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。
Judgment stated that on 1 October 2019, the five defendants, together with other protesters, formed an umbrella formation and barricade at the junction of Ha Pak Street and Tai Ho Road in Tsuen Wan, New Territories. They repeatedly threw bricks, water-filled barriers, petrol bombs and miscellaneous items at the police, and even set fires, intending to intimidate law enforcement officers and the public. The police issued warnings via loudspeaker, displayed blue, orange and black flags, and fired tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse the crowd. Eventually, the first, second, third and fifth defendants were subdued and arrested on Ha Pak Street and Tsuen Hing Path. The defendants pleaded not guilty. After examining police and online videos and witness testimony, the court found the scene constituted a riot and confirmed that the defendants participated in various ways.
According to section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance (riot) and sections 61(3) and 63(1) of the Crimes Ordinance (arson), with reference to precedents and the statutory maximum penalties of imprisonment; riot carries a maximum of ten years, while arson may attract a heavier sentence.
The defendants were on the front line of the riot, not merely bystanders, actually assisting in organising and advancing the umbrella formation, hurling objects and setting fires. Their conduct seriously disrupted public peace; the evidence is ample, and both subjective and objective criteria indicate an intention to intimidate and threaten the public.
Riot and unlawful assembly are highly fluid; mere presence does not constitute guilt. However, the defendants not only took part in a tug-of-war and obstructed police operations, they also encouraged others with words and actions, meeting the principle of joint enterprise. Therefore, the court found the defendants guilty.
The court then combined the sentences for the defendants’ riot offences and the first defendant’s arson offence, imposing fixed terms of imprisonment of several years to serve as a deterrent. (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 judgement states that on the afternoon of 1 October 2019, between 3pm and 4pm, approximately 100 to 200 demonstrators gathered around Tai Ho Road and Hoi Pa Street in Tsuen Wan and confronted the police. They wore black clothing, helmets and gas masks, and used water-filled barriers, rubbish bins and traffic fences to build roadblocks, throwing rubbish, water bottles, bricks and petrol bombs at the police, and even poured a flammable liquid onto the pavement and set it alight; the first defendant was also filmed dragging a banner into the blaze. The police repeatedly issued warnings by loudspeaker and deployed tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse them; under the cover of umbrellas, both sides engaged in a tug-of-war lasting over twenty minutes, until the police advanced and arrested five people, four of whom are the defendants in this case. Besides being found guilty of rioting, the first defendant was also convicted of arson, while the other defendants were only found guilty of rioting.
With reference to Court of Appeal cases concerning serious violence against law enforcement personnel, taking into account the number of individuals, the level and duration of violence, the disruption to public order and the social impact, it was determined that a sentence of four years and six months’ imprisonment serves as the baseline for rioting, and five years’ imprisonment is the general baseline for arson; where both offences arise from the same set of circumstances, they are to be considered concurrently.
Although this was a small-scale riot, the fierceness of the confrontation and the act of arson were sufficient to endanger public safety; the first defendant, at the forefront, assisted in the rioting and committed arson, posing the highest risk, and therefore both offences started at a sentence of four years and six months’ imprisonment, with a further two months added subsequently. The other defendants were convicted of participating in the riot based solely on circumstantial evidence, their roles being unclear, and were sentenced equally under the joint enterprise principle, but their sentences were reduced individually in light of their backgrounds and their pleas.
Although the demonstrators were not subject to any disciplinary constraints and used their numbers and the tacit consent of the public to evade legal control, thus creating a pronounced disparity with the well-equipped and legally restrained police, such illegal assemblies, if not met with severe punishment, would damage the rule of law and jeopardise public peace; therefore, a deterrent sentence is required to set an example.
Defendant One was convicted of rioting and arson and was sentenced to four years and eight months’ imprisonment (i.e. fifty-six months); Defendants Two and Three were convicted of rioting and each sentenced to four years and three months’ imprisonment (i.e. fifty-one months); Defendant Five was convicted of rioting and sentenced to four years and five months’ imprisonment (i.e. fifty-three months). (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書