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 in the early hours of 17 November 2019, the defendant, together with accomplices, went to the district councillor’s office in Block A of Wah Sum Estate, Fanling (separated from residential flats by only an open space and approximately 500 metres from the defendant’s residence). They first transported polystyrene foam, poured in a flammable liquid, and then set it alight, leaving 2×3 metre burn marks on the wall. Two poster boards, an exhaust fan and two CCTV cameras were destroyed, causing losses of about HK$14,500. Then, in the early hours of 23 November, they repeated the same method, blackening the wall, with cleaning costs of about HK$1,000. They wore masks during the offences and fled the scene; when stopped by the police the next morning, investigators found gloves, a scarf and other evidence on the defendant. After being cautioned, the defendant admitted to setting the fires out of “mischief”.
Arson carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, but due to the wide variance in circumstances there is no fixed sentencing guideline; given Hong Kong’s densely populated living conditions, any act of arson could spread rapidly, so the court must adopt a deterrent sentencing approach and consider mitigating factors such as the defendant’s age to balance punishment and rehabilitation needs.
The court found that the defendant’s actions had clear political motives and serious destructiveness, not only damaging public property and community safety but also imposing cleaning and compensation costs on taxpayers; although the defendant was young, malleable and incited by others, youth does not constitute an excuse; the sentence should balance deterrence and reform.
The court noted that a training centre order would better address the young defendant’s needs for reform and discipline than a short-term custodial sentence, while still providing a degree of punishment and societal warning; the court therefore chose this approach in hopes that the defendant would develop respect for the law during the period and return to society as a responsible individual.
Ultimately, the court did not impose imprisonment but issued concurrent training centre orders for the two counts of arson; it also ordered the defendant to pay compensation of HK$7,250 for the first arson and HK$500 for the second arson before 4:00 am that day, failing which each sum would be replaced by one month’s imprisonment. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書