香港特別行政區 訴 黃子琛（又名巫子琛）
Although the trial evidence (opening the door, sole possession of 14 drug units, large cash sum, paraphernalia and presence of many users) could suffice to infer operation and possession for supply in the absence of an explanation, there was a realistic basis to conclude the trial judge's remarks may have misled the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] HKCA 823
- Parties
- Respondent: 香港特別行政區; Applicant: 黃子琛（又名巫子琛） (WONG CHI SUM)
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 23 July 2019
- Case Number
- CACC170/2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Conviction Appeal Application / Leave to Appeal Application (conviction) Permission Granted in Part
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal against convictions on count 1 (operating a drug den) and count 2 (trafficking) granted in part and limited to the grounds advanced by the applicant
- Legal Topics
- Operation of a Drug Den, Drug Trafficking, Possession of Controlled Drugs, Right to Silence, Judicial Directions, Unfair Trial
- 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
黃子琛（又名巫子琛） (WONG CHI SUM)
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Conviction Appeal Application / Leave to Appeal Application (conviction) Permission Granted in Part
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution's evidence was sufficient to support inferences that the applicant operated a drug den
- 2 Whether the 14 drug units in the applicant's possession were held for supply/trafficking
- 3 Whether comments by the trial judge may have misled the applicant into not testifying and thereby rendered the trial unfair
Ratio Decidendi
Although the trial evidence (opening the door, sole possession of 14 drug units, large cash sum, paraphernalia and presence of many users) could suffice to infer operation and possession for supply in the absence of an explanation, there was a realistic basis to conclude the trial judge's remarks may have misled the applicant into silence and thereby compromised fairness; accordingly leave to appeal against the convictions on counts 1 and 2 was granted (limited to the grounds raised).
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal against convictions on count 1 (operating a drug den) and count 2 (trafficking) granted in part and limited to the grounds advanced by the applicant
Orders
- Permission to appeal granted in respect of the first and second counts, limited to the grounds already raised by the applicant
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CACC 170/2018 [2019] HKCA 823 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 刑事司法管轄權 定罪上訴許可申請 刑事上訴案件2018年第170號 （原區域法院刑事案件2017年第853號） 答辯人 香港特別行政區 對 申請人 黃子琛（又名巫子琛） （WONG CHI SUM） 主審法官： 高等法院署理首席法官楊振權 聆訊日期： 2019年7月23日 判案書日期： 2019年7月23日 判案書 引言 申請人（黃子琛）被控一項經營煙窟罪、一項“販毒”罪及一項管有“毒品”罪。她承認管有“毒品”罪，但否認其餘兩項控罪。就“販毒”罪，申請人亦承認管有該項控罪所指的毒品。 經審訊後，申請人被裁定經營煙窟及“販毒”罪罪名成立，並被判處入獄共57個月。申請人不服定罪及判刑，現提出上訴許可申請，要求獲准就該兩項定罪及判刑上訴。 案情 2017年6月20日，警員在案發地點外埋伏。同日下午6時10分，一名男子到達上址並按門鈴，申請人開門。該名男子和警員糾纏，但最終被制服。警員在室內發現25男7女坐在不同位置。他們身上都沒有任何“毒品”。 上址大廳內有多張枱凳、枱上有大量吸食毒品的工具，而大廳的櫃上有一本銷售毒品的賬簿。 申請人身上有價值2,000多元的14粒毒品，亦有由一百多張鈔票和數十個硬幣組成的13,454.50元。 申請人沒有在一般事項作供，亦沒有傳召任何證人。 討論 涉案地點是一煙窟是不爭事實。本案的議題是控方的證據是否足以導致無可抗拒的推論，證明申請人是煙窟的經營者及她管有價值2,000多元的毒品是作販運用。 針對申請人的主要證據包括： 申請人負責在涉案煙窟開門； 申請人是煙窟內唯一管有毒品的人，而毒品數量有14粒之多； 煙窟內有30多名極可能是吸毒的人士；及 申請人身上有由一百多張鈔票及數十個硬幣組成的13,454.50元現金。 在申請人沒有作供或傳召證人作供以解釋、反駁和推翻控方的指控時，控方的上述證據極可能足以證明她是煙窟的經營者，而她管有的14粒毒品是作供應吸毒者用。 但本席關注到原審法官在審訊過程中和雙方大律師的對話內容。本席認為原審法官的說話可能會誤導申請人令她以為不作供亦必會獲判無罪。申請人有基礎爭拗原審法官的處理方法令審訊過程不公平。 在該基礎下，本席批准申請人就第一項和第二項控罪的定罪上訴，但局限於申請人已提出的第一項和第二項上訴理由。 （楊振權） 高等法院署理首席法官 答辯人： 由律政司高級檢控官張卓勤代表。 申請人： 由法律援助署委派陳崔律師事務所轉聘大律師劉欣欣代表。