Hon Cheung JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
上訴法庭法官張澤祐頒發上訴法庭判案書：

Application for leave to appeal against sentence
刑期上訴許可申請

On 6 October 2008 the applicant pleaded guilty before Deputy District Judge Anthony Kwok to two counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs. Charge 1 involved 7.77 grammes of cocaine in solid form and 1.81 grammes of ketamine in powder form, whereas Charge 2 involved 11.36 grammes of cocaine in solid form and 37.71 grammes of ketamine in powder form. The two offences therefore involved 19.13 grammes of cocaine and 39.52 grammes of ketamine in total. Judge Kwok sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for 58 months. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against sentence.
申請人於 2008 年 10 月 6 日在區域法院暫委法官郭啟安席前承認兩項「販運危險藥物罪」。第一項控罪的危險藥物是含 7.77 克「可卡因」的固體及含 1.81 克「氯胺酮」的粉末。第二項控罪的危險藥物是含 11.36 克「可卡因」的固體及含 37.71 克「氯胺酮」的粉末。兩種危險藥物的總數量分別為 19.l3克的「可卡因」及 39.52克的「氯胺酮」。郭法官判處申請人五十八個月監禁。申請人現就刑期提出上訴許可申請。

Facts
案情

The facts showed that on 14 March 2008, police officers intercepted the applicant outside the entrance of a building in High Street, Sai Ying Pun and found a key on his person, which was a key to the applicant’s residence in that building. On the strength of a search warrant granted by the court, the police officers entered the flat with the applicant immediately. A search was first conducted on the applicant inside the flat. From his underpants a large plastic bag was found, which contained three packets of dangerous drugs (i.e. the dangerous drugs referred to in Charge 1) and 15 re-sealable transparent plastic bags. Besides, the police found from the applicant’s bed 16 bags of dangerous drugs (i.e. the dangerous drugs referred to in Charge 2).
案情顯示 2008 年 3 月 14 日，警員在西營盤高街一幢大廈門外截停申請人，並在他身上搜出一條鑰匙，它是申請人在該幢大廈的住所鑰匙。由於當時警員已持有法院頒發的搜查令，所以隨即與申請人進入該單位。警員在單位內首先替申請人搜身，警員從他的內褲搜出一個大膠袋，內藏三包危險藥物（即控罪一的危險藥物）及十五個可再封式透明膠袋。另外，警員在申請人的床上搜獲十六袋危險藥物（第二項控罪的危險藥物）。

Sentencing approach
量刑方式

The Court of Appeal has set forth in a number of decisions the two sentencing approaches to be adopted in respect of a defendant who trafficked in more than one type of dangerous drugs:
上訴法庭已在多宗案例中闡述法庭在處理被告人販運超過一種危險藥物時所採用的兩種量刑方法：

The first approach is the “individual approach” where an appropriate starting point is determined for each type of dangerous drug, and they are then combined into an overall starting point prior to any discount;
第一種方法是「個別方式」，即將每一類別的危險藥物的適當量刑基準加起來作為在未給予扣減之前的量刑基準；

The second approach is the “combined approach” where a starting point is determined for the most serious type of dangerous drug, and it is then adjusted upwards in light of the quantity of the less serious drug in order to arrive at the ultimate starting point; but no such adjustment is required if the less serious drug is present in insignificant quantity.
第二種方法是「綜合方式」，即先以其中一種較嚴重類別的危險藥物作為量刑基準，然後以另一種危險藥物的分量來作出調整，以得出一個最終的量刑基準；但若後者的分量少的話，法庭就無須調整量刑基準。

Where the “combined approach” is taken, the court will rely on common sense in determining which type of the dangerous drugs is to be regarded as the more serious, hence forming the basis of the starting point. For example, a certain type of drug, although less potent, may be present in much larger quantity than another, in which case its quantity will form the basis for the starting point. On the other hand, if the two types of drugs are present in similar quantities, the quantity of the drug of greater potency will provide the basis for the starting point.
法庭採用「綜合方式」時是以常識來判斷哪一類危險藥物是較嚴重的類別以作為量刑基準的考慮基礎，例如某一類危險藥物的毒性雖然較低，但它的分量卻明顯較另一種危險藥物為多的話，法庭就會基於這種危險藥物的分量來作出一個量刑基準；但若兩種危險藥物的分量是相約的話，法庭就會基於毒性較強的一種危險藥物的分量來作出一個量刑基準。

