在香港,含大麻素THC的產品是否受法例管制?

我們留意到加拿大當局放寬了對 #休閒類大麻的管制(例如一些含有 #THC 成份的產品)。在香港,含 #大麻素 #THC 的產品是否受法例管制?

我們理解 #四氫大麻酚(英文簡稱THC)是大麻植物含有的其中一種大麻素,屬香港法例第134章《#危險藥物條例》管制的危險藥物。任何含有THC的產品(包括食品和飲料)亦受該條例管制。根據《危險藥物條例》,進口入香港、從香港出口、獲取、供應或以其他形式經營或處理危險藥物,或 #管有危險藥物 作 #販運,及 #製造危險藥物,均屬刑事罪行,最高刑罰為 #終身監禁及#罰款HK$5,000,000。

We notice that the Canadian authorities have relaxed control on recreational cannabis (such as products containing THC). Are products containing THC regulated under the laws of Hong Kong?

We understand that Tetrahydro-cannabinol (THC) is a cannabinoid present in cannabis plants and is a dangerous drug controlled under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Cap. 134) (“DDO”). Any products (including any food products and drinks) that contain THC are also controlled under the DDO. Under the DDO, importing into and exporting from Hong Kong, procuring, supplying or otherwise dealing in or with any dangerous drug, or possessing any dangerous drug for the purpose of trafficking, and manufacturing any dangerous drug, constitute criminal offences. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment and a fine of HK$5,000,000. 

乜嘢係洗黑錢? 洗黑錢可以有幾嚴重?

乜嘢係 #洗黑錢? 洗黑錢可以有幾嚴重?

根據香港法例第455章 《#有組織及嚴重罪行條例》第25條,
如有人知道或有合理理由相信任何財產全部或部分、直接或間接代表任何人從可公訴罪行的得益而仍處理該財產,即屬犯罪。

處理財產,包括 ——

(a) #收受或取得該財產

(b) #隱藏或掩飾該財產(不論是隱藏或掩飾該財產的性質、來源、所在位置、處置、調動或擁有權或與其有關的任何權利或其他方面的事宜);

(c)#處置或轉換該財產

(d)#將該財產運入香港或調離香港;及

(e)#以該財產借貸,或作保證(不論是藉押記、按揭或質押或其他方式).

任何人一經定罪,可處 #罰款$5,000,000及 #監禁14年

Under section 25 of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap 455), a person commits an offence if, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that any property in whole or in part directly or indirectly represents any person’s proceeds of an indictable offence, he deals with that property.

“Dealing” includes—
(a) receiving or acquiring the property;

(b) concealing or disguising the property (whether by concealing or disguising its nature, source, location, disposition, movement or ownership or any rights with respect to it or otherwise);

(c) disposing of or converting the property;

(d) bringing into or removing from Hong Kong the property; and

(e) using the property to borrow money, or as security (whether by way of charge, mortgage or pledge or otherwise).

A person convicted of dealing with proceeds of an indictable offence is liable on conviction to a fine of $5,000,000 and to imprisonment for 14 years.

“香城 Online 犯法系列” – 20 of 20

“香城 Online 犯法系列” – 20 of 20

視乎內容而定,該行為可能構成 #煽惑他人犯罪#披露未經資料使用者同意而取得的個人資料的行為#第486章《個人資料(私隱)條例》第64條)。違反第64條最高刑罰是罰款$1,000,000及監禁五年。

根據第221章《#刑事訴訟程序條例》第101I條(2)(c)款,任何人被裁定 #煽惑他人犯某罪項,而條例雖訂定該罪項的最高刑罰,但除此處外,並無任何條例訂定 #煽惑他人犯該罪項的刑罰,則可判處該罪項的 #最高刑罰

“Hong City Online, breaking laws series” – 20 of 20

Depending on the contents, such acts may potentially amount to incitement to commit an offence and disclosing personal data obtained without consent from data users (s.64 of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, Cap 486). The maximum penalty for contravening section 64 is a fine of HK$1,000,000 and imprisonment for 5 years.

Under section 101I(2)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 221), where a person is convicted of incitement to commit an offence for which a maximum penalty is provided by any Ordinance, and no penalty is otherwise provided by any Ordinance for such incitement, he shall be liable to be sentenced to that maximum penalty.

