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 this case involves eight defendants who participated in or assisted an unauthorised illegal assembly in Central on 13 November 2019. Defendants D1 to D7 are charged with unlawful assembly and criminal damage for removing metal barriers by the roadside, creating roadblocks, and spray-painting at an MTR station. Defendant D3 and the eighth defendant additionally face charges of possession of tools with intent to destroy or damage property. The eighth defendant contended that the majority of the evidence against the other defendants was irrelevant to him and would result in an unfair trial, and thus applied for separate trials; the prosecution and the remaining defendants either opposed or remained neutral. After written and oral submissions from both parties, the judge dismissed the application on 28 December 2021, and published the written reasons on 31 December.
In accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules of Prosecution Statements and section 23(3) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, assess whether multiple defendants and multiple charges are based on the same facts or constitute a series of offences of the same or similar nature, and whether separate trials would prejudice the defendants’ right to a fair hearing or cause injustice to the prosecution.
Because all four charges arise from the same incident of illegal assembly, share a common factual origin and are sufficiently interconnected, a joint trial is most appropriate; separate trials would increase the evidential burden, waste public resources, and could result in the risk of inconsistent verdicts.
The judge held that a joint trial does not impede the defendants’ ability to mount a fair defence; that the background of the unlawful assembly and the conduct of protesters presented by the prosecution constitute contextual evidence directly relevant to the fourth charge; that the defendants had legal aid and their costs of attendance did not necessitate separate trials; and that mere scheduling conflicts of counsel did not amount to grounds for separate trials.
The application by the eighth defendant for separate trials was dismissed, and all defendants and charges were ordered to be tried together in a single proceeding. (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 13 November 2019, a large-scale unlawful assembly broke out on multiple streets in Central. At around 19:30, the police arrived to clear the area and arrested more than ten individuals, from the second to the eighth defendants, on charges of unlawful assembly, criminal damage and possession of articles with intent to destroy or damage property. In court, the prosecution and defence engaged in heated disputes over the identification of the defendants, the evidential weight of CCTV and news footage, the cautioning procedure and the voluntariness of the statements, and put forward defences concerning each defendant’s actions, equipment and motives.
Under section 18 (unlawful assembly) and section 19 (riot) of the Public Order Ordinance, the participation requirement necessitates proof that the defendant participated in, assisted or encouraged the assembly to engage in disorderly conduct; criminal damage requires proof of intentional damage to another person’s property; and possession of articles with intent to destroy or damage property requires proof that the defendant had in their possession items capable of destroying or damaging property and intended to use them for that purpose.
The judge found that the CCTV and news footage closely matched the defendants’ attire, items and behaviour at the time of arrest, providing sufficient evidence to exclude reasonable doubt; statements obtained in breach of the cautioning procedure were excluded by law, while statements and other evidence obtained through proper procedures were accepted, adequately proving the criminal facts.
He endorsed the prosecution officers’ testimony and the evidential chain as honest and reliable; he largely rejected the defendants’ explanations concerning the purpose of their equipment, their motive for being present and their actions, finding them unreasonable or riddled with contradictions.
The second, fifth, sixth and seventh defendants were convicted of unlawful assembly; the seventh defendant was additionally convicted of criminal damage; the eighth defendant was convicted of possession of articles with intent to destroy or damage property; the third defendant was acquitted of all charges. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書