香港特別行政區 訴 鄒漢光

DCCC 101/2024

[2025] HKDC 934

香港特別行政區

區域法院

刑事案件2024年第101號

________________________

________________________

________________________

判刑理由書

________________________

1.  被告人原被控一項「販運危險藥物」及一項「管有毒藥表第1部所列毒藥」，違反香港法例第134章《危險藥物條例》第4(1)(a)及(3)條及 第138章《藥劑業及毒藥條例》第23(1)、33(1)及34條（控罪1及控罪2）。經商討後，控方同意修訂控罪1，改控一項「管有危險藥物」，違反香港法例第134章《危險藥物條例》第8(1)(a)及(2)條。

2.  被告人承認經修訂的控罪1及控罪2。

案情撮要

3.  被告人承認的經修訂案情撮要如下：

(1)  2023年9月19日下午，警務人員於香港薄扶林薄扶林道96號裕仁大廈C座2樓C1室（該單位）外後樓梯埋伏。同日晚上9時55分，偵緝警員20584（控方第一證人）看到被告人從該單位步出，於是將其截停。

(2)  同日約晚上10時，警方執行搜查令。偵緝警員25385（控方第二證人）在被告人於現場見證下搜查該單位，並由該單位入口大門右邊的房間（該房間）開始搜查。期間，控方第二證人在該房間內的電視櫃上發現以下物品：

(a)  一個藍色紙盒，載有下列(b)至(e)項；

(b)  一個粉紅色可再封膠袋，內有晶狀固體（證物1）；

(c)  一個透明可再封膠袋，內有晶狀固體（證物2）；

(d)  一個透明膠袋，內有草狀物體（證物3）；

(e)  一個透明膠袋，內有草狀物體（證物4）；

(f)  一個透明可再封膠袋，內有草狀物體（證物5）；

(g)  一個透明可再封膠袋，內有啡色固體（證物6）；

(h)  一個透明可再封膠袋，內有一個紅色膠袋，內有紫色固體（證物7）；

(i)  兩排錫紙包，載有合共10片片劑（證物8）；

(j)  一個電子磅；及

(k)  一個透明可再封膠袋，內有20個透明可再封膠袋。

(3)  同日晚上10時09分，控方第一證人於該單位內拘捕被告人，罪名是「販運危險藥物」。

(4)  2023年9月20日，警方與被告人進行錄影會面。在提醒警誡下，被告人作出以下陳述：

(a)  該單位是以被告人兒子的名義於約一年前購買的；

(b)  被告人自兒子購買該單位後在該處入住；及

(c)  被告人居於該單位內的主人房。

(5)  政府化驗師其後證實控方證物1至6的危險藥物成份，及證物7至8的第一部毒藥成分：

(a)  證物1載有內含6.56克甲基苯丙胺鹽酸鹽的6.56克晶狀固體；

(b)  證物2載有內含1.21克甲基苯丙胺鹽酸鹽的1.21克晶狀固體；

(c)  證物3載有3.27克草本形態大麻；

(d)  證物4載有3.20克草本形態大麻；

(e)  證物5載有0.53克草本形態大麻；

(f)  證物6載有內含0.96克可卡因的1.78克固體；

(g)  證物7載有內含尼古丁的49.3克固體；

(h)  證物8載有10片內含氯氮平的片劑。

(6)  案中檢獲的危險藥物於2023年9月的估計總市值為港幣約7,044元。

(7)  於案發關鍵時間：

(a)  被告人管有證物1至6（控罪一）；及

(b)  被告人並非按照香港法例第138章《藥劑業及毒藥條例》條文的規定而管有證物7至8（控罪二）。

被告人的背景

4.  被告人現年67歲、已婚、育有一名女兒及2名兒子。妻子及2名年長子女已移居加拿大生活，被告人與幼子在港同住。被告人出生於相當富裕的家庭，家族從事地產發展業務。被告人的父親是一名發展商，早年創立了榮國企業有限公司（榮國），並透過物業發展致富。現時榮國旗下在本港全資擁有多棟商業及住宅大廈，包括佐敦吳松街182號榮國中心、荃灣德海街18號富利達中心及長沙灣青山道115-125號Richway Residences等，透過出租及出售物業作為主要的業務。被告人父母過世後榮國的股份分配了給兒女，而被告人亦成為榮國的其中一名股東，佔榮國800,000股當中的190,000股。被告人的收入來源主要來自公司的顧問費用及股份分紅。

