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 Defendant 1–4 pleaded guilty to incitement to knowingly take part in an unauthorized assembly, and all ten defendants pleaded guilty to organizing an unauthorized public procession on 1 October 2019 in Hong Kong. Despite a police prohibition upheld on appeal because of significant public safety and order risks, Defendant 1–4 held press conferences and posted on social media urging mass participation in a march from Causeway Bay to Central. On the day, all defendants led a banner group at the head of thousands of protestors chanting anti-government slogans, blocking major roads and triggering acts of vandalism, arson and obstruction along the route and at the destination near government offices. The procession caused widespread traffic and commercial disruption, and the feared violence materialized despite the defendants’ claims that they advocated non-violence.
Immediate custodial sentences are mandatory to achieve adequate punishment and deterrence in unlawful assembly offences, following precedents that emphasize the inherent risk of violence in large demonstrations and the need to uphold public order.
The defendants defied a lawful prohibition, organized a large-scale unauthorized procession in a volatile context, and their actions foreseeably led to disruptive and violent conduct, warranting punitive and deterrent imprisonment. Their claims of peaceful intent and civil disobedience were undermined by the realized violence and repeat offending.
While assembly and expression are protected rights, they are subject to statutory restrictions. The defendants’ deliberate decision to ignore clear legal requirements and to challenge public order in the face of known risks demonstrated serious culpability that personal mitigation could not override.
The judge imposed 18 months’ imprisonment on Defendants 1–4 (to be served concurrently for their incitement and organization offences), 14 months’ imprisonment on Defendants 5–8 for organizing the procession, and additional concurrent nine-month terms for Defendants 7 and 10 for participation. Defendants 9 and 10 had their 14-month sentences suspended for 24 months. Parts of the sentences for Defendants 2, 3, 6 and 8 were ordered to run consecutively to earlier terms in related cases, producing effective custodial terms of up to 22 months.
查看完整判刑理由書