香港特別行政區 訴 何日嫻

HCMA 586/2015

刑事上訴司法管轄權

判刑上訴

案件編號：裁判法院上訴案件2015年第586號

（原觀塘裁判法院刑事案件2015年第2263號）

---------------------------

---------------------------

背景

1.  上訴人被控一項「管有危險藥物」罪，違反香港法例第134 章《危險藥物條例》第8(1)(a)及(2) 條。上訴人於2015 年9 月1 日在觀塘裁判法院承認控罪，並在9 月15 日被判6 個月監禁。

2.  上訴人不服判刑，提出上訴。本席在聆訊後駁回上訴人的上訴，以下是本席的理由。

案情撮要

3.  簡單地說，案情指上訴人於2015 年1 月21 日在街上遭警員截停，並在其褲袋內搜出兩個載有0.39克可卡因的膠袋及13個載有微量粉末內含可卡因的膠袋。

上訴理由

4.  上訴人在2015年9月18日遞交了表格102上訴判刑通知書。上訴人過往有三次「管有危險藥物」的定罪紀錄，兩次被判監，一次被判進入戒毒所。上訴人提出她第二次被判管有危險藥物涉及3 克可卡因，而當時判刑也是同樣的6 個月監禁，因此認為今次判刑過重。

本席作出的考慮

5.  在HKSAR v Mok Cho Tik [2001] 1 HKC 261 一案中，上訴法庭就「管有危險藥物」罪的判刑有以下觀察：－

“…We remain of the view that the starting point for mere possession of a quantity of dangerous drugs which a bona fide user would normally have in his possession should be in the range of 12 to 18 months, (and that is the range that has been adopted particularly for cases in the District and High Court). But that is not the be all and end all of the appropriate starting point. It assumes cases in which a sentence of imprisonment rather than a rehabilitative measure is deemed necessary; and it does not seek to exclude magistrates from imposing lesser terms for very small quantities where the circumstances so warrant. Obviously the quantity will be the main governing factor which will determine where the starting point will lie. If an offender is a persistent offender he can expect the starting point to be higher than it otherwise would be. …”

(第267頁B-D)

6.  上訴人提出她在本案所管有的毒品份量只是0.39克可卡因及內含可卡因的微量粉末，判刑不應如她管有3克可卡因的判刑相同。

7.  在HKSAR v Ramirez [2015] 1 HKLRD 966一案中，上訴法庭考慮了上述Mok Cho Tik一案及該案上訴人管有的0.08克可卡因及0.02克TFMPP是自用的，因此將量刑起點由原審的18 個月減為9 個月。該案上訴人是沒有刑事紀錄。在該案例第19 及第20 段，上訴法庭有以下說法：－

“19. … It follows that the Judge was concerned only with self-consumption. In that context, the mere fact of possession of two different types of dangerous drugs is not an aggravating factor in the commission of the offence. By contrast, in unlawful trafficking of a number of different dangerous drugs that may be an aggravating factor in the commission of the offence.

20. In all the circumstances, we are satisfied that the Judge fell into error in stipulating a starting point for sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment for Charge 2. In our judgment, the appropriate starting point for sentence is 9 months’ imprisonment.”

8.  由此可見，原審裁判官的判刑並沒有過重或在原則上犯錯。

總結

9.  因上述理由，本席駁回上訴人就判刑的上訴，維持原判。