控罪：
Possession of prohibited weapon
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 the prosecution, under section 18 of the Public Order Ordinance and section 3 of the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation, alleged that the two defendants on the evening of 10 November 2019 at the junction of Nathan Road and Shantung Street participated in an unlawful assembly and used facial covering items. During that period, the police deployed three lines of force to disperse approximately four hundred people blocking the road. Defendant 1 was alleged to have worn a mask and protective gloves and waved a red light baton before running towards the police line and being subdued; Defendant 2 was alleged to have kicked a brick on the road, then wearing a white mask infiltrated a group of reporters on the pavement and was arrested, with officers removing his goggles and mask to photograph as evidence. At trial, the parties engaged in intense dispute over discrepancies between officers’ on-site observation positions, video footage and written statements, the reasonable exculpatory explanation for the flight behaviour, and the basis for identification evidence (including the requirements under R v Turnbull). The court, after reviewing the video and statements, concluded that the prosecution had failed to exclude innocent explanations and had not proven that the defendants committed any specified disorderly conduct or face-covering offences, and therefore acquitted them.
The offence of unlawful assembly carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment; the offence of prohibiting face coverings carries a maximum penalty of one year’s imprisonment and a level 4 fine.
The prosecution failed to prove that the defendants carried out specified acts such as obstructing the road or using facial covering items, with the evidence containing significant contradictions and omissions, thus failing to establish the criminal facts.
The judge held that the police witnesses’ testimonies were inconsistent and lacked credibility in terms of observation conditions, video recordings and written records; that the defendants’ exculpatory explanations had to be excluded before any flight evidence could be relied upon; and that overall the evidence was insufficient.
Both defendants were found not guilty on all charges, and the court acquitted and released them. (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 a group of about 100 people unlawfully assembled at Nathan Road and Shantung Street in a violent civil disorder, blocking roads, erecting barricades and using laser pointers against police; during dispersal operations three Defendants were arrested, of whom the first and fourth Defendants carried weapons and items intended to damage property.
In serious unlawful assembly cases involving violence, the main purposes of sentencing are punishment and deterrence, with immediate custodial sentences generally imposed unless exceptional circumstances; personal mitigation is given little weight.
The offences were part of large-scale violent disorder during a period of severe social unrest, involving possession of petrol bombs, prohibited weapons and other tools of violence; aggravating factors included weapons in hand and black-bloc tactics, while mitigating factors included clear records, youth, remorse and limited roles.
The judge emphasized that deterrent effect outweighs personal circumstances in serious violent public order offences, but recognized the youth and potential rehabilitation of the second Defendant, permitting an alternative custodial training order.
The court sentenced the first Defendant to a total of 34 months’ imprisonment, the fourth Defendant to 28 months’ imprisonment, and the second Defendant to a rehabilitation centre order.
查看完整判刑理由書