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 offences. On 29 January 2020, at about 8:00pm near the vehicular gate of Kwai Chung police station, he and two masked accomplices, dressed entirely in black, attempted to destroy or damage police vehicles by fire. CCTV footage recorded them meeting at an industrial building, lighting and hurling at least three petrol bombs that ignited and blackened the entrance, narrowly missing an innocent pedestrian. Defendant immediately dispersed, returning to a rented unit on the eleventh floor of a factory building, where he stored equipment and materials. On 4 February 2020, police arrested him as he departed on a bicycle and, by warrant, searched the premises, seizing eleven further petrol bombs, lighter fluid, bottles of concentrated sulphuric acid drain cleaner and related components. Under caution, he admitted manufacturing the devices after researching online, acting recklessly amid social unrest, intending to cause damage for “fun,” and expressed remorse thereafter.
The judge noted that arson carries a maximum life sentence under the Crimes Ordinance, with no tariff guidelines but requiring case-by-case assessment. Attempted arson under Section 60(1) is less serious than arson endangering life but remains of utmost gravity due to the inherent danger of fire. Possession of incendiary devices under Section 62(a) carries a maximum of ten years. The court relied on appellate authority describing arson as particularly grave and meriting punitive and deterrent sentencing.
The judge identified multiple aggravating factors: premeditation, planning and procurement of unstable petrol bombs; coordination with accomplices; dressing in black and changing clothes to avoid detection; and the risk to bystanders, including a pedestrian who narrowly escaped injury. The presence of high-concentration sulphuric acid in some devices increased the potential for severe harm. Mitigating features included Defendant’s youth (17 at the time), clear record, ADHD diagnosis, early guilty plea and genuine remorse. However, the ADHD was found unrelated to the offences and of no significant mitigating weight.
The judge emphasized that deliberate attacks on law enforcement and public property undermine public order and demand a deterrent approach prioritizing public protection over rehabilitation. He stressed the reckless disregard for life and property shown by using accelerant-filled, unstable weapons. Defendant’s remorse and personal background did not outweigh the need for a substantial term of imprisonment reflecting the gravity of the crimes and deterring similar conduct.
The defendant received a starting point of five years’ imprisonment on the attempted arson charge and three and a half years on the possession charge, reduced by one-third for an early guilty plea. The sentences were adjusted for totality, with six months of the possession sentence ordered consecutively and the balance concurrently, resulting in an aggregate term of three years and ten months’ imprisonment.
查看完整判刑理由書