香港7警察袭击“占中”示威者被判刑，判决书全文
翻译：丁龙律师（广东盛唐律师事务所）
香港特别行政区区域法院
2015年第980号刑事案件
黄祖成
第一被告
刘卓毅
第二被告
白荣斌
第三被告
刘兴沛
第四被告
陈少丹
第五被告
关嘉豪
第六被告
黄伟豪
第七被告
____________
法官：
杜大卫
日期：
2017年2月17日
控辩双方人员：
（译者注：名单略去不译）
指控罪名：
1、襲擊致造成身體傷害
2、普通襲擊
（译者注：判决书中如此备注了中文）
裁判理由
1. 所有被告袭击曾健超致其身体伤害罪名成立。第五被告普通袭击罪罪名亦成立。
2.案件的全部细节在2017年2月14日公布的裁判理由中已详细阐述。概括如下：2015年10月15日凌晨2点45分许，警方在对占中运动的示威者进行清场，当警察抵达龙和道地下通道时，曾健超被看到在龙和道上方的花槽上向警员泼撒液体。
3.曾健超被几个警员从花槽上拽下至人行道并被制服。警员使用塑料拉链带将曾健超双手打上背铐，然后将其移交给第一和第六被告，各被告护送曾健超沿龙和道方向离开。一路上，曾健超脸部朝下被抬着。
4.示威者们被带至龙和道上的大巴车上，送至中环警察署。第一和第六被告未将曾健超直接押往大巴上，而是将其带至龙汇道政府大楼泵房东变电站的北侧进行殴打。
5.到达变电站后，第七被告加入前六位被告，协助将曾健超带至变电站北侧。曾健超被丢在地上，立即遭到各被告的殴打，其中第七被告首先踢打曾健超。
6.第三被告也参与殴打，对其进行戳和踩踏，第四、五、六和第七被告也参与踢打曾健超。第一和第二被告没有参与殴打，但目睹了这一切。曾健超脸部、脖子左侧、肩膀左侧、锁骨、左右腹部、胸部和背部受伤。
7.每个警员都有义务阻止他人犯罪，哪怕是同僚。第一和第二被告将曾健超带至变电站，且眼睁睁看着其同僚殴打曾健超。这两位被告作为高级警员，故意且怂恿、支持第三至第七被告殴打曾健超，致使其遭受非法人身暴力。
8.事后，曾健超被要求双手放在脑后带至停在龙和道的一辆小汽车上。第五和第六被告分坐在曾健超两侧，陪同其前往中环警署。曾健超被带到警署的七号房羁押，直至其被大巴送至黄竹坑的警察学校。在七号房内，第五被告两次掌掴曾健超面部，第六被告在场。
减轻处罚情节：
9.作出判决时，我审慎考虑了被告一方的陈述，以及大量求情信。这些求情信都给予被告极高的评价。被告一至被告七分别于1984年、2009年、1992年、1994年、2007年、2008年和1998年加入警队。所有被告从警时间都很长，且表现突出，获得过许多褒奖。
10.关于占中运动对抗警方这一特定情节的陈词。LOK先生（译者注：第一被告的律师）告诉法庭，警员长时间工作履行职责，却遭到示威者的辱骂和暴力行为。本法官被告知有130位警员受伤。毫无疑问，所有警员，包括被告在内，在占中运动中都在极度压力之下工作。
11.Lok先生（译者注：第一被告的律师）、Cheng先生（译者注：第二被告的律师）以及Lam女士（译者注：第六被告的律师）特别提出，如果判处刑罚，应适用缓刑。
判决：
12. 在香港特别行政区诉惠曼泰一案中，上诉法院如是说：
“公众信任警察维护法纪，但警察自己却违反本应由其维护的法纪。应判处阻吓性刑罚树立典型，唯有如此，他人才不敢以身试法，民众的信心也才能得以维护”。
13. 被告不但令香港警队蒙羞，也损害了香港在国际社会的声誉。本次事件被世界各地的媒体作为头条新闻广泛报道。
14. 虽然曾健超违反了法律，为此他被判刑入监，被告当时处于压力之下，但并无正当理由将曾健超带至变电站并殴打他。
15.被告作为警察，在履行职责的过程中将曾健超带至变电站殴打；由于遭受殴打，曾多处受伤；以及对香港声誉的损害。在本法官看来，这是一个很严重的案件。
16.本法官认为判处监禁是合适的。曾健超没有防御能力，他的双手被用塑料带打了背铐。殴打显然是恶意的，特别是在最初的三十秒，曾被丢在地上，被戳刺以及反复踩踏。幸运的是，曾健超没有遭受更严重的伤害。
17. 本法官认为判处两年六个月监禁是恰当的。
18.考虑到当时的特殊环境以及警察在占中运动中承受的巨大压力；所有的被告无前科；以及服务于社会；一旦定罪，所有被告会从警队除名，并可能失去退休金；等待审判的压力。因此，本法官将刑期减去六个月，判处二年监禁。
19. 考虑罪行和被告的所有情节，本法官认为罪行太严重，不适用缓刑。
20.关于第二项指控，本法官认为判处一个月监禁是恰当的。虽然独立于变电站旁的殴打，考虑到判决的整体性，本法官认为并罚是恰当的。第五被告判处一
个月监禁，与第一项指控并罚。
杜大卫
区域法院法官
英文判决原文，来源于http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=108134&currpage=T。
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 980 OF 2015
____________
| HKSAR | ||
| v | ||
| WONG Cho-shing | D1 | |
| LAU Cheuk-ngai | D2 | |
| PAK Wing-bun | D3 | |
| LAU Hing-pui | D4 | |
| CHAN Siu-tan | D5 | |
| KWAN Ka-ho | D6 | |
| WONG Wai-ho | D7 |
____________
| Before : | HH Judge Dufton |
| Date : | 17 February 2017 |
