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。
Judgment stated that the accused (1) and the accused (2) were students of Ma On Shan Secondary School in the New Territories. On 27 November 2019, accused 1 brought onto the school premises two packets containing a total of approximately 0.34 grams of TATP explosive powder, wrapped in aluminium foil, handing them to the chemistry teacher in the morning (Charge 1) and to accused 2 in the afternoon (Charge 2); CCTV footage showed the two opening and examining the substance on the playground. The school detained the explosive and reported to the police, and a bomb expert confirmed the powder was sensitive and easily detonated. Subsequently, the police discovered an industrial blank cartridge among accused 1’s belongings (Charge 3). The court reached a verdict after hearing the prosecution and defence arguments.
In accordance with section 55 of the Crimes Ordinance and section 13 of the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance, explosives and ammunition are strict liability offences, requiring the defendant to bear the onus of proving a “lawful purpose” or “reasonable belief”, otherwise an offence is constituted.
Accused 1 failed to prove that the possession of TATP was for a lawful purpose such as experimentation or self-study, nor did they offer a reasonable explanation for the blank cartridge as a decorative item; accused 2 passively accepted the substance and reasonably believed it was not explosive.
The judge held that accused 1 illegally possessed the items out of curiosity and in pursuit of excitement, engaging in high-risk conduct without any good faith justification; accused 2 was passive, had no intention to possess, and is therefore excused from liability.
Accused 1 was found guilty of all three charges; accused 2 was found not guilty of possessing an explosive. (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 was an 18-year-old Form 6 student. At around 08:15 on the morning of 27 November 2019, he brought two bags containing TATP high-performance explosive powder onto the school campus. At 11:50, he handed one of the bags to the chemistry teacher and admitted it was an explosive; in the afternoon, he was found in possession of the other bag of powder in the school hall, and the school reported the matter to the police. An explosives expert confirmed the powder was extremely dangerous. The police also recovered an empty nail gun cartridge from the defendant’s windbreaker pocket. After trial, although the defendant denied the three charges of possession of explosives and the charge of unlicensed possession of ammunition, the court found him guilty on all counts.
Pursuant to section 55(1) of the Crimes Ordinance and section 13 of the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance, possession of explosives and unlicensed possession of ammunition are serious offences warranting punishment, public condemnation, and deterrence. In the case of an 18-year-old juvenile offender, the need for rehabilitation should also be taken into account, with custodial sentencing options including labour training centres, guidance centres, or rehabilitation centres.
Although this case involved highly sensitive explosives and ammunition, there is no evidence that the defendant intended to use them for rioting or to harm others. His motivation was purely curiosity and mischief; he has no prior convictions and has shown remorse. The defendant has already been detained for nearly four months, which has had a significant deterrent effect. Given that his mental and physical condition has been assessed as suitable for training at a labour training centre, this can serve both rehabilitative and disciplinary purposes.
The judge considered that while imprisonment would certainly serve as a deterrent, a custodial approach is more suitable for juvenile reform. The strict discipline and labour training at a labour training centre can foster law-abiding awareness and proper conduct, and the defendant can be subject to a one-year supervisory period after release, balancing punishment with rehabilitation.
The court ultimately sentenced the defendant to detention in a labour training centre on the three counts, to be served concurrently. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書