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 three individuals, referred to as Defendant, participated in two spontaneous riots on Level III, Phase I of New Town Plaza in Shatin on 14 July 2019. During the first riot outside Shop 398, a plain-clothed police officer was surrounded, repeatedly punched, kicked and stabbed with umbrellas and hard objects, sustaining serious facial fractures and vision impairment. Approximately two minutes later, a second riot erupted outside Shop 383, where another officer was chased, kicked down an escalator, and attacked with umbrellas and blunt instruments, suffering scalp lacerations and bruising. All three Defendants pleaded guilty to the first riot charge, and two pleaded guilty to the second riot charge; grievous bodily harm charges were left on file pending further order.
Under section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance, riot carries a maximum sentence of ten years’ imprisonment. The Judge affirmed that while peaceful assembly is constitutionally protected, participation in violence constitutes unlawful activity requiring legal sanction. Sentencing must focus on general and specific deterrence to maintain public order and uphold the rule of law, rendering immediate custodial sentences inevitable for violent mass disorder.
The Judge considered the extreme brutality of both riots—despite their short duration and indoor setting—including organised preparation by human chains, use of protective gear, and ferocious assaults on shield-bearing officers. The first officer suffered life-changing facial fractures and impaired vision, while the second narrowly avoided more serious harm due to intervention by bystanders. Although mitigation factors such as remorse, youth, clear records and community service were presented, they were given little weight against the public interest in deterring collective violence. Authorities emphasised that individual acts in a riot derive gravity from the group’s unlawful purpose and cannot be assessed in isolation.
The Judge determined that sentences must be sufficiently punitive and deterrent to signal that violent riots will not be tolerated. He adopted starting points of five years’ imprisonment for participation in the first riot and six years for the second riot, reflecting the decision of two Defendants to re-engage in violence. He applied full one-third reductions for early guilty pleas, resulting in adjusted terms. The Judge held that personal circumstances, rehabilitation prospects and impulsive motivations were outweighed by the overriding need to preserve public order and send a clear warning against mass disorder.
The Judge imposed concurrent custodial sentences, after full one-third discounts for early pleas, of four years’ imprisonment each on the first and second Defendants, and three years and four months’ imprisonment on the third Defendant.
查看完整判刑理由書