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 or about 9 November 2019 outside a residential block in Beverley Garden, Tseung Kwan O, a mass of protesters gathered shortly after midnight to voice grief over a nearby student’s fatal fall days earlier. The demonstration grew to more than twenty people chanting slogans and generating loud noise. At around 2:30 am a resident descended to complain and was surrounded by the crowd, prevented from leaving, and subjected to a sustained assault lasting nearly ten minutes. News footage shows Defendant among those punching, kicking and striking the victim with bare hands and hard objects, trapping him against a wall. The victim sustained multiple lacerations requiring thirteen stitches, widespread cuts and bruises, and was hospitalized for three days. Police arrived minutes later, dispersed the rioters and arrested Defendant, who was found carrying masks and gloves.
Sentencing for riot under section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance carries a maximum term of ten years’ imprisonment, while wounding with intent under section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The court applied established principles emphasizing deterrence, protection of public order and the rule of law, as restated in Court of Appeal authorities including Leung Tin Kei CACC 164/2018 and the Court of Final Appeal in SJ v Wong Chi Fung. Sentencing must be fact-specific, punitive and sufficiently deterrent to reflect the collective gravity of mass disorder, the threat to public safety, and to warn others against similar conduct.
The court found the offences particularly grave given the mass and violent nature of the riot, the deliberate, unprovoked attack on a defenseless resident, and the serious physical and psychological harm caused. The violence was prolonged and intentional, involving kicks, punches and improvised weapons, and occurred in a public setting before police intervention. The need to uphold freedom of peaceful assembly while punishing violent breaches, preserve the rule of law, and deter participation in collective unrest outweighed personal mitigation. The sheer number of participants and the encouragement drawn from group dynamics amplified culpability, mandating a deterrent custodial sentence.
Although Defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and demonstrated remorse, and despite personal and medical mitigation presented, these factors were accorded limited weight in light of the seriousness of the offences. The judge recognized the first Defendant’s mental health history but accepted her instruction that her condition did not impair her capacity. A full plea discount was applied, but an immediate custodial sentence remained inevitable.
Both Defendants were sentenced to concurrent terms of 3 years and 8 months’ imprisonment on the riot and wounding with intent charges, resulting in a total custodial sentence of 3 years and 8 months. An order was made for psychiatric treatment to be provided to the first Defendant during her term as deemed necessary.
查看完整判刑理由書