區域法院（刑事）HH Judge A. J. Woodcock25/4/2022[2022] HKDC 377
DCCC556/2021
A A
DCCC 556/2021
[2022] HKDC 377
B B
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
C CRIMINAL CASE NO 556 OF 2021 C
D
---------------------- D
HKSAR
E E
v
F Tsang Chun-kit F
G ---------------------- G
Before: HH Judge A. J. Woodcock
H Date: 26 April 2022 at 3.16 pm H
Present: Ms Jessie Sham, SPP of the Department of Justice, for
HKSAR
I Ms Tiffany Tin Sze-wai, instructed by O Tse & Co, I
assigned by DLA, for the defendant
J Offence: (1) Arson (縱火) J
(2) Riot (暴動)
(3) Failing to surrender to custody without reasonable
K K
cause (無合理因由而沒有按照法庭的指定歸押)
L --------------------- L
M Reasons for Sentence M
---------------------
N N
1. The defendant pleaded guilty and was convicted of a
O O
riot offence, contrary to section 19(1) and (2) of the Public
Order Ordinance, Cap 245 (Charge 2). He also pleaded guilty and
P P
was convicted of failing to surrender to custody without
Q reasonable cause, contrary to section 9L(1) and (3) of the Q
Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221 (Charge 3). Charge 1,
R arson, contrary to section 60(1) and (3) and 63(1) of the Crimes R
Ordinance, Cap 200, was placed on the court file, not to be
S dealt with unless there is leave from this Court or the Court of S
Appeal.
T T
2. The particulars are that on 22 September 2019, near the
U U
junction of Prince Edward Road West and Nathan Road, Mong Kok,
CRT25/26.4.2022/NYL 1 DCCC 556/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
Kowloon, together with Siu Lok-ting and other persons unknown,
took part in a riot.
B B
C 3. Subsequently, on 27 April 2020, the defendant, being a C
person admitted to bail, without reasonable cause, failed to
D surrender to custody as had been appointed by a court. He was D
rearrested just over a year later.
E E
Summary of Facts
F F
4. The defendant admits that at all material times, he
G riotously assembled together with other persons unknown. During G
the riot, they conducted themselves in a disorderly,
H intimidating, insulting and provocative manner. A breach of the H
peace was committed and violence was perpetrated. A fire was lit
I I
on the carriageway at a busy road junction. Slogans were chanted
and the Police in the adjacent police station were abused.
J J
K
5. There is no challenge to the prosecution’s allegation K
and definition that the defendant and others took part in a
L riot. L
M 6. The facts of this riot are straightforward. Hundreds M
of protesters congregated outside and adjacent to the Mong Kok
N N
Police Station at the junction of Prince Edward Road West and
Nathan Road. Many shone laser beams at police officers. Some
O O
vandalised the police station by spraying paints on the walls
P and throwing hard objects. There was incessant chanting and P
drumming. The Police repeatedly raised flags to warn the
Q protesters outside the station to disperse but they were Q
ignored.
R R
7. The prosecution says at about 8.50 pm, crowds had
S S
gathered there acting in very unruly manner. By 10 pm,
T protesters had set fire to rubbish bins, cardboard and some T
barricades piled together on the carriage way of Prince Edward
U Road near this junction. About 15 minutes later, the Police U
CRT25/26.4.2022/NYL 2 DCCC 556/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
conducted a sweep along Nathan Road to try and disperse the
protesters and restore public order. This did not take long.
B B
And within 20 minutes, the junction was cleared of protesters
C and the Police left. C
D 8. That fire that was lit on the carriageway was D
extinguished by firemen. Not long after dispersal action, at
E E
about 11 pm, approximately 100 protesters returned and
reassembled at the same junction. Police warning flags were
F F
again displayed repeatedly and oral warnings were aimed at the
G protesters but they did not disperse. The defendant was amongst G
these protesters.