“香城 Online 犯法系列” – 19 of 20

“香城 Online 犯法系列” – 19 of 20

如果牽涉披露未經資料使用者同意而取得的個人資料的行為,可能觸犯第486章《個人資料(私隱)條例》第64條的罪行及其他刑事罪行。違反第64條最高刑罰是罰款$1,000,000及監禁五年。

“Hong City Online, breaking laws series” – 19 of 20

Any person who commits an act of disclosing personal data obtained without consent from data users may have contravened section 64 of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486) and other criminal provisions. The maximum penalty for contravening section 64 is a fine of HK$1,000,000 and imprisonment for 5 years.

注定失敗的申請!/ An application bound to fail!

#司法機構 就 #林雲浩大法官判詞 的撮要

1. 警方根據裁判官發出的 #搜查令,從一家醫院取得某些關於申請人的 #醫療記錄

2. 申請人要求法庭聲明警方拒絕向她出示有關搜令的做法違反基本法第35條及《#公民權利和政治權利國際公約》第2(3)條。

3. 是次司法覆核申請提出了一個 #狹窄的法律問題。那就是警方未有向申請人出示有關的搜令會否實際地妨礙她在法庭提出訴訟的權利,而不是關於警方是否應申請該搜令,或該裁判官是否應批出該搜令,又或是該搜令是否應被法庭撤銷。

4. 無論是根據法規或普通法,申請人都是沒有 #獨立的權利 要求警方向她出示該搜查令的。根據法例當中的現有機制,申請人可在實際或有意進行的 #法庭程序 中質疑搜查令的效力,並在提出合適的理據後申請警方向她出示有關的搜令。

5. 直至現在,申請人都 #未有利用上述的機制行事。而除了為追討損害賠償外,亦有潛在的法律渠道讓申請人質疑有關搜令是否有效,但申請人至今仍未有利用這些渠道。

6. 答辯人未有按申請人要求向她出示該搜令,亦 #不表示答辯人侵犯了她在法庭提出訴訟的權利

7. 因此,申請人的司法覆核申請遭 #駁回 並須 #支付訟費

Judiciary’s summary of G Lam J’s #judgement

1. The police have pursuant to a search warrant issued by a magistrate obtained from a hospital certain medical records relating to the applicant.

2. The applicant seeks a declaration that the police’s refusal to produce the warrant to her is in breach of Article 35 of the Basic Law and Article 2(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

3. This application for judicial review raises the narrow question of whether the fact that the search warrant has not been produced to the applicant has effectively obstructed her right of access to the courts. It is not about whether the police should have applied for the warrant, or whether the magistrate should have granted the warrant, or whether the warrant should be set aside.

4. The applicant does not have a free‑standing right to the production of the warrant on demand either under statute or common law. There are existing mechanisms in the law for the applicant to seek, on proper grounds, production of the warrant in the context of actual or intended proceedings to impugn it.

5. The applicant has so far not utilised these mechanisms. There are legal avenues potentially open to the applicant for impugning the validity of the warrant and not only for recovering damages, which the applicant has so far not utilised.

6. The fact that the respondent has not produced the warrant to the applicant on demand does not mean her right of access to the courts has been infringed.

7. Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed with costs.

“香城 Online 犯法系列” – 18 of 20

“香城 Online 犯法系列” – 18 of 20

協助及教唆罪: 根據第221章《刑事訴訟程序條例》第89條,任何人 #協助#教唆#慫使或促致 另一人犯任何罪行,即屬就 #同一罪行有罪

共同犯罪– 在有關罪行上雖然扮演着不同的角色,都可能基於共同犯罪原則下構成犯罪,所有有份參與犯罪的人都一樣有罪,有 #相同的刑責

“Hong City Online, breaking laws series” – 18 of 20

Aiding and abetting the commission of an offence (s.89 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221) – any person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission by another person of any offence shall be guilty of the like offence.

Joint enterprise – people playing different roles in an offence are in joint enterprise and are of equal culpability as any others involved in the commission of the offence.

企圖犯罪已經係犯法!

