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 notes that on 20 October 2019, the defendant drove a hired taxi to the senior staff quarters of the Education University of Hong Kong to collect a carton from a masked stranger. After placing it in the boot and driving away, he was stopped by officers. A search revealed 43 bottles of liquid and two igniters inside the carton, of which 40 bottles were identified as petrol bombs following laboratory analysis. The prosecution contended that the carton was unsealed and emitted a petrol odour, whereas the defence asserted that it was sealed and odourless; both sides disputed whether the defendant must necessarily have known that the carton contained petrol bombs.
In accordance with Sections 60 to 63 and 159A, 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, arson carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment; possession of items with intent to destroy or damage property is punishable by long-term imprisonment;
As the courier who knowingly transported petrol bombs, the defendant’s actions severely endangered public safety and warrant a heavy sentence;
In light of the credible and reliable testimony of the officers, the fact that the carton was unsealed and the odour was conspicuous, and the defendant’s deliberate failure to ascertain its contents, it was determined that he must have known of their nature and conspired with others to commit arson, with clear criminal intent.
The defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit arson and of possessing items with intent to destroy or damage property, with sentencing adjourned. (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。
According to the judgment, on 20 October 2019 the defendant was driving a taxi and was stopped by the police near the senior staff quarters of The Education University of Hong Kong. An unsealed cardboard box was found in the boot containing more than 40 glass bottles filled with liquid and two igniters, emitting the smell of petrol. The defendant had assisted others in carrying the box. The court ruled that the defendant must have known the box contained petrol bombs and had conspired with others to commit arson. After trial, the defendant was found guilty of ‘conspiracy to commit arson’.
Based on the Court of Appeal and related cases, the general sentencing standard for arson offences during social movements is 4 to 6 years; as the defendant occupied a relatively minor transport role, the standard was set at 4 years, which was then increased by 3 months due to multiple aggravating factors to 4 years and 3 months, and then reduced by 3 months on discretionary grounds.
Having considered that the defendant transported more than 40 assembled petrol bombs to be stored at the senior staff quarters, with an extremely high risk of detonation or accidental ignition, which—although low-level execution—was serious in terms of both quantity and location, and given that the offence was related to unlawful assembly and riot, the 4-year baseline was increased by 3 months; the defendant had no prior convictions, so 3 months were deducted.
He considered that arson is an extremely serious crime requiring severe punishment as a deterrent; this case was connected to social unrest, and the criminal chain was closely linked, with the defendant’s mere transport role not significantly mitigating responsibility; relevant cases indicate that similar circumstances warrant a sentence of 4 to 6 years.
The defendant was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書