判決理由書／裁決書撮要(由AI生成)
以下撮要以AI生成及／或翻譯，內容以原來的判決理由書／裁決書為準。
The judgment stated that on the afternoon of 28 December 2019, at around 5 pm, the defendant gathered with about fifty people on the pedestrian footbridge outside Sheung Shui Plaza and harassed and obstructed passers-by. During this period, the defendant used an umbrella to block cameras and to apply a neck restraint, and together with the crowd punched and kicked an innocent passer-by, causing injury. Subsequently, police arrived at the scene to make arrests; the defendant pushed and shoved police officers and fled into a shopping mall. During this time, the defendant forcibly attempted to seize an officer’s rifle and tried to pull the trigger but failed, gripping a police baton and refusing to let go, damaging the officer’s equipment, before finally being subdued. The defendant pleaded guilty to resisting execution of duty, and the remaining charges of rioting, assaulting a police officer and attempted unlicensed possession of firearms were respectively found to be proven or not following trial.
According to the relevant provisions of the Public Order Ordinance, the Police Force Ordinance, the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance and the Offences against the Person Ordinance, taking into account the social danger of the defendant’s conduct, the level of force used and the principles of maintaining public order.
The defendant not only participated in a group riot and used violence but also seriously resisted police officers and even attempted to seize police weapons. The evidence, including multiple segments of public and closed-circuit television footage, police testimony and seized items, is sufficient to exclude reasonable doubt; however, there are doubts about the details of the assault on a police officer, which could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The judge accepted the identification evidence of the fourth prosecution witness after comparing over a hundred hours of footage and considered that the overall chain of evidence was complete and conclusive. The application by the third prosecution witness for a confidentiality order was granted to protect the witness’s safety and ensure judicial fairness, without prejudicing the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
Ultimately, the defendant was found guilty on the first, third, fourth and fifth charges, and not guilty on the second charge. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判決理由書／裁決書
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 defendant and approximately fifty others gathered on the pedestrian footbridge outside Sheung Shui Plaza on the afternoon of 28 December 2019, harassing passers-by, insulting and shoving them, and inspecting their mobile phones. During the incident, they used an umbrella to conceal their actions and applied a chokehold, causing Mr Li to sustain injuries. When the police arrived, the defendant rushed into the shopping mall and was subdued; he struggled violently, damaged an officer’s helmet, seized an officer’s rifle and inserted his finger into the trigger, pulling it three times, and was finally subdued with pepper spray. The defendant was only sixteen years and ten months old at the time of the offence; he is now eighteen years and seven months old, has no prior convictions, suffers from attention deficit and developmental delay disorders, has performed outstandingly in his studies and has shown genuine remorse.
Sentencing standards: With reference to the sentencing guidelines for the offence of rioting under section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance (considering twelve factors including premeditation, the number of participants, the degree of violence, duration, and harm caused), the offence of attempted unauthorised possession of a firearm under the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance and relevant case law (HKSAR v Jang Youngsu et al.), and the general sentencing principles for the offence of resisting execution of duty.
For the rioting offence, because the defendant took an active part and used violence against passers-by, the starting point of the sentence was four and a half years, reduced to four years and three months in view of his age of only sixteen and the absence of weapon use; for the attempted firearms offence, due to the extremely reckless nature of seizing a weapon, the starting point was three years, reduced to two years and six months; for the resisting offences, one month for each count. Taking all offences together, the sentence could have exceeded five and a half years, but considering his age, remorse and lack of prior convictions, the total was aggregated to four years and nine months.
The defendant’s youth was not regarded as a major mitigating factor, and his conduct demonstrated a disregard for the safety of others, so a non-custodial sentence was not appropriate. Although his ADHD, excellent academic performance and remorse were taken into account, he was tried and convicted in accordance with law and no additional reduction was granted.
The defendant was sentenced to four years and three months’ imprisonment for rioting, two years and six months’ imprisonment for attempted unauthorised possession of a firearm, and one month’s imprisonment for each of two counts of resisting police officers. The sentences for the latter three offences are to run concurrently with the rioting sentence, save for six months to be served consecutively, resulting in an aggregate term of four years and nine months’ imprisonment. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書