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 pleaded guilty to two offences: possession of offensive weapons in a public place and attempted arson with intent. On 13 October 2019, outside Tong Ming Street Park in Tseung Kwan O, the Defendant was found wearing dark clothing and a balaclava, carrying two petrol bombs—one already prepared with a petrol-soaked cloth—and a lighter in his hand. Off-duty police officers observed him approach their colleagues who were clearing barricades erected by protesters in the area and attempt to ignite the device. He was immediately subdued after a brief struggle and arrested. A search of his rucksack revealed a second petrol bomb, protective gear, zip ties, spray paint, a laser pointer, and a respirator. During a recorded interview, the Defendant admitted purchasing naphtha, assembling the bombs, and intending to throw them at the barricades to hinder police activity. He also acknowledged ownership of all seized items. The Defendant, then aged 23 with no prior convictions and recent family hardships, offered mitigation letters and an early guilty plea.
The judge applied the principle that arson with intent or recklessness as to endangering life is inherently grave, carrying a maximum life sentence, with no fixed tariff but requiring each case to reflect its particular gravity. The Public Order Ordinance and Crimes Ordinance provided statutory maximums of three years for weapons possession and life for arson with intent, while comparative UK and local authorities underscored the need for deterrent sentences, especially where petrol bombs or incendiary devices are used.
In determining sentence, the judge weighed the Defendant’s high culpability, premeditation, and preparation against his youth, clear record, and early plea. Aggravating factors included the use of petrol bombs aimed at police officers executing their duty, deliberate disguise to evade identification, and planning rather than impulsive action. Mitigating factors included no actual damage or injuries, daylight commission, readily detectable fire risk, protective gear worn by officers, the Defendant’s genuine remorse, family circumstances, and positive character references.
The judge expressed that the Defendant’s conduct—manufacturing and attempting to deploy unstable weapons against law enforcement—was criminal rather than protest, showing contempt for public order. Legitimate peaceful dissent cannot justify the use of petrol bombs. While acknowledging the Defendant’s personal hardships and remorse, the judge held that the seriousness and prevalence of such offences demand a custodial sentence to uphold deterrence and public safety.
The judge set a starting point of six years’ imprisonment for the arson offence and two years and six months for weapons possession, applying a one-third reduction for the early guilty plea. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently, resulting in an overall term of four years’ imprisonment.
查看完整判刑理由書