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 the twelve defendants participated in riotous activities along Lung Cheung Road in Wong Tai Sin on 1 October 2019 between approximately 16:15 and 16:55. The police issued verbal warnings by loudspeakers and flag signals, and used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse the demonstrators. The defendants wore protective gear such as masks, goggles or helmets; among them, Defendant 3 is charged with possession of a hammer, and Defendant 9 is charged with possession of a laser pointer. All defendants pleaded not guilty to all charges. The prosecution submitted police testimony, video footage and agreed facts as evidence, and the case was adjudicated after trial.
With reference to sections 18, 19 and 33 of the Public Order Ordinance and section 65B of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, and taking into account the Court of Final Appeal’s precedents on the offences of unlawful assembly and riot, the prosecution must meet the standard of proof of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ for each defendant.
Considering the duration, location and protective equipment of the defendants at the core area of the riot scene, it was determined that Defendants 1 to 11 were not mere bystanders, but acted in concert with others through their presence, attire and wearing of black clothing, thereby enhancing the momentum of the assembly and encouraging others to disturb public peace; Defendant 12 lacked protective equipment and may have been an innocent passer-by; Defendants 3 and 9, as regards possession of offensive weapons, lacked evidence of intent to use them.
The judge held that riots are highly fluid and participatory in nature, and that the intention to participate can be inferred from one’s location and aiding behaviour; the actions of Defendants 1 to 11 constituted ‘participation’ in the riot and promoted the riot in the form of encouragement; Defendant 12 did not meet the criteria for participation; and the charges against Defendants 3 and 9 for possession of weapons also did not stand.
Defendants 1 to 11 were found guilty of the offence of riot and will await sentencing; Defendant 12 was found not guilty of the offence of riot; Defendants 3 and 9 were found not guilty of the offence of possession of offensive weapons 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 notes that the defendants took part in a riot on the afternoon of 1 October 2019 in the Lung Cheung Road area of Wong Tai Sin, Kowloon. In about 40 minutes, more than a hundred protesters erected roadblocks and hurled bricks and petrol bombs, disregarding multiple verbal and flag warnings from the police, resulting in traffic gridlock and a fire. The police fired tear gas and rubber bullets and deployed the Quick Reaction Unit to assist in dispersal, eventually subduing and arresting the defendants beneath the footbridge.
The maximum sentence for riot is 10 years’ imprisonment. The Magistrates’ Court referred to the Court of Appeal’s decisions in AG v Tse Ka Wah and in the Leung Tin-kei and Tang Ho-yin cases, and applied the twelve sentencing considerations set out at paragraph 79 of the Court of Final Appeal’s decision in HKSAR v Lo Kin-man, including the degree of premeditation, number of participants, use of violence or weapons, presence of casualties, property damage, duration, public nuisance, and the role of the defendant.
At the time of the offence, the defendants were only 16 to 18 years old, all students, and first-time offenders; their roles were limited to following the crowd and encouraging others, without leadership or armed violence; the riot lasted approximately 40 minutes, without causing injury or significant property damage; post-incident reports indicated their remorse and good background, and the probation officer recommended detention at a training centre.
I am of the view that, having regard to the defendants’ age, background and the circumstances of the offence, detention at a training centre strikes an appropriate balance between education and rehabilitation and the public interest; it is not unduly lenient and is likely to assist their reintegration into society. Accordingly, I accept the relevant reports and the mitigation submitted on their behalf.
I order that the defendants be detained at a training centre to serve their sentences. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書