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 the evening of 22 September 2019, the defendant gathered with more than a hundred protesters outside the Mong Kok Police Station, blocked the carriageway of Prince Edward Road West at about 10 pm and again at 11:30 pm with rubbish bins, cardboard and vegetation as roadblocks, and set them on fire, causing the flames to cross several traffic lanes and shine laser beams at police officers. Based on publicly available media footage and the police’s on-site investigation, identifying features such as the defendant’s golden ponytail, semi-rimmed glasses, black long-sleeved jacket, blue jeans, white trainers and grey backpack led to the conclusion that he successively threw branches and cardboard into the fire; officers also discovered a helmet, a gas mask and a laser pen in his backpack when stopping a private car on Lai Chi Kok Road. He was therefore charged with two counts of arson, one count of riot and one count of possession of an offensive weapon in a public place.
Pursuant to sections 60(1)(3) and 63(1) of the Criminal Offences Ordinance (Cap. 200) and sections 19(1)(2) and 33(1)(2) of the Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245) of the Laws of Hong Kong, the gravity of arson and riot to public peace, the defendant’s danger to society and the malicious nature of the criminal methods are taken into account.
Since comparison between publicly available media footage and the evidence leaves no reasonable doubt, the defendant’s successive use of vegetation and cardboard to fuel the barricades clearly constituted arson and riot, with a significantly detrimental impact; however, the evidence for possession of a laser pen is insufficient to prove the defendant’s intent to cause harm.
The judge considers that PW6’s identification testimony, having been corroborated on multiple occasions, is reliable; the on-scene statement, not obtained under caution and incomplete, is not admitted; the evidence for arson and riot is conclusive, but the proof for the laser pen charge is insufficient, making conviction on that count inappropriate.
On 25 March 2021, the defendant was convicted at the District Court of Counts 1 and 2 (arson) and Count 3 (riot), and acquitted on Count 4 (possession of an offensive weapon in a public place). (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 the evening of 22 September 2019, the defendant gathered with over a hundred protesters outside Mong Kok Police Station near the junction with Prince Edward Road West. On two occasions, he set fire in the street, burning cardboard, miscellaneous items and roadblocks, and participated in blocking the road and throwing hard objects at police officers. After the police arrived, multiple warnings were issued but the crowd did not disperse. Eventually, the defendant was stopped in the Lai Chi Kok Road area and searched, revealing equipment including a helmet, gas mask, gloves, goggles and a laser pointer. After repeatedly reviewing CCTV footage and comparing it with photographs of the defendant, the court identified him by his ponytail, glasses, body shape, clothing, footwear and the tattoo on the back of his neck.
By reference to the sentencing guidelines for riot and arson offences, the starting point for a riot sentence is five years’ imprisonment, and for arson four and a half years’ imprisonment, although these may be reduced in appropriate cases.
The defendant was a first-time offender with no prior convictions; most of the facts alleged in court were admitted, saving judicial resources; he suffers from depression and anxiety and subsequently expressed genuine remorse, submitting several credible letters of mitigation; the two arson incidents occurred at the same location and were not meticulously planned; the fires were quickly extinguished by firefighters, causing no personal injury or serious property damage.
Although this incident amounted to an eruptive riot involving many participants and posed a serious threat to public order, and despite the defendant having committed arson on two occasions and obstructed the road, which are serious offences, when all his personal circumstances and mitigating factors are considered, the custodial sentences for arson and riot should be served concurrently to balance punishment with the opportunity for rehabilitation.
The court sentenced the defendant to four years’ imprisonment on each of the two counts of arson, and to four and a half years’ imprisonment on the count of riot, all sentences to run concurrently, for a total of four and a half years’ imprisonment. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書