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。
According to the judgment, on 11 November 2019 at a protest site, the defendants and their associates blocked the roadway with debris and ropes. While the police were present to manage the situation, officers attempted to disperse the crowd and remove the obstruction, but were ambushed from front and rear by the defendants and their cohorts, who attempted to seize the officers’ firearms. The officers fired three shots in succession; the first struck the first defendant, who had tried to seize a gun, while the other two shots missed. The defendants were subsequently overpowered and arrested. During transfer to hospital, the first defendant attempted to escape but was eventually recaptured. The two individuals face charges of wilfully obstructing police officers and attempted robbery; the first defendant also faces an additional charge of attempting to escape lawful custody.
Under section 36(b) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, wilful obstruction of a police officer is punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment; under section 10 of the Theft Ordinance and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, attempted robbery carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment; under common law, attempting to escape lawful custody is punishable by an appropriate sentence.
The defendants were aware that the officers were carrying out their duties lawfully yet deliberately made those duties more difficult, and their conduct was aggressive with the intent to seize firearms. The first defendant, despite being shot, still managed to escape, posing a significant risk to public safety. Both individuals show no remorse and have ties to riots, necessitating severe punishment to deter similar acts of violence.
The defendants’ actions were not mere interference but involved aggression and the intention to disarm officers, going beyond the scope of peaceful protest and posing a serious threat to the rule of law and public order, and therefore require stern sentencing.
The court ultimately imposed an aggregate sentence of five years’ imprisonment on the first defendant for the three offences, and an aggregate sentence of four years’ imprisonment on the second defendant for the two offences, with credit for time served and no suspension of sentence. (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 11 November 2019 protesters carried out a road blockade in the Shau Kei Wan area. Two defendants, together with others, wore black clothing and masks, blocking the road. When a police officer went alone to disperse them, he was ambushed from front and rear by the defendants and their associates, who attempted to seize his service firearm. The officer fired his weapon in self-defence, wounding one of them. Afterwards, one defendant escaped during ambulance transport but was subdued again not far away. After trial, the two defendants were convicted on three charges.
The sentencing starting point for the offence of intentionally obstructing the execution of duty is 12 months’ imprisonment; for attempted robbery, 6 years’ imprisonment; for attempted escape from lawful custody, 6 months’ imprisonment.
The defendants colluded in premeditation, used violence against a lone officer on duty and attempted to seize his firearm, violently challenging law enforcement authority with no remorse; their injuries were self-inflicted, there are insufficient mitigating factors, and a strong deterrent effect is required.
Although reference was made to cases at the same level, the contexts differ significantly and the guidance is limited; sentencing must consider the individual circumstances and the social climate at the time, so as to uphold public order and the authority of the police force.
The two defendants were each sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment for the offences of intentionally obstructing the execution of duty and attempted robbery, to be served concurrently; the first defendant was further sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment for the escape offence, also to be served concurrently, resulting in both serving a total of 6 years’ imprisonment. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書