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。
{“case_background”:”The judgment states that since June 2019 widespread protests in Hong Kong escalated into serious public disorder, and on 14 July 2019 two successive riots occurred on Level III of New Town Plaza in Shatin. During the first riot outside Shop 398, a large group of protesters violently assaulted an off-duty plain-clothes officer (PW1) with umbrellas, kicks and hard objects, causing life-changing facial fractures and vision impairment; Defendants 1, 2 and 3 each admitted participation in that riot. Two minutes later, outside Shop 383, a second riot ensued in which a uniformed officer (PW2) was chased down an escalator, kicked, punched and stabbed with umbrellas, suffering scalp lacerations and bruising; Defendants 1 and 2 admitted participation in that riot. All three defendants pleaded guilty to the riot charges, and charges of causing grievous bodily harm were ordered to lie on the file.”,”judge_information”:{“sentencing_standard”:”Under section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance, riot attracts a maximum 10-year sentence, with freedom of peaceful assembly protected but not extending to violent conduct. Sentencing must be punitive and sufficiently deterrent, with general deterrence overriding rehabilitation in light of rising unrest and Court of Appeal authorities (Leung Tin Kei, Tang Ho Yin, SJ v Wong Chi Fung).”,”sentencing_reasons”:”Although Defendants pleaded guilty early and showed remorse, their voluntary involvement in two successive, organized, indoor riots that targeted police officers performing lawful duties caused severe and lasting harm. The group dynamic intensified violence and undermined public order and the rule of law. Personal mitigation—including youth, family circumstances and community service—carries limited weight against the need to deter mass disorder.”,”judge_opinion”:”The participation of each defendant contributed to collective violence, and individual acts cannot be viewed in isolation. The gravity of riot stems from the combined unlawful purpose of the crowd. In these circumstances, a custodial sentence is inevitable to reflect public interest, uphold the rule of law and deter similar offences.”,”sentencing_result”:”After applying a one-third discount for guilty pleas, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 are each sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, and Defendant 3 is sentenced to three years and four months’ imprisonment, with sentences to run concurrently.”}
查看完整判刑理由書