5.  被告人過往共有 10 次刑事定罪紀錄，涉及11項控罪，其中6項與控罪1相同，包括3項管有危險藥物、1項管有工具適合作吸食危險藥物及2項販運危險藥物。餘下的控罪包括營運賭場、傷人、偷竊、搶劫及遊蕩等等。被告人在80年代後期服刑完畢後，曾移居到加拿大繼續學業。90年代初，被告人與妻子結婚及回流香港。2000年後，被告人開始接觸毒品，並吸食不同種類的危險藥物，包括甲基苯丙胺鹽酸鹽（冰毒）、可卡因、大麻及氯胺酮等，繼而染上了毒癮。2004年，被告人首次因管有危險藥物被定罪，被判處18個月監禁。之後更加因販運危險藥物於2008年及2010年分別被判處4年6個月及16年監禁，於2019年才刑滿出獄。

6.  2023年，被告人再次被控販運危險藥物而在原訟法庭接受審訊。2023年12月7日，被告人被裁定販運危險藥物罪名不成立，但他承認管有危險藥物被判罪成。該案涉及三種毒品，包括控罪一的13.64克冰毒、2.47克可卡因、0.22克氯胺酮及控罪二的0.36克冰毒及內含冰毒的0.19克固體。法庭最終判處被告人共22個月監禁（香港特別行政區 訴 鄒漢光 [2024] HKCFI 120（2023年12月7日，未經𢑥編）。

7.  不受爭議的是，被告人是於上述原訟法庭案件保釋期間干犯本案。這是加刑因素。由於就本案被捕，被告人於2023年9月22日被還押。2024年4月11日，被告人獲得保釋，但於2024年11月13日又再因另一宗毒品案件被捕（新案）。2025年2月6日，被告人申請撤銷本案的保釋。新案現時正在東區法院進行交付程序。

量刑原則

8.  控罪一的最高刑期為7年監禁及罰款1,000,000元，沒有量刑指引。控罪二最高的刑罰為監禁2年及第6級罰款，沒有量刑指引。法例第54A條訂明判刑前，法庭須參閱戒毒所報告。根據戒毒所報告，被告人現已沒有毒癮，不適宜被判處戒毒所服刑。

9.  於 HKSAR v Wan Sheung Sum [2000] 1 HKLRD 405：

(a)  被告人被控一項販運34.33克海洛英鹽酸鹽（控罪1）及一項管有3.79克海洛英鹽酸鹽（控罪2）。經審訊後，法庭裁定被告人販運危險藥物罪名不成立，但管有危險藥物罪名成立，就控罪1判處被告人32個月監禁，就控罪2判處被告人12個月監禁，兩項控罪同期執行。被告人不服判刑，提出上訴。雖然被告人是癮君子，但沒有販運危險藥物的前科。

(b)  上訴法庭指：

“6. In determining an appropriate sentence for an offender who is a bona fide user and is convicted of simple possession of heroin or methamphetamine hydrochloride (ice), the authorities indicate that the judges should adopt a three-step approach. (See: HKSAR v Chan Yat-sing, CACC 777/1997; HKSAR v Lau Chi-chiu, CACC 395/1998; HKSAR v Lai Kam-sang, CACC 578/1998). In all of these cases, the three-step approach was emphasised and the accepted range of sentence for simple possession was taken as being between twelve to eighteen months' imprisonment. ….

7. We are particularly indebted to Mr. Blanchflower, on behalf of the Respondent, for having summarised what those steps are, but they are very simple and they come to this:

Step 1: The judge should normally determine a starting point of between one year to eighteen months’ imprisonment.

Step 2: The starting point is increased or enhanced to take account of the latent risk factor in order to arrive at a total sentence. This will reflect the risk to society of the drugs being redistributed and finding their way into other hands apart from the offender’s. The latent risk will be determined from all the circumstances in any particular case, including of course the quantity of drugs possessed and the personal circumstances of the offender.

Step 3: The total sentence is then adjusted to take account of the mitigating factors, such as a guilty plea.

