DCCC1069/2020

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v Wong Ka Ho and Others - 法院：區域法院 (District Court) - 法官：李志豪 (Lee Chi Ho) - 判決日期：2024年3月16日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及2019年7月1日示威者衝擊並攻佔立法會大樓的事件。大量示威者使用鐵籠車、鐵枝破壞玻璃幕牆及鐵閘，闖入大樓並在會議廳內大肆破壞，包括塗鴉、撕毀《基本法》小冊子及掛上港英旗。事件造成超過3,600萬港元的維修損失，並導致一名警員輕傷。 ### 核心法律爭議 核心 legal issue 為各被告人的參與程度及其對量刑起點 (sentencing starting point) 的影響。控方指控被告人犯有暴動 (Riot) 及違反《立法會（權力及特權）條例》。辯方則就不同被告人的角色（如記者採訪、物資運送、低智能或精神病史）提出求情，主張其參與度輕微或具備減刑因素。 ### 判決理由 法官認為立法會具有獨特的憲制地位和象徵意義，攻佔行為是對法治的嚴重挑戰，因此將本案定為最嚴重類別。法官將罪責分為三級：最低級（僅在場支持，起點6年6個月）、中級（運送物資或輕度指揮，起點6年9個月）及最嚴重（暴力衝擊、煽動或積極參與，起點7年）。量刑時考慮了認罪扣減 (plea discount) 及在國內被扣留的時間。 ### 引用案例與條文 引用 HKSAR v Yip Po Lam and Others [2018] HKCFI 2243 及 HKSAR v Fong Kwok Shan Christine (2017) 20 HKCFAR 425 討論違反《立法會（權力及特權）條例》的量刑；引用 HKSAR v Leung Chun Kwok and Others [2020] 4 HKLRD 428 考慮量刑因素。 ### 裁決與命令 多名被告人被判監禁。最嚴重級別者（如D14, D11）最高被判處82個月監禁；最低級別者（如D5）獲判處57個月監禁。D1及D7因行為不涉及暴力且以記者身份採訪，僅被判處罰款（分別為1,500元及1,000元）。 ### 判決啟示 法官強調即使參與時間短暫或未直接使用暴力，但若其行為能壯大暴動聲勢或具有象徵性（如撕毀憲制文件），仍可被視為嚴重參與。此外，法官拒絕了因照顧親人而延後認罪的減刑請求，認為這對及時認罪者不公。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: HKSAR v Wong Ka Ho and Others - Court: District Court - Judge: Lee Chi Ho - Date of Judgment: 16 March 2024 ### Factual Background The case concerns the storming and occupation of the Legislative Council (LegCo) Complex on 1 July 2019. Protesters used iron cages and bars to smash glass walls and gates, entering the building to vandalize the conference hall, deface the emblem, tear up Basic Law booklets, and hoist the British colonial flag. The incident caused damages exceeding HKD 36 million and one police injury. ### Key Legal Issues The primary legal issue was the determination of the defendants' levels of participation and the corresponding sentencing starting points for Riot and contravening the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. The defense argued for leniency based on roles as journalists, delivery of supplies, or mental health/intellectual disabilities. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge ruled that the LegCo's unique constitutional status and symbolic significance made this a 'most serious' category of riot. He established three culpability tiers: Lowest (presence/support, 6.5 years starting point), Medium (supply delivery/minor leadership, 6 years 9 months), and Highest (violent assault/incitement/active participation, 7 years). Sentences were adjusted for plea discounts and prior detention in mainland China. ### Key Precedents & Statutes Cited HKSAR v Yip Po Lam and Others [2018] HKCFI 2243 and HKSAR v Fong Kwok Shan Christine (2017) 20 HKCFAR 425 regarding the LegCo Ordinance, and HKSAR v Leung Chun Kwok and Others [2020] 4 HKLRD 428 for general sentencing factors. ### Decision & Orders Most defendants received custodial sentences. The highest sentence was 82 months (D14, D11), while the lowest for riot was 57 months (D5). D1 and D7, acting as journalists without violence, were fined HKD 1,500 and HKD 1,000 respectively. ### Key Takeaways The judgment emphasizes that symbolic acts (e.g., tearing the Basic Law) or providing logistical support can be as culpable as physical violence. The judge also rejected the argument that delaying a guilty plea to care for a relative justifies a higher plea discount, citing fairness to those who plead early. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.