| Present: | Mr Daniel Marash SC, counsel on fiat and Mr David Leung SC, DDPP leading Ms Clara Ma SPP, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR Mr Lawrence Lok SC leading Mr Raymond Tsui, instructed by David Y Y Fung & Co, for D1 Mr Cheng Huan SC leading Mr Edward Tang, instructed by Sun Lawyers, for D2 Mr William H.M. Lam and Mr Arthur J Chan, instructed by Rowdget W Young & Co, for D3 Mr Edwin Choy, instructed by David Y Y Fung & Co, for D4 Mr Bernard Chung, instructed by Kwok, Ng & Chan, for D5 Ms Priscilia Lam, instructed by Sun Lawyers, for D6 Mr Caesar Lo and Mr Philip Chan, instructed by David Y Y Fung & Co, for D7 |
| Offences: | (1) Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (襲擊致造成身體傷害) |
| (2) Common assault (普通襲擊) |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
1. The defendants are convicted after trial of assaulting Tsang Kin Chiu thereby occasioning him actual bodily harm[1]. D5 was also found guilty of a further charge of assaulting Tsang Kin Chiu[2].
2. Full particulars of the offences are set out in the reasons for verdict handed down on 14 February 2017. In summary at about 2:45 a.m. on 15 October 2014 the police carried out Operation Solarpeak to clear the protestors of the Occupy Central movement. When the police reached the end of the underpass on Lung Wo Road, Tsang Kin Chiu (“Tsang”) was seen on the planter above Lung Wo Road pouring liquid on the police.
3. Tsang was pulled down from the planter to the pavement and subdued by several uniform police officers. After the uniform police officers successfully handcuffed Tsang’s hands behind his back with plastic zip ties they handed Tsang over to D1-D6, who escorted Tsang away in the direction of Lung Wo Road. On the way Tsang was picked up and carried face down.
4. Protestors were to be taken to the escort coaches and cars on Lung Wo Road for transport to the Central Police Station. D1-D6 did not carry Tsang direct to where the coaches and cars were parked. Instead D1-D6 carried Tsang to the north side of the Lung Wui Road Government Building Pump Station East Substation (“the substation”) to assault him.
5. On reaching the substation D1-D6 were joined by D7, who helped carry Tsang to the north side of the substation. On reaching the north side of the substation Tsang was dumped on the ground and immediately assaulted by the defendants, with D7 being the first one to kick Tsang.
