A student participated in a demonstration against the national anthem law in May last year, during which he threw tin cans at police officers, and was later convicted of illegal assembly and assault on police officers.
He had been detained for more than five months for violating the curfew order before sentencing, and the magistrate only sentenced the student to 120 hours of social service.
The Department of Justice believed that the sentence was too light and that it should be sentenced to prison, and requested a review, which will be heard in the Court of Appeal today (17th).
The defense alleges that the student had only four hours left to complete, in addition to having been detained for many months before sentencing and having completed 116 hours of social service.
The three judges of the Court of Appeal said that although they believed that the sentence was wrong in principle, they still rejected the application of the Department of Justice and will give an explanation of the sentence later.
This case is also the first time the Court of Appeal has rejected the Department of Justice's application for review of the defendant's sentence during the campaign against the amendment.
The defendant, Li Wenqi (24), was convicted of one count of unlawful assembly and two counts of assaulting a police officer, alleging that he participated in an unlawful assembly at the junction of Argyle Street and Nathan Road in Mong Kok on May 27, 2020, and assaulted him Constable 14267 and Sheriff 50365.
Sent to jail for 166 days for violating curfew
The representative of the Department of Justice pointed out in his speech that the magistrate in the first instance put too much emphasis on the 166 days that the defendant was sentenced for violating the curfew order, emphasizing that illegal assembly is a serious crime, and the court should consider the options of sentencing before considering its length.
The hours of the social service order did not follow the report's recommendations
The judicial representative continued that the court should consider immediate imprisonment, but agreed to impose a sentence that would allow the defendant to be released immediately.
In addition, the report suggested that the defendant should be sentenced to 161 to 240 hours of social service, but the magistrate in the first instance only sentenced the defendant to 120 hours, which was considered too light.
Defendant has nearly completed the social service order
When the defendant's counsel responded, he agreed that this case was a serious case, and if the defendant had not returned the forehead, immediate imprisonment was the only option.
However, the defendant has been remanded for more than 5 months, and the judge in the first instance may order him to serve in the community by taking into account his rehabilitative factors.
Moreover, the defendant has completed 116 hours of the social service order so far, and is only one day away from completing the remaining hours.
The Court of Appeal held that there was an error of principle
After listening to the submissions, the three judges pointed out that they believed that in the context of this case, it was an error of principle to impose a social service order, but they still rejected the application of the Department of Justice and will issue a verdict explaining the reasons in the future.
Case number: CAAR17/2021
The Department of Justice has requested a review of sentences in many cases, and most of them were commuted to prison sentences.
(See the picture below for details)
+20
4 Girl was sentenced to probation or social service order for destroying Youpin 360 The Court of Appeal accused the construction worker of the rehabilitation center who helped the protesters evade arrest Originally sentenced to probation and sentenced to 3 months in prison The boy threw an umbrella into the fire and was sentenced to a social service order Emphasizing that showing mercy is also doing justice. The youth threw bricks at the water cannon truck and was sentenced to a re-education through labor center. Court of Appeal accused of challenging law and discipline. Rehabilitation Center Officer Says "Renovation" Acts Hate the Court and Should Be Severely Punished