……

11.  As to step 1, the amount of dangerous drugs in count 1 involved a narcotic content of 34.33 grammes.  Plainly, this is a large amount and we accept that this should come into a higher bracket in the range of between one year to eighteen months.  Mr Leung, on behalf of the Applicant, did not precisely put his finger on what that sentence should be, but he appeared in general terms to accept that sixteen months, as suggested by Mr Blanchflower, was appropriate.  We also consider this to be an appropriate starting point.

12.  The second step involves the latent risk factor.  It is apparent from all the circumstances that the risk was not a great one.  The Applicant was a heroin addict.  He had no record for any offence of drug trafficking.  He was employed and, on the evidence, it appears that he kept the drugs in his premises without other people knowing that he was doing so.  We consider that the latent risk factor should not have attracted an additional sentence of more than six months.  In so saying, we have in mind what was said by Power VP in HKSAR v Chew Sik-pok, CACC 502/98, at p. 6:

“We have already quashed the conviction for trafficking and imposed a conviction for simple possession. The facts revealed that the applicant was arrested on 29^th December 1997 at the Sham Shui Po Mass Transit Railway Station when he had in his possession 25.55 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 24.12 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride - the drug commonly known as Ice. He was charged with trafficking and pleaded not guilty. He was found guilty after trial before Deputy Judge Wong and a jury and came before this court appealing against that conviction and was successful. The amount was not large. His evidence was that he was an addict, that he had the amount there for his own consumption and that he would have consumed that amount in about six weeks. He said that at the time he was taking the drugs home having just purchased them. He is clearly a drug addict as he has had eight convictions for possession of drugs since 1992. We note that he has no conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking. We note also that he was in employment at the time of his arrest. These are, when we come to consider what is known as the latent risk factor, important considerations. Following the judgment in HKSAR v LAI Kam-sang, Criminal Appeal No.578 of 1998, we are satisfied that we must start at the currently accepted sentence for simple possession, which is 18 months, and must then, if it is appropriate, enhance that sentence for latent risk. In this case, given the amount and given the time which the applicant admits that he would have that amount in his possession, reducing, of course, from day to day, we are satisfied that there was a latent risk but that it was not one of any real gravity. We certainly do not approximate this latent risk to that which existed in the case of Lau Chi-chiu, Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 1998, where the defendant had 63.38 grammes of Ice. We are satisfied, given that that his original intention was to take the drugs to his home where he usually kept them, that he is in regular employment and that he has clearly been an addict for a number of years without any conviction for trafficking, that the latent risk should attract a sentence of a further six months. We therefore add six months to the 18 months, for simple possession, giving us a total of 24 months. He is entitled to the usual discount for plea as he has at all times been prepared to plead to simple possession. This brings the sentence back to 16 months.

13.  In the present case, the Applicant was undoubtedly an addict and had previously been convicted on four occasions of possession of dangerous drugs …

14.  … It goes almost without saying that if there had been a high latent risk factor in the present case, a considerable enhancement of sentence would have been justified for a quantity of heroin of these proportions …”

討論

10.  就本案適當的量刑基準，辯方大律師援引大量的案例，包括：

(1)  HKSAR v Mok Cho Tik CACC 165/2000（未經彙編，2001年2月7日）：

(a)  該案中的被告人被控一項管有危險藥物，即15.724克的冰毒。1999年9月21日，警方進入被告人的單位，於客廳中的抽屜發現載有毒品的2個膠袋、一個玻璃瓶及一個塑膠匙羹。於雪櫃中發現4個載有液體毒品玻璃瓶。被告人聲稱毒品是作自用，但有時朋友會上到單位一同吸食毒品。經審訊後，被告人被裁定罪名成立。被告人22歲，有一次管有危險藥物的前科。他不服3年監禁的判刑，提出上訴。

(b)  上訴法庭指：

“12. HKSAR v. Lai Kam Sang, CACC 578/1998 was heard six months later, in March 1999. There the quantity involved was 26.61 grammes. The court said that the accepted range for simple possession of this drug was 12 to 18 months’ imprisonment. In that case the trial judge should have taken a starting point “no higher” than 18 months and added a year for the latent risk factor. A doubling of the starting point would not, the court said, be acceptable for a quantity such as this. The resulting sentence before any discount for plea or intended plea would have been one of 30 months’ imprisonment.

