Hon Barnes J (giving the judgment of the Court):
原訟法庭法官張慧玲頒發上訴法庭判案理由書 ：

Background
背景

The 1st Applicant Wut Yiu Lun (hereinafter “D1”) and the 2nd Applicant Tsang Chi Mei (hereinafter “D2”) were charged before Deputy Judge Wong of the District Court with the following offences:
第一申請人屈‍耀‍倫(下稱第一被告)及第二申請人曾‍芝‍媚(下稱第二被告)在區域法院暫委法官黃‍汝‍榮席前被控以下控罪：

Charge 1 (against D1 and D2)
第一項控罪(訴第一及第二被告)

“Trafficking in a substance purported to be a dangerous drug”, contrary to section 4A(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134 of the Laws of Hong Kong.
「販運看來是危險藥物的物質」，違反香港法例第 134 章《危險藥物條例》第 4A(1)(a)及(3)‍條。

Charge 2 (against D1 and D2)
第二項控罪(訴第一及第二被告)

“Trafficking in dangerous drugs” (namely 2 tablets containing a  total of 0.01 gramme of N, N-dimethylamphetamine; 4 milligrammes of methamphetamine, 0.06 grammes of 3, 4-dimethylamphetamine and 0.05 grammes of 3, 4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine), contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the abovementioned Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.
「販運危險藥物」(即2 片內含共0.01 克N, N-二甲基安非他明、4 毫克甲基苯丙胺、0.06 克3, 4-亞甲二氧基安非他明及0.05 克3, 4-亞甲二氧基甲基安非他明的片劑)，違反上述《危險藥物條例》第 4(1)(a)及(3)‍條。

Charge 3 (against D1)
第三項控罪(訴第一被告)

“Trafficking in a substance purported to be dangerous drug”.
「販運看來是危險藥物的物質」。

Charge 4 (against D1)
第四項控罪(訴第一被告)

“Trafficking in dangerous drugs” (namely 3 tablets containing a total of 0.01 gramme of N, N-dimethylamphetamine; 7 milligrammes methamphetamine, 0.09 grammes 3, 4-dimethylamphetamine and 0.08 grammes 3, 4- methylenedioxy-methamphetamine).
「販運危險藥物」(即3 片內含共0.01 克N, N-二甲基安非他明、7 毫克基苯丙胺、0.09 克3, 4-亞甲二氧基安非他明及0.08 克3, 4-亞甲二氧基甲基安非他明的片劑)。

D1 pleaded guilty to the 4 charges and was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment.
第一被告承認四項控罪，被判入獄3 年。

D2, who pleaded not guilty, was convicted after trial and sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment.
第二被告否認控罪，經審訊後被裁定罪名成立，被判監禁3 年。

Both Defendants applied for leave to appeal against sentence.  After hearing, we made the following orders:
第一及第二被告均就判刑提出上訴申請。本庭在聆訊後裁定如下：

D1
就第一被告

As the Judge had mixed up the charges in sentencing by swapping the sentences for Charges 1 and 2 and swapping the sentences for Charges 3 and 4, we allowed the application for leave, treated it as the appeal itself and allowed the appeal formally.  The sentences were altered to 6 months for Charges 1 and 3 (to be served concurrently) and 2 years for Charges 2 and 4 (to be served concurrently).  One of the 2 years for Charge 4 is to be served consecutively to the 2 years for Charge 3, making a total term of 3 years.
因法官判刑時將控罪號碼混淆，將控罪‍(一)的判刑與控罪‍(二)對調，及將控罪‍(三)的判刑與(四)對調，本庭批准上訴申請，並視申請為正式上訴，上訴形式上得直。判刑改為控罪‍(一)、(三) 6 個月(同期執行)和控罪‍(二)、(四) 2 年(同期執行)。控罪‍(四)的2 年其中一年與控罪‍(二)的2 年分期執行，合共3 年。

