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 points out that, from the evening of 13 August 2019 until the early hours of the next day, the victim was surrounded and confined by the fourth defendant and associates in the airport departure hall. They bound them with tape and straps, shone bright lights on them, stripped them to humiliate them, and then the first to third defendants pushed them against a wall, assaulted them in a group, and impeded their rescue. The issues between prosecution and defence include identification, the voluntariness and fairness of the second defendant’s confession, and the establishment of the charges.
In this case, pursuant to Articles 18 and 19 of the Public Order Ordinance, the common law offence of unlawful confinement, and the Offences against the Person Ordinance, the prosecution must prove the defendants’ participation in each allegation beyond reasonable doubt and consider the evidence to satisfy the elements of each offence.
The judge found that, based on CCTV and media footage, screenshots, and their own admissions, there was no reasonable doubt that D1 to D3 participated in the riot and the assaults; however, as the victim’s injuries were not severe, the judge reduced the charge of grievous bodily harm to assault occasioning actual bodily harm. D2’s written and video admissions were reviewed for procedural fairness and deemed voluntary and fair. There were reasonable doubts regarding the identification of D4, so the charges of unlawful assembly and unlawful confinement were not established.
The judge praised the prosecution for its comprehensive organisation and use of video evidence, accepted the experts’ focused presentation, expressed regret that the defence overlooked key footage and evidence, and found the witnesses’ testimony to be honest and reliable, sufficient to support the verdict.
The court acquitted the fourth defendant on both charges; convicted the second defendant of unlawful confinement and riot, and reduced the fifth count to assault occasioning actual bodily harm; convicted the first to third defendants of riot, with the fifth count likewise reduced to assault occasioning actual bodily harm; the first defendant also pleaded guilty to common assault and obstruction of a public officer; and the third defendant pleaded guilty to 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 the incident occurred in the early hours of 13 to 14 August 2019 in the departure hall of Hong Kong International Airport. A mainland tourist was surrounded by unknown individuals and illegally detained and beaten, in two stages: first, the second defendant and others illegally detained and threatened the victim using cable ties and other tools; then the first to third defendants, together with around forty to fifty members of the crowd, participated in a riot, using improvised weapons such as flagpoles, anti-slip signage, umbrellas and laser pointers. This lasted about fifty minutes, during which multiple people took turns assaulting the victim and obstructing rescue efforts, ultimately causing bodily injury to the victim, property damage and public panic.
Unlawful detention carries a baseline term of 12 months’ imprisonment; riot, 5 to 6 years’ imprisonment; assault causing bodily harm, 12 months’ imprisonment; common assault, 6 months’ imprisonment; obstruction of a public officer, 6 months’ imprisonment; possession of an offensive weapon, 18 months’ imprisonment. A guilty plea or special circumstances may allow a reduction by one-third or one-quarter.
The riot in this case was sudden and involved more than forty people, with a prolonged duration in a sensitive location. The use of multiple weapons and obstruction of humanitarian rescue efforts aggravated the threat to public order and safety; defendant two suffers from intellectual disability and other impairments causally related to the offence, warranting a one-quarter reduction; the remaining defendants had no prior convictions or were young first-time offenders, and received only limited mitigation.
Violence that undermines public order and the core values of the rule of law is absolutely intolerable. Sentencing must reflect deterrence and the maintenance of social tranquility. Youth or lack of prior convictions should not be grounds for leniency, but special circumstances such as intellectual disability may be given appropriate consideration.
The first defendant was sentenced to 5 years and 3 months’ imprisonment; the second defendant was sentenced to 4 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, of which 3 years are to be served in instalments together with his current term; the third defendant was sentenced to 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, of which 6 months are to be served in instalments. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書