HKSAR v. LEUNG PAK TIM AND OTHERS

DCCC 813/2019

[2020] HKDC 838

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 813 OF 2019

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------------------

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

-----------------------------------------

1.  There are 2 riot charges in this case, Charges 1 and 3. 2 riots took place on Level III, Phase 1 of New Town Plaza in Shatin, New Territories one after the other. During those riots a police officer was wounded in the course of each riot. Charges 2 and 4 are offences of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to those 2 officers during those 2 riots.

2.  The 1^st defendant pleaded guilty to Charges 1 and 3. The 2^nd defendant also pleaded guilty to Charges 1 and 3. The 3^rd defendant only faced one riot charge and pleaded guilty to Charge 1. Those defendants facing Charges 2 and 4 pleaded not guilty and those 2 charges were put on the court file, not to be dealt with unless there is an order from this court or the Court of Appeal.

3.  Accordingly, the 1^st defendant was convicted of both charges of riot, Charges 1 and 3 as was the 2^nd defendant. The 3^rd defendant was convicted of Charge 1, a single riot charge.

Facts of the case

4.  Since June 2019, Hong Kong experienced a series of protests in opposition to the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill. The protests escalated into serious social unrest and public disorder including on occasions, riots.

5.  On the 14 July 2019 there were large crowds of protesters gathered in the Shatin area. As a result, various units of police officers had to be deployed in the area to restore law and order. A particular unit of police officers in plain clothes were deployed together with uniform officers near Lucky Plaza, Shatin. They dispersed crowds gathered in that Plaza before stationing themselves in Shatin Centre at about 21:20 hours.

6.  Amongst these officers were PW1 and PW2 in plain clothes. PW1 was tasked with video taking duties at the time. At about 21:45 hours these 2 officers with other members of their party were deployed to enter Shatin New Town Plaza Phase 1. They entered Level III through a passageway from Shatin Centre.

7.  As their party entered Shatin New Town Plaza, uniformed officers were assaulted by a large number of protesters with umbrellas, punches and kicks. They fell over on the ground because there was an identified liquid spilled which caused officers to fall. At the same time umbrellas and hard objects such as water bottles were thrown from a height down at those police officers. As a result, during the commotion that police party was separated and scattered on that Level III area and rioting occurred.

8.  PW1 was wearing a standard police vest, a police helmet and was only holding a round shield. He saw a police officer being assaulted by protesters and went to help him. As he moved forward, he was on his own and singled out. He was then quickly surrounded and violently assaulted by a large group of protesters of at least 20 people outside Shop 398. He was punched, kicked and stabbed with items such as umbrellas. He was hit with other hard objects. This assault took place at around 21:55 hours and lasted for about 1 minute. There is CCTV footage from several angles of this riot and of this officer on the ground being attacked. Those rioters dispersed and stopped hitting PW1 when a uniformed officer came to assist him.

9.  The 1^st defendant admits he used an umbrella to repeatedly assault PW1 and kicked him. In the CCTV footage you can see him holding an umbrella up like a spear to stab at the officer and then he is in the front of the rioters where the officer is on the ground. The CCTV footage does not support the mitigation that the 1^st defendant is not a man who participates in gratuitous violence.

10.  The 2^nd defendant tried to penetrate the crowd of rioters and made his way through just as PW1 got back on his feet. The 2^nd defendant can be seen throwing an umbrella at an officer coming to PW1’s aid before running away.

11.  The 3^rd defendant is identified in the CCTV footage and he stabbed at the officer on the ground with an umbrella in a very fast, continuous and aggressive manner; over 20 times. During the attack he dropped the umbrella but despite people beginning to disperse, he picked it up again and resumed the attack. He was one of the last rioters to strike PW1 before running away and as he turned to run, he pumped his fist in the air. This CCTV footage does not support the mitigation he is not a violent person but more of a dispute mediator.

12.  PW1 was very seriously injured and has suffered life changing consequences. He suffered from a left periorbital fracture, left maxillary fracture (which is a fracture of left orbital floor and medial wall fracture), his nose was fractured, bruising to his face and a hematoma on his left eye with yellowish vision and binocular double vision.

