暴動罪的共同目的與量刑原則？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 梁天琦、盧建民、黃家駒 - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：高等法院首席法官潘兆初、高等法院上訴法庭法官朱芬齡、高等法院上訴法庭法官彭偉昌 - 判決日期：2020年4月29日 ### 案情摘要 本案源於2016年農曆新年期間在旺角發生的警民衝突，即「旺角騷亂」。第一申請人梁天琦、第二申請人盧建民及第三申請人黃家駒因參與暴動罪被定罪及判刑。梁天琦被裁定亞皆老街暴動罪成，判監6年；盧建民被裁定砵蘭街暴動罪成，判監7年；黃家駒承認亞皆老街暴動罪，判監3年6個月。三名申請人均就定罪（盧建民）或刑期（梁天琦、盧建民、黃家駒）向上訴法庭申請上訴許可。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議點包括： 1. 非法集結罪的「共同目的」是否必須是條例訂明行為以外的其他目的（盧建民的定罪上訴）。 2. 原審法官在判刑時考慮第一申請人在砵蘭街的出現及知悉事件演進是否原則上出錯。 3. 原審法官將快富街縱火事件納入控罪四（亞皆老街暴動）的量刑考慮是否錯誤。 4. 暴動罪的量刑起點是否過高，以及犯案者的理念是否可作為求情理由。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭裁定，非法集結罪的「共同目的」可以純粹是共同作出條例訂明的擾亂秩序或具威嚇性行為，不需有其他目的。法庭強調，暴動罪的嚴重性在於集體暴力破壞公共秩序，判刑必須具阻嚇性，即時監禁是必然選擇。犯案者的理念或動機，即使自認為崇高，亦非有力的求情理由。法庭認為原審法官在判刑時考慮第一申請人在砵蘭街的出現及知悉事件演進，是考慮其干犯控罪四的事實背景，並無原則性錯誤。然而，法庭同意快富街縱火事件不應納入控罪四的量刑考慮，因其並非控罪四案情的一部分。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多個案例，包括： - R v Caird & Others (1970) 54 Cr App R 499：強調暴動罪的嚴重性在於集體行為，不容許以暴力訴諸爭議。 - 律政司司長 訴 黃之鋒 [2018] 2 HKLRD 657：強調暴動罪需判處具阻嚇性刑罰，犯案者理念非求情理由。 - 香港特別行政區 訴 楊家倫 [2018] HKCA 146：確立暴動罪的判刑原則及量刑起點。 - Tse Chung v R [1967] HKLR 452：闡明普通法下非法集結的共同目的可純粹是破壞公眾安寧。 - Secretary for Justice v Leung Kwok Wah [2012] 5 HKLRD 556：確認《公安條例》第18(1)條仍保留普通法下共同目的的要求。 這些案例共同確立了暴動罪的判刑原則，強調法治、公共秩序的重要性及阻嚇性刑罰的必要性。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回第二申請人盧建民的定罪上訴許可申請。第一申請人梁天琦的刑期上訴許可申請獲准，並視為正式上訴，但上訴最終被駁回。第三申請人黃家駒的刑期上訴許可申請被拒絕。所有申請人的定罪及刑期維持不變。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了香港法庭對暴動罪的嚴肅態度，強調維護公共秩序和法治的重要性。它明確指出，即使是出於理念或政治動機的暴力行為，也不能作為減輕刑罰的理由。判決也澄清了非法集結罪中「共同目的」的法律定義，即不一定需要有條例訂明行為以外的其他目的。此外，判決強調了在量刑時，法庭應考慮控罪所涉暴動的整體情況，但必須基於控方案情和檢控基礎，避免納入與控罪無關的事件。 --- ### 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 Leung Tin Kei, Lo Kin Man, Wong Ka Kui - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Chief Judge of the High Court Poon Siu Chor, Hon Chu Fun Ling JA, Hon Pang Wai Cheong JA - Date of Judgment: 29 April 2020 ### Factual Background This case originated from the Mong Kok civil unrest during the Lunar New Year in 2016. The 1st Applicant, Leung Tin Kei, the 2nd Applicant, Lo Kin Man, and the 3rd Applicant, Wong Ka Kui, were convicted and sentenced for riot offences. Leung Tin Kei was convicted of riot in Argyle Street and sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment; Lo Kin Man was convicted of riot in Portland Street and sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment; Wong Ka Kui pleaded guilty to riot in Argyle Street and was sentenced to 3 years and 6 months' imprisonment. All three applicants sought leave to appeal against their convictions (Lo Kin Man) or sentences (Leung Tin Kei, Lo Kin Man, Wong Ka Kui) to the Court of Appeal. ### Key Legal Issues The main legal issues in this case included: 1. Whether the "common purpose" for unlawful assembly must be a purpose other than the prescribed acts under the ordinance (Lo Kin Man's appeal against conviction). 2. Whether the trial judge erred in principle by considering the 1st Applicant's presence in Portland Street and knowledge of the events' progression during sentencing. 3. Whether the trial judge erred by including the Fa Yuen Street arson incident in the sentencing consideration for Charge 4 (Argyle Street riot). 4. Whether the starting points for sentencing for riot were excessive, and whether the offenders' ideologies could serve as mitigating factors. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal ruled that the "common purpose" for unlawful assembly can simply be to jointly commit the prescribed disorderly or intimidating acts, without requiring any other purpose. The court emphasized that the seriousness of riot lies in collective violence disrupting public order, and sentencing must be deterrent, with immediate imprisonment being the inevitable choice. Offenders' ideologies or motives, even if perceived as noble, are not strong mitigating factors. The court found no error in principle in the trial judge considering the 1st Applicant's presence in Portland Street and knowledge of the events as factual context for Charge 4. However, the court agreed that the Fa Yuen Street arson incident should not have been included in the sentencing consideration for Charge 4, as it was not part of the prosecution's case for that charge. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited several precedents, including: - R v Caird & Others (1970) 54 Cr App R 499: Emphasized the gravity of riot as a collective act and that violence is not permissible for dispute resolution. - Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung [2018] 2 HKLRD 657: Stressed the need for deterrent sentences for riot and that offenders' ideologies are not mitigating factors. - HKSAR v Yeung Ka Lun [2018] HKCA 146: Established sentencing principles and starting points for riot offences. - Tse Chung v R [1967] HKLR 452: Clarified that under common law, the common purpose for unlawful assembly can simply be to breach public peace. - Secretary for Justice v Leung Kwok Wah [2012] 5 HKLRD 556: Confirmed that section 18(1) of the Public Order Ordinance retains the common law requirement of common purpose. These cases collectively established the sentencing principles for riot, emphasizing the importance of the rule of law, public order, and the necessity of deterrent sentences. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the 2nd Applicant Lo Kin Man's application for leave to appeal against conviction. The 1st Applicant Leung Tin Kei's application for leave to appeal against sentence was granted and treated as a substantive appeal, but the appeal was ultimately dismissed. The 3rd Applicant Wong Ka Kui's application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The convictions and sentences for all applicants remained unchanged. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the Hong Kong courts' serious stance on riot offences, emphasizing the importance of maintaining public order and the rule of law. It explicitly states that violent acts, even if driven by ideology or political motives, cannot serve as grounds for reducing sentences. The judgment also clarified the legal definition of "common purpose" in unlawful assembly, stating that it does not necessarily require a purpose other than the prescribed acts. Furthermore, the judgment highlighted that while courts should consider the overall context of a riot during sentencing, this must be based on the prosecution's case and charging basis, avoiding the inclusion of unrelated incidents. --- ### 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.