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 Defendants, acting through the Civil Human Rights Front, organized and incited an unauthorized public procession in Hong Kong on 1 October 2019 despite a lawful police prohibition based on credible intelligence warning of planned violence. Defendants 1–4 held press conferences on 30 September and 1 October urging the public to join a march from Causeway Bay to Central, amplified by social media posts. All ten Defendants pleaded guilty to organizing the procession; Defendants 1–4 also pleaded guilty to incitement, and Defendants 7 and 10 pleaded guilty to participation. Thousands marched, chanting political slogans, while sections of the crowd engaged in vandalism, petrol-bomb attacks, road blockades and other violent acts, causing serious disruption to traffic and public order.
The judge applied established sentencing principles for unauthorized assemblies and incitement, drawing on Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung and Chung Ka Ho to underscore the need for deterrence, punishment and protection of public order, and on Poon Yung Wai for incitement offences, concluding that immediate custodial sentences were the only appropriate option.
The judge found that Defendants deliberately organized and incited a banned procession with full awareness of the high risk of violence amid ongoing social unrest. Press conferences and social media amplified their call to defy the law. The assembly resulted in serious disruption, criminal damage and violence, and Defendants knowingly challenged a lawful prohibition. Personal mitigation carried limited weight due to repeat offending and the scale of disorder, warranting immediate imprisonment.
The judge opined that Defendants’ belief in a peaceful procession was naive and did not mitigate culpability once violence materialized. Claims of civil disobedience were insufficient when non-violent objectives were unrealistic. The judge emphasized that freedom of assembly is qualified by lawful restrictions, and defiance of those restrictions in volatile circumstances justifies strong punitive measures.
Defendants 1–4 were sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment each, to run concurrently on incitement and organization charges. Defendants 5–8 received 14 months’ imprisonment each. Defendants 9 and 10 were sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 24 months. Repeat offenders already serving sentences were ordered to serve additional consecutive periods, resulting in adjusted totals up to 22 months for some. Suspended sentences carry warnings that any new imprisonable offence within 24 months will activate the full term.
查看完整判刑理由書