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 on the evening of 25 August 2019, from approximately 20:26 to 22:08, there were three successive outbreaks of unlawful assembly on Yen Chow Street in Sham Shui Po. Protesters occupied the carriageway, blocked the roads, shone laser beams at the police station and officers, and shouted abusive insults. The police repeatedly displayed warning flags and used loudspeakers to warn and disperse them, but a large number of protesters refused to disperse. Eventually, they were intercepted and numerous arrests were made at the junction with Cheung Sha Wan Road. Of the first to tenth defendants, the sixth pleaded guilty at an early stage, while the others pleaded not guilty. The court hearing focused primarily on video identification and circumstantial evidence to clarify whether each defendant intended to participate in the unlawful assembly.
Under sections 18(1) and (3) of the Public Order Ordinance, an unlawful assembly requires three or more persons gathered together and engaging in behaviour that disturbs public order or is intimidating, insulting or provocative, with the intention or a real likelihood of causing a breach of the peace; identification evidence must be free of reasonable doubt, and inferences must be the only reasonable and irresistible conclusions.
The court, considering multiple cumulative features from the video (attire, equipment, words and actions, movements) and the police officers’ testimonies, found that defendants 1, 8, 9 and 10 were wearing tactical helmets, gas masks, gloves and face masks and actually participated in the assembly and engaged in provocative conduct; the evidence against defendants 2 to 5 and 7 consisted only of flight and ordinary clothing in the circumstances, which was insufficient to eliminate reasonable doubt.
The video quality was good and could be repeatedly enlarged for comparison; unlawful assembly does not require actual destructive acts, and the concept of intent to participate is preferable to a common purpose; flight alone cannot directly prove guilt; the evidence against each defendant should be assessed separately, with no one-size-fits-all approach.
The court convicted defendants 1, 8, 9 and 10 of unlawful assembly; the charges against defendants 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 were dismissed; the sentences for the convicted defendants will be delivered at a separate hearing. (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 stated that on the evening of 25 August 2019, the defendants participated in an unlawful assembly in three phases on Yen Chow Street in Sham Shui Po, Kowloon. The protesters occupied the carriageway, blocked roads, shone laser lights at the police station, banged miscellaneous objects and shouted insulting or provocative slogans. The police raised warning flags and dispersed them multiple times between 20:26 and 22:08, but the protesters repeatedly returned to the scene. Some of the defendants were arrested at the junction of Cheung Sha Wan Road and Yen Chow Street.
With reference to section 18 of the Public Order Ordinance and multiple Court of Appeal cases, the sentencing range for unlawful assembly involving violence or disorder is 6 to 15 months’ imprisonment, and reductions for guilty pleas and rehabilitation centre orders may be considered.
In this case, the protest lasted approximately 77 minutes, with between several dozen and two hundred participants, no serious violence or significant property damage, and only one civilian sustaining minor injuries; the defendants were merely participants, showed remorse and had no prior convictions; however, to maintain public order and achieve deterrence, imprisonment or a rehabilitation centre order is appropriate.
The court emphasised that sentencing must balance the principles of public protection, punishment, public denunciation, deterrence and rehabilitation, giving consideration to young defendants and accepting the rehabilitative role of the centre and reduction for guilty pleas.
The first defendant was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment on each of two counts of unlawful assembly, to be served concurrently; in light of his age and lack of prior convictions, the sentence was commuted to a rehabilitation centre order. The sixth, eighth to tenth defendants were each sentenced to six months’ imprisonment; the sixth defendant received a reduced sentence of four months due to a guilty plea, while the others are to serve six months’ immediate imprisonment. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書