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 on 1 July 2020 the defendant, together with others, mixed chemicals and manufactured and placed an improvised smoke bomb outside the Integrated Centre on Hennessy Road in Wan Chai, releasing acidic toxic white smoke accompanied by a slight explosion sound, causing panic among pedestrians. The police, relying on CCTV footage and on-site chemical analysis evidence, and having seized a large quantity of related chemicals at the defendant’s residence and workplace, charged him with causing a public nuisance.
In accordance with the common law requirements for the offence of public nuisance, and with reference to the cases R v Shorrock, HKSAR v Pearce and R v Rimmington, conduct that is capable of endangering the life, health or comfort of the public amounts to punishable unlawful behaviour.
The defendant prepared and deployed the smoke bomb for an unlawful purpose; the acidic toxic smoke released was capable of injuring or alarming bystanders, and the protest site was adjacent to commercial buildings and pedestrian walkways, so the conduct clearly endangered public safety and comfort.
The judge found the CCTV footage, chemical analysis report and items seized during the search to be fully reliable; the defendant’s explanations as to his whereabouts and motive were self-contradictory and not accepted, and the only reasonable conclusion was that the defendant and others were joint principals in deploying the smoke bomb.
The defendant was convicted, and the sentence will be pronounced at a later 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 on the afternoon of 1 July 2020 at about 7:30 pm, the defendant placed a cardboard box smoke device containing chemical residues such as melamine and polyethylene glycol at the western side fire escape passage entrance outside the Integrated Centre at 302–308 Hennessy Road, Wan Chai. A loud bang was immediately heard and acrid white smoke issued forth. The police attended, cordoned off the scene, recovered a residue-laden plastic bottle and, based on CCTV footage, identified and arrested the two defendants on 23 July. Subsequent searches of the second defendant’s residence and workplace uncovered a large quantity of chemicals, which experts confirmed would produce open flame and toxic smoke when mixed, posing potential hazards to the public’s respiratory tracts and eyes. The first defendant pleaded guilty before trial; the second defendant was found guilty after a hearing.
This case falls under the offence of causing a public nuisance, with a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment. The prosecution referred to several precedents, with sentences ranging from a one-month suspended sentence to 18 months’ immediate imprisonment. As the Court of Appeal has not established sentencing guidelines for this offence, the precedents are for reference only.
Having regard to the defendant’s background and plea of guilty, the short duration of the device’s activation notwithstanding, it caused public panic and psychological distress, and the act carried inherent toxic hazard, warranting a deterrent sentence. Immediate imprisonment is the only reasonable option, with a starting point of 28 months, adjusted downward appropriately for the plea and good character.
The court considers that, even without actual physical injury, the smoke device was sufficient to impose a state of white terror on passers-by; the defendants were not mere followers, but carried out a carefully planned action, which bore no resemblance to a prank. Society cannot condone such disruptive behaviour, and the rule of law must be upheld.
Ultimately, the court adopted 28 months as the starting point. The first defendant received a one-quarter reduction for the plea entered before trial and a further two-month reduction for good character, resulting in 19 months’ immediate imprisonment; the second defendant received a two-month reduction for good character and was sentenced to 26 months’ immediate imprisonment. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書