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 Defendants 1 to 5 (the fourth defendant having absconded after bail before the trial) gathered with unidentified persons on National Day, 1 October 2019, around Hoi Pa Street in Tsuen Wan, New Territories. They formed a three-tiered umbrella defence line and established roadblocks using water-filled barriers, road signs, rubbish bins and the like, and advanced towards the police. During this period, protesters threw bricks, bottles and petrol bombs and set fires on the pedestrian walkway. The police issued verbal and flag warnings in succession and deployed tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse them. The protesters repeatedly fell back, regrouped and then once again pressed towards the police front line. Officers ultimately undertook a swift advance that afternoon and arrested five individuals. Based on video evidence and testimony from multiple officers, the court found that four of the apprehended defendants actively participated in the riot in a coordinated manner, and Defendant 1 additionally committed arson by dragging a banner and setting it alight. All defendants pleaded not guilty.
Pursuant to Section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance (riot) and Sections 61(3) and 63(1) of the Crimes Ordinance (arson), it must be proven that three or more persons assembled to disturb public order, along with both the objective and subjective intent; in sentencing, strict consideration is given to the violent nature of the crowd, the use of dangerous implements such as incendiary devices, and the degree of harm to public tranquillity.
The defendants were positioned at the forefront of the conflict, assisting in advancing the roadblocks, throwing debris and incendiary devices, and committing arson, all of which significantly increased the danger to the public; their actions not only caused serious disruption to public order but also heightened the difficulty of police enforcement, and they had no lawful duty or force majeure reason preventing them from leaving the scene.
The court held that riots and unlawful assemblies are highly fluid, and mere presence does not equate to bystanding. Participation is established if there is actual incitement, assistance, facilitation or the use of crowd scale to achieve objectives; the defendants offered no credible reason for remaining at the violent scene, which is sufficient to eliminate reasonable doubt, and they must bear full criminal responsibility.
Defendants 1 to 3 and 5 were all convicted of riot; Defendant 1 was additionally convicted of arson. (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 the afternoon of 1 October 2019, between 3 pm and 4 pm, in the area of Tai Ho Road and Hoi Pa Street in Tsuen Wan, approximately one to two hundred protesters set up roadblocks, hurled miscellaneous objects and petrol bombs, and started fires on the pavement. After warnings were ignored, the police fired tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse them and swiftly advanced to arrest five individuals, of whom four were charged with rioting and one was additionally charged with arson. None pleaded guilty, and they were convicted following trial.
Consideration was given to the degree of violence against law enforcement officers, the number of participants, the duration, public disturbance and social harm, with reference to the Court of Appeal case of Yang Ka-lun, which set a baseline custodial term of five years for rioting and five years for arson, emphasising the importance of deterrence and upholding the rule of law.
The scale of the riot was similar to that in Yang Ka-lun’s case but involved fewer participants, so four years and six months was adopted as the starting point for both the riot and arson charges; since the two offences arose from the same incident and were considered together, the sentence for arson was aligned with that for rioting; adjustments were then made based on each defendant’s background, social evaluation, whether they raised substantive defences and displayed remorse.
The judge found that all defendants had intended to participate in the riot, and that the first defendant, who assisted on the front line and committed the most serious act of arson, posed the greatest danger to public safety. Although the roles of the other defendants were unclear, they were deemed accomplices. The judge granted greater reductions to the second and third defendants in light of their good backgrounds and failure to challenge the prosecution’s evidence, while the fifth defendant received a smaller reduction due to unconvincing explanations.
The court sentenced the first defendant to fifty-six months’ imprisonment; the second and third defendants to four years and three months (fifty-one months) each; and the fifth defendant to fifty-three months’ imprisonment. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書