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 taking part in a riot and resisting police officers on 12 June 2019 outside the public entrance of the Legislative Council Complex. On that day, following the postponement of the second reading of the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance Bill, an estimated 8,000–10,000 protesters had surrounded the legislature’s entrances, erecting and removing barriers to confront police lines. CCTV footage captured Defendant at the front of the crowd using umbrellas, home-made shields and metal barriers to charge police despite repeated yellow and red warning flags and verbal orders. He is seen picking up bricks, water bottles and umbrellas, hurling them with force at officers, and ramming barriers against shields. When tear gas dispersed most rioters, Defendant alone persisted until he was subdued and arrested wearing a mask, helmet, gloves and carrying zip-ties. Eight officers suffered minor injuries; Defendant admitted participation under caution and pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.
Under Section 19(1) and (2) of the Public Order Ordinance, riot attracts up to ten years’ imprisonment on indictment. Sentencing must reflect the protected freedom of peaceful assembly while condemning violence. Principles from Leung Tin Kei and SJ v Wong Chi Fung require a punitive and sufficiently deterrent sentence. Courts consider factors such as spontaneity or premeditation, number of rioters, degree of violence and use of weapons, scale, duration, warnings ignored, harm caused, threat to public order, offender’s role, and public expenditure incurred.
The judge found this to be a large-scale, escalating, and partly premeditated riot, marked by repeated, violent charges at police cordons, use of missiles (bricks, bottles, metal bars), and barriers rammed against officers trapped against railings. Warnings and verbal commands were repeatedly ignored; the public entrance was forcibly entered causing serious threat to the rule of law. Defendant’s personal mitigation—youth, clean record, spontaneous participation, remorse and guilty plea—was outweighed by the need to deter similar mass disorder and protect public order.
The judge viewed Defendant’s culpability as significant, noting his active endorsement of collective violence and direct attack on law enforcement. Deterrence was held to override rehabilitation given rising public unrest. A starting point of six years’ imprisonment was appropriate; applying the one-third discount for his early guilty plea reduced the sentence to four years.
Defendant is sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.
查看完整判刑理由書