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 verdict states that on 1 October 2019, the National Day of the People’s Republic of China, the four defendants, together with other unidentified individuals, formed an umbrella formation near the junction of Ha Pah Street and Tai Ho Road in Tsuen Wan, New Territories. They used water-filled barriers, road signs, rubbish bins and other debris to block the road, advanced towards the police, and hurled bricks, incendiary devices, bottles and cans. They set fire to the pedestrian walkway, disturbing public peace. The first defendant even dragged a banner into the flames and burned it. After repeated verbal warnings, flag signals, and the use of tear gas canisters and plastic bullets failed to disperse them, the police launched a rapid advance, subdued and arrested multiple protesters at the scene, including the four defendants.
Under Section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance (offence of riot) and Sections 61 and 63 of the Crimes Ordinance (offence of arson), both riot and arson are serious offences punishable by up to ten years’ imprisonment.
Taking into account that the defendants were at the forefront of a violent demonstration, actively promoting and assisting in the disturbance of public order, their conduct was highly intimidating, going beyond the protection of freedom of assembly and further undermining public order; to uphold the rule of law and social stability, appropriate imprisonment is necessary to serve as a deterrent.
The offences of riot and arson are dynamic and fluid, involving many participants, with each defendant playing different roles at the scene, which could objectively cause a reasonable bystander to fear that public peace would be destroyed; their actions were neither merely incidental nor part of a lawful duty, nor were they unable to leave, and therefore they must bear criminal responsibility.
The first defendant was convicted of riot and arson and sentenced to a total of six years’ imprisonment; the second, third and fifth defendants were each convicted of riot and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. (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 stated that on October 1, 2019, between 3 and 4 pm, approximately 100 to 200 protesters dressed in black, wearing helmets and gas masks, set up water-filled barriers, rubbish bins and temporary fences to form roadblocks at the junction of Tai Ho Road and Hoi Pa Street in Tsuen Wan, and threw bricks, petrol bombs and debris at the police; some poured a flammable liquid on the footpath and set a banner on fire. The police repeatedly warned via loudhailer that it was an unlawful assembly, and fired tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse them. After about twenty minutes of skirmishing, the police suddenly advanced, subdued and arrested four protesters. All four were subsequently charged with rioting, and the first defendant was additionally charged with arson; the charges were ultimately upheld.
Under section 19(2) of the Public Order Ordinance, rioting carries a maximum sentence of ten years’ imprisonment, and under section 63(1) of the Crimes Ordinance, arson carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The Court of Appeal stated that where grave violence is involved and directed at law enforcement officers, sentencing must be deterrent in nature, taking into account the number of participants, the degree of violence, its duration and its impact on public order. In this seat, I refer to the case of Yang Ka-lun, using five years as the sentencing benchmark for rioting and approximately five years for arson, and, as the two offences arise from the same facts, consider them together.
The first defendant assisted the protest at the front line and dragged a banner into the fire, presenting a high degree of danger; the starting point for the combined sentence for the two offences was four years and six months, with an additional two months for consecutive terms, totalling 56 months. The roles of the second and third defendants could not be precisely determined but were that of joint principals; for rioting, the starting point was four years and six months, with a discretionary reduction of three months each, leading to 51 months’ imprisonment. Although the fifth defendant had a good background, he was at the front line and failed to demonstrate that his involvement was merely curiosity; for rioting, the starting point was four years and six months, with a discretionary reduction of one month, leading to 53 months’ imprisonment.
I consider this case akin to a small-scale war: the protesters were undisciplined and numerous, posing a grave threat to the police, and severe punishment is required to uphold the rule of law and achieve deterrence. All defendants conspired to take part in the riot and bear equal responsibility, but, given the particularly dangerous nature of the first defendant’s act of arson and the varying degrees of involvement and good character of the other defendants, individualised discretionary sentencing was applied.
Ultimately, I sentenced the first defendant to 56 months’ imprisonment, the second and third defendants to 51 months’ imprisonment each, and the fifth defendant to 53 months’ imprisonment. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書