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 noted that, at the time, the defendants were students in Form Six and Form Four at a secondary school in Ma On Shan, New Territories. On 27 November 2019, Defendant One received from a stranger two packages of TATP explosive powder, weighing approximately 0.16 grams and 0.18 grams respectively, and conducted combustion experiments with them at home. On the same day, Defendant One first handed one package of powder to the chemistry teacher, and in the afternoon forcibly gave the other package to Defendant Two. The school reviewed CCTV footage to confirm the handover, stored the powder temporarily in the school toilet, and reported the incident to the police. Upon arrival, an explosive ordnance disposal expert and the forensic laboratory confirmed that both packages of powder were highly sensitive, high-performance primary explosives, and a blank cartridge was recovered from Defendant One’s clothing at the school and from his wallet at the police station. After trial, Defendant One was convicted on two counts of possession of explosives and one count of unlicensed possession of ammunition; Defendant Two was acquitted of the charge of possession of explosives.
Sentencing standards: Determined in accordance with section 55 of the Criminal Offences Ordinance, section 13 of the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance, and relevant case law, defining the offence and sentencing range.
Reasons for sentencing: Considering that Defendant One knowingly possessed high-performance explosives, conducted combustion experiments, and brought them into a school, thereby posing a serious risk to public safety, and rejecting his claims of self-study, experimentation, and decorative use; whereas Defendant Two lacked the intent to possess and the evidence was insufficient.
Judge’s observations: The court did not accept Defendant One’s claimed legitimate purposes or self-study experiments, finding that his actions were purely driven by curiosity and a desire for excitement; Defendant Two did not voluntarily possess the explosives and was therefore found not guilty.
Sentencing outcome: Defendant One was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for three convictions; Defendant Two, having been acquitted, was released after acquittal. (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 notes that on 27 November 2019, the defendant, then a Form Six student, admitted to the chemistry teacher that morning that he had brought an unidentified chemical back to school and subsequently handed over two foil packets containing TATP powder; later that afternoon, he was again found in the school auditorium in possession of the same kind of powder. The school reported the matter to the police, and an explosives expert verified it as a high-performance explosive. The police also found a decorative blank cartridge in the defendant’s windbreaker pocket. The defendant claimed that the powder was given to him by individuals dressed in black and that the ammunition was collected after being found, but the court did not accept his explanations regarding experimentation, self-study or decoration, and ultimately convicted him on all three counts.
Pursuant to section 55 of the Crimes Ordinance and section 13 of the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance, it is necessary to balance public safety, public condemnation, deterrence and the principles of juvenile rehabilitation.
Although the offence did not directly disrupt public order, the dangerous nature of TATP and the ammunition necessitates appropriate punishment; the defendant is only 18 years old, has no prior convictions, and has been remanded for nearly four months. The Correctional Services Department assessed that it is appropriate for him to undergo strict discipline and labour training at a training centre, to balance the aims of punishment and rehabilitation.
The disciplinary training and labour work at the training centre help to strengthen the awareness of the law and improve behaviour, and being held there rather than in prison better suits the defendant’s physical and mental condition. Upon completion of the training, he still has the prospect of continuing his education and development.
The defendant was sentenced on each of the three counts to detention at the training centre, with all three sentences to be served concurrently. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書