- By attacking police and civilians, and destroying MTR stations and businesses, they have declared war on society. Courts have a duty to respond with stiff sentences as appropriate punishment and as a deterrent to others
In August 2011, riots erupted in several English cities and towns, triggered by the shooting of a criminal suspect in London. There was arson and looting, homes, shops and vehicles were destroyed, five people were killed, and more than 16 citizens and 189 police officers injured.
Then-prime minister David Cameron condemned the rioting as "utterly unacceptable", adding there was "no justification for the aggression the police and the public faced, or for the damage to property".
More than 1,000 were prosecuted, often young people, and those convicted earned severe jail sentences. When challenged, the Court of Appeal upheld the use of tough punishments for the "shocking and wholly inexcusable" conduct. The lord chief justice, Lord Judge, explained that "the imposition of severe sentences, intended to provide both punishment and deterrence, must follow".
This sentencing approach has been endorsed throughout the common-law world. If people indulge in grave public disorder or wanton violence, they must expect to face condign punishment. Being youthful or of previous good character will not usually shield them from the criminal consequences.
Quite clearly, people who stab or throw petrol bombs at police officers, operate bomb factories, vandalise MTR stations, assault people or destroy businesses have declared war on society, and must face the full force of the law. Incredibly, these people have their apologists, some naive, some malign, who profess sympathy for them, even admiration. This only emboldens them and eggs them on to further depredations.
[However, both the lawbreakers and their apologists must understand that political violence is no less abhorrent than any other type of violence. It may actually be far worse when it involves terrorist activity.
Anyone who sets police officers on fire, manufactures high explosives or tries to derail trains, cannot be treated as an ordinary criminal. There is a clear duty on the courts to demonstrate that, in a civilised society, such behaviour is intolerable, even from young offenders.
On October 11, Chief Secretary Matthew Cheung Kin-chung disclosed that, out of the 2,379 arrested since the violence started in June, 750 were aged below 18, while 104 were under 16. Where grave offences occurred, those younger than 16 can usually rely on their age in mitigation of sentence, but those older can expect little leniency.
](https://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/3031449/hong-kongs-young-protesters-are-being-pushed-front-line-violence)
[Society must be protected, which means that, for serious crimes, judges have a duty to impose sentences that are not just suitably punitive but also serve as a deterrent to others.
Offenders of "extreme youth" sometimes qualify for a lesser sentence, even when convicted of very serious offences such as drug trafficking or robbery. However, the courts have explained that "extreme youth" generally refers to offenders aged 15 or below.
In 1995, the Court of Appeal said "we are satisfied that a person older than that cannot plead extreme youth". The public interest requires that young offenders, along with their backers and apologists, clearly understand that anyone who endangers the lives, safety and welfare of others will receive no quarter from the courts.
Parents and teachers must provide moral guidance to wayward youth
Of course, no judge relishes the sentencing of young offenders, and lenient sentences, perhaps involving detention or training centre orders, will be imposed wherever possible. However, given the extreme violence deployed since June, most of those responsible must expect to pay the price in full.
In 2001, the Court of Appeal explained that, in cases of gravity involving young offenders, "the courts must steel themselves, unless there are particularly powerful and peculiar contrary reasons attaching to the circumstances of the offender and his involvement in the offence, to the imposition of substantial prison terms".
Although some of the prosecutions arising out of Occupy Central in 2014 took years to process, delays must be avoided this time. Whereas prosecutors must expedite the preparation of cases and the filing of indictments, the courts should prioritise the trials.
Only once the courts have shown their abhorrence of the violence, which has wracked Hong Kong, by imposing the severest of sentences will those responsible get the message that their time is up, and that there is no future in hatred, mayhem and destruction.
Grenville Cross SC is a criminal justice analyst
Copyright (c) 2019. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.
](https://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/3031449/hong-kongs-young-protesters-are-being-pushed-front-line-violence)