D2
就第二被告

The application for leave to appeal was allowed and treated as the appeal itself.  The sentence for Charge 2 was set aside and replaced with 2 years’ imprisonment, to be served concurrently with the sentence for Charge 1, making a total term of 2 years.
批准上訴申請，並視申請為正式上訴，就控罪‍(二)判刑擱置，改監禁2 年，與控罪‍(一)同期執行，合共2 年。

We now set out the reasons for our judgment.
現本庭將理據道出。

Facts of the case
案情

The facts indicated that on 3 December 2004, during an anti-drug operation at Cyber 8 Disco, D2 told an undercover police officer (“the undercover”) that there were “ketamine” and “fing tau”/“head-swinging pills” for sale at $100 each.  The undercover told D2 that he would like to buy 3 “ketamine” and 2 “fing tau”/“head-swinging pills”.
案情顯示在2004 年12 月3 日，臥底警員(“臥底”)在Cyber 8 Disco內作反毒品行動時，第二被告向臥底表示可出售「K仔」及「fing頭」/「搖頭丸」，每款100 元。臥底向第二被告表示欲購三‍粒「K仔」及兩粒「fing頭」/「搖頭丸」。

Thereafter, D2 led the undercover to Table No. 53.  After re-confirming the type and quantity of dangerous drugs the undercover wanted to buy, D2 called another person.  D1 arrived soon afterwards.  D2 introduced D1 to the undercover as her partner.  D1 took out the dangerous drugs from his pants and handed them to the undercover.  The undercover handed $500 to D1.  D1 indicated that the undercover could contact him through D2 in future.  D2 concurred and said that she was responsible for looking for customers and D1 was responsible for the trading, and they did business at the Disco once a week (Charges 1 and 2).
其後第二被告帶臥底到53 號檯 。第二被告再次向臥底確定他早前欲購危險藥物的種類及數量後，致電某人。第一被告不久到場。第二被告向臥底介紹第一被告為她的拍檔。第一被告從褲袋取出危險藥物交予臥底。臥底將500 元交給第一被告。第一被告表示將來可透過第二被告聯絡他。第二被告亦和應，指她負責揾客，而第‍一被告負責交易，每星期在Disco內做一次生意(控罪‍一及二)。

On 10 December 2004, the undercover visited Cyber 8 Disco again and met D1.  D1 indicated to the undercover that he had “3 ketamine pills” and “3 candies” for sale at $120 each.  After the undercover agreed to buy them, D1 left.  Later D1 returned to the Disco and handed the dangerous drugs to the undercover.  The undercover also handed $720 to D1 (Charges 3 and 4).
在2004 年12 月10 日，臥底再到Cyber 8 Disco，遇見第‍一被告。第一被告向臥底表示有「3 粒K仔」及「3 粒糖」，每粒售價120 元。臥底同意購買後，第一被告離開。第一被告稍後返回Disco，將危險藥物交給臥底，臥底亦將720 元交給第一被告(控罪三及四)。

Reasons for sentence
判刑理由

In sentencing, Judge Wong considered that the dangerous drugs involved were a “cocktail” mixture of substances, including “ice”, N, N-dimethylamphetamine (NNMDA), 3, 4-dimethylamphetamine (MDA) and 3, 4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA).  After considering the relevant case law, he used the weight of the “ice”, which was the most poisonous of the lot, as the basis for sentencing.  He applied the sentencing guidelines in AG v Ching Kwok Hung [1991] 2 HKLR 125 and adopted a starting point of 3 years.
黃‍法官在判刑時考慮到涉案危險藥物是「雞尾式」的混合物，包含了冰毒、二甲基安非他明(NNDMA)，3、4 亞甲二氧基安非他明(MDA)及3、4 亞甲二氧甲基安非他明(MDMA)。他考慮了相關案例，以毒性最强的冰的重量作為計算基礎。他依據程國雄 [1991] 2 HKLR 125的量刑指引，以3 年為量刑起點。