H H
9. Much video footage was shown in open court and produced
I I
as part of the Summary of Facts. There is footage of the
defendant being given 2 glass bottles from 2 other protesters,
J J
which he put in his rucksack. This was at about 11:15 pm. He
K
admits that 4 glass bottles were subsequently found in his K
rucksack, of which 2 contained traces of an organic mixture
L containing flammable organic solvent. L
M 10. Within 15 minutes of the defendant putting 2 glass M
bottles in his rucksack, protesters around him began to build a
N N
roadblock with rubbish bins, cards, cardboard and anything they
could find to build the blockade to set on fire. Traffic was
O O
seriously affected. Protesters then set fire to the barricade
P and a lot of cardboard. P
Q 11. The defendant held up a red umbrella at the time and is Q
seen on film footage throwing objects on the fire to feed it,
R R
including liquid from a bottle which appears to stoke the fire
significantly. It burned well and there was much smoke from it.
S S
Within about 10 minutes of this fire blazing, the sirens of a
T fire engine can be heard approaching the carriageway and that T
fire built by protesters. Despite the incoming sirens, the
U U
CRT25/26.4.2022/NYL 3 DCCC 556/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
defendant can be still seen on film throwing something else onto
that fire.
B B
C 12. A few minutes after firemen extinguished the fire, C
police officers conducted a dispersal and arrest operation.
D D
13. The defendant was caught minutes later as he ran away.
E E
He was subdued on Bute Street. He was wearing a proper heavy
duty respirator, black upper body armour, black clothing
F F
including black gloves. He was holding an extendible stick in
G one hand. In his rucksack, the police found those 4 empty glass G
bottles, a headlamp and other clothes not black clothes.
H H
14. Under caution by the police, the defendant remained
I I
silent.
J J
15. As far as the 3rd charge is concerned, he was admitted
K
to court bail after his first court appearance but failed to K
appear at the next hearing as scheduled. A warrant of arrest was
L issued on 27 April 2020 with the Police locating the L
re-arresting him on 10 May 2021. At the time, he was found to be
M living in a flat in Sau Mau Ping. M
N N
16. Under caution, he remained silent. He has been
remanded in custody since his re-arrest.
O O
P 17. The defendant did not know Siu Lok-ting named in the P
particulars but they were both arrested on the same night and
Q she is seen rioting with him, similarly feeding the fire with Q
objects to burn. She was dealt with in separate proceedings a
R R
year ago and convicted after trial in April 2021 in
DCCC 334/2020.
S S
T Mitigation T
U U
CRT25/26.4.2022/NYL 4 DCCC 556/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
18. The defendant is now 18 years old. At the time of the
offence, he was 16 years old and a Form 4 student. He has a
B B
clear record.
C C
19. His parents divorced when he was only 8. He comes from
D an underprivileged humble background, raised by his father. His D
father relied on government financial assistance but has
E E
recently found employment. The defendant would see his mother
once a week after they divorced. It has been submitted that he
F F
has not had much guidance or parental control in his young life.
G G
20. I have received many letter of mitigation from his
H parents, teachers, social worker, a District Councillor, a H
neighbour and a family friend. I will not repeat their contents
I I
but I have read them. I have also had sight of school reports
and certificates. His parents are very supportive of him.
J J
K
21. Their letters stressed that he is a kind, thoughtful, K
filial young man. He is respectful of his elders. He tried hard
L at school and was sporty as well as willing to volunteer and L
help others. All letter ask for leniency and an understanding of
M the likelihood that he was, as a young person, heavily M
influenced by peers. During the social unrest that began in June
N N
2019, it was said in mitigation that he got caught up in the
actions and emotions of other young protesters and peers, which
O O
lead to him taking part in this riot on 22 September 2019.
P P
22. As far as his decision to jump bail and hide for a year
Q is concerned, it was submitted that he was frightened to face Q
the reality of his offence and wrongdoing. He was frightened to
R R
face his own family. He foolishly hid from his family and
friends, as well as forsaking his education. He now wants to
S S
resume and take the necessary exams to try to enter university
T in Taiwan. T
U U
CRT25/26.4.2022/NYL 5 DCCC 556/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
23. After hearing mitigation and considering that he was 16
at the time of the offences and still in full time education, I
B B
called for a training centre, detention centre and
C rehabilitation centre reports. Sentence was adjourned to today C
pending reports and further mitigation.
D D
Principles of Sentencing
E E
24. The maximum term of imprisonment on indictment is
10 years for the offence of rioting.
