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 stated that on 10 November 2019 at approximately 22:25, at the junction of Nathan Road and Shandong Street, the defendants witnessed the police dispersing around four hundred unlawfully assembled persons in three directions. One defendant, wearing a vest, a face mask and goggles, was swinging a light baton and jogging along Shandong Street when he was chased, pushed to the ground and subdued by a police sergeant; another defendant, wearing a white shirt, black trousers, swimming goggles and a face mask, was alleged to have kicked a brick on the road before walking into a group of journalists on the pavement, where he was arrested by an officer. Multiple CCTV clips and police statements in the case revealed significant inconsistencies regarding the direction of movements, audio recordings, the colour of the mask and whether the goggles were hanging round the neck, leading the defence to argue that the evidence was insufficient to establish the charges.
Under Section 18 of the Public Order Ordinance, an assembly of three or more persons engaging in disorderly or intimidating and insulting behaviour is punishable by a maximum of five years’ imprisonment; under Regulation 3 of the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation, the use of a face covering at an unlawful assembly is punishable by a Level 4 fine and one year’s imprisonment.
The prosecution must prove that the defendant, together with at least two others, engaged in disorderly conduct with the intent to arouse or cause reasonable fear, and that a face covering was used during the unlawful assembly. In view of the lack of coherence in the police evidence, and the absence of any actual use of the mask by the defendant to prevent identification, the prosecution is unable to prove the necessary elements of the offence.
The judge considered that the police testimony and video footage contained numerous contradictions, including the order “stand there” being inaudible, inaccuracies in the direction of movements, and conflicts between the arrest procedures and the chain of evidence; there were obvious defects in the exhibits and the identification process, making it difficult to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; consequently, the prosecution’s case was not accepted.
The defendants were acquitted of both the unlawful assembly and prohibition on face coverings charges, as the prosecution failed to prove the essential facts and elements of the offences, and were released. (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 10 November 2019 a large group of around one hundred people assembled unlawfully at Nathan Road and Shantung Street during a period of widespread protest-related disorder. They erected barricades, occupied carriageways, obstructed traffic, and pointed laser devices at police officers. During the dispersal operation three individuals—hereinafter referred to as Defendant 1, Defendant 2 and Defendant 4—were arrested. Defendant 1 was found carrying a petrol bomb, resisted arrest by striking an officer, and was in possession of a prohibited weapon, unauthorized radio communication apparatus, and items intended to damage property. Defendant 4 was discovered with two petrol bombs, lighters and isopropyl alcohol. Defendant 2, aged seventeen, was seized without any weapons. All three pleaded guilty to unlawful assembly, and Defendants 1 and 4 admitted additional charges arising from items found on them. The events occurred amid an escalation of violent civil unrest in Hong Kong during late 2019 characterized by “black bloc” tactics, extensive road blockages, and the use of dangerous implements to threaten public order.
The court applied established authority that serious unlawful assemblies involving violence and property damage require immediate custodial sentences with primary weight on punishment and deterrence, giving little if any weight to personal circumstances. Possession of petrol bombs in a public disorder context carries a starting point of three to four and a half years’ imprisonment. Additional sentencing powers include up to three years for prohibited weapons, up to five for unauthorized radiocommunications equipment, and up to six months for resisting arrest. Defendants are entitled to a one-third reduction for guilty pleas. Juvenile offenders may be sentenced to training centre orders instead of standard custody.
The judge determined that Defendant 1’s possession of multiple petrol bombs, a prohibited weapon, and coordination apparatus in a violent assembly merited a substantial custodial term to reflect the major risk and to deter others, despite his clean record and family responsibilities. Defendant 4’s two petrol bombs and adoption of black-bloc tactics likewise called for immediate imprisonment, tempered by a guilty plea. Defendant 2’s sole participation without weapons was less aggravated but still required custody given the serious nature of the riotous context; his youth justified placement in a rehabilitation centre rather than a conventional prison.
The judge expressed that the offences represented a severe breach of public order warranting strong deterrent sentences. He acknowledged personal mitigation but held that public interest in punishing and preventing recurrence outweighed individual circumstances, except for the teenage offender whose potential for rehabilitation justified a specialized order.
Defendant 1 was sentenced to a total of 34 months’ imprisonment, with multiple charges ordered partly concurrent and partly consecutive. Defendant 4 received a single 28-month concurrent sentence. Defendant 2 was ordered to a rehabilitation centre under a training centre order appropriate for his age.
查看完整判刑理由書