DCCC58/2022

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 周志堅 - 法院：區域法院 (District Court) - 法官：徐綺薇 (Temporary Judge) - 判決日期：2022年6月23日 ### 案情摘要 被告人周志堅受僱以舢舨將 263,200 支未完稅香煙及 28 隻貓狗（未經檢疫且無晶片）從中國南沙走私至香港。在水警追截過程中，被告人以挑釁及危險方式駕駛無航行燈且不適宜操作的舢舨企圖逃避。最終被告人被捕，而另一名同夥跳船逃走。涉案動物被極其擠迫地關在寵物籠內，部分缺乏飲水，且其中一隻母狗處於懷孕後期。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案涉及四項控罪的量刑問題：(1) 沒有停船；(2) 危害他人在海上的安全；(3) 輸入未列艙單貨物；(4) 殘酷對待動物。辯方主要提出被告人家庭窮困（需支付昏迷弟弟醫療費）及深感後悔等求情理由，並主張部分加重刑責因素不適用於商業走私環境。 ### 判決理由 法官在量刑時採取以下分析：對於海上安全，考慮到舢舨缺乏航行燈及被告人的危險駕駛行為，對乘客構成威脅。對於走私貨物，法官認為走私動物比一般貨物更嚴重，因其涉及生命危險且缺乏自救能力，故上調量刑起點。對於殘酷對待動物，引用馮志凱案之原則，認為將大量動物擠在狹小籠內且忽視福利屬文明社會不能容忍之行為，具阻嚇性刑罰之必要。最後根據總量刑原則 (totality principle) 調整各項刑期之同期或分期執行方式。 ### 引用案例與條文 引用 HKSAR v Yeung Wui (CACC415/2004)、HKSAR v Wong Song (CACC82/2014) 及 HKSAR v Ng Chi Chiu (CACC208/2013) 衡量海上安全量刑；引用 HKSAR v Wong Man Hon (CACC 88/2000) 及 HKSAR v Lee Tai Sang (HCMA 132/2012) 參考走私貨物價值之量刑；引用 HKSAR v Fung Chi Kai [2019] 4 HKLRD 175 確立殘酷對待動物之量刑原則。 ### 裁決與命令 被告人承認所有控罪。法官裁定總刑期為 24 個月監禁。具體安排為：控罪一（2個月）與控罪二（10個月）同期執行；其中 6 個月與控罪三（14個月）分期執行；控罪四（10個月）其中 4 個月與前三項分期執行。 ### 判決啟示 本判決強調走私活體動物與走私一般貨物在法律評價上的差異，認為危及生命及忽視動物福利應視為嚴重的加重因素，即使在商業走私背景下，亦不能免除對殘酷對待動物之嚴厲懲處。 --- ### 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 Chow Chi Kin - Court: District Court - Judge: Chow Yee Wai (Temporary Judge) - Date of Judgment: 23 June 2022 ### Factual Background The defendant was hired to smuggle 263,200 untaxed cigarettes and 28 cats and dogs from South China to Hong Kong via a sampan. During a police chase, the defendant operated the vessel—which lacked navigation lights and safety equipment—in a provocative and dangerous manner. Upon arrest, it was found that the animals were kept in severely overcrowded cages, some without water, including a heavily pregnant dog, all without quarantine or microchips. ### Key Legal Issues The primary issue was the sentencing for four charges: failing to stop, endangering safety at sea, importing unmanifested cargoes, and cruelty to animals. The defense pleaded for leniency based on the defendant's poverty, his need to fund his comatose brother's medical treatment, and argued that certain aggravating factors for animal cruelty might not apply in a commercial smuggling context. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge determined that the lack of navigation lights and the defendant's reckless maneuvering posed a significant threat to safety. Regarding smuggling, the judge ruled that smuggling live animals is more severe than general goods because it risks lives and exploits creatures unable to save themselves. For animal cruelty, the judge applied the principle that such acts are abhorrent to a civilized society and require deterrent sentences due to the severe stress and physical suffering caused by the overcrowded conditions. ### Key Precedents & Statutes CACC415/2004, CACC82/2014, and CACC208/2013 were used for maritime safety sentencing. CACC 88/2000 and HCMA 132/2012 provided benchmarks for the value of smuggled goods. HKSAR v Fung Chi Kai [2019] 4 HKLRD 175 was cited to establish the sentencing principles for cruelty to animals. ### Decision & Orders The defendant pleaded guilty to all charges. The judge imposed a total sentence of 24 months' imprisonment. Charges 1 (2 months) and 2 (10 months) run concurrently; 6 months of that term run consecutively with Charge 3 (14 months); and 4 months of Charge 4 (10 months) run consecutively with the others. ### Key Takeaways The judgment highlights that smuggling live animals is treated more severely than smuggling inanimate goods due to the inherent risk to life. It reinforces that commercial motives do not mitigate the gravity of animal cruelty, which warrants deterrent punishment. --- ### 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.