新量刑指引是否追溯適用？減刑

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v Lam Man Tak (林文德) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Hon Macrae VP, Zervos JA and K Yeung J - 判決日期：2026年1月20日 ### 案情摘要 申請人林文德於2018年2月6日被裁定兩項販運危險藥物罪名成立，涉及可卡因共1,074.46克，被判處總刑期22年4個月監禁。他曾於2019年5月就定罪申請上訴許可但被駁回。2024年11月19日，申請人再次提交申請，要求逾期就判刑上訴，理由是他曾向當局提供協助。隨後，鑑於2025年3月5日頒布的《HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3)》判決修訂了大量海洛英、可卡因及「冰」毒的量刑指引，申請人再提出額外上訴理據，要求適用新指引以減輕刑罰。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議有二：第一，申請人是否應因其向當局提供的協助而獲得減刑。第二，2025年頒布的《Huang Ruifang (No 3)》修訂量刑指引是否應追溯適用於申請人於2016年犯下的罪行及2018年作出的判刑，尤其是在《香港人權法案》第12(1)條及終審法院在《Seabrook v HKSAR》案中確立的三項條件下，如何認定「事態狀況 (state of affairs)」的起始日期。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭裁定，根據《香港人權法案》第12(1)條及《Seabrook》案的原則，新的量刑指引可追溯適用於在「事態狀況」開始後仍在「系統內 (in the system)」的案件。法庭明確指出，導致《Huang Ruifang (No 3)》指引修訂的「事態狀況」始於2018年9月18日《HKSAR v Kilima Abubakar Abbas》案判決之日。由於申請人於2018年2月6日被判刑，早於此日期，但因其就協助當局而獲准逾期上訴，法庭酌情將其視為仍在「系統內」的案件。然而，法庭強調量刑不僅是算術問題，還需考慮被告人的角色和罪責。儘管新的指引可能導致較低的起點刑期，但考慮到申請人販毒活動的性質和其較高的罪責，其原判刑期並非顯然過高。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用了以下案例： - HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138：確立了新的危險藥物販運量刑指引。 - Seabrook v HKSAR (1999) 2 HKCFAR 184：確立了量刑指引追溯適用的三項條件，特別是關於「事態狀況」的認定。 - HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437：舊的危險藥物販運量刑指引案例。 - HKSAR v Kilima Abubakar Abbas [2018] 5 HKLRD 88：法庭認定此案標誌著導致新量刑指引的「事態狀況」的開始。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭批准申請人就其向當局提供協助的理據減刑。法庭將其總刑期從22年4個月監禁減至20年9個月監禁，即減刑1年7個月，相當於略多於7%的折扣。具體而言，第一項控罪的刑期減至20年監禁，第二項控罪的刑期不變，其中9個月與第一項控罪的刑期分期執行。 ### 判決啟示 本判決明確了《香港人權法案》第12(1)條中「較輕刑罰」追溯適用原則的界限，並將導致危險藥物販運量刑指引修訂的「事態狀況」起始日期定為2018年9月18日。這為未來類似案件中新舊量刑指引的適用提供了清晰的指導，強調了終審法院《Seabrook》案中「仍在系統內」原則的重要性，同時重申了量刑時需綜合考慮被告人角色和罪責，而非僅僅依賴藥物數量進行算術計算。 --- ### 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 Lam Man Tak (林文德) - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Macrae VP, Zervos JA and K Yeung J - Date of Judgment: 20 January 2026 ### Factual Background The applicant, Lam Man Tak, was convicted on 6 February 2018 of two counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs, involving a total of 1,074.46 grams of cocaine, and sentenced to an overall term of 22 years and 4 months' imprisonment. His application for leave to appeal against conviction was dismissed in May 2019. On 19 November 2024, the applicant filed a further application for leave to appeal against sentence out of time, based on assistance he provided to the authorities. Subsequently, in light of the revised sentencing guidelines for large quantities of heroin, cocaine, and "Ice" issued in HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) on 5 March 2025, the applicant sought to raise an additional ground of appeal concerning the applicability of these new guidelines to his sentence. ### Key Legal Issues There are two main legal issues in this case: First, whether the applicant should receive a sentencing discount for the assistance he provided to the authorities. Second, whether the revised sentencing guidelines from HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3), issued in 2025, should apply retrospectively to the applicant's offences committed in 2016 and his sentence imposed in 2018, particularly under Article 12(1) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights and the three conditions established in Seabrook v HKSAR for retrospective application, focusing on the determination of the "state of affairs" commencement date. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal held that, under Article 12(1) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights and the principles in Seabrook, new sentencing guidelines can apply retrospectively to cases still "in the system" after the "state of affairs" leading to the revision began. The Court precisely identified 18 September 2018, the date of the HKSAR v Kilima Abubakar Abbas judgment, as the commencement of the "state of affairs" that led to the Huang Ruifang (No 3) guidelines. Although the applicant was sentenced on 6 February 2018, before this date, the Court exercised its discretion to treat him as still "in the system" due to his successful out-of-time appeal for assistance. However, the Court emphasized that sentencing is not purely arithmetic and requires consideration of the offender's role and culpability. Despite potentially lower starting points under new guidelines, the applicant's original sentence was not manifestly excessive given his higher culpability. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The key precedents cited in this case include: - HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138: Established new sentencing guidelines for dangerous drug trafficking. - Seabrook v HKSAR (1999) 2 HKCFAR 184: Set out three conditions for the retrospective application of sentencing guidelines, particularly regarding the "state of affairs." - HKSAR v Abdallah [2009] 2 HKLRD 437: The previous leading case on dangerous drug trafficking sentencing guidelines. - HKSAR v Kilima Abubakar Abbas [2018] 5 HKLRD 88: Identified by the Court as the genesis of the "state of affairs" leading to the revised guidelines. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal allowed the applicant's appeal for a sentencing reduction based on the assistance he provided to the authorities. His overall sentence was reduced from 22 years and 4 months' imprisonment to 20 years and 9 months' imprisonment, representing a reduction of just over 7% (1 year and 7 months). Specifically, the sentence for Count 1 was reduced to 20 years' imprisonment, while the sentence for Count 2 remained unchanged, with 9 months of it running consecutively to Count 1. ### Key Takeaways This judgment clarifies the scope of the retrospective application of lighter penalties under Article 12(1) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, setting the critical date for the "state of affairs" leading to revised dangerous drug trafficking guidelines as 18 September 2018. It provides clear guidance for applying new and old sentencing guidelines in similar future cases, underscoring the importance of the "in the system" principle from Seabrook, and reiterating that sentencing must consider the offender's role and culpability comprehensively, not merely the quantity of drugs involved. --- ### 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.