氯胺酮販運量刑指引是否過時？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v Choi Tsz Fung (蔡梓鋒) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Hon Macrae VP - 判決日期：2025年8月6日 ### 案情摘要 申請人蔡梓鋒在裁判法院承認販運危險藥物罪，涉及8.18公斤固體（含6.8公斤氯胺酮）。他被轉介至高等法院判刑，並於2024年9月30日被判處監禁16年。申請人於2024年10月15日提交申請，要求就其判刑提出上訴許可。案情指海關人員於2023年4月11日截查申請人，在其背包中發現涉案毒品。申請人聲稱毒品屬於「老闆」，他受指示運送，並以為是「燈飾配件」，但WhatsApp對話顯示他曾多次為老闆接收物品，且報酬遠超其聲稱的每月5,000港元。他更在保釋期間犯下此罪。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於申請人就販運危險藥物（氯胺酮）的判刑是否過重。申請人認為判刑與毒品數量不成比例。答辯方則指出，原審法官已考慮到申請人的角色和罪責，並根據案例HKSAR v Sin Chung Kin設定了23年的量刑起點，再因申請人在保釋期間犯案而增加1年，最終判處16年監禁。 ### 判決理由 法官指出，販運氯胺酮的量刑指引通常較海洛英或可卡因輕。根據Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng的指引，1公斤氯胺酮的量刑起點約為14年監禁，比同等數量的海洛英或可卡因低約22.2%。然而，法官亦強調Hii Siew Cheng的指引已頒布17年，且僅涵蓋1公斤以下的數量。考慮到氯胺酮的合成性質、供應無限以及在年輕人中的普及性，法庭可能需要重新審視其量刑指引，並加入更強的阻嚇元素。本案中，原審法官將申請人視為不僅僅是「跑腿」，而是更深入參與策劃，因此採用23年的量刑起點，並因在保釋期間犯案而加刑1年。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用了以下案例： - HKSAR v Sin Chung Kin [2013] 1 HKLRD 627：原審法官參考此案，就販運超過3公斤氯胺酮設定了量刑起點。 - HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138：此案提供了海洛英或可卡因的量刑指引，法庭用以比較氯胺酮的量刑。 - Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1：此案提供了氯胺酮的量刑指引，但法庭指出其已頒布17年且僅涵蓋1公斤以下的數量，可能需要重新審視。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭批准申請人就判刑提出上訴許可，並發出上訴法援證書。法庭進一步指示此上訴將由三名上訴法庭法官審理，並希望控辯雙方能提供專家證據，以協助法庭重新評估氯胺酮的量刑指引。 ### 判決啟示 本案判決暗示香港上訴法庭可能將重新審視氯胺酮的量刑指引。法庭注意到現有指引已過時且未能涵蓋大數量毒品，並考慮到氯胺酮的合成性質、無限供應及其在年輕人中的普及性，可能導致未來對販運氯胺酮的判刑更為嚴厲。這對涉及氯胺酮販運的案件將產生重要影響。 --- ### 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 Choi Tsz Fung (蔡梓鋒) - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Macrae VP - Date of Judgment: 6 August 2025 ### Factual Background The applicant, Choi Tsz Fung, pleaded guilty in the magistrate's court to trafficking in 8.18 kg of a solid containing 6.8 kg of Ketamine. He was committed to the High Court for sentencing and received a 16-year imprisonment sentence on 30 September 2024. On 15 October 2024, the applicant filed for leave to appeal against his sentence. Customs officers intercepted the applicant on 11 April 2023, finding the dangerous drugs in his rucksack. The applicant claimed the drugs belonged to "the Boss" and he believed them to be "lamp accessories." However, WhatsApp conversations revealed he had repeatedly received items for the Boss for remuneration exceeding his stated HK$5,000 monthly salary. Notably, he committed this offence while on court bail for previous trafficking charges. ### Key Legal Issues The primary legal issue in this case is whether the applicant's sentence for trafficking in dangerous drugs (Ketamine) was disproportionate. The applicant argued that the sentence was excessive given the quantity of the drug. The respondent contended that the trial judge correctly considered the applicant's role and culpability, adopting a starting point of 23 years based on HKSAR v Sin Chung Kin, and enhancing it by one year due to the offence being committed while on bail, leading to the 16-year sentence. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge noted that sentences for Ketamine trafficking are generally lower than for Heroin or Cocaine. Guidelines from Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng suggest a starting point of around 14 years for 1 kg of Ketamine, approximately 22.2% lower than for Heroin/Cocaine. However, the judge highlighted that the Hii Siew Cheng guidelines are 17 years old and only cover quantities up to 1 kg. Given Ketamine's synthetic nature, limitless supply, and prevalence among young people, the court may need to reconsider its sentencing guidelines to incorporate a stronger deterrent element. In this case, the trial judge found the applicant to be more than a mere courier, adopting a starting point of 23 years, enhanced by 1 year for committing the offence while on bail. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The key precedents cited in this case include: - HKSAR v Sin Chung Kin [2013] 1 HKLRD 627: The trial judge referred to this case for setting the starting point for trafficking over 3 kg of Ketamine. - HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No 3) [2025] 2 HKLRD 138: This case provided guidelines for Heroin or Cocaine, used for comparison with Ketamine sentencing. - Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1: This case provided the existing guidelines for Ketamine, which the court noted are 17 years old and may require re-evaluation. ### Decision & Orders The court granted the applicant leave to appeal against his sentence and issued an appeal aid certificate. The court further directed that the appeal be heard by a panel of three Justices of Appeal, expressing a hope that experienced counsel would assist in considering the necessity and formation of any new guidelines for Ketamine, and their potential effect on the present appeal. ### Key Takeaways This judgment signals a potential re-evaluation of sentencing guidelines for Ketamine trafficking by the Hong Kong Court of Appeal. The court acknowledged that existing guidelines are outdated and do not adequately address large quantities. Considering Ketamine's synthetic nature, unlimited supply, and popularity among young people, future sentences for Ketamine trafficking may become more severe. This could have significant implications for cases involving Ketamine. --- ### 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.