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 seven others participated in the unauthorised “Global Anti-Totalitarian March” on Queensway and outside the Government Headquarters, which escalated into a riot in three stages. Demonstrators erected roadblocks, built umbrella barricades, demolished display boards, threw bricks and Molotov cocktails, obstructed traffic and damaged public facilities, and the police fired tear gas and water cannon to disperse them. After about two hours, protesters including the defendant were arrested.
According to Chapter 245 of the Public Order Ordinance and the twelve sentencing factors listed by the Court of Appeal in the Leung Tin-kei case, the scale of the riot, the number of participants, the use of weapons and Molotov cocktails, the degree of violence and destruction, the duration, the impact on public order and the economy, and the defendant’s role and level of participation are all taken into account to establish sentencing guidelines and ensure deterrence.
At the time of the incident, the defendant was only 16 years old, was at the front line holding bricks to build an umbrella barricade in confrontation with the police, without any actual throwing and with no prior convictions; his plea was sincere and his remorse genuine, emphasising youthful impulsiveness and determination to reform. Given that his role was one of assistance and encouragement, a balance must be struck between punishment and rehabilitation.
The Bench considers that although the defendant was neither the ringleader nor an instigator, he provided protection and cover on the front line, thereby bolstering the momentum of the riot, and his role was of an assisting nature; however, considering his youth and need for rehabilitation, detention in a training centre, which balances the interests of society and the defendant’s reform, is an appropriate measure.
The Bench sentenced the defendant to detention in a training centre for count one, aiming to balance the deterrent effect of the penalty with the defendant’s need for rehabilitation. (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。
According to the judgment, the eight accused took part in an unauthorised march along Queensway on 29 September 2019. Violent riots then broke out in three stages, with some hundreds of people occupying Harcourt Road and the flyover, erecting roadblocks and an ‘umbrella formation’, throwing bricks, petrol bombs and other missiles at Government Headquarters and the police, and damaging public facilities and key traffic routes. The defendants confronted officers on the front line before being dispersed and arrested by the police. Each defendant indicated an intention to plead guilty before the review hearing or on the day of the first trial and admitted the charges.
The maximum penalty for the offence of rioting is 10 years’ imprisonment. There is no specific sentencing guideline, but reference may be made to the sentencing principles set out by the Court of Appeal in the cases of Deng Haoxian, Liang Tianqi and others: the scale of the riot, the degree of violence, the use of weapons, the level of organisation, the threat to public order and personal safety, involvement in other offences, the defendant’s role and level of participation, and other relevant factors. The sentence must also have a deterrent effect.
The court found that this riot was large in scale and highly violent. Participants erected an umbrella formation to confront the police and threw objects. Although the defendants were not the organisers, they played leading and supporting roles on the front line. The starting point sentences range from 50 to 54 months; after deducting a 25% reduction for an early guilty plea and allowing further reductions for age and remorse, the adjusted immediate imprisonment terms range from 30 to 40.5 months.
The riot caused serious disruption to traffic and social order in the central business district. The protesters came well prepared and persistently resisted the police; their actions were highly organised and dangerous. The defendants later showed deep reflection and courageously pleaded guilty, so a discretionary reduction in sentence was granted.
Defendant One, Defendant Five and Defendant Six (aged 19 to 20 at the time of the offence) were each sentenced to 30 months and two weeks of immediate imprisonment; Defendant Two (aged 21 at the time of the offence) to 34 months and two weeks; Defendant Four (aged 25) to 36 months; Defendant Seven (aged 18) to 32 months; Defendant Eight (aged 19) to 33 months and two weeks. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書