企圖犯罪已經係犯法
唔好以為要完成整個犯罪行為先算犯法呀!

根據香港法例第200章 《#刑事罪行條例》第159G 和159J 條,如任何有意圖犯罪的人作出某項作為已超乎只屬犯該罪行的 #預備作為者,則該人即屬企圖犯該罪行。雖則有關的事實顯示所犯的罪行並不可能,該人仍可被裁定企圖犯該罪行。簡單來説,任何人如被裁定企圖犯某罪行,一經定罪,可處該人就該罪行被定罪所本可被判處的刑罰。

Attempting to commit an offence is also illegal.
Don’t think you are only liable if the offence is committed in full!

Under Sections 159G and 159J of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200), a person is guilty of attempting to commit an offence if the person who, intending to commit the offence, does an act that is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence. The person may be found guilty even though the facts are such that the commission of the offence is impossible. Generally speaking, a person guilty of attempting to commit an office is liable on conviction to any penalty to which he would have been liable on conviction of that offence.

“香城 Online 犯法系列” – 17 of 20

“香城 Online 犯法系列” – 17 of 20

可能基於共同犯罪原則下構成非法集會或暴動罪,或協助及教唆非法集會或暴動罪。根據第221章《刑事訴訟程序條例》第89條,任何人協助,教唆,慫使或促致另一人犯任何罪行,即屬就同一罪行有罪。

“Hong City Online, breaking laws series” – 17 of 20

May be guilty of unlawful assembly or riot by way of joint enterprise or aiding and abetting an unlawful assembly or riot. Under s.89 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap 221), any person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission by another person of any offence shall be guilty of the like offence.

《國旗及國徽條例》

屯門大會堂外燒五星旗 13歲女生被判12個月感化

9月21日光復屯門遊行期間,13歲女生被指在屯門大會堂外燒五星旗,她早前承認「侮辱國旗」罪,今(13日)在屯門法院被判12個月感化。

辯方求情指,被告在學校的成績正常,行為良好,經與感化官詳談後,學懂如何解決行事衝動的問題,並學會理性分析和用文明方式表達意見,認為被告接受感化,同時依照感化官指示參加復康小組活動,已可切實解決其問題。

裁判官認同感化官對被告評價不俗,同意她並非狂妄之徒,但鑑於近日的社會事件仍未完結,勸誡她做事不要沖昏頭腦,即使認同他人的說法,也不要隨便跟着做,否則會非常危險,即使在日常生活,做事衝動,不考慮後果也是一件傻事,希望本案完結後,被告及其家人面對的問題亦隨之畫上句號。

據早前案情指,案發當日下午有政府職員透過閉路電視看到有人將五星旗扯下,其後被告等3人用打火機焚燒五星旗,遂通知在場警員,警員尾隨被告至深井截停,警誡下她承認犯案。

https://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20191213/mobile/bkn-20191213151821357-1213_00822_001.html

但其實:

根據香港法例《#國旗及國徽條例》(文件A401)第7條,任何人公開及故意以 #焚燒#毀損#塗劃#玷污#踐踏 等方式侮辱國旗或國徽,即屬犯罪,一經定罪,可處罰款HK$50,000 及監禁3年。

Under Section 7 of the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance (Instrument A401), a person who desecrates the national flag or national emblem by publicly and wilfully burning, mutilating, scrawling on, defiling or trampling on it commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of HK$50,000 and to imprisonment for 3 years.

“香城 Online 犯法系列” – 16 of 20

“香城 Online 犯法系列” – 16 of 20

#協助及教唆罪: 根據第221章《刑事訴訟程序條例》第89條,任何人 #協助#教唆#慫使#促致 另一人犯任何罪行,即屬就 #同一罪行有罪

#共同犯罪– 在有關罪行上雖然扮演着不同的角色,都可能基於共同犯罪原則下構成犯罪,所有有份參與犯罪的人都一樣有罪,#有相同的刑責

“Hong City Online, breaking laws series” – 16 of 20

Aiding and abetting the commission of an offence (s.89 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221) – any person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission by another person of any offence shall be guilty of the like offence.

Joint enterprise – people playing different roles in an offence are in joint enterprise and are of equal culpability as any others involved in the commission of the offence.