F F
G 25. A riot has an immediate and serious impact on the rule G
of law. The law ensures that public order and peace are
H preserved, not threatened by the use of violence. If public H
order is not preserved, this affects the freedom and rights of
I I
all citizens. If public order is not preserved, society is prone
to descend into anarchy.
J J
K
26. Sentencing for the offence of riot involves the factor K
of deterrence. A sentence must not only seek to prevent the
L offender from reoffending but also heed a proper warning to L
deter others from violating the law by breaking and disrupting
M public order in a like manner. Acts of violence or threats of M
violence will not and cannot be tolerated, such act will attract
N N
a deterrence sentence to ensure that the public is protected.
O O
27. It therefore follows that the personal background and
P mitigation as well as submissions of impulsive, emotional P
behaviour or immaturity in being easily led carries little
Q weight. Q
R R
28. Deterrence usually overrides the sentencing principle
of rehabilitation, especially when the prevailing circumstances
S S
include the increasing incidents of unrest and a rising number
T of large scale public protests that descended into violence. T
That is clear from the decision of the Court of Final Appeal in
U Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung [2018] 21 HKCFAR 35. U
CRT25/26.4.2022/NYL 6 DCCC 556/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
29. The defendant was one of many engaged in a crime
B B
against peace that evening. It is usually a common feature of
C mass disorder that the individuals within the crowd act C
violently, this will in turn inflame and encourage others to do
D and behave similarly. The harm and destruction done comes from D
the combined effect of what is done en masse.
E E
30. The Court of Appeal in Leung Tin Kei & Ors, CACC
F F
164/2018, set out various factors to be taken into account when
G passing sentence on the offence of riot. In that case, the riot G
took place in February 2016 in Argyle Street, Kowloon. Courts
H must consider these factors and principles to arrive at a H
sentence according to the facts of each individual case. I have
I I
taken them into account. In that case, the appellate court also
set out the general principles that court must take in its
J J
approach to sentencing.
K K
31. The general principles applicable to sentencing riot
L are: L
M (a) Maintaining the rule of law and public order; M
N N
(b) punishment and deterrence, an immediate custodial
sentence was generally appropriate for both
O O
unlawful assembly involving violence and riot;
P P
(c) the offender’s rationale for committing the
Q offence was not a mitigating factor; and Q
R R
(d) the gravamen of the offence of riot was the
participants acting in large numbers to achieve
S S
their common purpose with violence.
T T
U U
CRT25/26.4.2022/NYL 7 DCCC 556/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
What is a common factor is the sentence should be
punitive and sufficiently deterrent. Therefore, an immediate
B B
custodial sentence is inevitable.
C C
32. I have considered the scale of the riot and scale of
D the disturbance that night caused to the public, transport, D
residents nearby, the harm to society including the relationship
E E
between the Police and the public. There is no doubt that the
riot was a serious incident. What I also found relevant is the
F F
riot was in a public place.
G G
33. Although building a roadblock and setting it on fire
H was obviously pre-planned with material and accelerant brought H
to the scene, it was not a large scale riot of a long duration,
I I
and it appears to have been confined to that road junction area
only. It was not worst facts for an offence of this nature
J J
compared to others in those tumultuous months.
K K
34. Moreover, the defendant and others there did not stop
L or hinder the firemen approaching the fire to extinguish it, nor L
did they confront the Police when they appeared to disperse the
M crowd. They ran away. I also take into account the fire was M
built in the middle of a carriageway and not next to or against
N N
the property of the police station or other building.
O O
35. Defence counsel, Ms Tin, has urged me to consider the
P defendant’s young age at the time and consider an alternative to P
an immediate term of imprisonment. I called for reports and have
Q considered them but I won’t repeat their contents here. Q
R R
36. The report indicates he is mentally and physically fit
for detention in either a rehabilitation or detention or
S S
training centre. There are places available for him. The author
T of the report, from the information available and after a T
general assessment of his behaviour and attitude whilst on
U U
CRT25/26.4.2022/NYL 8 DCCC 556/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
remand, considers him more suitable for detention in a detention
centre. This opinion is not binding on this court.
B B
C 37. The defendant reveals he was influenced by social media C
at the material time and now realises he should express his
D opinions through lawful means instead. He regrets jumping bail D
for such a long period of time and laments the fact he has
E E
wasted so much time. He reiterates that he wishes to continue
and further his education.
