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 states that at around 5pm on 28 December 2019, the defendant, together with about fifty people, gathered on the pedestrian footbridge outside Sheung Shui Plaza. During this time, some individuals surrounded, assaulted and harassed passers-by; one passer-by was attacked and injured. When the police arrived to pursue, the defendant first shoved an officer and then fled into the shopping centre. He resisted and attempted to seize the officer’s long gun, pulled the trigger to no effect and gripped the baton tightly. He was eventually subdued and taken back to the police station for investigation.
Riot carries a maximum sentence of ten years’ imprisonment; assaulting a police officer up to seven years; resisting a police officer is punishable by imprisonment; attempting to possess a firearm without a licence carries up to fourteen years.
The defendant was present at the scene of the riot and participated in the violence, resisted arrest and attempted to seize the firearm, conduct that was extremely dangerous and harmful to society and warranted punishment; however, the charge of assaulting a police officer did not stand due to doubts in the evidence.
The prosecution proved the offences of riot and attempted firearm seizure beyond reasonable doubt; however, the evidence for the assault on a police officer was unclear due to confusing details and insufficient video footage, so that charge did not stand.
After trial, the defendant was convicted of riot, attempted unlicensed possession of a firearm and two counts of resisting a public officer; the charge of assaulting a police officer did not stand. (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。
The judgment states that the defendant at about 5pm on 28 December 2019, wearing black clothing and a face mask, gathered with about fifty people on the pedestrian overpass outside Sheung Shui Plaza, during which he insulted, shoved and searched passers-by’s mobile phones, and together with others surrounded and assaulted a passer-by, using an umbrella to shield himself and choke the victim. He then fled into a shopping centre on seeing the police arrive, and fiercely resisted when subdued, destroying an officer’s helmet, tightly gripping a police baton, and attempting to seize the trigger of an officer’s long gun three times, before ultimately being subdued with pepper spray. The defendant was only sixteen years and ten months old at the time, is now eighteen years and seven months old, and has no prior convictions. He pleaded guilty to two counts of resisting arrest, and was convicted after trial of riot and attempted unauthorised possession of a firearm.
According to the judgment, sentencing for riot must consider whether it was premeditated, the number of participants, use of violence and weapons, duration, injuries and property damage caused, the degree of public disruption, the defendant’s role, and other offences in the same case; sentencing for attempted unauthorised possession of a firearm is guided by the level of intimidation and potential danger; sentencing for resisting arrest is generally based on the severity of the conduct.
For the riot offence, as the defendant played an active frontline role and used violence, the starting point was four and a half years’ imprisonment, which was reduced to four years and three months considering that he was just over sixteen at the time, was unarmed, and showed active mitigation; for attempted unauthorised possession of a firearm, as he tried to seize a rifle and pulled the trigger three times, the starting point was three years, which was reduced to two and a half years due to his age and the chaotic scene; for the two counts of resisting arrest, one month’s imprisonment was imposed for each count; counts three, four and five run concurrently, with six months concurrent with the riot sentence; the aggregate sentence is four years and nine months.
The judge considered that the level of violence in this case was high and the conduct reckless and disregarded public safety, and that only a custodial sentence could have a deterrent effect. Although the defendant was young and demonstrated dedication to his studies and genuine remorse, the offences were serious and warranted appropriate punishment while balancing retribution and prevention of reoffending.
The defendant was sentenced to four years and three months’ imprisonment for riot; two and a half years’ imprisonment for attempted unauthorised possession of a firearm; one month’s imprisonment for each of the two counts of resisting arrest, to be served concurrently; total imprisonment of four years and nine months. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書