13. The starting point of 18 months was again adopted in HKSAR v. Chew Sik Pok, CACC 502/1998. That judgment was delivered in April 1999. The amount found in the possession of the applicant was 24.12 grammes. He had eight previous convictions for simple possession, and none for trafficking. The evidence before the court was that the average dose per unit for an addict in Hong Kong was 0.7 grammes, and that the quantity with which the applicant in that case was found would have lasted him six weeks. The court there noted that he was clearly a drug addict, and had no convictions for trafficking, and that that he was also in employment at the time of his arrest:

“These are, when we come to consider what is known as the latent risk factor, important considerations .... We are satisfied that we must start at the currently accepted sentence for simple possession which is 18 months and must then if appropriate enhance that sentence for latent risk. In this case given the amount and given the time which the applicant admits that he would have had that amount in his possession, reducing of course from day to day, we are satisfied that there is a latent risk but that it was not one of any real gravity. ... We are satisfied given that his original intention was to take the drugs to his home where he usually kept them, that he is in regular employment and that he has clearly been an addict for a number of years without any conviction for trafficking that the latent risk should attract a sentence of a further six months’, thus resulting in a total before discount for mitigation, of 24 months.”

14. Very similar sentiments are to be found in HKSAR v. Wan Sheung Sum, CACC 438/1999, a case which concerned the possession of 34 grammes of heroin. In that case the court said that the normal starting point for heroin or ice was between one year and 18 months, and stated again that the latent risk factor would depend on all the circumstances including the quantity possessed and the personal circumstances of the offender. In that case, too, the offender had previous convictions for possession but he kept the drugs at home and was in full employment. The court there said that a starting point of 16 months was appropriate and that the risk factor warranted an enhancement of an additional six months.

……

17. Sentencing is an art, and we emphasize that the starting points and the degrees of enhancement for the risk factor must bend to the circumstances of each case. 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. The existence of the risk factor and the degree of risk is not a matter of mathematics upon which this court should provide a tariff. Amongst the obvious factors to be taken into account are whether the offender is in employment; whether the drugs are kept in a place to which others have access; whether the offender has convictions for trafficking; and of course the quantity of drugs. The full circumstances of the risk must be assessed.”（強調後加）

(c)  該案涉及15.724克毒品。上訴法庭認為適當的量刑基準為18個月監禁。沒有證供顯示被告人是否有穩定的工作，但上訴法庭接受並沒有商業販運的危機，但有社交販運的可能。考慮到毒品流到他人手中潛在危險，上訴法庭認為應將刑期上調12個月，即量刑基準為2年6個月監禁。

(2)  HKSAR v Fu Man Kit [2019] HKCA 78（未經彙編，2019年1月15日）。上訴人承認一項管有危險藥物。他在葵涌邨合葵樓外徘徊時被警方截停搜查。警方在上訴人的牛仔褲右邊褲袋找到一個利是封，內載有一個可再封膠袋，內有一張白色紙巾包裹着13.2克。上訴人有四次刑事定罪紀錄，包括2000年的一項販運危險藥物。原審法官以15個月監禁作為量刑基準，再因毒品流入他人手中的潛在危機將刑期上調12個月，又因上訴人的販運危險藥物前科，再將刑期上調3個月。上訴法庭認為這個量刑起點並無可爭辯之處。就刑期上調的幅度，上訴法庭指：

“11. The applicant cannot complain about the starting point of 15 months’ imprisonment for the offence of possession nor the enhancement for the obvious possibility, in the applicant’s circumstances and with his antecedents, of his re-distributing such a sizeable quantity of dangerous drugs, …

12. An appeal court will look at the final sentence passed upon the applicant, given the circumstances of his possession of a not insubstantial quantity of Ice on the street in a public housing estate, his background and the time at which the plea was entered; whatever may have been the individual steps which brought the judge to her ultimate sentence. I cannot say that there are reasonably arguable grounds of appeal against the overall sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment.”

