anti-elab-468 DCCC908/2019 Riot

文件編號:

anti-elab-468

案件編號:

DCCC908/2019

控罪:

Riot

涉事日期 :

2019-10-01

涉事地點 :

Wan Chai

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

According to the written judgment, the six defendants had rented a unit on the 9th floor of a building in Wan Chai from 28 September to 1 October 2019. In the early hours of 1 October, the police entered the premises using breaching tools, arresting five defendants who were resting inside. A large quantity of materials related to the protest was found in the room and in their backpacks, including gas masks, goggles, walkie-talkies, white spirit, banners, empty bottles and various protective gear. The prosecution accordingly brought alternative charges of conspiracy to commit riot and conspiracy to participate in an unlawful assembly, alleging that the defendants had agreed to throw petrol bombs and disrupt order during the protest. The defendants all denied the charges and remained silent. The defence argued that the unit was merely a supply and rest station for protesters, used for refuge and resupply, and questioned whether the prosecution’s evidence could demonstrate the substance and formation of an actual conspiracy agreement, as the trial relied solely on circumstantial evidence and limited direct evidence.

The prosecution must prove, to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendants had reached an agreement to conspire to commit riot or unlawful assembly at the time of their arrest.

The court found that the circumstantial and supporting evidence relied on by the prosecution had significant flaws; the CCTV footage, testimonial and physical evidence and social media messages were all insufficient to exclude reasonable doubt and could not prove a common conspiratorial intention among the defendants.

The defendants’ equipment and the purpose of the unit both had reasonable explanations; the evidence failed to show that the defendants were aware of or agreed to use petrol bombs, nor could it demonstrate any conspiratorial intention among them.

The court found that none of the charges or alternative charges were established, and the defendants were all acquitted and 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

No Reasons for sentence.

Case Details

File No. anti-elab-468
Case No. DCCC908/2019
Judge Shum Kei-leong Timon
Court District Court
Plea Plead not guilty
Verdict Not convicted
Charge Riot
Incident Date 2019-10-01
Incident Location Wan Chai
Reasons for Verdict View
Reasons for Verdict (AI Summary) According to the written judgment, the six defendants had rented a unit on the 9th floor of a building in Wan Chai from 28 September to 1 October 2019. In the early hours of 1 October, the police entered the premises using breaching tools, arresting five defendants who were resting inside. A large quantity of materials related to the protest was found in the room and in their backpacks, including gas masks, goggles, walkie-talkies, white spirit, banners, empty bottles and various protective gear. The prosecution accordingly brought alternative charges of conspiracy to commit riot and conspiracy to participate in an unlawful assembly, alleging that the defendants had agreed to throw petrol bombs and disrupt order during the protest. The defendants all denied the charges and remained silent. The defence argued that the unit was merely a supply and rest station for protesters, used for refuge and resupply, and questioned whether the prosecution's evidence could demonstrate the substance and formation of an actual conspiracy agreement, as the trial relied solely on circumstantial evidence and limited direct evidence.</p><p>The prosecution must prove, to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendants had reached an agreement to conspire to commit riot or unlawful assembly at the time of their arrest.</p><p>The court found that the circumstantial and supporting evidence relied on by the prosecution had significant flaws; the CCTV footage, testimonial and physical evidence and social media messages were all insufficient to exclude reasonable doubt and could not prove a common conspiratorial intention among the defendants.</p><p>The defendants' equipment and the purpose of the unit both had reasonable explanations; the evidence failed to show that the defendants were aware of or agreed to use petrol bombs, nor could it demonstrate any conspiratorial intention among them.</p><p>The court found that none of the charges or alternative charges were established, and the defendants were all acquitted and released. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
Reasons for Sentence (AI Summary) No Reasons for sentence.

裁判官/法官:

Shum Kei-leong Timon

法院:

District Court

認罪:

Plead not guilty

罪成:

Not convicted

判刑:

沒有

相近案件