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 prosecution, in five cases involving charges of riot, assaulting police officers, and possession of offensive weapons in public places, has filed two applications for joinder of trials: the first seeks to consolidate 115/2021, 112/2021 and 114/2021; the second seeks to consolidate 113/2021 and 116/2021. In view of the pandemic and the allocation of judicial resources, the court has decided to deal with these applications in writing. Among the 49 defendants involved, the majority oppose the first consolidation, citing scheduling, resources, legal costs and health risk considerations.
Under the Practice Directions for Criminal Proceedings and section 10 of the Bill of Rights, the established trial schedule benchmarks cannot be altered arbitrarily unless there are adequate reasons and the court’s approval.
The first consolidation was refused due to venue and resource constraints, the concreteness and practicality of the existing schedule, and insufficient justification for change; the second consolidation was granted as the issues in dispute were similar, the new court facilities could be effectively utilised, and the defendants had adequate time to seek alternative representation.
The court is of the view that handling procedural applications in writing both aligns with pandemic control measures and safeguards procedural fairness. It found no sufficient reason to vary the schedule for the first application, but concluded that the second consolidation would facilitate judicial resource allocation without prejudicing the defendants’ rights.
This bench refuses the first consolidation application, grants the second, and provisionally sets the trial period for the consolidated 113/2021 and 116/2021 from 14 August 2023 to 9 October 2023, estimated at 40 days. (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 on 29 September 2019, about one hundred to one thousand people gathered in Admiralty to march and protest without approval, which quickly escalated into a riot. The defendants, dressed in black and wearing helmets and gas masks, erected roadblocks, threw bricks, started fires and provoked officers with laser beams at Admiralty Road, Harcourt Road and Pacific Place, and damaged MTR exits. The police issued repeated warnings via loudspeakers, deployed tear gas and water cannon to disperse the crowd, and ultimately cleared the area in phases and arrested the defendants.
The maximum penalty for the offence of rioting is ten years’ imprisonment. The judge, taking into account the scale of the riot, the degree of violence and its social impact, adopted fifty-one months as the general sentencing benchmark and adjusted the term in individual cases based on their circumstances.
Key factors in sentencing included the protesters’ level of preparedness, the use of weapons and acts of destruction, the serious disruption to public order, and the open provocation of government institutions. Immediate imprisonment was deemed necessary to impose severe punishment and deterrence, demonstrating resolve to maintain social order.
The sentence should not be reduced due to the defendants’ subjective motives or beliefs. However, given that most defendants are young first-time offenders who have shown remorse and pleaded guilty, some reduction of the sentence may be made. It is hoped that they will learn from this experience and reform themselves.
All defendants were sentenced to immediate imprisonment ranging from twenty-eight to fifty months for participating in the offence of rioting, and some defendants were additionally convicted for possession of offensive weapons in public places. The exact term depends on their level of involvement, the degree of violence used, and the timing of their guilty plea. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書