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 points out that this case involves eight defendants. The prosecution states that, from midday on 13 November 2019, a large unauthorised assembly occurred in the Central district, during which protesters paralysed the roads by removing metal railings and erecting roadblocks. The police carried out a clearance operation and made arrests that evening. Some defendants face four charges, including unlawful assembly, criminal damage and possession of articles with intent to destroy property. The eighth defendant sought severance, claiming that a joint trial would be unfair due to irrelevant evidence and that severance would conserve resources; the prosecution and other defendants opposed this. The judge found that all charges arose from the same assembly event and that the evidence had a common factual origin, and dismissed the application.
In accordance with section 7 of the Rules of the Public Prosecutions, where multiple charges arise from the same facts or constitute a series of offences of the same or a similar nature, they may be joined in a single indictment and tried together.
Considering that all four charges arose on the same day during the same unlawful assembly and that the evidence has a common factual origin; a joint trial would conserve judicial resources and avoid inconsistent verdicts, and the application for severance lacks substantive necessity.
The judge considered that the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence is directly relevant to the issues concerning the eighth defendant’s intent, causing no unfair prejudice; the choice of counsel is not absolute and the right to a fair trial must be protected, therefore severance is not appropriate.
The court ultimately dismissed the eighth defendant’s application for severance, and all defendants will be tried jointly on the same indictment. (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 13 November 2019, from 2pm until the evening, over a thousand people gathered illegally on multiple streets in Central. Protesters overturned flower pots, built barricades, blocked MTR entrances and exits, and sprayed walls. Police cleared the area in phases and arrested 68 people. Among the eight defendants in this case, Defendants 2, 5, 6 and 7 were charged with unlawful assembly; Defendants 6 and 7 were also charged with criminal damage; Defendants 3 and 8 were charged respectively with possession of spray paint and a wrench with intent to destroy property. After the trial, Defendant 4 pleaded guilty and was granted acceptance of prima facie evidence; the charges against Defendants 3 and 6 were dismissed due to reasonable use or non-participation in destruction; and the remaining defendants were convicted.
In accordance with section 18 of the Public Order Ordinance on the definition of unlawful assembly and section 19 on riot, as well as the provisions for criminal damage and for possession with intent to destroy property, it must be proven that the defendant had a common purpose or intention and conduct to assist the offence. Factors such as the period during which the defendant was present, any attempt to flee, attire and carried equipment may be considered for conviction and sentencing.
Defendants 2, 5, 7 and 8 acted in concert with others to overturn flower pots, erect barricades, block MTR entrances and exits, and carry destructive tools; the evidence is conclusive and the actions seriously disrupted public order, warranting appropriate punishment as a deterrent. Defendants 3 and 6, although in possession of equipment, had a legitimate use or did not participate in the destruction, and therefore did not commit an offence.
The court held that unlawful assembly and riot are participatory offences; participants are guilty even if they do not actively engage in destruction. It is necessary to infer criminal intent by considering the totality of facts, video evidence, equipment and behavioural characteristics, thereby upholding the rule of law and public safety.
Defendants 2, 5, 7 and 8 were convicted of unlawful assembly, criminal damage and possession with intent to destroy property; the charges against Defendants 3 and 6 were dismissed; the court will pronounce the specific sentences at the next hearing. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書