13.  He has since had to have 2 surgeries relating to his left eye and facial injuries. He suffers impairment in the vision in his left eye and still experiences pain and dizziness. He was on sick leave until 12 March 2020, about 9 months after the attack. He has been assigned mainly clerical duties and no longer carries out frontline duties. It appears he can no longer drive either. In fact, a medical board will soon assess his work capacity. It appears his career as a detective police constable will suffer at only 31 years old.

14.  The 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd defendant admit that at the material time they took part in a riot outside Shop 398. There were at least 20 rioters assembled together and the riot comprised of various acts of breaches of the peace. The 3 defendants committed those acts individually and together with other persons unknown. A result of the riot and violence was the serious injury suffered by PW1 targeted by the rioters.

15.  The second riot, Charge 3, took place outside Shop 383 on the same level of Shatin New Town Plaza about 2 minutes after the first riot. PW2 had become separated from his police party after they as a group entered that Plaza. He too was wearing a standard police vest, a police helmet and was only holding a round shield. He saw uniformed officers being assaulted by protesters and went to assist. He tried to proceed to Level IV up an escalator outside Shop 383. The CCTV footage shows that as he ran towards the escalator he was chased by protesters who were trying to assault him.

16.  He ran up the escalator but saw a large number of protesters running down towards him. He turned to go back down when he was kicked in the back and pushed from behind. He was kicked down the escalator and fell to the ground. He was then surrounded by a number of rioters who punched and kicked him as well stabbed him with umbrellas and hard objects. He was quickly surrounded by a large group and assaulted for about 1 minute. The riot only dispersed when a reporter straddled the officer on the ground and stopped people from attacking him any further.

17.  The CCTV footage I was shown in court shows the 1^st defendant and the 2^nd defendant surrounding PW2 on the ground at the bottom of the escalator. The 1^st defendant can be seen pushing others towards that officer on the ground before going in himself and kicking him. Both can be seen from several different angles in CCTV footage. The CCTV footage for both offences is MFI-1 and screenshots taken from the footage is MFI-2.

18.  The 2^nd defendant can be seen at the bottom of the escalator striking that officer with an umbrella from behind when the officer was kicked down the escalator towards him. He was then in the middle of the riot hitting PW2 and even after the reporter straddled the officer on the ground, he came in and stabbed his umbrella at him at least 4 times.

19.  PW2 suffered a laceration to his right scalp that required stitches, abrasion and bruising to his face, tenderness and swelling on his right elbow and right leg as well as 3 abrasions on his back. Looking at the CCTV footage, it is fortunate he was not more seriously injured like PW1. The reporter and others who went to his aid are the reason he was not more seriously hurt. There are photographs of the injuries of the 2 police officers taken later and marked as MFI-3. The Summary of Facts set out the injuries suffered, subsequent treatment and surgeries as well as prognosis.

20.  The 1^st and 2^nd defendant admit that at the material time they took part in another riot outside Shop 383. There were at least 10 rioters assembled together and the riot comprised of various acts of breaches of the peace. The 2 defendants committed those acts individually and together with other persons unknown. A result of the riot was the serious injury suffered by PW2 targeted by the rioters.

The 1^st Defendant

21.  The Summary of Facts states the 1^st defendant left home at around 16:34 hours and CCTV footage captures what he was wearing. He arrived at Shatin New Town Plaza at around 21:39 hours wearing the same outfit. This is about 50 minutes before the first riot. The CCTV footage shows him changing from a black top into an orange pink short-sleeved T-shirt at 21:44 hours inside the Plaza which was worn by him during Charges 1 and 3.

22.  After the 2 riots he admits he is captured on CCTV leaving the Plaza for Shatin MTR station wearing the same orange pink T-shirt at around 20:30 hours. He is seen on CCTV having a dispute with other train passengers. He was arrested by the police on 25 July 2019.

23.  What is seen on CCTV is that he was part of 2 long human chains formed inside Shatin New Town Plaza before the first riot. This human chain can be seen passing many umbrellas along the line and upstairs in a very organised fashion. The 1^st defendant was clearly there with a purpose and was part of the human chain before the riots. He changed his T-shirt whilst stood in the chain talking to others. He tried to tie his black T-shirt around his face as a mask but appeared to fail.

24.  In mitigation, I have heard that the defendant is now 24 years old, single and lives with some family members. His father has brought him and his brother up single-handedly after his divorce when the defendant was 12. He has one previous criminal record, in 2016 he was sentenced to 42 months’ imprisonment for trafficking in dangerous drugs.

