控罪：
Wearing facial covering
涉事地點 :
CUHK (Chinese University of Hong Kong)
判決理由書／裁決書撮要(由AI生成)
以下撮要以AI生成及／或翻譯，內容以原來的判決理由書／裁決書為準。
The judgment states that on 2019年11月12日 around Bridge No.2 and Circular Road East of The Chinese University of Hong Kong, several dozen people dressed in black, wearing masks and gas masks, set up roadblocks to confront the police. From about 15時08分 in the afternoon, they advanced towards the police line and hurled petrol bombs, bricks and other debris, and the situation escalated into a riot. The police displayed orange flags and black flags and sounded whistles to warn, but the protesters refused to stop. At 15時24分, a dispersal and arrest operation was launched, and five people, including four defendants, were arrested on the spot. They were charged with riot, unlawful assembly with face coverings, and possession of offensive weapons, among other offences.
The offence of riot is defined in sections 18 and 19 of the Public Order Ordinance; the offence of unlawful assembly with face coverings is defined in section 3 of the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation; and the offence of possessing offensive weapons in a public place is provided for in section 33 of the Public Order Ordinance.
The prosecution must prove to the standard of no reasonable doubt that the defendants participated in the riot and used face covering items, and must establish a complete chain of evidence for the third defendant’s possession of a laser pointer; the evidence of riot for the first and second defendants is insufficient, while there are ample clips and testimony proving the third and fourth defendants’ participation in the riot and face covering; regarding the offence of possession of offensive weapons by the third defendant, the chain of evidence is not clear, and the prosecution has not discharged its burden of proof.
Except for the individual testimonies of PW6 and PW9, the other police officers’ testimonies and video clips corroborate each other. The cumulative effect of the overall evidence is sufficient to infer beyond reasonable doubt that the third and fourth defendants committed the offences of riot and face covering, while the first and second defendants are not guilty of riot; the third defendant is also not guilty of the offence of possessing offensive weapons.
The first and second defendants are not guilty of riot or any other charges; the third and fourth defendants are convicted of the offence of riot and of contravening the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation; the remaining charges are not upheld, and sentences are pending. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判決理由書／裁決書
判刑理由書撮要(由AI生成)
以下撮要以AI生成及／或翻譯，內容以原來的判刑理由書為準。
The judgment states that, on the afternoon of 12 November 2019, the defendants gathered with about one hundred protesters in the vicinity of Bridge No. 2 at The Chinese University of Hong Kong. During that time, some individuals used rubbish bins, water-filled barriers and umbrellas to erect roadblocks and push forward the police line, and hurled petrol bombs, bricks and other debris at the police. The riot lasted approximately thirteen minutes, until the police launched a dispersal operation at 3:24pm and arrested five people. On trial, the third and fourth defendants were convicted of rioting, while the first and second defendants were acquitted; additionally, the first, third and fourth defendants were convicted of using face coverings in an unlawful assembly.
The maximum sentence for rioting is ten years’ imprisonment, with a limit of seven years in the District Court; breach of the anti-mask law carries a maximum of one year’s imprisonment and a possible fine. The court referred to numerous similar cases in the District and Appeal Courts, focusing on the collective nature of the violence, use of weapons, duration and scale.
The violence in this case was severe, with protesters using petrol bombs and debris to assault the police, warranting strong deterrence; the third defendant directly participated in the throwing and continued for over thirteen minutes, making his offence the most serious; the fourth defendant, although not directly attacking anyone, deliberately remained at the scene and incited others; the first defendant was convicted only for using a face covering and had submitted a positive social service report, hence a lighter sentence was imposed.
The judiciary must balance the young defendants’ prospects for rehabilitation with the public interest; however, serious violence against public officers must be dealt with decisively. Youth and a good family background do not in themselves justify a reduced sentence; collective violence must be punished severely to maintain the rule of law.
The first defendant was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment; the third defendant was sentenced to four years and six months’ imprisonment; the fourth defendant was sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment, all sentences to run concurrently. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書