暴動罪共同目的的認定？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v Lo Kin Man (盧建民) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：潘兆初首席法官、朱芬齡上訴法庭法官、彭偉昌上訴法庭法官 - 判決日期：2020年7月31日 ### 案情摘要 申請人盧建民（第三被告）因一項暴動罪（控罪三）被定罪，判處監禁七年。他其後申請就定罪及判刑上訴許可，但於2020年4月29日被上訴法庭駁回。現申請人根據《香港終審法院條例》（香港法例第484章）第32(2)條，申請證明其上訴許可被拒的判決涉及具有重大而廣泛重要性的法律論點，以期能向終審法院提出上訴。 ### 核心法律爭議 就定罪而言，核心法律爭議在於暴動罪（根據《公安條例》第19條）的構成要素中，「共同目的」是否必須區別於被告人共同的破壞社會安寧的犯罪意圖 (mens rea)。申請人認為，必須證明存在一個超越破壞社會安寧的「最終共同目的」。就判刑而言，爭議點包括在沒有策劃或組織暴動的明確裁斷下，是否允許判處阻嚇性刑罰；以及在比較不同控罪和案件時，判刑一致性原則的適用性。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭重申，暴動罪的「共同目的」要素，可僅為破壞社會安寧，而無需證明存在一個「最終共同目的」或動機。法院認為，此法律觀點已獲確立，且申請人提出的問題不具可合理爭辯性。關於判刑，法院強調暴動罪的判刑原則是阻嚇性 (deterrence)，罪行的嚴重性應從暴動者整體行為而非個別成員行為來判斷。比較不同案件的判刑對判刑法庭而言沒有幫助，因為每宗案件的事實不同，重要的是正確應用判刑原則。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了以下案例來支持其判決： - Secretary of Justice v Leung Kwok Wah [2012] 5 HKLRD 556：法院澄清此案並未確立暴動罪需證明「最終共同目的」的要求。 - Chan Chi Ming v R [1979] HKLR 491 及 Secretary for Justice v Yan Shen [2012] 3 HKLRD 652：用於討論判刑一致性原則。 - R v Blackshaw & Others [2012] 1 Cr. App. R. (S) 114 及 HKSAR v Tang Ho Yin [2019] 3 HKLRD 502：支持暴動罪判刑應從整體而非個別成員行為判斷，並強調阻嚇性原則。 - HKSAR v Yeung Ka Lun [2019] 1 HKC 296：用於比較判刑。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭拒絕證明申請人就定罪和判刑提出的法律問題具有重大而廣泛的重要性，並駁回其兩份動議通知書。這意味著申請人無法就其定罪和判刑向終審法院提出上訴。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了香港法院在處理暴動罪案件中的兩個關鍵法律原則：一是暴動罪的「共同目的」不要求存在超越破壞社會安寧的「最終共同目的」；二是暴動罪的判刑以阻嚇性為主，並應從暴動者整體行為判斷罪行嚴重性，而非個別成員行為。判刑一致性原則的應用應著重於正確應用判刑原則，而非簡單比較不同案件的刑罰。 --- ### 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 Lo Kin Man (盧建民) - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Poon CJHC, Chu JA, Pang JA - Date of Judgment: 31 July 2020 ### Factual Background The applicant, Lo Kin Man (D3), was convicted of one charge of riot (Count 3) and sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment. His subsequent applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 29 April 2020. The applicant now applies under section 32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) for certification that points of law of great and general importance are involved in the judgment refusing leave, to enable him to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. ### Key Legal Issues Regarding conviction, the core legal question was whether the 'common purpose' required for the offence of riot (under section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance) must be distinguishable from the defendants' shared mens rea of committing a breach of peace. The applicant argued that an 'ulterior common purpose' beyond breaching the peace must be shown. For sentencing, issues included whether a deterrent sentence is permissible without an express finding of planning or organizing the riot, and the applicability of the principle of sentencing consistency when comparing different charges and cases. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal reiterated that the 'common purpose' element for the offence of riot can simply be to commit a breach of peace, without requiring proof of an 'ulterior common purpose' or motive. The court held that this legal point is well-settled and the question raised by the applicant was not reasonably arguable. Regarding sentencing, the court emphasized that the sentencing approach for riot is essentially one of deterrence, and the gravity of the offence is to be judged by what the rioters as a group did, rather than what an individual member did. Comparing sentences in other cases is unhelpful as facts differ, and consistency is achieved through correct application of sentencing principles. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment cited the following cases to support its decision: - Secretary of Justice v Leung Kwok Wah [2012] 5 HKLRD 556: The court clarified that this case did not establish a requirement for an 'ulterior common purpose' in riot offences. - Chan Chi Ming v R [1979] HKLR 491 and Secretary for Justice v Yan Shen [2012] 3 HKLRD 652: Discussed in relation to the principle of sentencing consistency. - R v Blackshaw & Others [2012] 1 Cr. App. R. (S) 114 and HKSAR v Tang Ho Yin [2019] 3 HKLRD 502: Supported the principle that riot sentencing should consider the group's actions rather than individual actions, emphasizing deterrence. - HKSAR v Yeung Ka Lun [2019] 1 HKC 296: Used for sentence comparison. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal refused to certify that the questions of law raised by the applicant concerning both conviction and sentence involved points of great and general importance, and dismissed both Notices of Motion. This means the applicant cannot appeal his conviction and sentence to the Court of Final Appeal. ### Key Takeaways This case reaffirms two key legal principles in Hong Kong riot cases: first, the 'common purpose' for riot does not require an ulterior motive beyond breaching the peace; second, sentencing for riot is primarily deterrent, with the gravity of the offence assessed by the group's actions, not individual conduct. Sentencing consistency should focus on the correct application of principles rather than simple comparison of sentences in different cases. --- ### 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.