25.  His best mitigation is his plea of guilty. After his arrest for this offence he was employed as an assistant to a district councillor in Tai Po. That councillor writes that although he is young, aggressive and enthusiastic, he is at times impulsive. He is remorseful and acted without thinking that day. He is a hard worker and committed to the community.

26.  Defence Counsel has submitted 67 mitigation letters written by the defendant, his father, various district councillors who have come across him, friends and other people who have benefited from his community work. The defendant expressed genuine remorse and maturity. He takes responsibility for his actions. There are 2 detailed letters from 2 social workers who have come to know him well since these offences.

27.  Most of those letters say much the same thing and are repetitive. His family dynamics are difficult but improving. His brother and father are supportive. He is charitable and gives his time to community service and voluntary work. He has been of particular help during the COVID-19 pandemic by organising distribution of masks and sanitisers in his home community. He has been assisting small businesses and restaurants survive the pandemic. Most of the letters say he is genuinely remorseful. Most say he committed this offence impulsively and because of his love for Hong Kong. I am asked to be compassionate.

28.  I have been urged to consider his family background and lack of maternal care from a young child. It was submitted that the 1^st defendant is not a person of nefarious nature who relishes in gratuitous violence. At the material time he was influenced by the anger of the mob and foolishly participated in riots. He acted out of character.

29.  Defence counsel for the 1^st defendant, Mr Shek, has urged me to take into account the duration and spread of the 2 riots was of limited time and scope. They did not last long nor involve many people. These riots are at the lower end of the scale for such an offence.

30.  I have been asked to consider a starting point of 4 years and 6 months adopting the Court of Appeal’s opinion in HKSAR v Tang Ho Yin 2019 3 HKLRD 502. Mr Shek submits a starting point of 6 years as I adopted in HKSAR v Sin Ka Ho 2020 HKDC 337 would be too high as the factors relevant to sentencing riot cases as set out in HKSAR v Leung Tin Kei 2020 HKCA 275 reflect that the facts and riots of this case are less serious than the facts of Sin Ka Ho.

31.  The riot in Sin Ka Ho did not last that long either but there were many more people in that riot trying to break through a police cordoned protecting the main entrance to the Legislative Council building. The difference is that that riot was outside in the open and in the streets whilst the riots here were inside a Shopping Plaza.

The 2^nd defendant

32.  The Summary of Facts states the 2^nd defendant was seen first at 21:35 hours wandering around the Shatin New Town Plaza. That was about 20 minutes before the first riot. He was wearing a cap and carrying a distinctive red bag with a cartoon figure printed on it. During the 2 riots he had put on a face mask. He was seen on CCTV leaving Shatin via Shatin MTR station at about 22:25 hours.

33.  He was arrested on 19 August 2019 and remained silent under caution. The clothes he was wearing during the riots were found during a house search. The police also found in his home newspaper cuttings depicting the 2^nd defendant himself caught in the act of rioting.

34.  In mitigation I have heard that the 2^nd defendant is now 51 years old and has a clear record. His best mitigation is also his plea of guilty. He lives with his mother who has returned from Canada, is single and worked as a security guard. His father and other siblings live in Canada. His mother is suffering from Parkinson’s disease in its early stages.

35.  I have received letters from his family, friends, colleagues and social workers. He is a filial son who cares for his mother and worries about his father in Canada. He has successfully applied for a shared housing unit so his mother has assistance from social workers whilst he serves a term of imprisonment.

36.  He used to be a barber and has previously participated in voluntary programs teaching rehabilitating drug addicts a skill. When he had a hair salon business he offered to cut the hair of the elderly for a small reduced fee during his spare time. It has been stressed he is a kind, helpful and generous man.

37.  The 2^nd defendant went to Shatin that day in order to participate in peaceful assembly, he did not set out to hurt anyone nor participate in a riot. It is submitted his participation was a momentary lapse of good judgement. He acted out of character as can be demonstrated by the contents of the mitigation letters. It is submitted that this riot was spawned from civil unrest and the atmosphere in Hong Kong at that material time.

38.  I have been urged to consider the fact that both riots occurred over a short period of time and very soon after one another. Similarly, Mr Lai for the 2^nd defendant urges me to take into account relevant factors for sentencing riot cases as set out in Leung Tin Kei. In fact, all Counsel have referred me to the same authorities and in the main, adopt each other’s submissions.

