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 at approximately 22:25 on 10 November 2019, police dispersed around 400 protesters at the junction of Nathan Road and Shantung Street to clear roadblocks such as bricks and barricades. Both defendants were wearing masks and other protective equipment; one was seen wielding a light baton, and the other was suspected of using a brick as a weapon. After being identified by officers, they were each subdued on the spot and taken back to the police station. The defendants denied the charges of unlawful assembly and wearing a mask. The points of contention included the on-site video footage, witness testimony, and the identification procedures.
According to Section 18 of the Public Order Ordinance, unlawful assembly is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment; under Regulation 3 of the Prohibition on Face Coverings Regulation, breaching the order is punishable by one year’s imprisonment and a fine.
The prosecution could not prove that the defendants had jointly blocked the road with others or used face coverings to impede identification. The police testimony conflicted with the video footage, and there were significant flaws in the identification procedures and the flight argument.
The judge found the evidence insufficient: the police witnesses contradicted one another and were of questionable credibility, and it could not be ruled out that the defendants had a reasonable motive for protective measures; accordingly, none of the charges were made out.
After considering all the evidence, the court ruled that none of the charges were made out and acquitted both defendants. (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 approximately 100 people assembled unlawfully in the area of Nathan Road and Shantung Street during a period of severe social unrest. Police units were dispatched to disperse the crowd, and three individuals, referred to here as Defendants, were arrested. All three pleaded guilty to unlawful assembly. The first and fourth Defendants admitted additional charges relating to items found in their possession at arrest, including petrol bombs, a prohibited weapon, unauthorised radiocommunications apparatus and tools intended to damage property. The second Defendant, a minor, faced only the unlawful assembly charge.
The court applied established guidelines for unlawful assembly, emphasizing punishment and deterrence in serious violent public disorder. It followed appellate authorities stating that large-scale or violent assemblies warrant immediate custodial sentences, with minimal weight given to personal circumstances unless truly exceptional. Sentencing starting points for possession of petrol bombs in such contexts were identified between three and four and a half years’ imprisonment.
The judge weighed aggravating factors including barricading of roads, use of laser devices against police, possession of explosive devices and other weapons, and the context of “black bloc” tactics during a period of escalated violence. Mitigation included clear prior records, expressions of remorse, family responsibilities, youth of the second Defendant, positive community support and suitability for rehabilitative training for the minor.
The judge held that these offences constituted serious violent disorder requiring strong general and specific deterrence. He ruled that, for adult Defendants, personal mitigation was of limited relevance to sentencing severity. For the minor Defendant, rehabilitation centre placement was preferred over ordinary imprisonment, but an immediate custodial-type order remained mandatory absent truly exceptional factors.
The first Defendant was sentenced to a total of 34 months’ imprisonment, combining concurrent and consecutive terms on charges of unlawful assembly, resisting arrest, possession of a prohibited weapon, possession of items with intent to damage property and possession of unauthorised radiocommunications apparatus. The fourth Defendant received 28 months’ imprisonment, served concurrently on unlawful assembly and possession with intent to damage property. The second Defendant, aged 17, was ordered to serve his sentence in a rehabilitation centre rather than a conventional juvenile facility.
查看完整判刑理由書