As a rule of practice, where the sentencing brackets for the two types of dangerous drugs are not dissimilar, it is appropriate to adopt the “combined approach”; where, on the other hand, the two drugs are disparate in quantity and potency, the “individual approach” is to be preferred.
一個實際可行的方法是如兩種危險藥物的個別量刑幅度相差不遠的話，「綜合方式」是較為適合的；但若兩種危險藥物無論在分量或毒性的差別都很大時，法庭採用「個別方式」是較為適當的做法。

The appropriate approach to be adopted is a matter of discretion for the sentencing court, to be exercised in light of the circumstances of the particular case. No matter which approach is taken, the paramount consideration at the end of the day is the totality of the overall starting point, see: HKSAR v. Chan Ho Wai (CACC 129/2008); HKSAR v. Yip Wai Yin and another [2004] 3 HKC 367; HKSAR v. Cheung Kwok Leung [2003] 3 HKLRD 542; HKSAR v. Yip Pik Kwai [1999] 3 HKLRD 42.
法庭無論採用哪一種方式都是行使其酌情權，它要因應每宗案件的獨特情況來決定哪種方式較為適合。無論法庭採用哪一種方式，最重要的是它必須考慮最終量刑基準的整體性，見：HKSAR v. Chan Ho Wai（陳浩維）(CACC 129/2008)， HKSAR v. Yip Wai Yin and another [2004] 3 HKC 367; HKSAR v. Cheung Kwok Leung [2003] 3 HKLRD 542; HKSAR v. Yip Pik Kwai [1999] 3 HKLRD 42。

To the above principles, we would add the following observations:
除了上述原則外，本庭有以下的補充意見：

In respect of a mixture of different types of dangerous drugs, i.e. the so-called “cocktail drugs” or “designer drugs”, which usually involves the use of one of the components to enhance the potency of another, it is more appropriate for the court to adopt the “combined approach” in determining the starting point.
若果某些不同種類別的危險藥物被混和在一起，即所謂「混合危險藥物」或「雞尾酒危險藥物」(cocktail drugs)，又或是「設計師危險藥物」(designer drugs)，法庭採用「綜合方式」來考量其量刑基準是較為適合的，因為這類混合危險藥物一般都利用其中一種危險藥物來加強另一種危險藥物的毒性。

In fact, whichever approach is adopted, the court will inevitably have to fix a sentence for each type of drug and then make adjustments as appropriate, in order to avoid the absurdity referred to in Yip Wai Yin: where the “individual approach” is adopted, the addition of the sentences for each individual drug may lead to a far higher overall sentence than if the whole quantity of the mixture merely contained the more or most serious of the various drugs.
其實，無論法庭採用哪一種方式來考量刑基準都是無可避免地需要定出每一類危險藥物的個別刑期，然後再作出調整，這才可以避免出現如 Yip Wai Yin 一案所提到的荒謬情況：即若果採用「個別方式」，將所有個別危險藥物的刑期加起來後，它們刑期的總和可能會遠超過混合物其中較為嚴重的危險藥物，但假設其分量是與個別危險藥物總數相等的刑期。

The calculations made by Judge Kwok
郭法官的計算方法

In the present case, Judge Kwok adopted the “individual approach”. He first considered the starting point for each of the two types of dangerous drugs and then arrived at an overall starting point.
在本案，郭法官是採用「個別方式」。他先考慮兩種不同危險藥物之個別量刑基準，然後作出一個整體性的量刑基準。

