drugs. These drugs were later confirmed to be 88.96 grammes of a mixture containing 17.61 grammes of salts of esters of morphine, equivalent to about 25 days' supply for a heroin addict. The applicant admitted possession but denied trafficking intent. The Court of Appeal, by majority, dismissed his appeal against conviction. ### Key Legal Issues The applicant sought leave to appeal on the ground of substantial and grave injustice, arguing that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish an "irresistible inference" of trafficking. He relied on Chan Chuen Ho v HKSAR, where the Court found a large quantity of drugs not necessarily indicative of trafficking. The respondent contended that the trial judge, as the tribunal of fact, was entitled to draw the inference of trafficking from the circumstantial evidence, and the Court of Appeal's majority decision was sound. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Final Appeal distinguished this case from Chan Chuen Ho, which concerned the application of the "proviso" (whether a properly directed jury would inevitably convict). This case, however, concerned whether the Court of Appeal found the conviction "unsafe or unsatisfactory." The CFA held that the trial judge was entitled to draw the irresistible inference of trafficking from the circumstantial evidence. The majority in the Court of Appeal found that, given no evidence the applicant was a drug user, the drugs were separately wrapped, and the quantity was substantial, trafficking was a natural and unavoidable inference. The applicant's lack of explanation was also a factor in evaluating the evidence. ### Key Precedents & Statutes Chan Chuen Ho v HKSAR (1999) 2 HKCFAR 198: Cited by the applicant, but the CFA distinguished it, noting its context was the application of the proviso, concerning whether a properly directed jury would inevitably convict. The Queen v Cheung Ping-chiu CACC 162/1993: An unreported decision cited for the average consumption of a heroin addict, used to assess the quantity of drugs in the present case. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Final Appeal dismissed the applicant's application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal. The Court found that the majority approach in the Court of Appeal could not be faulted and was plainly correct, and no reasonably arguable case of substantial and grave injustice had been shown. --- ### 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.