(3)  香港特別行政區 訴 盤穎瑜HCMA 584/2008（未經彙編，2008年8月25日）。上訴人承認一項管有危險藥物。她乘坐的士時被警員截停調查。上訴人下車之際，警員看見上訴人將一個膠包放在的士的後座座位上。該膠包內藏3小包合共0.57克可卡因。原審法官判處上訴人4個月監禁。原訟法庭認為判刑恰當。

(4)  香港特別行政區 訴 沈英傑 HCMA 571/2005（未經𢑥編，2005年9月30日）。上訴人承認一項販運危險藥物及一項管有危險藥物。管有危險藥物罪涉及1.94克草本大麻及兩粒含硝甲西泮片劑。原審法官判處上訴人1個月監禁。原訟法庭對判刑不作出干預。

11.  辯方大律師承認，假如是販運多種危險藥物，案例清晰訂明量刑時可採用個別方式（individual approach）或綜合方式（combined approach），當中需考慮荒謬測試（Absurdity test）、換算測試（Conversion test）及比例測試（Ratio test）。可是上述的公式並不適用於管有危險藥物的控罪。於HKSAR v Ramirez Beltran Claudia Lorena [2015] 1 HKLRD 966，上訴法庭指，被告人單單管有超過一種毒品，本身並非一項加刑因素。

12.  於 HKSAR v Mohammed Shabir [2019] HKCA 698（未經𢑥彙編，2019年6月21日），上訴人被裁定兩項管有危險藥物罪罪成（控罪1及3）。控罪1涉及管有1.1克冰毒，而控罪3則涉及管有3.92克冰毒及0.73克大麻。雖然兩項控罪所涉的毒品份量不同，而控罪3涉及超過一種毒品，原審法官同樣以12個月監禁作為該兩項控罪的量刑起點，旨在處理潛在風險時有不同的加幅。就控罪3，因所涉大麻份量不多，原審法官量刑時不予以考慮。上訴法庭認為原審法官的量刑方式並無不妥。

量刑

控罪 1

13.  大律師指，控罪1中冰毒的份量較多，而可卡因及大麻的份量則相對較少，與Mohammed Shabir的案情類似，希望法庭量刑時對可卡因及大麻不予以考慮。

14.  大律師援引香港特別行政區 訴 陳泰華 CACC 476/2011（未經彙編，2012年3月13日）。

(a)  該案的上訴人承認一項管有危險藥物，涉及5.47克冰毒。上訴人過往有14項刑事定罪紀錄，其中6項是與管有危險藥物有關。原審法官以18個月監禁作為量刑基準，再因潛在風險，將刑期上調12個月，扣除認罪折扣後，判處上訴人20個月監禁。上訴人不服判刑，提出上訴。

(b)  上訴法庭指：

「20. …量刑起點及因應潛在風險而上調的幅度必須切合每宗案件的情況。如所涉危險藥物的份量是一名真正吸毒者一般會管有的份量，則量刑起點是介乎12至18個月監禁（而此量刑起點已被區域法院和高等法院的案件採納）。但這並不表示此量刑起點是唯一的合適量刑起點…有關的危險藥物份量明顯是決定量刑起點的主要因素。若犯案者是一名積犯，便應預期較高的量刑起點。存在風險因素及程度不能以數學方式計算來訂定量刑準則。有關的考慮因素包括犯案人是否無業、毒品的存放地點能否被其他人接觸到、犯案人是否有干犯販運危險藥物的定罪前科，及毒品份量。法庭必須衡量風險的整體情況。

21. 在莫祖廸 一案，涉案的冰毒是15.724克。犯罪人22歲，有一項管有危險藥物的前科。他否認出售冰毒，指他祇是會供應給前往他住所的人服用。無資料顯示犯案人當時是否受僱。上訴庭認為恰當的量刑起點是18個月，「潛在風險」加刑則為12個月。

22. 在Jarhia Kuldeep Singh一案，涉案的冰毒是6.82克。犯案人當時年27歲、無業、有毒癮但不適合往戒毒所接受治療。上訴庭指6.82克的份量不算高、亦不算低。法庭不接納犯案人指涉案的份量足夠他服用2至3日。上訴庭認為恰當的量刑起點是15個月，而加刑的幅度是12個月。」

