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 the Defendants, comprising senior figures and activists in a civil human rights front, knowingly organized and incited an unauthorized public procession on National Day, 1 October 2019, despite a formal police prohibition and an Appeal Board’s dismissal of an appeal. On 30 September 2019, Defendants 1–4 held widely covered press conferences and issued social-media calls for “peaceful, rational and nonviolent” participation, expressly defying the requirement for a Letter of No Objection under the Public Order Ordinance. The police prohibition had been justified by written objection, citing months of violent unrest from June to September 2019, including petrol-bomb attacks, arson, assaults on officers and wants of destruction revealed by reliable intelligence. On 1 October, all ten Defendants assembled at Causeway Bay, held a banner demanding political reforms and led thousands in a march along Hennessy Road through Wanchai and Admiralty to Central. Along the route participants erected barricades, vandalized property, blocked roads and stations, and violence—including petrol bombs and stone-throwing—erupted. Defendants 1–4 pleaded guilty to incitement to knowingly take part in an unauthorized assembly (Charge 1), all ten pleaded guilty to organizing an unauthorized assembly (Charge 3), and Defendants 7 and 10 additionally pleaded guilty to knowingly taking part (Charge 4), with full particulars admitted in May 2021.
Her Honour adopted a deterrent and punitive approach requiring immediate custodial sentences, drawing on Hong Kong authorities (Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung, Chung Ka Ho, Poon Yung Wai) that emphasize punishment, deterrence and protection of public order, and that the risk or threat of violence in large assemblies warrants strong sentences even absent actual violence.
Aggravating factors included high-profile, premeditated incitement via press conferences and social media to large numbers in volatile circumstances, repeated offending by several Defendants, and the assembly’s resultant disruption, vandalism and violence. Mitigation considered some Defendants’ genuine belief in peaceful civil disobedience, prior good character, public-service records and personal letters, but these carried limited weight given the serious breach of public order.
Her Honour held that freedom of assembly is not absolute and that the Defendants were naive to believe a peaceful procession could be guaranteed amid escalating unrest. She found their civil-disobedience motive insufficient to offset the deliberate defiance of a lawful prohibition and the real risk—and actual occurrence—of violence, concluding that strong sentences were necessary to uphold the rule of law and deter similar conduct.
The court imposed immediate imprisonment on all Defendants: Defendants 1–4 each received 18 months’ imprisonment (charges served concurrently); Defendants 5–8 each received 14 months’ imprisonment; Defendants 9 and 10 each received 14 months’ imprisonment suspended for 24 months. Concurrent sentences were applied across charges, with certain terms ordered to run consecutively to existing sentences for repeat offenders, and suspended sentences to activate upon any further conviction within the 24-month operational period.
查看完整判刑理由書