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 Defendant pleaded guilty and was convicted of riot under section 19(1) and (2) of the Public Order Ordinance and of failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause under section 9L of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, while an arson charge was placed on file. The offences arose from a protest on 22 September 2019 near the junction of Prince Edward Road West and Nathan Road in Mong Kok, where Defendant joined hundreds of protesters who chanted slogans, shone lasers, vandalised a police station, and erected a makeshift barricade of rubbish bins, cardboard and barricades on the carriageway which was set alight. Video evidence showed Defendant receiving glass bottles containing flammable solvent, feeding the fire with accelerants, and fleeing when police and fire services intervened. Following his first court appearance, Defendant was admitted to bail but failed to surrender on 27 April 2020, absconding until his re-arrest on 10 May 2021.
The judge recalled that riot carries a maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment, that sentencing must uphold the rule of law, protect public order, and impose an immediate custodial sentence for violent mass disorder to deter both the offender and the public against similar conduct.
The court found that Defendant’s conduct involved a serious breach of the peace through disorderly, intimidating and violent behaviour during a riot at a major road junction, including pre-planned use of accelerants, obstruction of traffic and risk to life and property. Aggravating features included feeding a fire with flammable liquid, abusing police officers and ignoring repeated dispersal warnings. Mitigating factors were Defendant’s age of 16 at the time, first-time record, underprivileged background, peer influence, genuine remorse, silence under caution, and cooperation with pre-sentence reports despite a prolonged period on bail during which he absconded.
While emphasising the need for deterrence and the general principle that public disorder warrants immediate custody, the judge concluded that Defendant’s youth, educational status and rehabilitative prospects justified a training centre order rather than a standard prison sentence, balancing punitive, deterrent and reformative objectives.
The court ordered that Defendant be detained in a training centre for the offences of riot and failure to surrender to custody, with both training centre orders to run concurrently, thereby providing structured disciplinary training, education and rehabilitation under the Training Centres Ordinance.
查看完整判刑理由書