|
ESCC 2791/2015
香港特別行政區
東區裁判法院
刑事案件2015年第2791號
____________________________
| |
香港特別行政區 |
|
| |
訴 |
|
| |
黃之鋒 |
第一被告 |
| |
羅冠聰 |
第二被告 |
| |
周永康 |
第三被告 |
____________________________
判刑覆核申請的裁決理由
____________________________
覆核聆訊及裁決日期: 2016年9月21日
1. 本席考慮過控辯雙方就控方所提出覆核三名被告判刑的申請的書面及口頭陳詞後，認為法庭早前頒布的判刑理由已充分回應控方的判刑覆核申請的各項理據。
2. 控方提出的案例所涉及的案情與本案截然不同，Tung 案是涉及類似三合會集結的案件[1]，而Tai案亦涉及非常暴力的案情[2]，與本案並不能相提並論。事實上，過往法庭亦不時判處干犯類似本案罪行的被告非監禁式的刑罰。法庭在判處有關本案的罪行時，最重要是考慮每宗案件的個別案情。
3. 本席在作出判刑時已小心考慮本案罪行的嚴重性，亦因此判處初犯的三位年輕被告[3]在法理上能夠代替監禁的社會服務令和緩刑。
4. 本席重申: 在作出判刑時，法庭已小心考慮以下判刑因素:
I. 案發時的情況及各被告的犯罪行為[4];
II. 各被告犯罪行為的後果[5]；
III. 各被告犯罪的動機[6]；
IV. 各被告的背景[7]及悔意 [8]
5. 考慮所有情況後，本席認為控方未能提出足夠理據說服法庭更改早前作出的判刑。因此，本席會繼續採納已頒布的判刑理由，以及維持各被告原來的判刑。
控方代表:
梁卓然資深大律師(副刑事檢控專員) 及李雅怡檢控官
被告代表:
韋智達律師行轉聘石書銘大律師代表第一被告
何謝韋、李偉業律師事務所轉聘蔡鎮大律師及周羨頤大律師代表第二被告
何謝韋、李偉業律師事務所轉聘蔡維邦大律師及陳偉彥大律師及代表第三被告
[1] HKSAR v Tung Wai Cheong HCMA 1222/1998 (unreported), 第 3頁: “ His findings in this regard in my view cannot be faulted. He was entitled to, as he did in reaching this conclusion, to take into account the homogenous nature of the assembly, young men aged 21 or less, many with dyed hair, and dressed similarly in T shirts and jeans in concluding the assembly of 100-150 such persons was in its own nature, at that time of night and at that location, intimidator.”
第 4頁: “ This was not a sporting meeting or a political rally. There was no suggestion of any possible innocent purpose for the gathering put forward in evidence.”
[2] HKSAR v Tai Chi Shing [2016] 2 HKC 436，第41段: “ …….the defendants’ acts were certainly riotious in nature, if not a riot by legal definition. Bearing in mind the violence used, in particular the way mills barriers and other objects were deployed to charge violently at the glass doors of the complex, causing extensive damage; the number of persons involved; the intimidating nature and the duration of the assembly; the fact that such riotous behaviors took place despite the legislative councillor Mr Cheung telling those present that there would not be a debate on the so-called “Internet Article 23” the next day……”
[3] 判刑理由第1段
[4] 判刑理由第5至8段
[5] 判刑理由第5段
[6] 判刑理由第2至5段
[7] 判刑理由第1及14段
[8] 判刑理由第9至11段
|