涉事地點 :
PolyU (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University)
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 states that in the early hours of 18 November 2019, the police dispersed protesters in the area of Jordan Road and Nathan Road. The protesters built an umbrella barricade, threw bricks and petrol bombs, and the police fired rubber bullets and advanced to clear the area. About ten people ran from 524A Nathan Road into a side street; four defendants were arrested at the entrance to the side street, in an alleyway, and behind a fire station pillar, respectively. The prosecution alleges that the four participated in a riot and engaged in masking, resisting arrest, and hiding. Each defendant denies the charges. The court reviewed evidence, including on-scene recordings, CCTV footage, and the testimony of seven police officers, to identify the defendants’ actions.
According to sections 18 (unlawful assembly) and 19 (riot) of the Public Order Ordinance, the court applies an objective standard to determine whether the defendants participated in collective acts disturbing public peace; the use of face coverings is assessed under the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation to determine if identification is impeded.
The court considers the credibility of witness testimony, CCTV and on-scene recordings showing the defendants’ actions and equipment, the defendants’ own statements and confessions, and the ongoing process by which an unlawful assembly evolved into a riot, to assess whether each defendant ran from Nathan Road into the side street and supported the riot.
He finds that the prosecution witnesses have no major contradictions and that the recordings are generally consistent with their testimonies; for some defendants, there is a reasonable explanation for being in the alley, which falls outside the scope of the charges; he corrects the failure to caution and question the third defendant in a timely manner, but since his responses were voluntary, they may be considered by the jury.
The court finds the first, second and fourth defendants not guilty; the third defendant is convicted of two charges: participating in a riot near the junction of Nathan Road and Waterloo Road and using a face covering during an unlawful assembly, with sentencing pending. (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 after the Hong Kong Polytechnic University was besieged by the police from 17 to 18 November 2019, protests and unlawful assemblies broke out across Kowloon. At around 4am on 18 November, over a hundred protesters confronted the police on Jordan Road, throwing bricks and petrol bombs, then retreated to form an umbrella barricade near the Yoshinoya at 524A Nathan Road and continued to hurl objects. The police used rubber bullets to disperse them, and some protesters fled into nearby side lanes. Defendant One was arrested for failing to produce identification; Defendant Three, wearing a helmet, mask and gloves and remaining with the rioters, was charged with rioting and with using a face covering during an unlawful assembly.
Count Two carries a maximum fine of HK$5,000; there are no specific guidelines for the offences of rioting and of using a face covering during an unlawful assembly. The court must consider the overall circumstances of the case, chiefly the scale of the riot, the harm caused to society, and the defendant’s level of participation and role, and may refer to the sentencing factors set out by the Court of Appeal in the Leung Tin-kei case.
Defendant One, for failing to produce identification at the riot scene, committed a lesser offence and pleaded guilty, resulting in a starting point fine of HK$3,000 with a one-third reduction. Defendant Three, knowing of the riot yet remaining with the crowd and equipped to participate, played an ancillary role but amplified the riot’s momentum and had prior convictions; he was therefore sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment for rioting and 6 months for the face-covering offence, to be served concurrently.
The court held that any participant in a riot, even if not committing violence themselves, by affiliating with the rioting group still supports and strengthens violent actions and should not be lightly sentenced; at the same time, it found that Defendant Three’s previous convictions should neither unduly aggravate nor be overly mitigated in the sentencing.
Defendant One was fined HK$2,000 for failing to produce identity documents; Defendant Three was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment for rioting and for using a face covering during an unlawful assembly, with the sentences to run concurrently. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書