多次復吸者是否仍應判戒毒所令？維持原判

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v KWOK Ka-yee, Karen (郭家儀) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Hon Lunn VP and Zervos J - 判決日期：2017年4月7日 ### 案情摘要 上訴人於2016年1月13日因被搜出藏有9.56克甲基苯丙胺（俗稱「冰」）、19.42克氯胺酮及0.08克含氯胺酮粉末，以及吸食危險藥物的器具，被控非法販運危險藥物及管有吸食器具。審訊時，上訴人辯稱毒品乃自用。法官裁定販運罪不成立，但管有危險藥物及吸食器具罪成立。上訴人曾於1995年及2008年兩度被判入戒毒所，並於2015年因照顧病重丈夫及家庭問題而復吸。原審法官考慮到上訴人有長期毒癮，並接納戒毒所報告建議，判處上訴人進入戒毒所接受治療。 ### 核心法律爭議 上訴人爭辯原審法官判處其進入戒毒所（Drug Addiction Treatment Centre, DATC）的命令明顯過重，未充分考慮其被羈押的9個半月時間。上訴方認為，若以監禁刑期計算，其已服刑時間加上行為良好減刑，已相當於一個合理的監禁刑期。控方則認為，原審法官判處戒毒所令是基於上訴人康復的需要，並無原則性錯誤。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭審視了《戒毒所條例》（Drug Addiction Treatment Centres Ordinance, Cap. 244）第4條，該條例允許法庭在符合特定條件下，以戒毒所令代替其他刑罰，以促進被告的康復。法庭亦參考了Attorney-General v Chan Tak-king & Chan Pau-yau [1989] 2 HKLR 428一案中關於戒毒所治療與一般監獄治療的比較。法庭強調，戒毒所提供針對心理依賴的專注治療，這是一般監獄環境無法提供的。儘管上訴人曾多次復吸，但專家意見指出，即使多次失敗，仍可能從後續治療中受益。上訴人符合戒毒所收容對象的年齡範圍，且其2008年的戒毒所治療曾成功維持7年。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用了《戒毒所條例》（Drug Addiction Treatment Centres Ordinance, Cap. 244）第4條，該條例賦予法庭判處戒毒所令的權力。此外，亦引用了Attorney-General v Chan Tak-king & Chan Pau-yau [1989] 2 HKLR 428，該案例詳細闡述了戒毒所與一般監獄在處理毒癮問題上的區別及各自的優勢。其他提及的案例，如HKSAR v Mok Cho-tik [2001] 1 HKC 261，則是用於討論管有危險藥物的監禁量刑起點。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭裁定原審法官判處上訴人進入戒毒所的命令並無不當，駁回上訴人的上訴。法庭認為，原審法官有權作出該命令，以促進上訴人的康復。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了戒毒所治療在處理毒品依賴問題上的重要性，特別是針對心理依賴方面，其效果優於一般監獄環境。即使被告有多次復吸記錄，只要專家評估認為適合，法庭仍可判處戒毒所令，以提供康復機會。法庭在量刑時會權衡被告的康復需要與其被羈押的時間，但康復仍是重要考量因素。 --- ### 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 KWOK Ka-yee, Karen - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Lunn VP and Zervos J - Date of Judgment: 7 April 2017 ### Factual Background The appellant was found in possession of 9.56 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, 19.42 grams of ketamine, 0.08 grams of powder containing ketamine, and drug paraphernalia on 13 January 2016. She was charged with unlawful trafficking in dangerous drugs and possession of apparatus for drug inhalation. At trial, she claimed the drugs were for personal consumption. The judge acquitted her of trafficking but convicted her of possession of dangerous drugs and apparatus. The appellant had previous DATC orders in 1995 and 2008, and relapsed in 2015 due to family pressures. The trial judge, noting her long-standing drug addiction and accepting the DATC report's recommendation, ordered her detention in a DATC. ### Key Legal Issues The appellant argued that the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre (DATC) order was manifestly excessive, failing to adequately consider her 9.5 months of pre-sentence detention. The appellant contended that, if converted to a term of imprisonment, her time served, with good behaviour remission, would equate to a reasonable sentence. The prosecution maintained that the judge's decision to impose a DATC order was based on the appellant's rehabilitation needs and was not wrong in principle. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal considered Section 4 of the Drug Addiction Treatment Centres Ordinance, Cap. 244, which allows for a DATC order in lieu of other sentences for rehabilitation. The court also referred to Attorney-General v Chan Tak-king & Chan Pau-yau [1989] 2 HKLR 428, which compared DATC treatment with ordinary correctional services. The court emphasized that DATCs provide focused treatment for psychological dependency, which is unavailable in standard prison settings. Despite the appellant's history of relapse, expert opinion indicated that even after multiple failures, individuals could still benefit from further treatment. The appellant fell within the age group most commonly admitted to DATCs, and her 2008 DATC treatment had successfully kept her drug-free for seven years. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The primary statutory provision cited was Section 4 of the Drug Addiction Treatment Centres Ordinance, Cap. 244, which governs the imposition of DATC orders. The case of Attorney-General v Chan Tak-king & Chan Pau-yau [1989] 2 HKLR 428 was also prominently cited for its detailed comparison of drug addiction treatment in DATCs versus ordinary correctional facilities. Other cases, such as HKSAR v Mok Cho-tik [2001] 1 HKC 261, were mentioned in the context of sentencing starting points for possession of dangerous drugs. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge was entitled to order the appellant's detention in a DATC and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The court concluded that the order was appropriate for the appellant's rehabilitation. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the importance of DATC treatment for drug dependency, particularly for addressing psychological addiction, which is more effective than general prison environments. Even with a history of relapse, a DATC order may still be appropriate if expert assessment deems it suitable for rehabilitation. Courts will balance pre-sentence detention with rehabilitation needs, with the latter remaining a significant sentencing consideration. --- ### 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.