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 appeared before the District Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for offences arising from a banned public procession on 1 October 2019. The first four Defendants held two press conferences on 30 September 2019 to incite the public to join an unauthorised assembly despite a formal police prohibition upheld on appeal. All ten Defendants organised and led a procession from Causeway Bay to Central that day, carrying banners, chanting political slogans and blocking roads. Violent and destructive acts—vandalism, arson, petrol bombs and obstruction—erupted along the route and at multiple locations, demonstrating that the assembly was neither peaceful nor law-abiding. After pleading guilty to incitement, organising and participation charges, the Court heard extensive factual and contextual evidence, including intelligence of planned violence, and proceeded to sentence.
The Court adopted a punitive and deterrent sentencing framework based on authorities for unlawful and unauthorised assemblies, notably Wong Chi Fung, Chung Ka Ho and Poon Yung Wai. Sentences must reflect the inherent risk of violence in large gatherings, uphold public order and provide both general and specific deterrence.
Aggravating factors included premeditated press conferences to maximise publicity, defiance of lawful police orders, and actual violent and disruptive conduct by participants. The prevailing violent unrest in Hong Kong in September 2019 and the intelligence of planned attacks heightened the culpability. Mitigating factors—early guilty pleas and personal backgrounds—were given limited weight, and civil disobedience motives were deemed insufficient to reduce sentences substantially.
While recognising constitutional rights to assembly and expression, the Judge emphasised that these rights are subject to lawful restrictions. The Defendants’ naïve belief in a peaceful outcome did not excuse their deliberate challenge to public order. An immediate custodial sentence was the only appropriate option given the seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence.
The first through fourth Defendants were each sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment to run concurrently for incitement and organisation. Defendants five through eight received 14 months’ imprisonment for organisation. The ninth Defendant was sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 24 months. The seventh Defendant received 14 months’ imprisonment for organisation, concurrent with a nine-month term for participation, with an additional 14-day sentence activated for breaching a prior suspended term. The tenth Defendant was sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 24 months, concurrent with a nine-month term for participation. Suspended sentences are subject to reactivation if the Defendants commit further imprisonable offences within 24 months.
查看完整判刑理由書