判刑理由書撮要(由AI生成)
以下撮要以AI生成及／或翻譯，內容以原來的判刑理由書為準。
The judgment states that on the morning of 18 November 2019, at approximately 11:30 am, Defendant One and Defendant Two gathered with about fifty others outside Diocesan Girls’ School on Jordan Road, advanced towards the police line on the Gascoigne Road footbridge, and threw petrol bombs, bricks and other objects. After repeated warnings, the police deployed tear gas and used lawful force to disperse the crowd. Defendant One pushed a yellow construction barrier and was arrested; a backpack he carried contained two knives and a hammer. Defendant Two was arrested while fleeing, and his backpack contained suspected petrol bomb materials and adhesive. Both pleaded guilty to riot under section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance.
Sentencing reference was made to the Court of Appeal’s rulings in Tang Ho Yin (4.5 to 5 years) and Yeung Kar Lun (5 years), which outlined the sentencing factors for riot, including planning, number of participants, degree of force used, duration, harm caused and public disturbance. In view of the spontaneous nature of the incident, the scale of about fifty people, the duration of approximately twenty minutes, the absence of injuries, and the timely guilty plea, the court fixed 51 months as the starting point, then applied a one-third reduction for the plea and a discretionary two-month deduction, resulting in a final term of 32 months’ imprisonment.
This was a spontaneous gathering, confined to a single section of the footbridge and of short duration. Although petrol bombs were thrown, no casualties occurred. Defendant One merely pushed a barrier and was not an organiser; Defendant Two possessed suspected throwing materials but did not actually use them. Their level of involvement was similar to that of other participants, and the social harm and degree of violence were less severe than in the benchmark cases. Moreover, both had no prior convictions, were young and expressed remorse, and thus were given discretionary consideration in sentencing.
The judge considered that, although this case was less serious than the Court of Appeal cases, it was necessary to maintain deterrence against riotous behaviour, while also taking into account the defendants’ social background, lack of criminal record and remorse for pleading guilty, and therefore exercised discretion to reduce the sentence appropriately.
Defendant One and Defendant Two were each sentenced to 32 months’ imprisonment. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書