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 since June 2019 Hong Kong experienced escalating protests against proposed extradition legislation, which on 14 July culminated in two consecutive riots inside New Town Plaza Phase 1 in Shatin. Plainclothes officers PW1 and PW2, deployed with uniformed colleagues via a passage from Shatin Centre, encountered violent crowds on Level III. In the first riot outside Shop 398, uniformed officers were separated and PW1, wearing a standard vest and helmet and carrying only a shield, was singled out by at least 20 rioters. CCTV footage showed Defendant 1 repeatedly stabbing and spearing PW1 with an umbrella, kicking him, and taking a leading role; Defendant 2 forcing his way through and hurling an umbrella at an arriving officer before fleeing; and Defendant 3 delivering over twenty rapid umbrella strikes, retrieving his weapon after dropping it, and celebrating as he ran off. PW1 suffered multiple facial fractures, vision impairment, two surgeries, prolonged sick leave and a career impact. Two minutes later, a second riot erupted outside Shop 383: PW2 was chased up and down an escalator, then surrounded, stabbed with umbrellas and kicked by a group including Defendants 1 and 2, resulting in scalp lacerations, bruising and swelling. Defendants 1 and 2 pleaded guilty to both riot charges (Charges 1 and 3); Defendant 3 pleaded guilty to Charge 1 only. Charges for causing grievous bodily harm were left on file. Upon conviction, the court received extensive mitigation, including social background, remorse, community work and age-related reports.
The offence of riot contrary to section 19(1) and (2) of the Public Order Ordinance attracts a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. The judge adopted established guiding cases, including HKSAR v Tang Ho Yin and HKSAR v Leung Tin Kei, and the principle from R v Caird that participation in collective unlawful assemblies derives its gravity from group violence. Starting points of five years’ custody for the first riot and six years for the second were set before discounts for early pleas.
The court emphasised the immediate and serious impact of riot on the rule of law, the necessity to protect public order and deter assaults on officers. The brutality and viciousness of both attacks, the serious injuries inflicted—particularly the lasting harm to PW1—and the organised group dynamics, including human chains and pre-positioned masks and umbrellas, demanded a punitive response. Indoor setting did not mitigate severity. General deterrence and public interest in upholding lawful assembly were held to outweigh private mitigation.
While acknowledging the defendants’ remorse, youth, clean records and community contributions, the judge held that personal mitigation carried little weight against the overwhelming need for deterrence, punishment and warning. Individual acts could not be isolated from the collective violence. A custodial sentence was inevitable to reaffirm that mass disorder and violence against law enforcement will not be tolerated.
After applying a one-third reduction for early guilty pleas, the court imposed on each defendant a term of 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment for the first riot (Charge 1). For the second riot (Charge 3), Defendants 1 and 2 received 4 years’ imprisonment. All sentences run concurrently, resulting in Defendant 1 serving 4 years, Defendant 2 serving 4 years, and Defendant 3 serving 3 years and 4 months.
查看完整判刑理由書