The 3^rd defendant

39.  The 3^rd defendant can be seen arriving at Shatin New Town Plaza with other young men at about 21:03 hours. At about 21:04 hours, he is seen on Level III where the riots took place later. He is seen putting on a face mask. He is milling around as if waiting for something to happen. He is not trying to go anywhere nor does he appear to try to leave the Plaza. During the riot of Charge 1 he is not only wearing a face mask but also a pair of eye goggles as well. He says he picks them up off the floor during the riot.

40.  CCTV footage captures him leaving the Shatin area via Che Kung Temple station at around 22:45 hours. He was arrested by the police on 16 September 2019 and remained silent under caution.

41.  In mitigation I have heard that the defendant is now 17 years old; he was 16 at the time of the offence. He was then a Form 5 student. He lives with his parents, elder brother and has a clear record. Whilst studying, he had a part-time job as a kitchen worker in Pizza Hut to help his family financially. His employer says he is a hard-working and capable young man.

42.  I have heard full mitigation on his behalf and urged to take into account the fact he is very young. His best mitigation is his plea of guilty. There are many mitigation letters which I have read. All urge me to believe he was not inclined to use violence generally; he was more of a dispute mediator. The 3^rd defendant has written a letter and is very sorry that the first victim suffered such serious injuries.

43.  At school he has always achieved good results as well as participated in other extracurricular activities and voluntary services. His principal, vice principal, teacher, counsellor, fellow students and many others ask for leniency on his behalf and give me an insight into his life in and out of school.

44.  After his arrest for this offence he did continue at school on bail from September 2019 but his academic results plummeted in Form 5. He did complete his Form 5 studies but with a lower grade than he had hoped for and anticipated. The defendant is hoping to still take the HKDSE public examinations and then study to become a professional chef.

45.  Outside of school he has been known to accompany his parents to participate in voluntary activities involving the elderly and disadvantaged in his community. A Legislative Council member has witnessed the 3^rd defendant participate willingly and patiently. He vouches for the defendant’s remorse now.

46.  I have been urged to take into account that he was at the wrong time in the wrong place and took the wrong course of action. He has never seen such violence and was caught up in the melee with the other rioters. He was in fact trying to get home at the time but was experiencing difficulty getting out of the Plaza because of the police presence. He became confused and disorientated when he found exits blocked or locked. He became scared he would be considered a protester by the police there.

47.  In mitigation I have been told that he then witnessed much violence when the police officers entered the Plaza with police using batons and pepper spray seriously injuring protesters. He had never seen such violence or chaos and he tried to find a way out. He then saw a group hitting PW1 and feeling confused and aggrieved he picked up an umbrella and joined in the attack. It was a herd mentality moment where his emotions ruled over common sense.

48.  In the Training Centre report I called for is a somewhat different account for his presence and actions. It says the 3^rd defendant recounted how he was on his way home when he noticed there were protests in Shatin New Town Plaza so he joined in on the spur of the moment. Under the influence of the atmosphere he was momentarily reckless and committed this offence.

49.  Having watched the video footage for myself, the 3^rd defendant is the most violent of the 3 defendants and does not appear frightened, confused or desperate to avoid violence. 50 minutes before the riot he participated in, he can be seen putting on a mask and milling around inside the Plaza. There is no evidence he was stopped from leaving the Plaza before the riot he participated in.

50.  It was submitted that I should take into account the principle of rehabilitation and give the 3^rd defendant an opportunity to pursue his future with less obstacles in his way.

51.  I was urged to consider a Training Centre as an option and I did call for such a report. I do not intend to repeat the contents of the report but I have taken it into consideration. The report declares the 3^rd defendant mentally and physically fit as well as suitable for detention in a Training Centre. It was submitted that if I found imprisonment to be appropriate then the starting point should be lower than 4 years and 6 months.

52.  It was submitted that I should consider the authorities and facts of Leung Tin Kei and Tang Ho Yin and find the facts of this riot to be much less serious. The riot was on a very small scale and did not last very long.

Reasons for Sentence

53.  The offence of rioting, contrary to section 19(1) and (2) of the Public Order Ordinance, will attract a maximum term of imprisonment on indictment of 10 years.