F F
G 38. Ms Tin has said all she can say and has urged me to G
follow the recommendation and opinion of the report and consider
H detention in a detention centre as the appropriate sentence. H
I I
39. In mitigation, defence counsel had urged me to only
obtain a detention centre and rehabilitation centre report. It
J J
was submitted that a training centre order of 3 years would be
K
too long a sentence considering how long he has been on remand. K
He has been in remand so long because he jumped bail and
L absconded for over a year. He was originally on bail. L
M 40. In any event, the defendant can be detained in a M
training centre for up to 3 years and then subject to
N N
supervision for a period of up to 3 years thereafter. It is not
for a determined period of 3 years. In fact, under the law the
O O
period of detention cannot be less than 6 months, nor can it be
P more than 3 years. P
Q 41. Despite the need to consider a deterrent sentence, in Q
light of the particular facts in this case, I am minded to
R R
impose a sentence other than an immediate term of imprisonment.
S S
42. This is not one of those cases where the facts are
T simply too serious to justify the making of a training centre T
order. In my view, a sentence of detention in a detention centre
U does not reflect the gravity of the offence of riot. I am well U
CRT25/26.4.2022/NYL 9 DCCC 556/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
aware of the different forms of treatment provided by the 2
types of centres. I am of the view that the defendant is in need
B B
of longer disciplinary training as opposed to a short, sharp
C shock. C
D 43. A training centre order reflects the circumstances of D
the offence, the interests of the community and the
E E
rehabilitative element for the defendant’s reformation and the
prevention of crime. Within the training centre programme, the
F F
defendant will attend education classes as well as vocational
G training. There are other programmes relating to character G
development training. He will be able to fulfil his desire to
H further his education. H
I I
44. Therefore, after careful consideration of the facts,
mitigation and the reports, I order the defendant to be
J J
sentenced to detention in a training centre for Charges 2 and 3.
K
This training centre order for each charge will be served K
concurrently.
L L
M M
N N
(A J Woodcock)
District Judge
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT25/26.4.2022/NYL 10 DCCC 556/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
DCCC 556/2021
[2022] HKDC 377
B B
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
C CRIMINAL CASE NO 556 OF 2021 C
D
---------------------- D
HKSAR
E E
v
F Tsang Chun-kit F
G ---------------------- G
Before: HH Judge A. J. Woodcock
H Date: 26 April 2022 at 3.16 pm H
Present: Ms Jessie Sham, SPP of the Department of Justice, for
HKSAR
I Ms Tiffany Tin Sze-wai, instructed by O Tse & Co, I
assigned by DLA, for the defendant
J Offence: (1) Arson (縱火) J
(2) Riot (暴動)
(3) Failing to surrender to custody without reasonable
K K
cause (無合理因由而沒有按照法庭的指定歸押)
L --------------------- L
M Reasons for Sentence M
---------------------
N N
1. The defendant pleaded guilty and was convicted of a
O O
riot offence, contrary to section 19(1) and (2) of the Public
Order Ordinance, Cap 245 (Charge 2). He also pleaded guilty and
P P
was convicted of failing to surrender to custody without
Q reasonable cause, contrary to section 9L(1) and (3) of the Q
Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221 (Charge 3). Charge 1,
R arson, contrary to section 60(1) and (3) and 63(1) of the Crimes R
Ordinance, Cap 200, was placed on the court file, not to be
S dealt with unless there is leave from this Court or the Court of S
Appeal.
T T
2. The particulars are that on 22 September 2019, near the
U U
junction of Prince Edward Road West and Nathan Road, Mong Kok,
CRT25/26.4.2022/NYL 1 DCCC 556/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
Kowloon, together with Siu Lok-ting and other persons unknown,
took part in a riot.
B B
C 3. Subsequently, on 27 April 2020, the defendant, being a C
person admitted to bail, without reasonable cause, failed to
D surrender to custody as had been appointed by a court. He was D
rearrested just over a year later.