For the offence of trafficking in a substance purported to be a dangerous drug, Judge Wong adopted a starting point of 9 months.  He adopted the same starting point for D1 and D2 as they were accomplices.
就販運看來是危險藥物的物質罪，黃‍法官以9 個月為量刑起點。黃‍法官認為第一及第二被告是共犯，量刑起點一致。

D1 pleaded guilty and received a one-third reduction in sentence.  As Charges 1 and 2 originated from the same incident, the sentences were to be served concurrently.  The same applied to Charges 3 and 4.  However, as the incidents for the 4 charges occurred on different dates, parts of the sentence were to be served consecutively, resulting in a total sentence of 3 years.
第一被告認罪，可得三份之一減刑，控罪(一)及(二)源於同一事件，同期執行，(三)、(四)亦然。但四項罪行在不同日子發生，故刑期部份分期，總刑期為3 年。

As for D2, who was convicted after trial, the sentences for the offences were 9 months and 3 years respectively, to be served concurrently, making a total of 3 years.
就第‍二被告，她於審訊後被定罪，判刑9 個月及3 年，同期執行，合共3 年。

Grounds of appeal
上訴理由

Mr Ng, Counsel for D1, raised the following grounds of appeal:
第一被告代表吳‍政‍煌大律師提出的上訴理由如下：

原審法官錯誤地混淆控罪‍(一)與(二)及控罪‍(三)與(四)的判刑；	(1)	the trial judge erroneously mixed up the sentences for Charges (1) and (2) with those for Charges (3) and (4);
(1)

原審法官未有考慮證供上第‍一被告並無出售冰毒的意圖；及	(2)	the trial judge failed to consider that on the evidence, D1 had no intention to sell “ice”;
(2)

3 年量刑起點明顯過高。	(3)	the starting point of 3 years was manifestly excessive.
(3)

Mr Cheng, Counsel for D2, put forward the ground of appeal that the trial judge failed to consider adequately or at all that D2 did not know that the relevant drugs were a mixture of various types of dangerous drugs.
第‍二被告代表鄭‍明‍斌大律師提出的上訴理由是原審法官並沒有考慮到或充分地考慮第‍二被告並不知悉相關之毒品是由多種不同類別的危險藥物所組成。

Mixing up of charges
混淆控罪

We first deal with Mr Ng’s complaint about the mixing up of the charges by Judge Wong.  According to the indictment, Charges 1 and 3 were for “trafficking in a substance purported to be a dangerous drug” and Charges 2 and 4 “trafficking in dangerous drugs”.
本庭首先處理吳‍大律師就黃‍法官混淆控罪此批評。根據公訴書，控罪‍(一)及(三)是「販運看來是危險藥物的物質」罪，而控罪‍(二)及(四)是「販運危險藥物」罪。

In sentencing, Judge Wong analyzed and considered these two distinct offences.  Finally, in passing sentence, he indeed mixed up Charges 1 and 2 and also Charges 3 and 4.  However, putting thing in context, it is clear that Judge Wong had adopted a starting point of 3 years for the offence of “trafficking in dangerous drugs” and 9 months for the offence of “trafficking in a substance purported to be a dangerous drug”.  This notwithstanding, we still have to revise the sentence as a matter of formality.
黃‍法官在判刑時就兩類不同罪行作出分析及考慮。他在最後宣判時，確是將控罪‍(一)及(二)對調，亦將控罪‍(三)及(四)對調。但縱觀上文下理，明顯黃‍法官在判刑時，就「販運危險藥物」罪他採納3 年為量刑起點，而就「販運看來是危險藥物的物質」罪，他則採納9 個月為量刑起點。然而，形式上本庭有需要就判刑作出更正。

