販運多種危險藥物應以何種毒品量刑？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 張百軒 - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：潘敏琦法官 - 判決日期：2024年4月16日 ### 案情摘要 申請人張百軒承認一項「販運危險藥物」罪，被判囚56個月。案情指，申請人於2022年3月22日下午在油麻地新填地街駕駛私家車時被警員截查。警方在車內發現多個含氯氨酮（淨重73.3克）及可卡因（淨重6.41克）的可再封膠袋，以及港幣10,150元現金。危險藥物估計市值約港幣58,965元。申請人被捕後聲稱所有涉案危險藥物均為自用。 ### 核心法律爭議 申請人就判刑提出上訴許可申請，主要爭議點包括：原審辯方大律師是否錯誤地以可卡因作為量刑基礎，而非氯氨酮；判刑法官因涉及兩種毒品而加刑3個月是否恰當；以及申請人聲稱部分毒品供個人吸食是否應獲減刑。答辯方則認為原審法官以「綜合方式」量刑，並以毒性較強的可卡因為基礎毒品，符合既定法律原則。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭指出，原審判刑法官採納了辯方大律師的建議，以「綜合方式」就兩種毒品量刑，並以毒性較強的可卡因為量刑基礎，再因氯氨酮分量較多而上調刑期，此做法正確。法庭強調，根據HKSAR v Islam SM Majharul案，涉及販運多於一種毒品時，應以毒性較強者作為量刑基礎，不論其重量。判刑法官亦正確地參考了HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph案，以送遞員角色對申請人量刑。判刑法官所採納的量刑基準，即81個月，通過了Chan Yuk Leong案確立的三種測試，並未偏離其範疇。因販運兩種毒品而加刑3個月亦屬寬大處理。申請人關於自用的說法，因未在求情時提出且與案情不符，不獲接納。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用了以下案例： - HKSAR v Islam SM Majharul [2020] 3 HKLRD 146：確立了販運多於一種毒品時，應以毒性較強者作為量刑基礎的原則。 - HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong [2014] HKCA 161：確立了量刑時需進行的三種測試（荒謬測試、轉換測試、比例測試）。 - HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290：關於送遞員角色的量刑指引。 - Attorney General v Rojas [1994] 1 HKC 342 及 R v Lau Tak Ming and Others [1990] 2 HKLR 370：關於可卡因的量刑起點。 - Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1：關於氯胺酮的量刑起點。 申請人引用的HKSAR v Wong Hung Nin (DCCC 402/2021)案因未經上訴法庭確認且不含具參考性的量刑指引，不具作用。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭不批准申請人就判刑提出的上訴許可申請。法庭認為原審判刑法官並無原則性犯錯，量刑亦非明顯過重，刑期上訴沒有合理爭辯之處，亦沒有成功機會。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了在販運多於一種危險藥物案件中，應以毒性較強的藥物作為量刑基礎，並強調了Chan Yuk Leong案確立的三種量刑測試的重要性。此外，法庭提醒申請人，若上訴法庭認為其申請沒有理據，有權下令申請人損失等候上訴裁決的扣押時間，不被計算為刑期一部分，根據香港法例第221章《刑事訴訟程序條例》第83W(1)條。 --- ### 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 CHEUNG PAK HIN - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Poon J.A. - Date of Judgment: 16 April 2024 ### Factual Background The applicant, Cheung Pak Hin, pleaded guilty to one count of "trafficking in dangerous drugs" and was sentenced to 56 months' imprisonment. The facts indicated that on the afternoon of 22 March 2022, the applicant was driving a private car in New Reclamation Street, Yau Ma Tei, when he was intercepted by police officers. During the search, police found multiple resealable bags containing ketamine (net weight 73.3 grams) and cocaine (net weight 6.41 grams), along with HK$10,150 in cash. The estimated market value of the dangerous drugs was approximately HK$58,965. Upon arrest, the applicant claimed all drugs were for personal use. ### Key Legal Issues The applicant sought leave to appeal against sentence, primarily arguing whether the trial defence counsel erred in using cocaine as the sentencing basis instead of ketamine, whether the sentencing judge's uplift of 3 months for involving two types of drugs was appropriate, and whether his claim of partial personal use should lead to a reduced sentence. The respondent contended that the trial judge's "global approach" to sentencing, using the more potent cocaine as the basis, was consistent with established legal principles. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge correctly adopted the defence counsel's suggestion to sentence on a "global approach" for the two types of drugs, using the more potent cocaine as the sentencing basis and adjusting upwards for the larger quantity of ketamine. The court emphasized that, according to HKSAR v Islam SM Majharul, when trafficking in more than one type of drug, the more potent drug should be the sentencing basis, regardless of quantity. The judge also correctly applied the sentencing guidelines for a courier role, as per HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph. The starting point of 81 months adopted by the sentencing judge passed the three tests established in Chan Yuk Leong and was within the acceptable range. The 3-month uplift for trafficking two types of drugs was considered lenient. The applicant's claim of personal use was rejected as it was not raised during mitigation and was inconsistent with the facts. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The key precedents cited in this case include: - HKSAR v Islam SM Majharul [2020] 3 HKLRD 146: Established the principle that when trafficking in more than one type of drug, the more potent drug should be the sentencing basis. - HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong [2014] HKCA 161: Established the three tests for sentencing (absurdity test, conversion test, ratio test). - HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290: Provided guidance on sentencing for a courier role. - Attorney General v Rojas [1994] 1 HKC 342 and R v Lau Tak Ming and Others [1990] 2 HKLR 370: Referenced for sentencing starting points for cocaine. - Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1: Referenced for sentencing starting points for ketamine. The case HKSAR v Wong Hung Nin (DCCC 402/2021) cited by the applicant was deemed irrelevant as it was a first instance judgment without appellate confirmation or authoritative sentencing guidelines. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence. The court found no error in principle by the sentencing judge, nor was the sentence manifestly excessive. There was no arguable ground for appeal and no prospect of success. ### Key Takeaways This case reaffirms that in drug trafficking cases involving multiple types of dangerous drugs, the more potent drug should serve as the sentencing basis. It also highlights the importance of applying the three sentencing tests established in Chan Yuk Leong. Furthermore, the court reminded the applicant that if an appeal is deemed unmeritorious, the court has the power to order that the time spent awaiting the appeal decision not be counted towards the sentence, pursuant to section 83W(1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 221). --- ### 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.