(c)  上訴法庭認為以該案的案情及冰毒的份量，即使上訴人有6次管有危險藥物的前科，恰當的量刑起點應是15個月監禁，而非18個月監禁。上訴法庭亦指：

「25. 申請人並無販運危險藥物的前科。他多次干犯管有危險藥物罪及曾被判往戒毒中心，可見申請人是真正的吸毒者。申請人犯案時有固定職業，在家中被警員發現冰毒。除了一包少量冰毒在枱上，另外一包藏於衣袋內。雖有42個可再封口膠袋，情況令人懷疑，以涉案的份量及在家找到冰毒此情況而言，涉案冰毒散佈於社會此實質可能性不大。基於申請人透過其代表大律師向沈法官指出申請人女友亦是濫用冰毒者，本案的風險是申請人會與他的同居女友一同濫用冰毒。

26. 在本案的所有情況下，本庭認為恰當的加刑幅度是9個月。」

15.  大律師指，考慮總體毒品份量時，本案的冰毒份量相對Fu Man Kit案為少，希望法庭採納15個月或以下的監禁作為控罪1的起點。

16.  雖然可卡因及大麻的份量比冰毒的份量較少，但可卡因及大麻的份量不可以說成對刑期毫無影響。本席認為，考慮到整體毒品的份量，控罪1適當的初步量刑基準為15個月監禁。

控罪 2

17.  大律師同意該項控罪過往亦有判處監禁的情況，於HKSAR v Chan Tak Shing HCMA 657/2002（未經彙編，2002年8月2日），上訴人管有4片唑匹可隆（俗稱白瓜子）的第一步毒藥，用途主要是抗抑鬱及治療失眠症狀。原審法官以4個月監禁作為量刑。原訟法庭認為適當的量刑起點為3個月監禁。

18.  大律師指，本案含有尼古丁的固體是被告人捲進煙絲中吸食的物品。另外，被告人一直有失眠的問題，案中的氯氮平片劑是被告人用作幫助睡眠的藥物。所有第一部毒藥是被告人自用，並非用作銷售或分發予其他人。

19.  就控罪2，本席認為適當的量刑基準為3個月監禁。

加刑因素

潛在風險

20.  大律師援引Mok Cho Tik案，上訴法庭在判詞中指出：

“The existence of the risk factor and the degree of risk is not a matter of mathematics upon which this court should provide a tariff. Amongst the obvious factors to be taken into account are whether the offender is in employment; whether the drugs are kept in a place to which others have access; whether the offender has convictions for trafficking; and of course the quantity of drugs. The full circumstances of the risk must be assessed.”

21.  至於潛在風險的上調幅度，大律師援引HKSAR v Lee Chun Man CACC 360/2014（未經彙編：2015年5月5日）。上訴法庭指出加刑的幅度視乎潛在風險的高低，調整幅度由6個月至18個月不等：

“19. The amount of the enhancement will depend on the degree of the latent risk. The higher the level of risk the greater the amount of enhancement. It will, therefore, be necessary for the sentencing judge to assess the degree of risk for it is the judge’s assessment of the degree of risk that will guide him in his determination of the amount of enhancement. The cases would suggest that the enhancements made by the courts range from 6 months for a low degree of risk to 18 months or more for a very high degree of risk.”

22.  大律師懇求法庭接受本案並無任何潛在風險，理由如下：

(1)  被告人是一名濫藥者。被告在本案被捕還押後，向懲教署所提供的尿液樣本顯示他體內含有冰毒及可卡因。由此可見，他在被捕前不久曾經服用相關的毒品；

(2)  根據HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun [2014] 3 HKLRD 691，濫藥人士每天吸食約0.1 - 0.5克冰毒。辯方認為被告人不單在案發時是一名濫藥者，在多年來的不同階段都有濫藥惡習。此外，由於被告人沒有任何經濟限制，被告人稱他吸食毒品的習慣與一般癮君子亦有所不同；他偏好於不把燃燒毒品初期及後期的部份服用，而只吸取中間精華部份。因此，本案涉及的冰毒雖然有7.77克，但據他計算，相關的冰毒只足夠他使用3至4天。無論如何，以每日吸食0.5克冰毒作為基礎的話，7.77克的冰毒足夠一般癮君子吸食15天，份量不算極少也不算極多。而案中的可卡因及大麻的份量更少，只足夠被告人一次至數次服食的份量，潛在風險更低；

