anti-elab-469 DCCC908/2019 Riot

文件編號:

anti-elab-469

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

The judgment notes that at around 1am on 1 October 2019, police, using breaching tools, raided a unit on Hennessy Road, Wan Chai. They arrested five defendants who were asleep in the unit (the sixth defendant was absent) and seized backpacks, along with gas masks, walkie-talkies, banners, empty bottles, white spirit and other substantial materials for demonstrations and petrol bombs that had been piled up around the unit. The prosecution alleged that between 28 September and 1 October the defendants conspired with unidentified persons to participate in riots or unlawful assembly, and agreed that during the protests petrol bombs would be manufactured and thrown. All six denied the charges, and the defence argued insufficient evidence and hindsight bias; the court could only examine the prosecution’s circumstantial and indirect evidence.

In sentencing, the court must establish the elements of conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt, including an agreement, each defendant’s participation and intent to give effect to that agreement, and must not rely on hindsight or inferences about the circumstances of the protests after the arrests; evidence from CCTV, social media and item sources must be scrutinised for reliability and relevance.

The prosecution inferred a conspiracy solely from circumstantial and indirect evidence; the CCTV footage was unclear, social media messages lacked expert evidential value, the purchase receipts and raw materials had legitimate uses and multiple reasonable explanations existed, the possibility that others had used the unit and materials could not be excluded, and it was not proven that the defendants ever entered into a concrete agreement to manufacture or throw petrol bombs.

The judge considered that the prosecution’s case contained major doubts and was insufficient to prove that the defendants had actually formed a concrete plan to participate in a riot or unlawful assembly, and that each had a plausible lawful explanation, so they should not be convicted based on speculation or bias.

All defendants were found not guilty 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-469
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) The judgment notes that at around 1am on 1 October 2019, police, using breaching tools, raided a unit on Hennessy Road, Wan Chai. They arrested five defendants who were asleep in the unit (the sixth defendant was absent) and seized backpacks, along with gas masks, walkie-talkies, banners, empty bottles, white spirit and other substantial materials for demonstrations and petrol bombs that had been piled up around the unit. The prosecution alleged that between 28 September and 1 October the defendants conspired with unidentified persons to participate in riots or unlawful assembly, and agreed that during the protests petrol bombs would be manufactured and thrown. All six denied the charges, and the defence argued insufficient evidence and hindsight bias; the court could only examine the prosecution's circumstantial and indirect evidence.</p><p>In sentencing, the court must establish the elements of conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt, including an agreement, each defendant's participation and intent to give effect to that agreement, and must not rely on hindsight or inferences about the circumstances of the protests after the arrests; evidence from CCTV, social media and item sources must be scrutinised for reliability and relevance.</p><p>The prosecution inferred a conspiracy solely from circumstantial and indirect evidence; the CCTV footage was unclear, social media messages lacked expert evidential value, the purchase receipts and raw materials had legitimate uses and multiple reasonable explanations existed, the possibility that others had used the unit and materials could not be excluded, and it was not proven that the defendants ever entered into a concrete agreement to manufacture or throw petrol bombs.</p><p>The judge considered that the prosecution's case contained major doubts and was insufficient to prove that the defendants had actually formed a concrete plan to participate in a riot or unlawful assembly, and that each had a plausible lawful explanation, so they should not be convicted based on speculation or bias.</p><p>All defendants were found not guilty 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