香港特別行政區 訴 老嘉盈
Bail was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficiently arguable grounds to challenge the jury's factual findings (including contested confessions) or that the seven-year sentence was manifestly excessive; therefore release pending appeal was not justified.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 香港特別行政區 訴 老嘉盈
- Parties
- Respondent: 香港特別行政區; Applicant: 老嘉盈 (LO KA YING)
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 25 April 2014
- Case Number
- CACC45/2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence / Bail Application Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- bail application refused
- Legal Topics
- Drug Trafficking, Possession of Dangerous Drugs, Confession Evidence, Bail Pending Appeal, Sentence Severity
- Source Language
- ch
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
香港特別行政區
Respondent
老嘉盈 (LO KA YING)
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence / Bail Application Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether bail pending appeal should be granted
- 2 Whether there are sufficient grounds to challenge convictions based on alleged improper police-obtained confessions
- 3 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive
Ratio Decidendi
Bail was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficiently arguable grounds to challenge the jury's factual findings (including contested confessions) or that the seven-year sentence was manifestly excessive; therefore release pending appeal was not justified.
Court Disposition
bail application refused
Orders
- Application for bail pending appeal dismissed
- Applicant to remain in custody pending appeal
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CACC 45/2014 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 刑事司法管轄權 判罪及刑期上訴許可申請 刑事上訴案件 2014 年第 45 號 （原高等法院刑事案件 2013 年第 16 號） 答辯人 香港特別行政區 與 申請人 老嘉盈 (LO KA YING) 審理法官：高等法院上訴法庭法官張澤祐內庭聆訊 聆訊日期：2014 年 4 月 23 日 判決日期：2014 年 4 月 23 日 判決理由書日期：2014 年 4 月 25 日 判決理由書 申請人被裁定一項「販運危險藥物」罪及一項「管有危險藥物」罪罪名成立及被判監七年。申請人就定罪及刑期提出上訴許可申請。她申請在上訴候審期間獲得保釋。本席在聆訊後拒絕其保釋申請，理由如下。 控方針對申請人的兩項控罪的證據包括申請人向警方的招認。她就「販運危險藥物」罪，承認將有關毒品售賣給同案的第一被告人。她亦承認自己吸食另一項控罪的危險藥物。在審訊時，申請人否認她曾作出招認，並聲稱有關招認是警方以不正當手法獲取的。 原審法官已經引導陪審團詳細考慮有關涉及招認的證供。陪審團的裁決純粹是一項事實的裁決。本席在現階段未能看到申請人就其定罪提出充分的上訴理據，以致本席需要在這階段批准她保釋候審。原審法官作出的量刑基準是根據本案毒品的份量及適當的指引。申請人亦未能顯示有關的刑期是明顯過高。基於上述理由，本席駁回申請。 （張澤祐） 高等法院上訴法庭法官 答辯人：由律政司高級檢控官范凱琳代表。 申請人：無律師代表, 親自應訊。