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 on 29 September 2019, the defendant and other demonstrators launched the ‘Global Anti-Totalitarian March’ from Causeway Bay, without police approval. About 20,000 people proceeded along Hennessy Road and Queensway. Outside Harcourt Road in Admiralty, the protest escalated into a riot in three stages. Demonstrators dismantled and set fire to display boards, erected roadblocks, formed barricades with umbrellas to confront the police, and threw bricks, petrol bombs and other hard objects, leading to traffic paralysis and disturbance of public order. The police deployed tear gas and water cannon to disperse the crowd and arrested over 500 people. The defendant was arrested near Pacific Place and pleaded guilty to participating in a riot.
According to the sentencing principles for riot offences established by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Tang Ho Yin and Leung Tin-kei, factors such as the scale of the riot, number of participants, level of organisation, use of violence and social impact must be considered. The starting point for sentencing is generally not less than four years’ imprisonment and must be deterrent.
The defendant was only 16 at the time, a first-time offender who pleaded guilty and showed clear remorse. His role was to assist and encourage at the frontline, holding an umbrella to form a barricade and wielding bricks against the police. Although he came prepared, he was not a leader. Therefore, balancing his rehabilitation needs with the public interest, detention at a training centre was applied.
The judge considered that the riot in this case was large-scale and highly violent, requiring deterrence; however, the defendant was young, easily influenced by the atmosphere, and willing to plead guilty and take responsibility. The discipline and vocational training provided by the training centre would help his reform. Therefore, the judge chose detention at a training centre instead of immediate imprisonment.
The defendant was sentenced to detention at a training centre in lieu of imprisonment, with the specific detention period to be determined by the training centre authority in accordance with regulations. (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。
Court judgment noted that on 29 September 2019, eight defendants participated in an unauthorised ‘Global Anti-Totalitarianism March’ along Queensway. Protesters acted in three phases over approximately two hours, erecting makeshift barricades and an umbrella formation, dismantling and setting fire to National Day display boards, throwing petrol bombs, bricks and other objects at Government Headquarters and police officers, and damaging MTR exits, causing a traffic standstill in the central business district and a serious disruption to public order. The defendants pleaded guilty in January 2023 and were convicted of rioting; D3 is dealt with separately, and the remaining seven were sentenced by District Court Judge Cheung Chi-wai in February 2023.
The judge referred to the rioting sentencing factors outlined by the Court of Appeal in the cases of Tang Ho-hin and Leung Tin-kei, including whether there was prior planning, the number of participants, the degree of violence and the types of weapons used, the duration, the destruction and threats caused, the impact on public order, the role of the defendant and any other offences, and, in the absence of sentencing guidelines, used as reference the sentences in contemporaneous Admiralty riot cases in the District Court.
Consideration was given to the scale of the riot, which exceeded 500 participants, lasted approximately two hours, involved the use of petrol bombs, arson, damage to public and private property, confrontation with the police via an umbrella formation, obstruction of traffic in the central business district and targeting Government Headquarters, posing a serious threat to public safety. Each defendant pleaded guilty in turn and made pre-trial statements. The sentencing starting point was set between four and four and a half years, with discretionary considerations for their age, guilty plea reduction, conduct during remand and remorse.
The judge considered that the actions were organised and had both offensive and defensive characteristics. Those on the front line forming the umbrella shield, though not leaders, played a supporting role. D4, D7 and D8, who used a hammer, long bamboo poles and were involved in throwing, bore heavier responsibility, while the others participated in an assisting capacity. The judge took into account that the defendants were influenced by the prevailing social climate and committed offences in a moment of poor judgement, and believed in their prospects for remorse and rehabilitation.
Each defendant was convicted of rioting and sentenced to immediate custody: Defendant 1 – 30 months and two weeks, Defendant 2 – 34 months and two weeks, Defendant 3 – dealt with separately, Defendant 4 – 36 months, Defendant 5 – 30 months and two weeks, Defendant 6 – 30 months and two weeks, Defendant 7 – 32 months, Defendant 8 – 33 months and two weeks. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書