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 12 November 2019, over a hundred protesters dressed in black gathered on No. 2 Bridge and Huanhui East Road at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. They first built roadblocks using umbrellas and miscellaneous items to confront the police, then advanced on the police lines and threw petrol bombs, bricks, and other objects, escalating the situation from an unlawful assembly to a riot. At approximately 15:24, the police conducted a dispersal operation, during which they arrested four defendants. Defendants One through Four were all charged with rioting and were each further charged with the offence of using a face-covering item during an unlawful assembly; in addition, Defendant Three was charged with possession of an offensive weapon in a public place. After trial, comparison of the footage and witness testimony, the court found some of the charges against the defendants proven and others not proven.
Under section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance for the offence of rioting and regulation 3 of the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation, it must be proven that an unlawful assembly escalated into a riot and that the defendant participated; for the offence of face covering, it must be shown that the defendant used a face-covering item that prevented identification while present at an unlawful assembly, and that no reasonable excuse exists.
The court concluded that Defendants Three and Four were within the core area of the riot for over 13 minutes, wearing black clothing, protective goggles, gas masks, and gloves, and had thrown miscellaneous objects at the police. The cumulative effect of their actions and the characteristics of their equipment supported the only reasonable inference that they participated in the riot and used face-covering items during the unlawful assembly; by contrast, Defendants One and Two’s testimony included critical contradictions with the video evidence, and there was insufficient evidence to prove their participation in the riot or possession of offensive weapons, so the charges against them were not established.
The judge found the prosecution’s witnesses honest and reliable except for Witnesses Two and Nine; Defendants Three and Four’s explanations were unconvincing—their assertions of being there for medical reasons or simply observing the scene were far-fetched and failed to exclude their participation in the riot.
Defendants One and Two’s charges of rioting and related offences were not established; Defendants Three and Four were found guilty of rioting and the offence of using a face-covering item during an unlawful assembly; Defendant Three’s charge of possession of an offensive weapon in a public place was not established. (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 at around 11:25 am on 12 November 2019, dozens of defendants gathered near Bridge No. 2 of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, wearing dark clothing and masks or gas masks, and erected roadblocks using large rubbish bins, water-filled barricades and umbrellas, confronting the police and disrupting public order. At about 3:08 pm, the protesters advanced against the police line; at 3:11 pm the unlawful assembly escalated into a riot, with many people hurling petrol bombs, bricks and miscellaneous objects, blocking major thoroughfares and damaging equipment. At 3:24 pm the police dispersed the crowd and arrested five individuals, including four defendants. Following trial, Defendants Three and Four were convicted of rioting, and Defendants One, Three and Four were found guilty of violating the anti-mask law; the riot charges against Defendants One and Two were dismissed.
For the riot offences, the court fixed baseline custodial terms of 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for Defendant Three and 3 years and 9 months’ imprisonment for Defendant Four; for the violation of the anti-mask law, baseline terms of 2 months for Defendant One, 6 months for Defendant Three and 3 months for Defendant Four were established, to be served concurrently.
The court took into account the premeditated nature of the riot, the participation of over a hundred individuals, its duration and the use of weapons such as petrol bombs and bricks, warranting a deterrent sentence that protected public safety; as for the anti-mask law offence, the sentence was increased because the defendant was present at the unlawful assembly and used a mask to conceal their identity.
The judge held that the maintenance of public order and the safety of law enforcement must be punished severely; being young and of good character cannot negate the seriousness of collective violence, and thus a declaration of the rule of law is necessary to prevent similar incidents from recurring.
Ultimately, Defendant One was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment, Defendant Three to 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, and Defendant Four to 3 years and 9 months’ imprisonment, all to be served concurrently. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書