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 Defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of riot under section 19(1) and (2) of the Public Order Ordinance. On 29 September 2019, a public procession began without authorization at Sogo Department Store in Causeway Bay and proceeded towards the Central Government Offices (CGO) on Harcourt Road, Admiralty, with an estimated 20,000 participants. Between 3:45 pm and 4:05 pm, about 200–300 individuals blocked carriageways, erected barriers and traffic cones, and hurled petrol bombs, bricks, and hard objects at police trying to secure the CGO. Some set fire under a footbridge linking Pacific Place and Queensway Plaza, forcing officers to retreat. At 4:48 pm, police issued repeated warnings, deployed teargas and blue dye, and made a mass arrest of 44 persons. The remaining protesters moved along Cotton Tree Drive to Queensway, where by 5 pm some 100–200 had built barricades with boards and umbrellas, then by 5:06 pm approximately 500 assembled on the carriageway, using petrol bombs, bricks, laser beams, and other projectiles against police checklines. Defendant, identifiable on open-source videos, stood in the first rows shielded by umbrellas, equipped with a yellow helmet, goggles, a respirator, and carrying a rucksack with gloves. She was arrested when police swept forward along the eastbound carriageway of Queensway at 5:17 pm.
The judge noted that the maximum penalty for riot is 10 years’ imprisonment. He applied the sentencing principles articulated in HKSAR v Leung Tin Kei [2018] HKCFI 1329, emphasizing that each case must be assessed on its facts, considering factors such as the scale of violence, degree of planning, and need for deterrence to uphold public order.
Aggravating factors included the sustained and organized nature of the violence involving petrol bombs, bricks, laser beams, and makeshift barricades, Defendant’s deliberate front-line role equipped with a helmet, goggles, respirator and gloves, and the fact the riot was premeditated rather than spontaneous. Mitigating factors comprised Defendant’s early admission of guilt at the first opportunity, genuine remorse, unblemished record, responsibilities as primary carer for her mother who underwent cancer surgery, clear academic and professional achievements, participation in environmental and charitable activities, and provision of financial support to her family. The court selected a starting point of four years and nine months’ imprisonment, applied a one-third discount for the plea, and reduced a further six months for her voluntary contributions and good character.
The judge emphasized that the gravity of riot is derived from the collective violent conduct, not solely from individual actions, and that supporting a group assailing public order with petrol bombs, projectiles and obstructive barricades warrants a significant custodial sentence. He rejected the defense’s claim of spontaneity, finding the incident to be planned and coordinated, and noted that Defendant’s protective gear and position in the front line demonstrated forethought to resist law enforcement and obstruct investigation. He underscored the necessity of a clear deterrent to uphold the rule of law and public safety.
Defendant was sentenced to two years and eight months’ imprisonment.
查看完整判刑理由書