香港特別行政區 訴 雷奕豪
The trial judge's adverse credibility findings (accepting the applicant's caution interview admissions over his amended trial account), together with the objective circumstances — late‑night remote location, suspicious behaviour, and recovery of 22 small packets and one large packet — supported the inference of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] HKCA 992
- Parties
- Applicant: LUI Yik ho (雷奕豪); Respondent: 香港特別行政區
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 28 August 2019
- Case Number
- CACC294/2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal (conviction) / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction Refused
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal against conviction refused.
- Legal Topics
- Trafficking in Dangerous Drugs, Conviction Appeal, Credibility Assessment, Possession and Packaging as Evidence, Inferences From Quantity and Packaging, Section 83 W Custody Warning
- 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
LUI Yik ho (雷奕豪)
Applicant
香港特別行政區
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (conviction) / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction Refused
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs was unsafe or should be overturned on appeal
- 2 Whether the applicant's alleged personal use and claims about drug potency negate an inference of trafficking
- 3 Whether packaging into multiple small packets and the circumstances of arrest justify an inference of intent to distribute
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge's adverse credibility findings (accepting the applicant's caution interview admissions over his amended trial account), together with the objective circumstances — late‑night remote location, suspicious behaviour, and recovery of 22 small packets and one large packet — supported the inference of trafficking; those findings were open to the trial judge and not perverse, so leave to appeal against conviction was refused.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal against conviction refused.
Orders
- Leave to appeal against conviction refused.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CACC 294/2018 [2019] HKCA 992 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 刑事司法管轄權 不服定罪上訴許可申請 刑事上訴案件2018年第294號 (原區域法院刑事案件2016年第1043號) __________________ 答辯人 香港特別行政區 對 申請人 LUI Yik ho (雷奕豪) __________________ 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28日 判案日期： 2019年8月28日 判 案 書 我拒絕申請人就一項‘販運危險藥物’罪的定罪上訴許可申請。 原審法官沒有誤解氯胺酮對申請人的影響。如果毒品的質量好，申請人確實會神智不清，這是申請人本人的證供。原審法官濃縮了的說法是要指出：申請人不知道涉案毒品的質量、不會貿然冒這個險。 申請人每天吸食5至6克氯胺酮，是他在警誡會面錄影時所作出的明確答案，當時由警員向他反問確認（記項145至148）。申請人要待作供時才修訂這個說法，原審法官有權不予信納。 總括而言，申請人指自己「心癮」起、在不知毒品質量即吸食後果下貿然下車吸食，是違反常理的。原審法官指申請人負擔不起自己的毒癖，亦有效回應了申請人有服用氯胺酮的習慣所可能帶來的疑點（吸毒者因經濟壓力而參與販運不足為奇）。 申請人毒品乃自用的說法一旦被拒納，案中餘下的不爭證據就是：夜深時分，申請人被發現於離家一段較遠路程（22分鐘）的偏僻公廁附近，形跡可疑，搜身後被發現的毒品更分開包裝成22小包和一大包。在這個情況下，原審法官裁定申請人販運危險藥物，是無可批評的。申請人的家沒有包裝毒品的工具，並不是推翻這個裁決的有效理由。 我已在庭上向申請人發出過有關《刑事訴訟程序條例》第83W下的‘扣時’警告。 (彭偉昌) 高等法院上訴法庭法官 申請人： 由法律援助署委派鄭國洪律師事務所轉聘李頌然大律師代表 答辯人： 由律政司署理高級檢控官羅天瑋先生代表