|
DCCC 338/2023
[2024] HKDC 75
香港特別行政區
區域法院
刑事案件2023年第338號
________________________
________________________
| 出席人士: |
丘沛曦女士，律政司檢控官，代表香港特別行政區 |
| |
林順超大律師，由法律援助署委派的黃張律師事務所延聘，代表被告人 |
| 控罪: |
販運危險藥物（Trafficking in a dangerous drug） |
________________________
判刑理由書
________________________
1. 被告人承認一項「販運危險藥物」，違反香港法例第134章《危險藥物條例》第4(1)(a)及(3)條。
案情撮要
2. 被告人承認的案情撮要如下：
(1) 2022年12月9日約0616時，警務人員看見被告人從深水埗南昌街與醫局街交界附近的大廈步出，急步行過馬路到南昌街休憩處。被告人行走時，不斷四處張望，雙手按着褲頭。警務人員認為被告人可疑，於是截停被告人，表露警察身份，要求搜身。然而，被告人抗拒搜查，緊緊按着褲頭。被告人短暫掙扎後被制服，被帶上警車進行搜身。
(2) 經搜查，警方在被告人的長褲褲頭內發現藏有一個可再封透明膠袋，內有三個可再封膠袋，內有共50個膠包（證物1），載有內含6.06克海洛英鹽酸鹽的共7.96克混合劑。
(3) 案發時，被告人身上有現金港幣608.80元及一部內有兩張智能咭的流動電話。
(4) 被告人被拘捕，罪名是「販毒罪」。被告人在警誡下承認：「呢啲毒品係我收500蚊攞嚟南昌街休憩處俾人」。
(5) 被告人其後於警誡錄影會面中表示未收到港幣500元的報酬。被告人承認被拘捕時靠綜援維生。
(6) 警方其後搜查被告人的深水埗住所，沒有發現可疑物品。
(7) 政府化驗師證實證物1是內含6.06克海洛英鹽酸鹽的共7.96克混合劑。
(8) 案發時，案中檢獲的海洛英，估計市值為港幣約7,379元。
(9) 案發所有期間，被告人管有案中檢獲的海洛英作販運用途。
被告人的背景
3. 被告人現年65歲，單身。她曾任職兼職清潔工人。2022年4月後，因年事已高關節疼痛，無力工作，單靠綜援維持生活；因此為了賺取500元報酬而干犯本案，但因事敗未收到報酬。被告人並非初犯。她有共15次刑事定罪紀錄，涉及共16項控罪，其中10次與毒品有關，當中3次為「販運危險藥物」；最後一次於2021年被定罪；2016年最後一次就「販運危險藥物」被定罪。
量刑
4. 「販運危險藥物」是嚴重控罪，因此上訴庭已就販運不同種類的危險藥物訂定量刑指引。根據R v Lau Tak Ming [1990] 2 HKLR 370，就販運10克或以下的海洛英的量刑起點為2至5年監禁。
5. 因本案只涉及一類危險藥物，量刑起點可以以純數學計算。適當的量刑起點為3年9個月監禁。
加刑因素
6. 大律師承認被告人有類同刑事紀錄，但指每次均相隔一段時間才犯案，而且從判刑而論，每次牽涉的份量也不高；考慮到被告人的身體狀況及年紀，重犯可能性低，因此大律師指不須予以加刑。
7. 本席不敢苟同。被告人的刑事定罪紀錄顯示她是毒品案件的慣犯；這已是她第4次就「販運危險藥物」被定罪。上訴法院已於HKSAR v Abdallah Anwar Abbas [2009] 2 HKLRD 437第42段內指出，這是加刑因素。明顯地，本案中，被告人的年齡及身體狀況對她犯案沒有阻礙。況且，被告人只是65歲，本席並不同意她年事已高，亦不同意她重犯的機會較低。
8. Sentencing in Hong Kong 10th Edition的作者於第30-31至30-36段中指出：
“[30-31] the point at which the maturity of the accused is relevant as mitigation is sometimes said to have been reached at the age of 60: R v Tsui Lai Ying and Ors [1987] 5 HKLR 857, 881… However, in HKSAR v Chow Chi Ming [2006] HKCU 398 (HCMA 1247/2005, 21 February 2006, unreported), Leong DJ said it was generally accepted that ‘old age, unless extremely advanced in age, is generally not a mitigating factor’. In HKSAR v Lau Yuk Huen [2008] HKCU 864 (CACC 37/2008, 5 June 2008, unreported), it was said that the 66-year-old accused was not to be regarded as old…
[30-32] … In Tsui Lau Ying and Ors [1987] HKLR 857, 881… Silke VP explained, in relation to an accused who was close to the age of 80, that ‘courts tend to lean against, but only in special circumstances, sentences on persons of equivalent age which may lead to the possibility of death in the course of it being served’…
[30-33] In some circumstances, the advanced age of the accused will count for little, as in HKSAR v Kwok Sau Chun [2010] HKCU 1901 (HCMA 543/2010, 18 August 2010, unreported), where the 82-year-old offender, a recidivist, committed the offence ‘with eyes wide open’…
[30-35] In R v Chen Chun Yeh [1997] HKCU 144 (CACC 513/1996, 12 February 1997, unreported), an 88-year-old heroin trafficker who challenged his sentences of 15 years’ imprisonment was told that there was nothing the Court of Appeal could do as leniency would encourage the syndicates to recruit aged persons. A 78-year-old drug trafficker received short shrift when he sought to pray in aid his age as mitigation in HKSAR v Wong Wan [2001] HKCU 117 (CACC 384/2000, 20 February, 2001, unreported) (see also HKSAR v Lau Wai Ping [2009] HKCU 1914 (CACC 303/2008, 30 October 2009, unreported). Where it otherwise, ‘those who are inveigled into taking part in the manufacture and trafficking of dangerous drugs will be the lame, the halt, the blind, the young and the old - people who may have some ground for pleading for the mercy of the court, if they are in fact arrested’: Lam Hak Hung v R (CACC 724/1972, 20 March 1973, unreported), as approved in Attorney General v Chan Chi Mei Wah [1990] 1 HKLR 190, 193…
[30-36] In HKSAR v Lau Wai Ping (above), Yeung JA said ‘the judge took the view that old age was of no or little weight in drug trafficking cases. The judge was right’. (See also HKSAR v Cheng Wing Shui [2004] HKCU 906 [CACC 169/2004, 6 August 2004, unreported); R v Aramah (1982) 76 Cr App R 190; R v Hanouda (1982) 4 Cr App R (S) 137.”
9. 於HKSAR v Butt Muhammad Gulzar [2020] 3 HKLRD 805，上訴法院指出，法庭須予以大幅加刑才可收阻嚇作用；如加刑少於6個月監禁，便全無阻嚇作用：亦見HKSAR v Shah Syed Arif [2016] 4 HKLRD 664；HKSAR v Ali Saif [2018] HKCA 358及HKSAR v Joof Saihou [2018] 3 HKLRD 456。
10. 考慮到上述所有因素，本席認為沒有任何原因不予以加刑。因此，本席將量刑基準上調6個月，即量刑起點為51個月監禁。
減刑因素
11. 眾所周知，被告人的身體狀況及經濟壓力，並非減刑因素：見Sentencing in Hong Kong 10th Edition第30-174至30-188段及30-143至30-145段。
12. 被告人於訂定審期前承認控罪，可獲三份一的扣減。除此之外，沒有其他減刑因素。本席判處被告人34個月監禁。
|