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 states that in the early hours of 1 December 2020 at around 1am, CCTV footage showed the three defendants removing multiple glass bottles containing an incendiary agent from the rooftop of a tenement on Tung Choi Street to make petrol bombs. They then walked to the car park outside the Mong Kok Police Recreation Club and threw a total of nine petrol bombs in succession, causing a police van to be destroyed by fire. Afterwards, the three fled to Ma On Shan and made purchases at convenience stores before taking a taxi to various districts. On 18 December, the police arrested them respectively in Kwai Chung, Tsim Sha Tsui and Tai Wai, seizing clothing and mobile phones connected to the case, and laboratory analysis confirmed the presence of incendiary agent residues. Although each defendant challenged the CCTV footage and evidence, they were ultimately convicted of arson.
When sentencing for arson, the court must weigh the severity of the criminal means, the extent of the damage and the impact on public safety, and consider factors such as the defendant’s motive, plea, prior record and expression of remorse.
In this case, the three defendants had clearly divided roles, carrying out the actions from manufacture and throwing to escape in one continuous operation, which was highly dangerous, and they admitted the facts of making and throwing petrol bombs; however, the first defendant pleaded guilty earlier and cooperated, warranting a moderate reduction in sentence; although the second and third defendants had no prior convictions, they still require severe punishment to achieve the purposes of retribution and deterrence.
The judge considered that the prosecution’s CCTV and scientific testing evidence was consistently reliable, that the police investigative procedures complied with statutory requirements, and that the defendants’ recorded statements and the reconstruction of events were all voluntary and corroborated by other evidence, with no circumstances warranting exclusion, and therefore each defendant committed the offence of arson with sufficient and reasonable evidence.
The three defendants were convicted of arson and found guilty; the sentences will be announced at the sentencing hearing. (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, in the early hours of 1 December 2020, outside the parking lot of a police recreation club in Mong Kok, three defendants used pre-prepared petrol bombs to commit arson, destroying a police van. CCTV footage showed that they first gathered at a tenement building on Tung Choi Street before walking to the site; after the act, they changed clothes and fled to Ma On Shan. The police recovered flammable materials as well as the defendants’ DNA and palm prints in the stairwell of the implicated tenement building. Following the trial, the three were convicted of arson under the Crimes Ordinance.
In general, arson cases involving the hurling of petrol bombs at the police carry a custodial sentence of five years as the starting point; considering that this case involved only damage to property and no injuries, the starting point can be reduced to four and a half years, and then further reduced to four years’ imprisonment owing to the defendants’ guilty pleas and the saving of trial resources.
This case involved serious, premeditated and collectively organised arson, carried out in the early hours with immediate flight, causing over HK$400,000 in damage to police property; however, as there were no personal injuries, the defendants pleaded guilty and background reports indicated remorse and a low risk of reoffending, therefore a moderate sentence reduction was applied.
The judge held that arson poses a significant threat to public safety and cannot be ignored; however, in view of the fact that only property was damaged and that the third defendant was young and influenced by others, both punitive measures and protective education should be applied as appropriate in order to balance societal interests and individual rehabilitation.
This court sentences the first and second defendants to four years’ imprisonment each, and orders the third defendant to be sent to a training centre, thereby serving both punitive and rehabilitative purposes. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書