串謀導致爆炸罪的量刑？判處監禁

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v LAI CHUN PONG - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：Barnes J - 判決日期：2025年1月6日 ### 案情摘要 被告賴振邦（Lai）被控三項罪名，包括「串謀導致爆炸以危害生命或對財產造成嚴重損害」(Conspiracy to cause explosions of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property)。控方指控賴是「12.8計劃」的其中一名串謀者，該計劃涉及在2019年12月8日的遊行中使用炸彈和武器殺害警務人員。賴不認罪，經審訊後，陪審團裁定他串謀導致爆炸罪名成立，但其他兩項罪名不成立。控方主要依賴同案被告Pang的證供、在賴的工作室檢獲的手機內容，以及賴與另一名被告Ng之間的Telegram通訊記錄。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於如何根據陪審團的裁決，即被告僅被裁定「串謀導致爆炸以危害生命或對財產造成嚴重損害」罪名成立，而其他兩項罪名不成立，來判處適當的刑罰。爭議點包括陪審團的裁決是否意味著他們不接受被告曾親身前往華仁書院協助組裝炸彈的證據，以及這對量刑的影響。辯方提出被告僅提供有限協助，並引用類似案件的量刑起點作為參考。 ### 判決理由 法官在量刑時考慮了陪審團的裁決，認為陪審團裁定被告僅串謀導致爆炸罪名成立，而其他兩項罪名不成立，可能意味著他們不接受被告曾親身前往華仁書院協助組裝炸彈的證據，亦不確定被告是否知悉炸彈的預定放置地點。法官指出，儘管陪審團不接受被告親身前往華仁書院的證據，但他們仍確信被告知悉爆炸的嚴重性，並會危害生命或對財產造成嚴重損害。法官將此作為量刑的基礎，並考慮了被告在串謀中的角色並非主謀，僅為協助者。法官參考了類似案件的量刑原則，並考慮了被告的良好品格及對社會的貢獻。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了兩宗案例作為量刑參考： - R v Patrick Hugh Sean Martin, [1999] 1 Cr App R(S) 477：辯方引用此案以說明在量刑時應考慮爆炸的可能結果、串謀目標、爆炸裝置的性質和可能影響、被告的角色和動機等因素。 - Kwan Ka Yiu, [2024] HKCFI 2726：辯方引用此案，指出其案情與本案相似，涉及串謀遙控引爆爆炸裝置，目標亦為警務人員。該案主謀的量刑起點為12年監禁，協助者的量刑起點為11年監禁，辯方建議本案量刑起點應低於10年。 ### 裁決與命令 法官裁定被告賴振邦「串謀導致爆炸以危害生命或對財產造成嚴重損害」罪名成立。法官以11年監禁作為量刑起點。由於被告不認罪，未能獲得認罪折扣。考慮到被告的良好品格及樂於助人的特質，法官酌情減刑2個月。最終判處被告監禁10年10個月。 ### 判決啟示 本案判決強調了陪審團裁決對量刑的關鍵影響，即使部分控方證據未被完全採納，但只要陪審團確信被告對罪行的嚴重性有認知，仍可構成定罪基礎。法官在量刑時，會綜合考慮被告在串謀中的角色、案件背景（如2019年反修例運動）、被告的個人品格及社會貢獻等因素，並參考類似案件的量刑先例。本案亦重申了不認罪者不獲認罪折扣的原則。 --- ### 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 LAI CHUN PONG - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Barnes J - Date of Judgment: 6 January 2025 ### Factual Background The defendant, Lai Chun Pong (Lai), faced three charges, including "Conspiracy to cause explosions of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property." The prosecution alleged that Lai was one of the conspirators in the "12.8 Plan," which involved using bombs and arms to kill police officers during a procession scheduled for December 8, 2019. Lai pleaded not guilty. After trial, the jury found him guilty of the alternative charge of conspiracy to cause explosions but acquitted him of the other two charges. The prosecution's case primarily relied on the testimony of co-defendant Pang, contents from a mobile phone seized at Lai's workshop, and Telegram communications between Lai and another defendant, Ng. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was how to sentence the defendant appropriately given the jury's verdict, which found him guilty only of "Conspiracy to cause explosions of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property" and acquitted him of the other two charges. A key point of contention was whether the jury's verdict implied they did not accept evidence that the defendant had physically traveled to Wah Yan College to assist in assembling the bombs, and the impact of this on sentencing. The defence argued that the defendant provided only limited assistance and cited sentencing starting points from similar cases. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge, in sentencing, considered the jury's verdict. The judge inferred that the jury's decision to convict only on the conspiracy to cause explosions charge, while acquitting on the others, likely indicated they did not accept the evidence that the defendant had physically travelled to Wah Yan College to assist in assembling the bombs, nor were they sure of his knowledge regarding the bombs' intended placement. However, the judge noted that the jury must have been sure that the defendant was aware of the more than light severity of the explosion he conspired to cause, which would likely endanger life or cause serious injury to property. This formed the basis for sentencing, alongside the defendant's role as an assistant rather than a mastermind. The judge referred to sentencing principles from similar cases and considered the defendant's good character and contributions to society. ### Key Precedents & Statutes Two cases were cited as sentencing references: - R v Patrick Hugh Sean Martin, [1999] 1 Cr App R(S) 477: The defence cited this case to illustrate factors to consider in sentencing, such as the likely outcome of any explosion, the target of the conspiracy, the nature and likely effect of the explosive device, and the defendant's motivation. - Kwan Ka Yiu, [2024] HKCFI 2726: The defence cited this case, noting its similar facts involving a conspiracy to remotely detonate an explosive device targeting police officers. The mastermind in that case received a starting point of 12 years' imprisonment, while assistants received 11 years. The defence suggested a starting point of less than 10 years for the present case. ### Decision & Orders The judge found the defendant, Lai Chun Pong, guilty of "Conspiracy to cause explosions of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property." The judge adopted a starting point of 11 years' imprisonment. As the defendant pleaded not guilty, he was not entitled to a discount for a guilty plea. Considering the defendant's good character and helpful nature, the judge exercised discretion to reduce the sentence by two months. The final sentence imposed was 10 years and 10 months' imprisonment. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights the critical impact of a jury's verdict on sentencing. Even if some prosecution evidence is not fully accepted, a conviction can stand if the jury is satisfied that the defendant had knowledge of the severity of the crime. In sentencing, judges will comprehensively consider the defendant's role in the conspiracy, the case background (e.g., the 2019 Anti-ELAB Movement), the defendant's personal character, and contributions to society, while also referencing sentencing precedents from similar cases. The judgment also reaffirms the principle that defendants who plead not guilty do not receive a discount for a guilty plea. --- ### 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.