54.  Freedom of peaceful assembly is guaranteed by the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance.  The freedom of assembly, like the freedom of speech is indispensable to the building of a civilised society and essential to social stability and progress.  The freedom of peaceful assembly enables members of the public to voice their criticisms, air grievances and seek redress on views they hold.  However, the freedom of assembly is not absolute.  Once a protester becomes involved in violence or the threat of violence, a breach of peace, then that protester crosses the line between constitutionally protected peaceful assembly and demonstration to an unlawful activity which is subject to legal sanctions.  There is such a line to protect public order because society is prone to descend into anarchy if public order is not preserved.

55.  A riot has an immediate and serious impact on the rule of law.  The rule of law is a core value of Hong Kong and the cornerstone of its success.  The law ensures that public order and peace are preserved; not threatened by the use of violence.  If public order is not preserved, this affects the freedom and rights of citizens.

56.  Sentencing for the offence of riot involves the factor of deterrence.  All counsel submit the actions of the defendants were out of character or a momentary lapse of judgement.  It is submitted their actions and participation were spontaneous and not premeditated.  They were caught up with the crowd when rioters surrounded the single police officer when emotions were running high.  They had no intention to cause harm to the public or destroy property.  It is submitted that this is not the most serious case for an offence of this nature.

57.  It has been suggested that the defendants are victims as well which I reject for the purposes of sentencing. I am urged to balance genuine remorse, guilty pleas, the young age of the 3^rd defendant and clear records of the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants with the need to deter and punish.

58.  A sentence must not only seek to prevent the offender from reoffending, but also give a proper warning to deter others from violating the law by breaking and disrupting public order in a like manner.  Acts of violence or threats of violence will not and cannot be tolerated; such acts will attract a deterrent sentence to ensure that the public is protected. 

59.  The Court of Appeal in Leung Tin Kei reiterated that courts will impose a sentence that is punitive and sufficiently deterrent in accordance with principles established in applicable case law.  It therefore follows that the personal background and mitigation as well as the submissions of impulsive behaviour and being carried away by the emotions of others carry little weight.

60.  In this case, a deterrent sentence will reflect the fact that the defendants rioted in a public place, inside a Shopping Plaza which led to direct attacks on police officers holding a shield. It was a direct attack on law and order and an intention to injure and overpower police officers performing their duties.

61.  Deterrence overrides the sentencing principle of rehabilitation in the prevailing circumstances including the increasing incidents of unrest and a rising number of large-scale public protests involving violence.  This is clear from the Court of Final Appeal in SJ v Wong Chi Fung 2018 21 HKCFAR 35.

62.  The defendants were one of a number engaged in a crime against peace, perhaps it was the sheer number with the defendants that gave them support and encouragement from being together with so many to riot.  It is a common feature of mass disorder that if individuals within the crowd act violently, this will in turn inflame and encourage others to behave similarly.  The harm and destruction done comes from the combined effect of what is done en masse.

63.  For similar offences with different backgrounds and facts, the sentences in those cases do not provide a helpful guidance.  Each charge must be considered on its own facts. What is a common factor is that the sentence should be punitive and sufficiently deterrent therefore, an immediate custodial sentence is inevitable.

64.  The Court of Appeal in Leung Tin Kei set out various factors to be taken into account when passing sentence on the offence of riot. In that case the riot took place in February 2016 in Argyle Street, Kowloon. Courts must consider these factors and principles to arrive at a sentence according to the facts of each individual case.  In that authority, the Court of Appeal upheld the sentences imposed.

65.  I have been referred to HKSAR v Tang Ho Yin where the appellant was a man with a clear record and aged 24 at the time he committed the offence of riot.  He pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and the sentencing judge took a starting point of five years’ imprisonment.  The Court of Appeal considered the facts of that case, a riot between Shantung Street and Nathan Road on 9 February 2016 and although they said the appropriate starting point for that defendant was four years and six months, they dismissed the appeal. Mr Shek has submitted I should take the same starting point.

66.  In deciding the starting point of the offence, the extent of the overall violence involved must be considered, not the defendant’s individual acts in isolation.  I quote from the authority R v Caird and others 1970 Cr App R 499 where LJ Sachs said at pages 507-508,

“those who choose to take part in such unlawful occasions must do so at their peril. … Any participation whatever, irrespective of its precise form, in an unlawful or riotous assembly of this type derives its gravity from becoming one of those who, by weight of numbers, pursued a common and unlawful purpose. The law of this country has always leant heavily against those who, to attain such a purpose, use the threat that lies in the power of numbers. ... In the view of this court, it is a wholly wrong approach to take the acts of any individual participator in isolation. They were not committed in isolation and, as already indicated, it is that very fact that constitutes the gravity of the offence.”

