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 pleaded guilty to two charges: possession of explosive substances under section 55(1) of the Crimes Ordinance and possession of items with intent to damage property under section 62(a). On 1 August 2019, a search warrant at Defendant’s residence in Tin Shui Wai uncovered 30 improvised devices—paper rolls sealed with foiled pyrotechnic mixtures of potassium nitrate, sucrose, sodium bicarbonate and magnesium carbonate designed as smoke bombs—and 27 incomplete devices, along with assembly materials and a handwritten notebook of instructions. A further search revealed 19 beer bottles (some containing residue), ten bottles of lighter fluid, five bottles of alcohol, cotton balls, matches, metal powder, protective gear, and tools capable of constructing petrol bombs. Defendant admitted ownership of all items. At age 23, he lived with his mother and sister, had no prior record, was employed since 18 at a container terminal, and expressed remorse, asserting the smoke bombs were experimental.
The judge applied sentencing principles for explosive substances requiring custodial sentences for both specific and general deterrence, citing that section 55(1) offences attract up to 14 years’ imprisonment and referencing High Court guidance in Chan Yiu Shing & Ors, which adopted a two-year starting point for conspiracy to make smoke bombs. For possession with intent to damage property, no direct guideline exists, but District Court cases have started between three and four-and-a-half years, while arson-related petrol-bomb cases have ranged up to six years.
Aggravating factors included the significant quantities of chemical and flammable materials, the context of violent public disorder from June to October 2019, and the clear escalation these devices represented. Mitigating factors were that most devices remained unassembled, the smoke bombs produced no destructive force, the petrol-bomb components were stored at home and not deployed, Defendant’s youth, clear record, remorse, low risk of re-offending, stable employment, and positive psychological assessment.
The judge regarded personal factors as less weighty in light of the need for deterrence but recognized Defendant’s difficult background and rehabilitation potential. Balancing seriousness and mitigation, the judge determined appropriate starting points and reductions for early guilty pleas, electing to impose a partially concurrent sentence to avoid excessiveness yet reflect the multiplicative threat of combining explosive and flammable devices.
The judge imposed a total effective sentence of 38 months’ imprisonment by setting a 24-month starting point for the explosive possession charge reduced to 16 months for the guilty plea, and a 45-month starting point for the intent-to-damage-property charge reduced to 30 months, ordering eight months of the first charge to run consecutively and the remainder concurrently.
查看完整判刑理由書