DCCC1304/2024

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 區建銓 - 法院：區域法院 (District Court) - 法官：張潔宜 - 判決日期：2025年5月23日 ### 案情摘要 警方突擊搜查一個約1,000平方呎的單位，發現該處被用作煙窟，設有鐵閘及CCTV監控。警方在現場發現被告及16名吸毒顧客，並檢獲包括海洛英、單乙酰嗎啡、可卡因、冰毒及咪達唑侖在內的多種毒品，以及電子磅、銷售收賬簿及吸毒工具。被告承認因經濟困難而在他人介紹下經營該煙窟半年，負責接待顧客及出售毒品。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心 legal issue 在於如何對經營煙窟及販運多種危險藥物的控罪進行量刑。辯方主張被告僅是招呼客人的僱員而非主腦，且毒品規模不大，請求較低量刑起點。針對多種毒品，辯方建議採用 combined approach 計算刑期，並請求就認罪獲得三分之一的刑期扣減。 ### 判決理由 法官就第一項控罪（經營煙窟）參考 HKSAR v Lam Lai Chu Patsy，將量刑起點定為18個月。就第二項控罪（販運毒品），由於涉及多種毒品，法官分析個別方式 (individual approach) 會導致刑期過高，故採納綜合方式 (combined approach)。法官以海洛英作為量刑基礎，並通過荒謬測試、轉換測試及比例測試，將刑期上調以反映冰毒的嚴重性，最後根據認罪情況下調刑期。 ### 引用案例與條文 引用 HKSAR v Lam Lai Chu Patsy CACC 56/2003 關於經營煙窟的量刑範圍；引用 HKSAR v Islam SM Majharul [2020] 3 HKLRD 146 關於 combined approach 的運算步驟；引用 R v Chan Chi Man [1987] HKLR 221 處理咪達唑侖的量刑基準。 ### 裁決與命令 被告被判處兩項控罪。第一項控罪（經營煙窟）判處12個月監禁；第二項控罪（販運毒品）判處46個月監禁。兩項控罪中有6個月分期執行，總刑期為52個月監禁。此外，被告在緩刑期間干犯本案，法庭命令原緩刑案件的刑罰以3個月監禁代替，並與本案分期執行。 ### 判決啟示 本案展示了在處理多種毒品販運時，法庭如何權衡 individual approach 與 combined approach 以達致公平量刑，並說明了經營煙窟罪與販運毒品罪在量刑上的重疊處理方式。 --- ### 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 Au Kin Chuen - Court: District Court - Judge: Cheung Kit Yi - Date of Judgment: 23 May 2025 ### Factual Background Police raided a 1,000 sq ft unit used as a drug den, equipped with security gates and CCTV. The defendant was found inside along with 16 customers. Seized items included various dangerous drugs (heroin, monoacetylmorphine, cocaine, methamphetamine, and midazolam), electronic scales, a sales ledger, and drug paraphernalia. The defendant admitted to managing the den for six months to earn money, handling customers and drug sales. ### Key Legal Issues The primary legal issue concerned the appropriate sentencing for keeping a divan and trafficking in multiple dangerous drugs. The defense argued the defendant was a low-level employee rather than the mastermind and requested a lower starting point. They advocated for a combined approach for the multi-drug trafficking charge and sought a one-third reduction for the early guilty plea. ### Ratio Decidendi For the first charge, the judge set a starting point of 18 months based on the scale of the den. For the second charge, the judge rejected the individual approach as it would result in an unfairly high sentence, opting instead for the combined approach. Using heroin as the base, the judge applied absurdity, conversion, and proportionality tests to adjust the sentence for methamphetamine, eventually reducing the final term due to the guilty plea. ### Key Precedents & Statutes HKSAR v Lam Lai Chu Patsy CACC 56/2003 (sentencing for keeping a divan); HKSAR v Islam SM Majharul [2020] 3 HKLRD 146 (combined approach methodology); R v Chan Chi Man [1987] HKLR 221 (sentencing for midazolam). ### Decision & Orders The defendant was sentenced to 12 months for keeping a divan and 46 months for trafficking. With 6 months to run concurrently, the total sentence was 52 months' imprisonment. Additionally, a 3-month sentence was imposed to replace the suspended sentence from a previous case (KCCC 2070/2023), to run concurrently with the current sentence. ### Key Takeaways The judgment illustrates the judicial application of the combined approach in multi-drug trafficking cases to ensure a fair and reasonable sentence, and clarifies the concurrent sentencing relationship between keeping a divan and trafficking. --- ### 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.