(3)  正如被告人於警誡下指出，單位是由兒子購入，並由被告人一個人居住。因此案發地點是被告人的住所。案中的毒品全部都是在被告人家中搜獲，其他人士可以接觸到這些毒品的機會極低；

(4)  被告人從家中離開的時候被警員截停，當時被告人身上並沒有搜出任何毒品；

(5)  被告人家中搜出電子磅，是因為過往被告人購買毒品時曾經被人欺騙。因此他會用電子磅去量度購入毒品的份量。至於膠袋則是他有時會將毒品分小包包裝，方便將少量毒品帶回公司吸食之用。兩項物品均與販運或使毒品流出予其他人服用並無關係。

23.  本席明白本案所有毒品均在被告人的居所搜獲，但完全不同意本案中沒有潛在風險。根據案例，法庭需考慮的其中一個因素是被告人有否「販運危險藥物」的前科。被告人一直都是濫藥者，一直都家境富裕，但過往曾有2次「販運危險藥物」的前科，其中一次明顯涉及大量毒品，因而被判處16年監禁。本案的保䆁期間，被告人再次因「新案」被捕，罪名亦是「販運危險藥物」。另外，警方亦於被告人的居所找到電子磅及20個透明可再封膠袋。本席不接受被告人對電子磅及可再封膠袋的解釋。購入毒品後才用電子磅作量度，根本無補於事。況且，於HCCC 254/2009一案中（即刑事定罪紀錄第8項），毒品亦是於被告人於家中搜獲，但法庭裁定被告人是於家中包裝毒品。該案中上訴法庭指：

“28. The judge noted that the applicant was not simply a courier but that he had the drugs together with equipment in his home, which he described as “a relatively expensive flat”, to enable the drugs to be cut with agents which were also found there, thereby increasing the quantities that were available for sale.”

24.  考慮到上述種種因素，本席認為本案的潛在風險極高。因此，本席將控罪1的量刑基準上調12個月，即控罪1的量刑起點為27個月監禁。

保䆁期間犯案及前科

25.  被告人並非初犯。他過往有共10次刑事定罪紀錄，其中6次與毒品有關，包括2次「販運危險藥物」。大律師同意此乃加刑因素。大律師承認被告人是於本案及HCCC 92/2022的保釋期間犯案，而這是加刑因素。大律師援引HKSAR v Shek Po Sin [2019] HKCA 767（未經彙編，2019年7月9日）。該案的上訴人亦是承認一項管有危險藥物罪名。案中涉及19.08克冰毒及0.69克可卡因，而上訴人亦是於另一宗案件保釋期間犯案。上訴法庭認為原審法官就保釋期間犯案加刑6個月並無不妥。因此，辯方要求本席以6個月監禁作為保釋期間犯案的加幅。

26.  考慮到上述因素，將控罪1的量刑基準再上調6個月，即控罪1的量刑起點為33個月監禁。

減刑因素

27.  被告人於訂定審期後才認罪。當時，被告人被控一項「販運危險藥物」（控罪1）及一項「管有毒藥表第一部所列毒藥」（控罪2）。就控罪1，他一早表示願意承認「管有危險藥物」，但控方不接受該處理方式。審訊首日，控辯雙方才達成認罪協議，接受被告人承認修訂控罪1。因此，本席將予以被告人三份一的認罪扣減。兩項控罪經扣減的刑期為：

(1)  控罪1： 22個月監禁

(2)  控罪2： 2個月監禁

總刑期

28.  大律師指雖然兩項控罪有所分別，但發生地點一致、發生時間接近、由同一搜查事件揭發、而且性質類似，只是所搜獲的物品分屬兩條不同條例下規管的物質。因此辯方認為合適的做法是將兩項控罪全部同期執行。

29.  本席不敢苟同。兩項控罪針對的是不同的藥物，而這類控罪判刑的考量主要是毒品的份量。況且，大律師所述的因素並非正確的測試。

30.  於HKSAR v Ngai Yiu Ching（倪耀偵）[2011] 6 HKC 238，上訴法庭裁定：

“13. When a judge is faced with the task of sentencing for multiple offences he is required as an initial step to identify the appropriate sentence for each offence and as the final step to achieve a total sentence appropriate to the culpability of the offender. The issue with which this appeal is concerned is the decision that the judge faced whether to order any of the sentences for the offences to run concurrently with each other or to be served consecutively.

