香港特別行政區 訴 蕭悅波

HCCC275/2009

香港特別行政區

高等法院

原訟法庭

刑事案件2009年第275號

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

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

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

判刑

以下內容乃法庭數碼錄音謄本

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

官：　本案被告承認兩項販運危險藥物罪，違反香港法例第134章《危險藥物條例》第4（1）（a）及（3）條。

      案情指，警員睇到被告從一大廈出嚟，截查之後，從佢身上搜獲一張包住兩袋毒品嘅紙巾，其後化驗證實為內含30.97克氯胺酮嘅41.37克粉末。被告承認該兩包「K仔」係屬於佢，以及供佢自用嘅。後來，警員從佢嘅住所搜出多包毒品以及一啲包裝工具，包括咗大量可再封膠袋、一個電子磅、錫紙、兩把刀、沾有微量毒品嘅湯匙、10元紙幣以及膠卡，被告當時亦都聲稱毒品係供佢自用嘅。喺嗰度撿獲嘅毒品，後證實為71.67克內含54.60克氯胺酮嘅粉末，以及內含12.25克可卡因嘅15.13克固體，以及九片內含1克3,4-亞甲二氧基甲基安非他明嘅片劑，所有嘅毒品當時總市值係港幣25,352.10元。

      被告現年19歲，有一次嘅刑事紀錄，佢喺2009年8月因為管有危險藥物被判戒毒所令，據悉本案係該案擔保期間干犯嘅。

      大律師喺求情嘅時候表示，被告被捕嘅時候無業，已經失業兩個月，佢因為家庭嘅經濟壓力，另外亦都受咗前中學同學嘅唆擺，起先佢拒絕嘅，但係經不起同學嘅再三誘使，先至干犯本案。大律師指，被告已經深感後悔，愧對家人，希望本席從輕發落，好讓佢早日獲釋，與家人團聚。

      本席喺量刑嘅時候，考慮咗本案嘅案情、毒品嘅種類、重量、量刑嘅指引、被告認罪、大律師嘅求情，亦都閱讀咗被告以及佢父母所撰寫嘅求情信。

      本案主要牽涉兩種毒品，即係85.57克嘅氯胺酮同埋12.25克可卡因，呢啲毒品嘅總重量係98.82克。上訴法庭喺葉偉賢 CACC 80/2003一案指出，法庭喺量刑嘅時候，現時多以組合量刑方式處理，即係需要先考慮案中主要毒品嘅重量予以起刑點，然後因應重量可觀嘅另外嘅毒品，將該適當嘅起刑點往上調整，而何謂主要嘅毒品係觀乎毒性，而並非重量。本案嘅主要毒品係可卡因，但係氯胺酮嘅重量係本案可卡因嘅重量接近七倍。上訴法庭喺鄭日明 CACC 455/2006一案指出，組合量刑原則適用於案中涉及可相若處理毒品嘅情況（drugs of a comparable kind）,上訴庭係咁講嘅： “The difficulty being faced in cases of the kind where either an ‘individual’ or a ‘combined’ approach is adopted only arises where the sentencing brackets for the types of drugs are markedly different. Where drugs of a comparable kind, such as heroin, cocaine and ice are being trafficked the ‘combined’ approach, where a global sentence is taken, can usually be done.”

      睇番劉德明（譯音）案，販運可卡因10至50克，起刑點係5至8年，本案嘅12.25克可卡因，起刑點應約為5年。至於85.57克嘅氯胺酮，根據許守城 CAAR 7/2006嘅新量刑指引，50至到300克係6年至9年嘅量刑界別，本案嘅85.57克氯胺酮，起刑點應為約6年。

      睇番氯胺酮同埋可卡因嘅量刑指引，兩者不屬可相若處理嘅毒品。而根據黎國雄 CACC 564/2002一案，上訴庭話： “If a man is in possession of three different and distinct types of drugs, （each in a substantial quantity） for the purposes of trafficking, then it is entirely appropriate to look at and to apply the tariff applicable to each drug whether at the time of seizure they remain unblended or whether they have been mixed into tablet form. In the case of tablets, it is certainly not appropriate to ignore one substantial constituent drugs simply because it is apparently ‘less significant’ than another and therefore to be regarded as no more than a form of dilutant. By that process the sentencer will arrive at what might be described as an initial view of the appropriate starting point and from there he will proceed to attempt to achieve a just overall sentence taking into account, amongst other things, the fact of the combination of the drugs; the general mitigation and the principle of totality.”

      上訴庭喺鄭日明案中亦都考慮咗將張保祖（原文照錄）Tommy一案 CACC 233/2005， “The presence of more than one type of drug in the drug trafficking offence must itself be aggravating factor. Whilst the reason for this is not stated in the judgment, no doubt the rationale was that the trafficker in more than one type of drug is able to cater to a far wider market than the trafficker in only one kind of drug.”

      本席考慮到本案所涉毒品各自嘅判刑起點，以及張保祖（原文照錄）案所指販運多於一種毒品存在令案情情節嚴重嘅因素，再考慮咗量刑嘅整體性，本席認為就住兩項控罪所有嘅毒品，一個整體嘅9年起刑點係適合嘅。予以三分之一嘅認罪扣減，判刑6年。兩條控罪分配如下：控罪一，判刑4年；控罪二，判刑6年，同期執行。