E E
Summary of Facts
F F
4. The defendant admits that at all material times, he
G riotously assembled together with other persons unknown. During G
the riot, they conducted themselves in a disorderly,
H intimidating, insulting and provocative manner. A breach of the H
peace was committed and violence was perpetrated. A fire was lit
I I
on the carriageway at a busy road junction. Slogans were chanted
and the Police in the adjacent police station were abused.
J J
K
5. There is no challenge to the prosecution’s allegation K
and definition that the defendant and others took part in a
L riot. L
M 6. The facts of this riot are straightforward. Hundreds M
of protesters congregated outside and adjacent to the Mong Kok
N N
Police Station at the junction of Prince Edward Road West and
Nathan Road. Many shone laser beams at police officers. Some
O O
vandalised the police station by spraying paints on the walls
P and throwing hard objects. There was incessant chanting and P
drumming. The Police repeatedly raised flags to warn the
Q protesters outside the station to disperse but they were Q
ignored.
R R
7. The prosecution says at about 8.50 pm, crowds had
S S
gathered there acting in very unruly manner. By 10 pm,
T protesters had set fire to rubbish bins, cardboard and some T
barricades piled together on the carriage way of Prince Edward
U Road near this junction. About 15 minutes later, the Police U
CRT25/26.4.2022/NYL 2 DCCC 556/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
conducted a sweep along Nathan Road to try and disperse the
protesters and restore public order. This did not take long.
B B
And within 20 minutes, the junction was cleared of protesters
C and the Police left. C
D 8. That fire that was lit on the carriageway was D
extinguished by firemen. Not long after dispersal action, at
E E
about 11 pm, approximately 100 protesters returned and
reassembled at the same junction. Police warning flags were
F F
again displayed repeatedly and oral warnings were aimed at the
G protesters but they did not disperse. The defendant was amongst G
these protesters.
H H
9. Much video footage was shown in open court and produced
I I
as part of the Summary of Facts. There is footage of the
defendant being given 2 glass bottles from 2 other protesters,
J J
which he put in his rucksack. This was at about 11:15 pm. He
K
admits that 4 glass bottles were subsequently found in his K
rucksack, of which 2 contained traces of an organic mixture
L containing flammable organic solvent. L
M 10. Within 15 minutes of the defendant putting 2 glass M
bottles in his rucksack, protesters around him began to build a
N N
roadblock with rubbish bins, cards, cardboard and anything they
could find to build the blockade to set on fire. Traffic was
O O
seriously affected. Protesters then set fire to the barricade
P and a lot of cardboard. P
Q 11. The defendant held up a red umbrella at the time and is Q
seen on film footage throwing objects on the fire to feed it,
R R
including liquid from a bottle which appears to stoke the fire
significantly. It burned well and there was much smoke from it.
S S
Within about 10 minutes of this fire blazing, the sirens of a
T fire engine can be heard approaching the carriageway and that T
fire built by protesters. Despite the incoming sirens, the
U U
CRT25/26.4.2022/NYL 3 DCCC 556/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
defendant can be still seen on film throwing something else onto
that fire.
B B
C 12. A few minutes after firemen extinguished the fire, C
police officers conducted a dispersal and arrest operation.
D D
13. The defendant was caught minutes later as he ran away.
E E
He was subdued on Bute Street. He was wearing a proper heavy
duty respirator, black upper body armour, black clothing
F F
including black gloves. He was holding an extendible stick in
G one hand. In his rucksack, the police found those 4 empty glass G
bottles, a headlamp and other clothes not black clothes.
H H
14. Under caution by the police, the defendant remained
I I
silent.
J J
15. As far as the 3rd charge is concerned, he was admitted
K
to court bail after his first court appearance but failed to K
appear at the next hearing as scheduled. A warrant of arrest was
L issued on 27 April 2020 with the Police locating the L
re-arresting him on 10 May 2021. At the time, he was found to be
M living in a flat in Sau Mau Ping. M
N N
16. Under caution, he remained silent. He has been
remanded in custody since his re-arrest.
O O
P 17. The defendant did not know Siu Lok-ting named in the P
particulars but they were both arrested on the same night and
Q she is seen rioting with him, similarly feeding the fire with Q
objects to burn. She was dealt with in separate proceedings a
R R
year ago and convicted after trial in April 2021 in
DCCC 334/2020.
