香港特別行政區 訴 施銘洋及另四人

香港特別行政區 訴 施銘洋及另四人

The court held that sentencing for participants in the same large‑scale riot must start from substantial custodial starting points reflecting collective violence and the need for deterrence; defendants with similar equipment and roles to earlier convicted co‑participants received a five‑year starting point, while those with more limited involvement received a lower starting point (4 years 9 months); limited mitigation (time on bail, youth, limited role, caring responsibilities) justified modest month reductions, but good background alone did not warrant significant reduction.

Citation
[2023] HKDC 915
Parties
Prosecutor: 香港特別行政區; 第四被告人: 施銘洋; 第九被告人: 陳卓男; 第十二被告人: 周家豪; 第十四被告人: 洪家穎; 第十八被告人: 黃添樂
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 June 2023
Case Number
DCCC788/2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Riot / Sentencing
Outcome
Five defendants convicted of riot and sentenced to immediate imprisonment
Legal Topics
Riot, Sentencing, Deterrence, Collective Violence
Source Language
CH
Criminal Law Public Order Riot Sentencing Deterrence Collective Violence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

香港特別行政區

Prosecutor

施銘洋

第四被告人

陳卓男

第九被告人

周家豪

第十二被告人

洪家穎

第十四被告人

黃添樂

第十八被告人

Procedural Posture

Criminal Riot / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate sentence for participation in a large-scale riot
  2. 2 How to apportion culpability among participants in a collective disorder
  3. 3 Extent to which personal mitigation (youth, family circumstances, good character) should reduce sentence

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that sentencing for participants in the same large‑scale riot must start from substantial custodial starting points reflecting collective violence and the need for deterrence; defendants with similar equipment and roles to earlier convicted co‑participants received a five‑year starting point, while those with more limited involvement received a lower starting point (4 years 9 months); limited mitigation (time on bail, youth, limited role, caring responsibilities) justified modest month reductions, but good background alone did not warrant significant reduction.

Court Disposition

Five defendants convicted of riot and sentenced to immediate imprisonment

Orders

  • 第四被告人 監禁4年8個月
  • 第九被告人 監禁4年3個月