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 from 11:25 am on 12 November 2019, dozens of masked individuals dressed in black had unlawfully assembled around No. 2 Bridge of the Chinese University and Huanhui East Road, erecting roadblocks and confronting the police; from approximately 3:08 pm, protesters advanced the police line and threw petrol bombs, bricks, and the like, and at 3:11 pm the situation escalated into a riot. The police subsequently displayed a black flag, an orange flag, and used loudspeakers to warn them, and finally at 3:24 pm fired tear gas to disperse the crowd and arrested the four defendants in this case.
In accordance with section 19(1) of the Public Order Ordinance, rioting is punishable by up to ten years’ imprisonment; under regulation 3 of the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation, offenders may be sentenced to up to one year’s imprisonment.
The defendant took part in attacks on the police in the core area of the riot and concealed their identity, thereby disturbing public order; given the severity of the circumstances, a heavy sentence is warranted.
The judge was of the view that such violent conduct poses a serious challenge to the rule of law and that appropriate sentencing is necessary to deter similar actions.
Defendants 1 and 2 were acquitted of riot charges and possession of offensive weapons; defendants 3 and 4 were convicted of riot charges and breaches of the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation; defendant 3 was acquitted of possession of offensive weapons. (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 stated that on 12 November 2019 approximately one hundred people unlawfully assembled on Bridge No. 2 at the Chinese University, and at 3:11 pm it escalated into a riot, with protesters pushing barriers and throwing petrol bombs, bricks and other objects at officers. The police dispersed the crowd at 3:24 pm and arrested four defendants, of whom the first defendant was convicted of the offence of using a mask during an unlawful assembly, and the third and fourth defendants were further convicted of riot and of contravening the anti-mask law.
The maximum custodial sentence for riot is 10 years (7 years in the District Court); sentencing takes into account the collective violence, number of participants, use of weapons, duration, and impact on the public; the anti-mask law carries a maximum of 1 year’s imprisonment, with consideration given to the connection between masking and the unlawful assembly or riot.
Based on the defendant’s actual participation and the level of violence in the riot, a deterrent sentence is necessary to preserve public order and ensure law enforcement safety; as the defendant was convicted after trial, no reduction in sentence was applied for pleading guilty; youth is not a mitigating factor.
The court must impose severe punishment for collective violence, not lessen the sentence on account of the defendant’s youth or other background, so as to uphold the rule of law and prevent similar incidents from occurring again.
The first defendant was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment for using a mask during an unlawful assembly; the third defendant was sentenced to a total of four years and six months’ imprisonment for participating in a riot and breaching the anti-mask law; the fourth defendant was sentenced to a total of three years and nine months’ imprisonment for participating in a riot and breaching the anti-mask law. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書