S S
T Mitigation T
U U
CRT25/26.4.2022/NYL 4 DCCC 556/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
18. The defendant is now 18 years old. At the time of the
offence, he was 16 years old and a Form 4 student. He has a
B B
clear record.
C C
19. His parents divorced when he was only 8. He comes from
D an underprivileged humble background, raised by his father. His D
father relied on government financial assistance but has
E E
recently found employment. The defendant would see his mother
once a week after they divorced. It has been submitted that he
F F
has not had much guidance or parental control in his young life.
G G
20. I have received many letter of mitigation from his
H parents, teachers, social worker, a District Councillor, a H
neighbour and a family friend. I will not repeat their contents
I I
but I have read them. I have also had sight of school reports
and certificates. His parents are very supportive of him.
J J
K
21. Their letters stressed that he is a kind, thoughtful, K
filial young man. He is respectful of his elders. He tried hard
L at school and was sporty as well as willing to volunteer and L
help others. All letter ask for leniency and an understanding of
M the likelihood that he was, as a young person, heavily M
influenced by peers. During the social unrest that began in June
N N
2019, it was said in mitigation that he got caught up in the
actions and emotions of other young protesters and peers, which
O O
lead to him taking part in this riot on 22 September 2019.
P P
22. As far as his decision to jump bail and hide for a year
Q is concerned, it was submitted that he was frightened to face Q
the reality of his offence and wrongdoing. He was frightened to
R R
face his own family. He foolishly hid from his family and
friends, as well as forsaking his education. He now wants to
S S
resume and take the necessary exams to try to enter university
T in Taiwan. T
U U
CRT25/26.4.2022/NYL 5 DCCC 556/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
23. After hearing mitigation and considering that he was 16
at the time of the offences and still in full time education, I
B B
called for a training centre, detention centre and
C rehabilitation centre reports. Sentence was adjourned to today C
pending reports and further mitigation.
D D
Principles of Sentencing
E E
24. The maximum term of imprisonment on indictment is
10 years for the offence of rioting.
F F
G 25. A riot has an immediate and serious impact on the rule G
of law. The law ensures that public order and peace are
H preserved, not threatened by the use of violence. If public H
order is not preserved, this affects the freedom and rights of
I I
all citizens. If public order is not preserved, society is prone
to descend into anarchy.
J J
K
26. Sentencing for the offence of riot involves the factor K
of deterrence. A sentence must not only seek to prevent the
L offender from reoffending but also heed a proper warning to L
deter others from violating the law by breaking and disrupting
M public order in a like manner. Acts of violence or threats of M
violence will not and cannot be tolerated, such act will attract
N N
a deterrence sentence to ensure that the public is protected.
O O
27. It therefore follows that the personal background and
P mitigation as well as submissions of impulsive, emotional P
behaviour or immaturity in being easily led carries little
Q weight. Q
R R
28. Deterrence usually overrides the sentencing principle
of rehabilitation, especially when the prevailing circumstances
S S
include the increasing incidents of unrest and a rising number
T of large scale public protests that descended into violence. T
That is clear from the decision of the Court of Final Appeal in
U Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung [2018] 21 HKCFAR 35. U
CRT25/26.4.2022/NYL 6 DCCC 556/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
29. The defendant was one of many engaged in a crime
B B
against peace that evening. It is usually a common feature of
C mass disorder that the individuals within the crowd act C
violently, this will in turn inflame and encourage others to do
D and behave similarly. The harm and destruction done comes from D
the combined effect of what is done en masse.
E E
30. The Court of Appeal in Leung Tin Kei & Ors, CACC
F F
164/2018, set out various factors to be taken into account when
G passing sentence on the offence of riot. In that case, the riot G
took place in February 2016 in Argyle Street, Kowloon. Courts
H must consider these factors and principles to arrive at a H
sentence according to the facts of each individual case. I have
I I
taken them into account. In that case, the appellate court also
set out the general principles that court must take in its
J J
approach to sentencing.
K K
31. The general principles applicable to sentencing riot
L are: L
M (a) Maintaining the rule of law and public order; M
N N
(b) punishment and deterrence, an immediate custodial
sentence was generally appropriate for both
O O
unlawful assembly involving violence and riot;
P P
(c) the offender’s rationale for committing the
Q offence was not a mitigating factor; and Q
R R
(d) the gravamen of the offence of riot was the
participants acting in large numbers to achieve
S S
their common purpose with violence.
