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。
According to the judgement, on the afternoon of 1 September 2019, in response to calls on social media, a large number of protesters gathered around Hong Kong airport. The defendant, dressed in black and with dyed blonde hair, first climbed the flagpole at Tung Chung Swimming Pool, removed and burned the flag of the People’s Republic of China; he then sprayed white paint inside the pool, damaging the CCTV cameras; he poured a flammable liquid on Tat Tung Road in an attempt to set a fire, and ignited multiple water-filled barriers at the junction of Mei Tung Street and Tat Tung Road. Although he initially denied the charges, based on CCTV and mobile phone footage, testimonies from citizens and firefighters, combined with the defendant’s confession under caution and evidence seized from his residence, the court found that the ‘blonde-haired man’ in the footage was the defendant. The evidence left no reasonable doubt, and all four charges were upheld.
In accordance with the Criminal Damage Ordinance, the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance and the common law offence of arson, sentencing is determined by considering the nature of the conduct, the degree of harm, the victim’s loss and the defendant’s subjective intent, while also taking into account the principles of punishment, deterrence and the prevention of reoffending.
The defendant’s actions were premeditated and organised, involving multiple instances of damage and burning in public places, causing serious harm to government property and national symbols. He offered no lawful excuse; after admitting the offences, he sought to retract his confession by claiming undiagnosed ADHD. The judge found that he showed no remorse and did not accept that his mental condition affected his criminal intent.
The judge considered the prosecution’s evidence to be accurate and reliable: CCTV and media footage clearly showed the defendant’s actions, and various items of evidence corroborated his confession. The defence’s psychiatric expert report was biased and unsubstantiated, failing to prove that ADHD affected his awareness or self-control. Therefore, all charges were upheld.
The defendant was convicted of criminal damage, insulting the national flag, attempted arson and arson. The case has now entered the sentencing phase, with the specific term to be announced by the court. (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 on 1 September 2019, the defendant participated in a demonstration near Tung Chung Swimming Pool, first vandalising the Leisure and Cultural Services Department’s CCTV with spray paint, then insulting the national flag by burning and soiling it, and attempting to burn banners and miscellaneous items. Subsequently, at the junction of Tat Tung Road and Mei Tung Street, they set fire to water-filled barriers. They committed the offences of criminal damage, insulting the national flag, attempted arson and arson. They were arrested on 6 September and during the trial pleaded guilty to all four offences.
The sentencing guidelines for arson generally range from 4 to 6 years, depending on the extent of property damage and risk to life; for insulting the national flag, the guideline is not less than 4 months; for criminal damage, in similar cases the starting point is often 1 to 3 months.
In this case, the arson did not target a specific object, so both property loss and risk to life were low, but the offence occurred during an unlawful assembly and requires deterrence; the act of insulting the national flag was malicious and seriously undermined national dignity; the criminal damage was minor and mainly intended to conceal the other offences. Therefore, different sentences were determined, some to be served concurrently and others consecutively.
Arson is an extremely serious crime with unpredictable consequences and must be punished severely; insulting the national flag strikes at the constitutional foundation, and the court must fully uphold the dignity of the national flag; the defendant’s role was not minor, and their culpability is equivalent to that of the principal perpetrators of the insult.
The defendant was ultimately sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment for criminal damage and 5 months’ imprisonment for insulting the national flag, amounting to 6 months in total; 4 years’ imprisonment for attempted arson and 4 years and 3 months’ imprisonment for arson, to be served partly concurrently and partly consecutively, resulting in a total term of 4 years and 7 months. The defendant must also pay compensation of 880 yuan for the arson offence. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書