“Cocktail” dangerous drugs
「雞尾式」混合危險藥物

In HKSAR v Yip Wai Yin and Wong Siu Han, CACC 80/2003, the Court of Appeal commented on the sentencing approach for “cocktail” drugs.  The Court considered that a combined approach was fairer and more realistic and reasonable.  Under this combined approach, the sentencer uses the quantity of the most poisonous drug as the basis of sentencing and then, if he considers appropriate, adjusts the sentence upwards to take into account the other milder drugs.
在香港特別行政區訴葉偉賢及黃肇行，CACC80/2003一案，上訴法庭論及就「雞尾」藥物的判刑方法。上訴法庭認為以組合量刑方法(combined approach)處理較為公平、真實和合理。組合量刑方法即是以毒性最强藥物的份量作為計算基礎，如頒刑者認為恰當，可把刑罰上調，籍以涵蓋其他毒性較溫和的危險藥物。

The approach adopted by Judge Wong was obviously that accepted by the Court of Appeal.  He used the quantity of “ice” as the basis of sentencing, applied the sentencing guidelines in Ching Kwok Hung and adopted 3 years as the starting point.  He stated clearly that he had not adjusted the sentence upwards.
無可置疑黃‍法官判刑的方法正是上訴庭所認同的方法，他以「冰」毒為計算基礎，引用程國雄案中的刑期指引，以3 年為刑期起點。黃‍法官明言他並無將刑期上調。

Mr Ng submitted that, although the guidelines in Ching Kwok Hung indicated that the sentence for trafficking in less than 10 grammes of “ice” was 3 to 7 years, this did not mean that a starting point of 3 years must be adopted even for trafficking in a small amount of “ice”.
吳大律師指根據程國雄的量刑指引，販運10 克以下的冰毒，刑期為3 至7 年，但不等如即使販運微量冰毒，亦一定要以3 年監禁為起點。

Mr Ng cited the case of HKSAR v Ko Sai Ho, HCMA 837/2001, the facts of which were said to be similar to those of the present case.  The defendant in that case trafficked in dangerous drugs to an undercover police officer on 4 occasions.  On appeal, the Deputy Judge adopted a starting point of 18 months and imposed a total sentence of 2 years.
吳大律師引用案例高世豪HCMA837/2001，指該案案情與本案相似。該案被告4 次販運危險藥物予卧底警員。上訴時暫委法官認為量刑起點是18 個月，總刑期為2 年。

At the appeal hearing, we pointed out that Ko Sai Ho was a magistracy appeal case and not binding on this Court.
本庭在聆訊時已指出高世豪是裁判法庭上訴案件，對本庭並無約束力。

In Ching Kwok Hung, the Court of Appeal laid down the tariff for the offence of trafficking in “ice”.  For trafficking in up to 12 grammes of ice (the Court of Appeal subsequently held in HKSAR v Capitania Edwin F, CACC 28/2004 that “12 grammes” should in fact read “10 grammes”), the sentence is 3 to 7 years.  Although 4 milligrammes (0.004 grammes) is a small quantity, as far as trafficking in “ice” is concerned, the court will still not deviate from the tariff unless there are exceptional factors to the contrary.
在程國雄一案，上訴庭就冰毒頒下量刑指引，販運冰毒份量至12 克(上訴庭其後在HKSAR v. Capitania Edwin F, CACC28/2004指出該12 克應為10 克)，刑期是在3至 7 年間。雖則4 毫克(0.004 克)份量輕微，但以販運冰毒而言，若無特殊因素，法庭在量刑時不會偏離指引。

Judge Wong took into account the following circumstances in sentencing:
法官在判刑時考慮了下列情況：

“… Cyber 8 Disco is notorious as a hotspot for selling drugs.  Those who abuse cocktail drugs often come across ‘ice’ unknowingly, and by the time they realize it, it is already too late.  They find it difficult to tear themselves away from the drug and they harm themselves, their families and society as a whole.  In the present case, although the quantity of ‘ice’ involved is small, there are no factors to justify a deviation from the relevant sentencing guidelines…”
「……惟Cyber 8 Disco乃城中人所共知，惡名遠播之販藥熱點，濫用雞尾酒式危險者，往往觸及『冰』毒而不自知，到如夢初醒時，已難以自拔，累己害人，禍延家國。本案『冰』毒數量雖不多，但不存令本席偏離相關判刑指引之因素。……」

