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 30 September 2019, the first four defendants held unlawful press conferences and used social media to incite members of the public to join a public procession on National Day, despite a police prohibition and a dismissed appeal. On 1 October 2019, all ten defendants organized and led an unauthorized assembly marching from Causeway Bay to Central, during which there were violent clashes, obstruction of roads, criminal damage and fires along the route before the procession concluded at Chater Road.
The court applied the Public Order Ordinance (section 17A) and common law incitement provisions, relying on precedents from Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung, Chung Ka Ho and Poon Yung Wai. Sentencing standards emphasize both punishment and general deterrence to maintain public order, treating the threat or use of violence or real risk thereof as aggravating factors. Discounts for guilty pleas were applied under Ngo Van Nam.
Aggravating factors included premeditated incitement through widely broadcast press conferences and social media, the large number of participants, repeat offending and defiance of a lawful prohibition, and the actual obstruction, vandalism, petrol bomb attacks and disruption of transport. Mitigating factors were limited by the defendants’ prior convictions and recent sentences; only two defendants with distinguished long-term public service had their sentences suspended. All defendants claimed civil disobedience and peaceful intent, but the real risk of violence was ignored.
The judge held that the rights of assembly and expression are subject to lawful restrictions, and defendants were naive to rely on promises of peaceful conduct in the face of published police intelligence warning of violence. Their actions constituted a serious breach of public order, warranting immediate custodial sentences. Civil disobedience arguments did not mitigate the deliberate decision to defy the law and jeopardize safety.
The court imposed immediate imprisonment terms as follows: Defendants 1–4 each received 18 months’ imprisonment for incitement and organization, with Defendant 2 serving an additional 6 months consecutively (20 months total) and Defendant 3 an additional 4 months consecutively (22 months total); Defendant 5 received 14 months; Defendant 6 received 14 months with 4 months consecutive to an existing term (12 months total); Defendant 7 received 14 months plus 14 days consecutive to an activated suspended sentence; Defendant 8 received 14 months with 6 months consecutive (20 months total); Defendants 9 and 10 each received 14 months suspended for 24 months, with Defendant 10’s term suspended entirely.
查看完整判刑理由書