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, between approximately 4:15 pm and 4:55 pm on 1 October 2019, during the protest around Lung Cheung Road in Wong Tai Sin, escalated into a riot. Dressed in black clothing with masks and protective gear, they, together with more than a thousand protesters, blocked roads, erected barricades, and threw bricks and petrol bombs. The police repeatedly warned them via loudspeakers and deployed tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse the crowd. The Special Tactical Unit subdued and arrested the defendants at the riot site. The prosecution also alleged that Defendant Three was in possession of a hammer and Defendant Nine of a laser pointer. All twelve defendants pleaded not guilty, and a verdict was reached after trial.
According to the Public Order Ordinance, the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, and rulings of the Court of Final Appeal, the prosecution bears the burden of proof and must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants participated in a riot or possessed offensive weapons. The court must consider each defendant’s conduct, the items in their possession, and the relevant time and location, and adhere to the presumption of innocence and the principle that any doubt benefits the defendant.
Defendants One to Ten wore black clothing, masks, and protective gear, knowingly ignored repeated police warnings at the scene, and advanced and retreated in unison with large numbers of protesters, effectively encouraging and facilitating the riot. Although Defendant Eleven claimed to be a first aider, he in fact used medical equipment to support the protesters, bolstering their confidence to continue confronting the police. Defendant Twelve lacked any protective or offensive equipment, and the evidence was insufficient to infer participation in the riot. The hammer held by Defendant Three and the laser pointer held by Defendant Nine could not establish an intention to harm, and therefore the offence of possession of an offensive weapon is not made out.
It was determined that the area around Lung Cheung Road in Wong Tai Sin was indeed the site of a riot between 4:15 pm and 4:55 pm on 1 October 2019. Defendants One to Eleven were found to have promoted the riot through their actions or equipment and were convicted according to the statutory requirements. Although Defendant Twelve was present, there was insufficient evidence of participation. The charges against Defendant Three and Defendant Nine for possession of weapons were not upheld. Overall, the judgment was thorough and complied with the relevant legal principles and evidential requirements.
The court rules as follows: on the first charge of riot, Defendants One to Eleven are convicted and Defendant Twelve is acquitted; on the second charge (possession of a hammer), Defendant Three is acquitted; on the third charge (possession of a laser pointer), Defendant Nine is acquitted. (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 1 October 2019 from about 4:15 pm to 4:55 pm, the defendants participated in a riot on a section of Lung Cheung Road between Wong Tai Sin, Kowloon, and Sha Tin Pass Road, joining over a hundred to a thousand protesters in erecting roadblocks, hurling miscellaneous objects and petrol bombs, and confronting the police. After multiple warnings from the police, tear gas and rubber bullets were deployed to disperse the crowd, and ultimately the Rapid Response Unit arrived and subdued the defendants.
Considering that the maximum penalty for riot is 10 years’ imprisonment, the Court of Appeal, in the cases of Tang Ho Yin and Leung Tin-kei, cited 12 sentencing factors, including the degree of prior planning, the number of participants, the level and duration of violence used, and noted the necessity of a strong deterrent against ringleaders and instigators.
The defendants were only 16 to 18 years old and were students at the time of the incident, had no prior convictions, and participated only in an encouraging capacity without using weapons or causing casualties. Their involvement was brief and they played no leading role. Background reports all recommended detention in a training centre to facilitate education and reintegration into society, classifying them as offenders with a lower level of participation.
The judge considered that giving the defendants an opportunity to reform was consistent with legal principles and the public interest. Detention in a training centre would balance punishment with rehabilitation without being unduly lenient, and would treat all defendants equally. Therefore, the suggestions of the probation officers and the reports were adopted.
The court ordered the defendants to serve their sentence in a training centre. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書