In view of the circumstances in which the dangerous drugs were sold in the Disco in question, we agree with the judgment of Judge Wong that there was nothing to justify a deviation from the starting point of 3 years.
以第‍一被告在涉案Disco出售危險藥物的情況，本庭認同黃‍法官的裁定，無因素令法官偏離3 年量刑此起點。

As far as D1 is concerned, leaving aside the question of whether he mistakenly believed that the dangerous drugs being sold were relatively mild drugs, a starting point of 3 years for Charge 2 is correct.
撇開被告是否錯誤相信販運的危險藥物為藥性較輕的危險藥物，就控罪‍(二)，以第一被告而言，量刑起點是3 年是正確的。

As for D2, her situation was in our view slightly different from that of D1.  Although D2 claimed to be D1’s “partner” and told the undercover that she was responsible for “looking for customers”, the evidence indicated that she was actually an “intermediary”.  She had no contact with the dangerous drugs or the money used to buy the drugs, nor was she a courier of the drugs.  In light of her role as an “intermediary”, her culpability was less than that of D1 who actually supplied the dangerous drugs, and the starting point for her should be 2½ years.
但就第‍二被告，本庭認為她的情況與第一被告不盡相同。雖則第‍二被告向卧底自稱是第一被告的「拍檔」，她負責「揾客」，但證據顯示她其實是位「中介人」。她無接觸危險藥物或用作買危險藥物的金錢，她亦並非一名傳遞危險藥物的人(courier)。基於她的角色是「中介人」，在整件事件她的罪責較實質供應危險藥物的第一被告為輕，量刑起點應為2½ 年。

On Charge 4, as D1 committed the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs for a second time within one week, his culpability for Charge 4 was greater than that for Charge 2.  The starting point of 3 years adopted by Judge Wong is not excessive.
就控罪‍(四)，第一被告在短短一星期時間再次干犯販運危險藥物罪行，罪責其實較控罪‍(二)為重。黃‍法官採納3 年為量刑起點絕非過重。

Both Defendants do not have previous convictions.  We reiterate that, for serious offences such as “trafficking in dangerous drugs”, a defendant’s clear record does not have a significant bearing on the sentence.  This Court (differently constituted) has emphasized more than once that generally speaking, a clear record is “neutral” unless there is evidence to show that the defendant was previously of “positive good character”, e.g. he had done voluntary work for the community.  There is no such evidence in the present case (see HKSAR v Kita Yasushi & another, CACC 470/2006, HKSAR v Wen Zelang [2006] 4 HKLRD 460, and HKSAR v Leung Shuk Man [2002] 3 HKC 424).
兩名被告均為先前無刑事紀錄的人，本庭重申以「販運危險藥物」此等嚴重罪行而言，被告先前無刑事紀錄對量刑無大影響。本庭(由不同法官組成)不止一次强調，一般而言，先前無刑事紀錄是「中立」的，除非有證據顯示被告的先前「品格正面」，如曾在社會任無薪義工，在本案無此證據。(參看HKSAR v. Kita Yasushi & another, CACC470/2006，HKSAR v. Wen Zelang(溫澤浪) [2006] 4 HKLRD 460，及HKSAR v. Leung Shuk Man [2002] 3 HKC 424。)

Mistaken belief that the dangerous drugs being trafficked in were of a milder nature
錯誤相信販運的危險藥物為毒性較輕的危險藥物

In sentencing for “trafficking in dangerous drugs”, the court may consider as a mitigating factor the defendant’s mistaken belief that he was trafficking in a less serious dangerous drug instead of the one he was actually trafficking in (see R v Bilinski (1988) 86 Cr. App. R. 147, and Yip Wai Yin).
在判罰「販運危險藥物」時，法庭可考慮被告人錯誤相信他所販運的危險藥物是毒性較輕的危險藥物，而不是他確實販運的那種危險藥物，作為減刑因素[參照R. v. Bilinski (1988) 86 Cr.App.R. 147，及葉偉賢案例]。

