Read the full judgment text of CACC 113/2018 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 28 May 2019 before Macrae VP, Pang JA and Zervos JA.
Criminal law – riot – sentencing appeal – starting point – Public Order Ordinance Cap 245 s.19(1) and (2) – whether 5-year starting point manifestly excessive – whether ADHD warrants further discount – Mongkok riots 9 February 2016 – appellant threw brick from front line of organised phalanx confronting police checkline – police significantly outnumbered, around 60 officers to 100-200 rioters – 29 officers injured, some with fractures, sick leave up to nearly a year – principles from R v Caird and R v Blackshaw – acts of rioter not to be considered in isolation – gravity determined by collective violence offender lent support to – deterrence essential where group targets police – Pilgrim factors: level of violence, scale, premeditation, number engaged – HKSAR v Yeung Ka Lun distinguished as involving arson in addition to riot – no fires lit in the part of disturbances involving this appellant – appropriate starting point held to be 4.5 years rather than 5 – full one-third discount for early guilty plea yielding 3 years – ADHD not a mitigating factor; condition voluntarily uncontrolled and impulsiveness did not explain deliberate front-line participation in organised mob violence – sentence left unaltered at 2 years and 10 months' imprisonment – appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legal issues: Whether 5-year starting point for riot sentence was manifestly excessive · Whether ADHD warrants a further sentencing discount
Outcome: Appeal against sentence dismissed; sentence of 2 years and 10 months' imprisonment upheld.
Cited by 31 cases · Cites 5 cases