香港特別行政區 訴 廖有光
The Court held the sentencing judge rightly adopted the 3‑year baseline from HKSAR v Xie Jinbin for offences involving agarwood and correctly reduced that baseline by one‑third for an early guilty plea to 2 years; the offence and quantity justified that starting point and the applicant’s leave to appeal against...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] HKCA 896
- Parties
- Applicant: LIAO YOUGUANG (廖有光); Respondent: The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (香港特別行政區)
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 7 August 2019
- Case Number
- CACC46/2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal — Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Leave to Appeal Application Heard in Court of Appeal (criminal Jurisdiction)
- Outcome
- application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed; original sentence upheld
- Legal Topics
- Illegal Export, Endangered Species Protection, Plea Discount, Application of Precedent, Levelling Off (sentencing Principle)
- 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
LIAO YOUGUANG (廖有光)
Applicant
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (香港特別行政區)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal — Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Leave to Appeal Application Heard in Court of Appeal (criminal Jurisdiction)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of 2 years imprisonment was manifestly excessive
- 2 Whether the sentencing judge was correct to adopt the 3‑year baseline from HKSAR v Xie Jinbin for illegal export of agarwood
- 3 Whether the large quantity of agarwood justified the chosen baseline and denied scope for further discount
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held the sentencing judge rightly adopted the 3‑year baseline from HKSAR v Xie Jinbin for offences involving agarwood and correctly reduced that baseline by one‑third for an early guilty plea to 2 years; the offence and quantity justified that starting point and the applicant’s leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
Court Disposition
application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed; original sentence upheld
Orders
- Leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
- Original sentence of immediate imprisonment of 2 years affirmed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CACC 46/2019 [2019] HKCA 896 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 刑事司法管轄權 不服刑罰上訴許可申請 刑事上訴案件2019年第46號 (原區域法院刑事案件2018年第733號) __________________ 答辯人 香港特別行政區 對 申請人 LIAO YOUGUANG (廖有光) __________________ 主審法官： 高等法院上訴法庭法官彭偉昌 聆訊日期： 2019年8月7日 判案日期： 2019年8月7日 判 案 書 申請人承認一項簡稱‘非法出口沉香’罪，涉及2.596千克沉香，處即時入獄2年。 ‘非法出口沉香’的判刑沒有案例，原審法官乃援引以沉香為標的之‘盜竊’罪經典案例 HKSAR v Xie Jinbin [2011] 2 HKLRD 631，採納3年為本案的量刑基準，並因申請人認罪而給予其三份一的扣減至2年。 我認為原審法官的判斷正確。 正如原審法官按上訴法庭在Xie案的思路指出，判罰與沉香有關的各種罪行，關鍵在保護沉香這種瀕危植物。從這個角度考慮，無論是偷取、處理及把沉香偷運出境等行為，在罪責上都很難作出有意義的區別，理由是上述各種犯罪行為或角色皆為導致這種植物瀕危的重要環節。這與‘盜竊’和‘處理贓物’涉及各式各樣不同財物及兩罪之間在罪責上或許有所不同，不能同日而語。 原審法官也謹慎及正確地補充，由於涉及本案的沉香數量極大，所以就算本案不比Xie案的犯案人數眾多及/或準備充足，3年的量刑基準在本案也毫不為過。至於HKSAR v Wen Zelang [2006] 4 HKLRD 460，犯案人士多而涉案沉香更多，卻仍然以3年為量刑基準，我認為只是不能因應數量增加而不斷把刑期推高的原則（即英語裡的‘levelling off’）的彰顯。 我認為，就刑期而言，申請人實無合理可供辯的理據以支持他的上訴，所以駁回他的上訴許可申請。 在庭上，我已就《刑事訴訟程序條例》第83W條有關‘扣時’的風險向申請人作出警告。 (彭偉昌) 高等法院上訴法庭法官 申請人： 由法律援助署委派曾藹琪大律師代表 答辯人： 由律政司署理助理刑事檢控專員余國慧女士代表