14. The question whether to order concurrent or consecutive sentences can arise in many different scenarios. An offender may be charged in respect of a number of different, or similar, offences committed on wholly separate occasions over a period of time or with a number of different offences committed in the course of one episode of criminal activity. This case is concerned with the latter situation.

15. In the case of several offences committed in the course of a single episode, the prosecuting authorities might choose to proffer only one charge, where one charge embraces all the criminal conduct reflected by the evidence or, as in the present instance, separate charges for each criminal act.

16. If it chooses the former course, the instances of proved conduct embraced by the single charge but which could have been the subject of separate charges are taken into account in deciding what penalty reflects the true overall criminality.

17. But when the prosecuting authority elects the latter course, namely, to charge two or more offences arising from an episode of criminal activity, the objective is still the same; that is to say, the ultimate overall sentence must still reflect the overall and true culpability, although the sentencing judge must take care, first, to pass a sentence for each individual offence that is appropriate to that offence and the circumstances of its commission and, second, not to punish the offender twice for the same conduct.

18. It was in an attempt to safeguard fairness to the offender by ensuring that he was not punished twice for the same conduct that the courts developed the “one transaction” rule. In essence, this rule said that if the number of offences have been charged arising from the one transaction or course of criminal conduct, then concurrent sentences should be imposed.

19. The one transaction rule was not developed as an inflexible rule of law. It was never intended as anything more than a practical rule of thumb to guide judges in the exercise of the power to impose consecutive sentences so that the final sentence was not one that was unfair to an offender.

20. However, once stated, this practical working rule tended to develop a life of its own and has led to some difficulty in its application. Judicial dicta explained what was meant by “one course of criminal conduct” and exceptions to the rule developed e.g. assaults committed on police officers by offenders who were under arrest for the main offence … and sexual assaults committed in the course of robberies … All of this, understandably enough, became material for advocates who sought to argue that the multiple offences of which their client had been convicted were part of one transaction and that it inevitably followed that the correct sentence was one where all the sentences were concurrent.

21. There are several problems associated with this line of reasoning. First it runs the risk of elevating a practical working rule to a rule of law, thereby providing an opportunity to argue that departure from it inevitably meant that the sentence imposed on the client was excessive. Secondly, it tends to obscure the real point which is not whether two or more offences are committed at about the same time, but whether the second or other further offences add to the culpability or criminality of the first. Thirdly, it ignores the reality that whatever sentence is arrived at after application of the rule is still subject to the totality principle.

22. The importance of the totality principle cannot be overstated. It is there to ensure not only fairness to the offender, in the sense that he is not punished twice for the same offence and, further, that the sentence is not an unduly crushing punishment but it is also a tool by which to ensure that “the overall effect of the sentences is sufficient having regard to the usual principles of deterrence, rehabilitation and denunciation.”: R v K M [2004] NSWCCA 65 at paragraph 55.

23. The emphasis therefore should be on a reflection in the sentence of true culpability disclosed by the offences of which the accused has been convicted. This is an approach which this court has consistently adopted in recent times, for example in HKSAR v Kwok Shiu To [2006] 2 HKLRD 272 and HKSAR v Iu Wai Shun [2008] 1 HKC 79. It is likely to be a more effective approach in reflecting an offender’s overall culpability than one which becomes overly concerned with the one transaction rule, although in the case of more than one offence, the court must guard carefully against punishing twice for the same act. If the second offence which takes place in the course of the suggested single episode adds to the culpability of the first offence, it will normally follow that the sentence for the second offence will run wholly or partially consecutive to that for the first; to what extent, if at all, will depend upon an assessment of the totality appropriate for the conduct as a whole. As with most sentencing exercises, the approach is an art, sensitive to the individual circumstances of the case and the offender.”

31.  如上文所述，兩項控罪針對不同的藥物。本席就控罪1作量刑時亦沒有考慮到控罪2的藥物；控罪2亦令控罪1更加嚴重。事實上，兩項控罪的刑期理應完全分期執行。可是衡量到總刑期的原則，本席下令判處被告人：

(1)  控罪1： 22個月監禁；

(2)  控罪2： 2個月監禁，其中1個月與控罪1分期執行。

32.  總刑期為23個月監禁。