6. D3 participated in the assault by stabbing Tsang; stamping on Tsang and kicking Tsang and D4, D5, D6 and D7 also participated in the assault by kicking Tsang. D1 and D2 did not take part in the assault but watched what happened. Tsang received injuries to his face; the left side of the neck; the left shoulder and clavicle; the left flank; the right flank and to his chest and back.
7. Every police officer has a duty to prevent the commission of a crime, even by fellow police officers. By carrying Tsang to the substation and watching their colleagues beat up Tsang, D1 and D2, the two senior officers, intended to and did encourage and support D3-D7 to carry out the assault on Tsang, intending Tsang to sustain unlawful personal violence.
8. After the assault Tsang was frogmarched to Lung Wo Road where he boarded a car. D5 and D6 sat on either side of Tsang and accompanied him to the Central Police Station. At the police station Tsang was taken to room 7 where he stayed until he was escorted by coach to the Police College in Wong Chuk Hang. While in room 7 D5, in the presence of D6, slapped Tsang on the face twice.
Mitigation
9. In passing sentence, I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of the defendants together with the many mitigation letters, all of which speak very highly of the defendants. D1 joined the police force in 1984; D2 in 2009; D3 in 1992; D4 in 1999; D5 in 2007; D6 in 2008; and D7 in 1998. The defendants all have long and distinguished careers in the police force earning many compliments and commendations.
10. Submissions have been made as to the unique circumstances confronting the police during the Occupy Central movement. Mr Lok SC informs the court that police officers had to work very long hours and in carrying out their duty were subject to insulting remarks and violent behaviour from the protestors. I am told 130 police officers were injured. There can be no doubt that all police officers, including the defendants, were working under great pressure during the Occupy Central movement.
11. Mr Lok SC, Mr Cheng SC and Ms Lam specifically submitted that if a prison sentence is to be imposed then the sentence should be suspended[3].
Sentence
12. In HKSAR v Hui Man Tai[4] the Court of Appeal said:
“Police officers in whom the public place trust to uphold the law, but who themselves break the very laws they are empowered and entrusted to uphold, have to be made examples in terms of deterrent sentencing so that others will not be tempted to follow along similar lines and so that public confidence will be maintained.”
13. The defendants have not only brought dishonour to the Hong Kong Police Force they have also damaged Hong Kong’s reputation in the international community, the assault having been widely viewed around the world and reported as front-page news in a number of countries[5].
14. Although Tsang had broken the law for which he was subsequently sentenced to imprisonment[6] and the defendants were at the time acting under immense stress, there was no justification for taking Tsang to the substation and assaulting him.
15. The defendants, serving police officers who in the execution of their duty took Tsang to the substation to assault him; the multiplicity of the injuries sustained by Tsang as a result of the assault; and the damage to Hong Kong’s reputation make this, in my view, a very serious case.
16. I am satisfied a term of imprisonment is appropriate. Tsang was defenceless, his hands handcuffed behind his back with plastic ties. The assault was a vicious assault, in particular the first thirty seconds when Tsang was dumped on the ground, stabbed, stamped on and repeatedly kicked. Most fortunately Tsang did not suffer more serious injuries.
17. I am satisfied a sentence of 2 years and 6 months imprisonment is appropriate.
18. Taking into account the circumstances prevailing at the time and the great stress the police were under in handling the Occupy Central movement; that the defendants, all of clear record, have served the community as police officers; that the conviction will result in all the defendants being dismissed from the police force and the likely loss of any pensions; and the stress caused while waiting for trial, I reduce the sentence by 6 months to 2 years imprisonment.
19. Having regard to all the circumstances of the commission of the offence and that of the defendants, I am satisfied that the assault is too serious for the imposition of a suspended sentence.
20. On charge 2, I am satisfied the proper sentence is 1 month imprisonment. Although separate from the assault at the substation, considering totality of sentence, I am satisfied a concurrent sentence is appropriate. D5 is sentenced to 1 month imprisonment concurrent to the sentence imposed on charge 1.
| (D. J. DUFTON) District Judge |