In Yip Wai Yin, the Court of Appeal made it clear that there must be evidence to show that the defendant held this belief.  The court will rarely rely on what the defendant says in mitigation without more.  Unless there is already clear evidence to that effect, the defendant has to prove on a balance of probabilities that he held such belief.
在葉偉賢案例，上訴庭明言必須有證據支持被告有此信念。法庭很少會信賴在求情時的片面之詞。除非案中的證據已清晰顯示，否則被告要以相對可能性此基準顯示他有該信念。

In HKSAR v Ko Man Yin, CACC 65/2005, Yeung JA stated in his judgment that the court did not have to accept the defendant’s claim that he held a mistaken belief as to the nature of the drugs.  If the defendant raises this as a reason for reducing the sentence, he bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that he did misunderstand the nature of the drugs.  An exception is where the prosecution accepts the defendant’s argument or where the argument is supported by prosecution evidence.  Yeung JA also pointed out that the court might conduct a hearing if necessary to decide whether the defendant’s claim was true.
在香港特別行政區訴高萬賢，CACC65/2005一案，上訴庭法官楊‍振‍權頒下判案書時指出法庭不一定要接納被告人聲稱有誤認毒品性質此說法。如被告人提出上述減刑理由，他有舉證責任，在相對可能性的舉證標準下證明他確有誤認毒品性質的情況。如控方接納被告人的說法，或該說法獲控方的證據支持者則屬例外。楊‍法官亦指有需要時，法庭更要進行聆訊，以決定被告人的聲稱是否屬實。

In the present case, D1 never indicated during mitigation that he had mistakenly held that belief.  Nor did he explain why he had not told the Judge about the mistaken belief.  Although D1 did raise this point in his homemade Grounds of Appeal, the fact remains that he had never clearly indicated such belief to the Judge.
在本案，第一被告在求情時從無表示他有該錯誤信念，亦無解釋為何他沒有向法官提及該錯誤信念。雖然第一被告在他自行撰寫的上訴理由提及此點，事實上他從無向法官表明他有該錯誤信念。

The evidence shows that the transaction between D1 and the undercover involved “fing tau” and “candies”.  D1 was selling “fing tau” and the facts indicated that the tablets which contained dangerous drugs were “ecstasy”.  This did not mean that D1, as “seller” and “supplier”, did not know that the “ecstasy” tablets contained “ice”.
證據顯示第一被告與卧底的交易涉及「fing頭」及「糖」。第一被告出售「fing頭」，案情亦顯示含有危險藥物的片劑是「忘我」，但這亦不等同作為「賣家」、「供應者」的第一被告不知悉「忘我」片劑內有冰毒。

In HKSAR v Chan Yiu Hong, CACC 592/2002, Stuart-Moore VP said in his judgment:
在HKSAR v. Chan Yiu Hong，CACC592/2002，上訴庭副庭長司‍徒‍冕‍大法官在頒下判案書時說：

‘Fing Tau’ may generally be understood by those in the community to refer to the drug known as ecstasy. However, it is widely known amongst dealers that drugs are often mixed together, whereas buyers may be induced by the use of the term ‘Fing Tau’ to believe that they are buying ecstasy, unaware that they are purchasing a cocktail of drugs which may or may not include ecstasy.
「雖然『fing頭』這詞，社會普遍理解為『忘我』、『狂喜』，但毒販廣泛知悉藥物通常為混合物，惟買方以為購買的是『忘我』，而不知道實質是購買危險藥物的混合物；而混合物可能有『忘我』成份，甚或根本無該成份。」

