Social News
Written by: Li Huina
2021-01-28 16:13
Last update date: 2021-01-28 16:13
The 21-year-old boy was intercepted by the police in the Sha Tin Town Hall two years ago and was found to have a cemented iron pass. He pleaded guilty to possession of offensive weapons and was sentenced to 10 days in prison.
The Department of Justice applied for a review of the sentence, and the Appeal Court opened today (28th) to handle the case.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Pan Zhaochu pointed out that the trial magistrate spent a long time in the verdict, expressing concern about the Department of Justice's insistence on filing a complaint under the Public Security Ordinance, and questioning whether the sentence would be affected. The defense believed that the sentence was not unacceptable. Appropriate influence.
The Court of Appeal finally found that the original trial made a mistake in principle, and the sentence was changed for three months, and the sentence was later issued to explain the reasons.
Defendant Situ Hoshen (21 years old), he admitted that on November 5, 2019, he was in possession of two concrete-filled railroads outside the Sha Tin Town Hall.
The Department of Justice alleges that the trial magistrate Wen Shaoming underestimated the seriousness of the charges
When sentencing, Magistrate Wen Shaoming stated that he did not understand why the Attorney General insisted on using the "Public Security Ordinance" instead of the "Summary Offences Ordinance" to allow the court to have more sentencing options, such as fines, probation, and social service orders. He had no choice but to sentence to prison. In the end, 15 days of imprisonment was used as the starting point for sentencing. After deducting the confession discount, he was sentenced to 10 days in prison, and the defendant has already served his sentence.
The representative of the Department of Justice stated that the trial magistrate underestimated the seriousness of the charges and overemphasized that the defendant did not use the weapons involved and that he was not arrested at the scene of the conflict.
The representative of the Department of Justice believes that if the defendant is arrested at the scene of the conflict, the culpability will be heavier, but on the contrary, it does not mean that the defendant is arrested at the scene of the conflict and the court can lower the sentence.
The representative of the Department of Justice also pointed out that the trial magistrate mentioned that the society is in a difficult period when sentencing, and even adults are affected by emotions. However, for this reason, the court should deter citizens from carrying weapons to prevent environmental degradation and reduce conflict. Opportunities of force, imposing a longer sentence.
Sentence review | Hammer assaulted police officer sentenced to probation court for petitioning rehabilitation center
Sentence Review | Juvenile Swinging Hammer to Police, Probation Accused Too Light, Court of Appeal Says Must Prove No Violence
Sentence review.
Interpretation of the verdict | The criminal responsibility of workers who rushed to the police line to be changed in September cannot be underestimated
Judge Pan Minguan said that the case involved Tietong "knowing that there is no reason for no reason at first sight, but not knowing that it was modified"
The defendant explained under caution at that time that he was carrying weapons because he was afraid of being attacked by people of different political opinions in self-defense. He also claimed that he was just dancing at the scene.
The Attorney General believes that this is just an excuse for the defendant. If he was there to dance, questioning how others would learn about his political views, and how could they be attacked.
The case on behalf of the defendant retorted that the sentence was not obviously too light. Judge Pan Minqi once pointed out that Tietong had been modified, and then questioned that the defendant had obtained the details of Tietong during the warning interview. I don’t know if it has been modified for no reason.” He also believes that the concrete-infused railway is a weapon of high lethality, but the defendant’s case does not agree.
Chief Justice Pan Zhaochu also pointed out that the original trial took a long time to express concern about the Department of Justice's insistence on using the Public Security Ordinance to file a complaint, and whether the questioning would affect his sentence, and the defendant’s case was rebutted. The original trial also mentioned that even so, the court It is necessary to follow the law to make a sentence, believing that the sentence has not been improperly affected, and that the court will express some ideas in other cases.
Case number: CAAR15/2020
Court Fugitive Offenders Ordinance related hearing sentence review
