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 in the early hours of 2 March 2020, the defendant, at the kitchen window of Cheung Shing House in Sheung Tak Estate, Ngau Tau Kok, together with accomplices, mixed drainage water, sugar, table salt, tomato ketchup and other substances to produce a corrosive liquid, and subsequently threw at least three plastic bottles filled with the liquid, which struck and seriously burnt a team of uniformed police officers on the floor below. After the incident, the police, acting under a search warrant, seized from the defendant’s residence multiple hammers, wrenches, fruit knives, lighter fuel, gas masks and other offensive weapons and tools used for manufacturing petrol bombs, and discovered on the defendant’s mobile phone detailed communications with accomplices about making petrol bombs and hurling corrosive liquid. The defendant initially pleaded guilty to the second and third charges, and following trial was further convicted on the first and fourth charges.
According to the relevant provisions of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance and the Crimes Ordinance, pouring corrosive liquid is a serious offence, and conspiracy to commit arson and possession of destructive or offensive weapons also warrant severe punishment. Sentencing must take into account the gravity of the offence, its danger to society, the defendant’s remorse, and the defendant’s age.
The judge considered that the defendant’s conduct was deliberate and highly dangerous, with careful preparation and personal execution of the throwing, and that he possessed various offensive weapons and petrol bomb materials, indicating a high risk to society; although the defendant was only just over 15 years old and pleaded guilty, his remorse was insufficient, and a stern penalty was necessary to send a deterrent message.
Although there were mitigating factors such as the defendant’s youth and a filmed meeting accompanied by family members, the overall circumstances reflected his calm planning, repeat offending and tendency towards organised crime; therefore, a stringent approach was necessary to uphold the rule of law and public safety.
The defendant was convicted on all four counts of intentionally pouring corrosive liquid, possession of items with intent to destroy or damage property, possession of offensive weapons or tools, and conspiracy to commit arson. The court will announce the sentence at a later date. (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。
According to the sentencing remarks, in the early hours of 2 March 2020, the defendant threw multiple plastic and glass bottles filled with a mixture of sugar, salt, tomato sauce and drain cleaner containing 82% sulphuric acid from a high floor of a residential block in Kowloon, intending to attack a police officer below, resulting in damage to the officer’s uniform and injuries to his body; subsequently, the police discovered in his residence that he was in possession of three hammers, wrenches, a knife and two cans of lighter fuel, and he admitted storing them on behalf of others to manufacture petrol bombs and conspiring to commit arson; the defendant was just over fifteen years old at the time of the offence and had previously received a supervision order for assault and possession of weapons.
Of the four charges in this case, the starting point for the first charge of intending to douse corrosive liquid is five to six years’ imprisonment; the second and third charges each have a starting point of eight months’ imprisonment; the fourth charge of conspiracy to commit arson has a starting point of three years’ imprisonment; after applying the totality principle, an immediate custodial sentence was imposed overall.
The court considered that the defendant’s use of high-concentration sulphuric acid to attack police and the premeditated manufacture of petrol bombs and plan to commit arson were of an egregious nature, posing a serious threat to public safety; although the defendant was just over fifteen years old at the time of the offence, admitted to the majority of the charges at trial, and submitted a letter of mitigation and a social work report demonstrating remorse and family responsibilities, his youth and guilty plea did not constitute strong grounds for substantial mitigation.
The judge held that the defendant’s conduct showed contempt for the law and was of a serious nature; despite his age and family circumstances, punishment was necessary for his attack on a public officer and disruption of public order, to serve as a deterrent and to uphold the rule of law and public safety.
The defendant was sentenced to a total of four and a half years’ imprisonment: four years for the first count, and six months each for the second and third counts (to run concurrently with the two and a half years’ sentence for the fourth count), with the six-month terms to run consecutively to the sentence for the first count. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書