暴動罪判刑是否過重？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 LAM KAI MING (林啟明) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：彭偉昌 - 判決日期：2022年1月19日 ### 案情摘要 本案源於2019年7月21日發生的「721事件」。申請人（原審D4）與其他被告被控暴動罪及有意圖而傷人罪。申請人承認暴動罪，被判入獄4年8個月。他不服判刑，申請保釋等候上訴。控罪涉及白衣人在元朗西鐵站大堂及月台襲擊市民，事件分為三個階段，控罪（1）和（2）發生於第一階段。原審法官詳細描述了案情，包括閉路電視錄影、截圖和醫療報告。 ### 核心法律爭議 申請人提出兩項上訴理由：(一) 4年8個月的刑期明顯過重；(二) 與其他受審後被定罪的同案被告相比，申請人的刑期出現不公平的分歧。控方則強調參與暴動的個人須為暴動群體的整體行為負上刑責，並指出本案的案發背景及申請人積極參與的事實。 ### 判決理由 法官駁回申請人的保釋申請。法官指出，參與暴動的個人須為暴動群體的整體行為負上相應刑責，此為確立已久的法律原則。法官認為原審法官對案情的描述詳盡細緻，並無錯誤的事實基礎。法官強調本案的案發背景（context）與2016年旺角暴動不同，2019年騷亂更為廣泛和持續。本案性質與「私了」無異，且白衣人行為有組織、有預謀，並在月台和車廂內繼續犯案，罪責加倍嚴重。因此，4年8個月的刑期不屬明顯過重。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 高等法院上訴法庭拒絕了申請人就判刑提出的保釋等候上訴申請。法官認為申請人的刑期不短，且沒有良好的勝訴機會。 ### 判決啟示 法官強調了在暴動案件中，即使個人未直接施加暴力，也需為群體整體行為負責的法律原則。此外，法庭在判刑時會考慮案件的案發背景，特別是2019年社會事件的廣泛性和持續性。本案中，白衣人有組織、有預謀的行為，以及在公共交通工具內對無辜市民施襲，被視為加重刑罰的因素，並與「私了」行為相提並論。 --- ### 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 LAM KAI MING (林啟明) - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Pang Wai Cheong - Date of Judgment: 19 January 2022 ### Factual Background This case originated from the "721 incident" on July 21, 2019. The applicant (D4 in the original trial) and other defendants were charged with riot and wounding with intent. The applicant pleaded guilty to riot and was sentenced to 4 years and 8 months imprisonment. He appealed against the sentence and applied for bail pending appeal. The charges involved white-clad individuals attacking citizens at Yuen Long MTR station concourse and platform. The incident was divided into three phases, with charges (1) and (2) occurring in the first phase. The trial judge provided a detailed account of the facts, including CCTV footage, screenshots, and medical reports. ### Key Legal Issues The applicant raised two grounds of appeal: (1) the sentence of 4 years and 8 months was manifestly excessive; and (2) there was an unfair disparity in sentence compared to co-defendants who were convicted after trial. The prosecution emphasized that individuals participating in a riot are criminally liable for the collective actions of the rioting group, and highlighted the context of the incident and the applicant's active participation. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge dismissed the applicant's bail application. The judge stated that it is a well-established legal principle that individuals participating in a riot are criminally liable for the collective actions of the rioting group. The judge found that the trial judge's detailed factual description was not based on erroneous facts. The judge emphasized that the context of this case differed from the 2016 Mong Kok riot, with the 2019 unrest being more widespread and sustained. The nature of this case was akin to "private lynching," and the organized, premeditated actions of the white-clad individuals, continuing their offenses on the platform and inside train compartments, significantly aggravated their culpability. Therefore, the sentence of 4 years and 8 months was not manifestly excessive. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal refused the applicant's application for bail pending appeal against sentence. The judge found that the applicant's sentence was not short and he had no good prospects of success. ### Key Takeaways The judge underscored the legal principle that even if an individual does not directly inflict violence during a riot, they are still responsible for the collective actions of the group. Furthermore, the court considers the context of the incident during sentencing, particularly the widespread and sustained nature of the 2019 social events. In this case, the organized and premeditated actions of the white-clad individuals, including attacks on innocent citizens within public transport, were deemed aggravating factors, comparable to acts of "private lynching." --- ### 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.