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 pointed out that, in the early hours of 13 to 14 August 2019, the defendants surrounded and unlawfully confined a mainland traveller in Section G of the departure concourse at Hong Kong International Airport in the form of an unauthorised assembly, bound them with cable ties, sealed their mouth and mask with duct tape, shone laser light on them, beat and verbally abused them, which later escalated into a riot. The court, considering CCTV footage, online video clips and environmental evidence, identified Defendants 1-3 and convicted them of riot and assault; Defendant 4 was acquitted due to doubts over identification.
According to Articles 18 and 19 of the Public Order Ordinance and relevant case law, the standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is applied to examine identification evidence and to define the elements of unlawful assembly, riot and unlawful confinement.
Defendants 1-3 jointly committed violence and caused bodily harm, meeting the statutory requirements and thus were convicted; Defendant 4 was acquitted due to doubts over identification and insufficient evidence.
The visual and environmental evidence is ample, but identification must be approached cautiously; Defendant 4 remains in doubt and is therefore acquitted; Defendants 1-3 demonstrated a common purpose and a disorderly nature, making conviction appropriate.
Defendant 4 was acquitted of unlawful assembly and unlawful confinement; Defendant 2 was convicted of unlawful confinement, riot and assault causing bodily harm; Defendants 1 and 3 were convicted of riot and assault causing bodily harm; Defendant 1 was also convicted of common assault and obstruction of a public officer; Defendant 3 was also convicted of common assault, obstruction of a public officer and possession of an offensive weapon in a public place. (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, from late night on 13 August 2019 until the early hours of the next day, the defendants, in two separate phases at the airport departure hall, unlawfully assembled and confined a passenger for about fifty minutes. During that period they bound the victim with cable ties, shone a powerful light into their eyes and attacked them with miscellaneous objects, causing multiple bruises, and obstructed rescuers from intervening. The defendants were subsequently convicted of unlawful confinement, riot, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, common assault, obstruction of a public officer, and possession of an offensive weapon in a public place.
The court has set the baseline sentence for riot at five to six years; for unlawful confinement and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, twelve months each; for common assault and obstruction of a public officer, six months each; and for possession of an offensive weapon in a public place, eighteen months.
The court considered aggravating factors including the defendants’ significant impact on public order, use of weapons, prolonged duration and sensitive location; it also accepted mitigating factors such as guilty pleas, personal background and mental or intellectual conditions.
The judge held that maintaining public order and the rule of law requires deterrence, that political background should not affect the verdict, and that personal mitigation factors have limited effect in serious riot cases.
The first defendant was sentenced to immediate imprisonment of five years and three months; the second defendant was sentenced to a total of four years and three months, three years of which were suspended; the third defendant was sentenced to a total of five years and six months, with the six-month term for possession of an offensive weapon suspended. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書