First of all, Judge Kwok considered that the appropriate sentence for 19.13 grammes of cocaine should be 68 months’ imprisonment (the sentencing guidelines in Lau Tak Ming for trafficking in heroin are applicable to sentencing for trafficking in cocaine, see AG v. Pedro Nel Rojas [1994] 2 HKLRD). Judge Kwok accepted that cocaine was more potent than ketamine. However, as much as 39.52 grammes of ketamine was involved in the present case and, upon the sentencing guidelines then applicable, the relevant starting point was 27 months’ imprisonment (the starting points for ketamine and ecstasy were then the same, see Lee Tak Kwan [1998] 2 HKLRD 46 and HKSAR v. Leung Chun Fung [2003] 2 HKLRD 282). In the end, Judge Kwok adopted 87 months’ imprisonment as the overall starting point and, giving the one-third discount for the guilty plea, reduced the term to 58 months.
首先，他裁定 19.13 克「可卡因」的刑期應為六十八個月監禁（劉德明一案有關販運「海洛英」量刑指引適用於販運「可卡因」刑期，見AG v. Pedro Neil Rojas [1994] 2 HKLRD）。郭法官認同「可卡因」的毒性比「氯安酮」為高，但本案的「氯安酮」總分量高達 39.52 克，若採用當時適用的量刑指引，有關的量刑基準是二十七個月監禁（當時「氯安」與「狂喜」、「忘我」的量刑基準是相同的，見：李德軍 [1998] 2 HKLRD 46及HKSAR v. Leung Chun Fung [2003] 2 HKLRD 282）。最終，郭法官採用八十七個月監禁作為整體量刑基準，在扣減申請人認罪的三分一之後，刑期為五十八個月監禁。

Ground of appeal
上訴理由

Mr. Hung, Counsel for the applicant, points out that, assuming all the 58.65 grammes of dangerous drugs in question were the more serious type of drug, namely cocaine, then according to the guidelines, the appropriate starting point would be 8 years (i.e. 96 months). However, on the “individual approach” that Judge Kwok adopted, the two starting points of 68 months and 27 months added up to 95 months, which was almost the same as the said notional starting point of 96 months. It is therefore submitted that the “individual approach” was unfair to the applicant.
代表申請人的孔慶碩大律師指出，假設涉案的全部 58.65 克危險藥物都是較嚴重類別的危險藥物類別「可卡因」，根據指引適當的量刑基準是八年（即九十六個月）監禁，但郭法官若採用「個別方式」，將兩個分別為六十八個月及二十七個月監禁的量刑基準合起來計算，即是九十五個月監禁，這與上述假設的量刑基準幾乎一樣，所以採用這個方式對申請人是不公平的。

Our opinion
本庭的意見

Given the two types of dangerous drugs in the present case appeared not as a mixture but in separate packages, we do not think that Judge Kwok erred when he adopted the “individual approach” in determining the starting point. In adopting this approach, Judge Kwok had considered the principles in Chan Ho Wai as well as the potency and quantities of the dangerous drugs in question. As Judge Kwok did not arrive at the overall starting point by simply adding up the two individual starting points, the absurdity referred to in Yip Wai Yin did not arise. Judge Kwok merely adjusted the starting point of 68 months upwards to 87 months.
本案的兩類危險藥物是個別包裝的，它們並非混合在一起的混合危險藥物。在這情況下，本庭不認為郭法官採用「個別方式」來考慮量刑基準是錯誤的做法，他採用這方式時已經考慮過陳浩維一案的原則及本案的危險藥物的毒性及分量。由於郭法官沒有將兩項刑期加起來作為一項最終量刑基準，所以本案並沒有出現如Yip Wai Yin 案的荒謬現象。他只是將六十八個月監禁的量刑基準上調至八十七個月監禁。

In fact, the fundamental issue in the present case is whether the starting point of 87 months adopted by Judge Kwok was at variance with the totality principle. In view of the large quantities of the two types of dangerous drugs in question, we do not consider the starting point of 87 months manifestly excessive. The application is dismissed accordingly.
其實本案的最終爭議點是郭法官所作出的八十七個月監禁的量刑基準是否與刑期的整體性原則有所抵觸。本案的兩種危險藥物的分量都非常多，在這情況下本庭不認為八十七個月監禁的量刑基準是明顯過高，本庭因此駁回申請。

Ms. Olivia Tsang, Senior Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent.
答辯人：由律政司說級檢控官曾藹琪代表。

Mr. Andy Hung, instructed by the Legal Aid Department, for the Applicant.
申請人：由法律援助署轉聘孔慶碩大律師代表。