非法集結判刑是否過輕？上訴得直

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：律政司司長 訴 鍾嘉豪 - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：潘兆初首席法官、彭偉昌上訴法官、潘敏琦法官 - 判決日期：2020年11月19日 ### 案情摘要 答辯人鍾嘉豪於2019年10月31日萬聖節當晚，在香港中環卑利街與其他約400至500名示威者參與非法集結。示威者身穿深色衣物、蒙面，並向警方叫囂及照射雷射光束。答辯人站在示威者最前方，曾將兩個麻包袋扔到路中央。警方多次警告後，示威者仍拒絕散去，警方遂採取行動，答辯人被制服及拘捕。答辯人承認一項非法集結罪，另一項藏有攻擊性武器罪則獲撤回。裁判官原判處答辯人120小時社會服務令。 ### 核心法律爭議 律政司司長申請覆核答辯人的判刑，主要爭議點為： 1. 裁判官是否低估了本案非法集結的嚴重性，並未充分考慮懲罰及阻嚇因素。 2. 裁判官是否未能妥善評估答辯人的罪責。 3. 考慮整體案情，社會服務令是否原則上錯誤及明顯不足。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭指出，裁判官對非法集結罪的嚴重性存在誤解，錯誤地認為沒有實際暴力或只有輕微暴力的非法集結不嚴重。法庭強調，非法集結罪的「罪行核心 (gravamen)」在於參與者眾多，利用人數優勢達到共同目的，對公共秩序構成威脅，其本質是預防性的。即使沒有實際暴力，若情況嚴重，仍需判處具阻嚇性的刑罰。法庭認為，本案非法集結規模大、蒙面、地點高危、時間特殊，且答辯人行為具挑釁性，裁判官明顯低估了案件嚴重性及答辯人罪責。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用了《刑事訴訟程序條例》(Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221) 第81A條進行覆核。在判刑原則方面，法庭廣泛引用了 Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung [2018] 2 HKLRD 699，強調非法集結罪的「罪行核心 (gravamen)」及阻嚇性判刑的重要性。此外，亦引用了 Leung Kwok Hung (No 2) [2020] 2 HKLRD 771 關於蒙面及拒絕散去對案件嚴重性的影響，以及 HKSAR v Tang Ho Yin [2019] 3 HKLRD 502 關於人數懸殊及挑釁行為的風險。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭裁定律政司司長的覆核申請成立，撤銷原審裁判官判處的120小時社會服務令，改判答辯人即時監禁三個月。法庭以六個月監禁為量刑起點，因答辯人認罪減刑三分之一至四個月，再考慮到覆核程序及答辯人已履行八小時社會服務令，酌情再減刑一個月。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了非法集結罪的預防性本質及其對公共秩序的潛在威脅，即使沒有實際暴力，若案件情況嚴重，仍需判處具阻嚇性的即時監禁。法庭明確指出，裁判官不應僅因缺乏實際暴力而低估非法集結的嚴重性，並強調了蒙面、人數眾多、地點高危及挑釁行為等因素在評估案件嚴重性時的重要性。這對未來涉及非法集結案件的判刑具有指導意義。 --- ### 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: Secretary for Justice v Chung Ka Ho - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Poon CJHC, Pang JA and M Poon J - Date of Judgment: 19 November 2020 ### Factual Background The respondent, Chung Ka Ho, participated in an unlawful assembly with approximately 400-500 other protesters on Halloween night, October 31, 2019, at Lyndhurst Terrace, Central, Hong Kong. Protesters wore dark clothing, masked their faces, shouted slogans, and projected laser beams at the police. The respondent stood at the forefront and threw two gunny bags onto the road. Despite repeated police warnings, the protesters refused to disperse, leading to police action and the respondent's arrest. He pleaded guilty to one charge of unlawful assembly, while a charge of possession of an offensive weapon was withdrawn. The magistrate originally sentenced him to 120 hours of community service. ### Key Legal Issues The Secretary for Justice applied for a review of the respondent's sentence. The main legal issues were: 1. Whether the magistrate underestimated the seriousness of the unlawful assembly and failed to give sufficient weight to punishment and deterrence. 2. Whether the magistrate properly assessed the respondent's culpability. 3. Whether, considering the overall facts, a community service order was wrong in principle and manifestly inadequate. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal found that the magistrate misunderstood the seriousness of the offence of unlawful assembly, wrongly believing that assemblies without actual or only minor violence were not serious. The court emphasized that the gravamen of unlawful assembly lies in the participants acting in large numbers to achieve a common purpose, posing a threat to public order, and its nature is pre-emptive. Even without actual violence, a deterrent sentence is required if the circumstances are serious. The court concluded that the magistrate significantly underestimated the case's seriousness and the respondent's culpability, given the large scale, masking, high-risk location, special timing, and provocative actions. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The review application was made pursuant to section 81A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221. The court extensively cited Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung [2018] 2 HKLRD 699, emphasizing the gravamen of unlawful assembly and the importance of deterrent sentencing. Leung Kwok Hung (No 2) [2020] 2 HKLRD 771 was cited regarding the impact of masking and refusal to disperse on seriousness. HKSAR v Tang Ho Yin [2019] 3 HKLRD 502 was also referenced concerning the risks associated with numerical disparity and provocative behaviour. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal granted the Secretary for Justice's application for review, setting aside the original sentence of 120 hours of community service. It substituted this with an order for three months' immediate imprisonment. The court adopted a starting point of six months, reduced by one-third for the guilty plea to four months, and further reduced by one month to three months due to the review process and the respondent having already performed eight hours of community service. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the pre-emptive nature of the offence of unlawful assembly and its potential threat to public order. It clarifies that even in the absence of actual violence, a deterrent sentence of immediate imprisonment may be necessary if the circumstances of the case are serious. The court highlighted that magistrates should not underestimate the gravity of unlawful assemblies solely based on the lack of physical violence, emphasizing factors like masking, large numbers, high-risk locations, and provocative behaviour in assessing seriousness. This provides important guidance for sentencing in similar unlawful assembly 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.