In HKSAR v Li Chi Hung & others, CACC 18/2002, the supplier of the dangerous drugs pleaded not guilty, and the Court of Appeal held that the circumstances of the case were special and, giving the benefit of doubt to the supplier, reduced the starting point by one-fourth on account of the supplier’s mistaken belief that the drugs were milder in nature.  In the present case, D1, who pleaded guilty, had an opportunity to tell Judge Wong about his mistaken belief, but he did not do so.  Nor did he explain to us why he did not do so.  There was also no evidence in the case to indicate that D1 “believed” that he was actually selling nothing other than “ecstasy” (i.e. MDMA) or that he had exercised due care in ensuring that he was indeed selling “ecstasy” rather than a mixture containing “ice”.  In these circumstances, we are unable to give him the benefit of doubt.
雖然在HKSAR v. Li Chi Hung & others, CACC18/2002一案，案中的危險藥物供應者否認控罪，上訴庭仍指以該案獨特案情，給予該供應者疑點利益，以該供應者是誤信危險藥物為毒性較輕的危險藥物，將該案的量刑起點扣減四分之一，在本案，第一被告承認控罪，他有機會向黃‍法官提出他的錯誤信念，但他沒有如此做；亦無向本庭解釋為何他沒有如此做。案中亦無證據顯示第一被告「相信」他出售的真的只是「忘我」(即MDMA)，或是他已履行足夠審慎確保他出售的真的是「忘我」，而非含有冰毒的混合物。本庭不能在此情況下給予他疑點利益。

As for D2, she pleaded not guilty and elected to give evidence at trial.  She denied having offered to sell dangerous drugs to anyone and claimed that she only talked to the undercover because she thought he was a friend of her friend nicknamed “Chocolate”.  She denied having claimed to be D1’s partner and stated that she had only purchased dangerous drugs from D1 on behalf of “Chocolate”, with delivery being arranged among themselves subsequently.
就第二被告，她否認控罪，亦選擇作供。她否認向任何人兜售危險藥物，她指她誤以為卧底是另一朋友「朱古力」的朋友，才跟他傾談。第二被告否認自稱是第一被告的拍擋，她只曾代「朱古力」向第一被告購買危險藥物，而稍後他們是自行交收的。

Although D2 had not indicated at trial that she believed the dangerous drugs involved was indeed nothing more than “ecstasy”, we have taken into account that she was not the “seller” or “supplier”, she only played the role of an “intermediary” and she had no contact with the dangerous drugs.  On the facts of the case and on a balance of probabilities, there is evidence to support D2’s mistaken belief that the dangerous drugs in question were milder in nature.  We give her the benefit of doubt.
雖然第‍二被告在作證時並無表示她相信涉案的危險藥物真的只是「忘我」，本庭考慮到第‍二被告並非「賣家」或「供應者」，她的角色是「中介人」，她無接觸涉案危險藥物。以本案案情而言，在相對可能性此基準下，有證據支持第‍二被告誤信有關危險藥物是毒性較輕的危險藥物。本庭裁定第‍二被告可得疑點利益。

We must stress that, although the facts as admitted by D1 indicated that D2 would have continued to work with him and supply dangerous drugs to others at the Disco, D2 was in fact convicted on Charges 1 and 2 in respect of the incident on 3 December.
本庭強調雖然第‍一被告承認的案情顯示第‍二被告會繼續與她合作，在Disco供應危險藥物予他人，但事實上第‍二被告是就12 月3 日的事件被裁定第‍一及第‍二項控罪罪名成立的。

We hold that the starting point should be further reduced by 6 months, i.e. from 2½ years to 2 years.
本庭認為以2½ 年此量刑起點，應再扣減6 個月，起點應為2 年。

For the above reasons, we made the relevant orders.
基於上述理由，本庭作出有關裁定。

Ms Denise Chan, Senior Government Counsel, for the HKSAR.
答辯人：由律政司高級政府律師陳鳳珊代表香港特別行政區。

Mr Alex Ng, instructed by Littlewoods, for the 1st Applicant.
第一申請人：由聶柏仁律師行委派吳政煌大律師代表。

Mr Francis Cheng, instructed by Louis KY Pau & Co, for the 2nd Applicant.
第二申請人：由包建原律師行委派鄭明斌大律師代表。