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 noted that the defendant, on 1 July 2020 at MTR Tin Hau Station Exit B, together with the co-defendants in the same case, dressed in black, wearing masks and holding umbrellas, first attempted to damage the CCTV and LED display screens, then smashed fluorescent tubes inside the station. They subsequently moved to the central lane of King’s Road to ignite cardboard boxes but failed. During this period, they were followed by two plainclothes officers to Screen Street, and after changing into green clothing were arrested.
Burden of proof lies with the prosecution; evidence must meet the standard of no reasonable doubt; identification evidence is handled in accordance with the principles established in R v Galye and R v Turnbull.
The two prosecution witnesses provided detailed and consistent descriptions of the defendant’s clothing, accessories, physique, hair colour, conduct and the scene environment, which closely matched the items seized, sufficient to prove that the defendant had a clear intention to cause damage and an intent to commit arson.
The judge considered the two witnesses honest and credible; visibility, distance and lighting conditions were good; there was no evidence of mistaken identity or following the wrong person; therefore the defendant was found guilty on all charges.
The defendant was convicted of attempted criminal damage (charges one and three), criminal damage (charge two) and attempted arson (charge six). The court will schedule a sentencing hearing at a later date. (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 July 2020 the two defendants, dressed in black and armed with long umbrellas, successively damaged CCTV cameras, ceiling light tubes and display screens at Exit B of Tin Hau Station. They then attempted to set fire on King’s Road with a lighter but failed, subsequently changed their clothes and fled, and were ultimately arrested at Fortress Hill Station. The second defendant, then 17 years old, had been remanded in October 2020 for conspiracy to commit criminal damage and drug use, and following trial was convicted of seven counts of criminal damage and attempted arson.
The seriousness of the offence, public safety and societal interests must all be considered, alongside the defendant’s age, background and capacity for reform. The penalty must be both punitive and deterrent, making a custodial sentence unavoidable.
The defendant, acting with premeditation and planning, wantonly destroyed property in a crowded public space, resulting in substantial repair costs for the MTR and endangering public safety; the conduct was motivated by financial gain, demonstrating a disregard for the rule of law; being young and of a complex background, the defendant requires disciplinary education and vocational training to reshape their values.
Custodial sentences and training centres represent different modes of sanction. A training centre, in addition to its punitive and deterrent effects, can provide extended disciplinary training, vocational skills guidance and moral education and counselling, which helps young offenders to reform, and is therefore considered most appropriate.
The defendant was sentenced to detention in a training centre, the duration of which will depend on their behaviour and progress while there, and will be subject to supervision upon release. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書