67.  It therefore follows that I should consider the extent of the overall violence involved, not each defendant’s individual acts in each riot separately and in isolation.

68.  I have considered the factors relevant to sentencing as set out in Leung Tin Kei. This riot was spontaneous in that it arose when the police entered the Plaza to disperse protesters and PW1 became separated from other officers. However, from the CCTV footage you can see there was prior organised activity in the form of human chains passing items to be used if necessary with the 1^st defendant an active participant.  There were people handing out facemasks as a form of protection and to cover one’s face. The 3^rd defendant took one and put it on in anticipation. The 2^nd defendant came armed with a face mask.

69.  I agree the number of people engaged in both riots were not as large as other recent riot cases but these riots took place indoors, inside a Shopping Plaza with as a result, some limitations. Despite this, the degree of violence was palpable. A viewing of the CCTV shows how brutal and savage the rioters were when they surrounded PW1 and later PW2. They just lost all control and self-restraint. This is a factor I take into account and place weight on.

70.  It may not have lasted long this riot but it was so vicious that PW1 was seriously injured. Both PW1 and PW2 were targets of the rioters because they were police officers. The harm caused is immeasurable to particularly PW1. Not just the physical harm and disability caused but the adverse impact they will have on his police career. This is another serious factor of this riot of Charge 1.

71.  As far as the other factors are concerned the nature and extent of the nuisance caused to the public by these riots inside the Shopping Plaza is foreseeable. Such riots conceivably affected the relationship amongst community groups, residents and the police on this occasion.

72.  Defence counsel have urged me to look at what each defendant actually did during the course of the riot or riots. I repeat, it is a wholly wrong approach to take the acts of any individual participator in isolation. They were not committed in isolation. It is that very fact that constitutes the gravity of the offence. They are all equally culpable. One considers what the group to whose number the defendants lent their support did.

73.  Defence counsel have also urged me to look at each defendant’s personal circumstances, mitigation, age and lack of criminal records. However, it is necessary to re-emphasis deterrence and punishment in sentencing the offence of riot. Courts must show that such conduct will not be tolerated in this community. It is in these types of cases where general deterrence has an overriding effect on the resulting sentence to be imposed.

74.  It therefore follows, as I said above, that personal circumstances and mitigation as well as the submissions of impulsive behaviour and being carried away by the emotions of others carry little weight. That applies equally to the 3^rd defendant. He may have been young but in my view his mitigation, his age and student status does not negate the need to impose a deterrent and custodial sentence which in this case will be a term of imprisonment.

Sentence

75.  All 3 defendants have pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity which does demonstrate remorse. From a reading of all the letters, in particular those from the defendants personally, I am sure all regret their actions and participation.

76.  It is not an inconsiderable task to impose a punitive and deterrent sentence on young men and those with previous good characters but this present case requires me to give proper weight to public interest.

77.  Having considered all the relevant factors against the circumstances, I am of the view that the appropriate starting point for Charge 1, where all 3 defendants took part in this riot is 5 years’ imprisonment after trial.

78.  I am of the view that the appropriate starting point for Charge 3, where the 1^st and 2^nd defendant took part in this second riot is 6 years’ imprisonment after trial. These riots took place one after the other and instead of taking stock and walking away from more rioting and violence, the 1^st and 2^nd defendant took part in another riot hence the higher starting point for the Charge 3.

79.  All defendants pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and are therefore entitled to the usual full discount of one-third after plea.

80.  Accordingly, I reduce the starting point of Charge 1 by 1 year and 8 months and sentence all defendants to 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment for Charge 1.

81.  I reduce the starting point of Charge 3 by 2 years and sentence the 1^st and 2^nd defendant to 4 years’ imprisonment for Charge 3.

82.  The higher starting point for Charge 3 reflects the fact they participated in a second riot and I will order all sentences to be served concurrently.

83.  Therefore, the 1^st defendant is sentenced to a total of 4 years’ imprisonment.

84.  The 2^nd defendant is sentenced to a total of 4 years’ imprisonment.

85.  The 3^rd defendant is sentenced to 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.