T T
U U
CRT25/26.4.2022/NYL 7 DCCC 556/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
What is a common factor is the sentence should be
punitive and sufficiently deterrent. Therefore, an immediate
B B
custodial sentence is inevitable.
C C
32. I have considered the scale of the riot and scale of
D the disturbance that night caused to the public, transport, D
residents nearby, the harm to society including the relationship
E E
between the Police and the public. There is no doubt that the
riot was a serious incident. What I also found relevant is the
F F
riot was in a public place.
G G
33. Although building a roadblock and setting it on fire
H was obviously pre-planned with material and accelerant brought H
to the scene, it was not a large scale riot of a long duration,
I I
and it appears to have been confined to that road junction area
only. It was not worst facts for an offence of this nature
J J
compared to others in those tumultuous months.
K K
34. Moreover, the defendant and others there did not stop
L or hinder the firemen approaching the fire to extinguish it, nor L
did they confront the Police when they appeared to disperse the
M crowd. They ran away. I also take into account the fire was M
built in the middle of a carriageway and not next to or against
N N
the property of the police station or other building.
O O
35. Defence counsel, Ms Tin, has urged me to consider the
P defendant’s young age at the time and consider an alternative to P
an immediate term of imprisonment. I called for reports and have
Q considered them but I won’t repeat their contents here. Q
R R
36. The report indicates he is mentally and physically fit
for detention in either a rehabilitation or detention or
S S
training centre. There are places available for him. The author
T of the report, from the information available and after a T
general assessment of his behaviour and attitude whilst on
U U
CRT25/26.4.2022/NYL 8 DCCC 556/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
remand, considers him more suitable for detention in a detention
centre. This opinion is not binding on this court.
B B
C 37. The defendant reveals he was influenced by social media C
at the material time and now realises he should express his
D opinions through lawful means instead. He regrets jumping bail D
for such a long period of time and laments the fact he has
E E
wasted so much time. He reiterates that he wishes to continue
and further his education.
F F
G 38. Ms Tin has said all she can say and has urged me to G
follow the recommendation and opinion of the report and consider
H detention in a detention centre as the appropriate sentence. H
I I
39. In mitigation, defence counsel had urged me to only
obtain a detention centre and rehabilitation centre report. It
J J
was submitted that a training centre order of 3 years would be
K
too long a sentence considering how long he has been on remand. K
He has been in remand so long because he jumped bail and
L absconded for over a year. He was originally on bail. L
M 40. In any event, the defendant can be detained in a M
training centre for up to 3 years and then subject to
N N
supervision for a period of up to 3 years thereafter. It is not
for a determined period of 3 years. In fact, under the law the
O O
period of detention cannot be less than 6 months, nor can it be
P more than 3 years. P
Q 41. Despite the need to consider a deterrent sentence, in Q
light of the particular facts in this case, I am minded to
R R
impose a sentence other than an immediate term of imprisonment.
S S
42. This is not one of those cases where the facts are
T simply too serious to justify the making of a training centre T
order. In my view, a sentence of detention in a detention centre
U does not reflect the gravity of the offence of riot. I am well U
CRT25/26.4.2022/NYL 9 DCCC 556/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
aware of the different forms of treatment provided by the 2
types of centres. I am of the view that the defendant is in need
B B
of longer disciplinary training as opposed to a short, sharp
C shock. C
D 43. A training centre order reflects the circumstances of D
the offence, the interests of the community and the
E E
rehabilitative element for the defendant’s reformation and the
prevention of crime. Within the training centre programme, the
F F
defendant will attend education classes as well as vocational
G training. There are other programmes relating to character G
development training. He will be able to fulfil his desire to
H further his education. H
I I
44. Therefore, after careful consideration of the facts,
mitigation and the reports, I order the defendant to be
J J
sentenced to detention in a training centre for Charges 2 and 3.
K
This training centre order for each charge will be served K
concurrently.
L L
M M
N N
(A J Woodcock)
District Judge
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT25/26.4.2022/NYL 10 DCCC 556/2021(1)/Sentence
V V