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 stated that on the afternoon of 29 September 2019, the defendant and another defendant, together with others, marched from Causeway Bay to the Government Headquarters area outside the Hong Kong Government Secretariat in Admiralty. They momentarily blocked the eastbound and westbound carriageways of Harcourt Road and the flyover, placed debris and set fires, threw petrol bombs and traffic cones, damaged MTR station facilities, shattered the glass curtain wall of the Government Headquarters, and confronted the police multiple times. The police issued warnings and deployed tear gas and water cannon to disperse the crowd. Ultimately, within the riot area, the defendant and the other defendant were intercepted and arrested, and both were convicted of participating in a riot.
Referring to Section 18 (Unlawful Assembly) and Section 19 (Riot) of the Public Order Ordinance, which are participatory offences, the prosecution must prove the defendant’s intention and actions to participate in or facilitate the riot.
The defendant and the other defendant wore black clothing, masks, and gloves, deliberately infiltrated the riot scene, held umbrellas to shield themselves and, together with others, threw petrol bombs and blocked roads, seriously undermining public order, with no reasonable excuse to stay or leave, demonstrating an active role and encouraging others to commit offences.
The defendant’s testimony is not credible or reasonable; the other defendant, although absent from court, has not submitted evidence to contradict it; both knowingly attended the riot, demonstrating their intention to participate in or facilitate it, and should be severely punished.
The defendant and the other defendant were each convicted of participating in a riot. (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 approximately 500 people marched to the exterior of the Government Headquarters in Admiralty, obstructed roads and erected barriers, threw petrol bombs, bricks and burning water-filled barriers at the Government Headquarters and the police, and fired laser beams. The police issued multiple warnings and deployed tear gas and water cannon to no avail; they ultimately charged in to disperse the crowd and arrested twelve defendants, most of whom pleaded guilty in stages.
The maximum penalty for the offence of riot in this case is ten years’ imprisonment. The bench adopts 5 years and 4 months as the starting point for sentencing, with reference to precedents such as Yang Jialun, Tang Ho Yin and Leung Tin-kei, and taking into account factors including premeditation, the number of participants, the use of weapons, the level of violence, the nature of the location and the duration of the incident.
The riot involved approximately 500 individuals who attacked core government facilities with petrol bombs, bricks, arson and lasers, and continued for over twenty-six minutes. It constituted a serious threat to public order and the rule of law, necessitating punitive and deterrent sentencing. Although the defendants had no prior convictions, they were granted only the discount for pleading guilty at the sentencing stage, with no further reduction for background or character.
The court holds that immediate custodial sentences are necessary to uphold social tranquillity and the core values of the rule of law and to serve as a deterrent for riotous conduct. While the defendants’ levels of involvement differed, none were at the lowest level; each carried protective and offensive equipment and acted as facilitators, and thus must be sentenced in line with the established guidelines.
In the end, the court set 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment as the sentencing benchmark, sentencing the first defendant to 5 years and 3 months’ imprisonment; the second, fifth, sixth and ninth defendants each to 4 years; the third, fourth, seventh and tenth defendants each to 50 months; the eighth defendant to 51 months; the eleventh defendant to 4 years; and the twelfth defendant to 62 months and 2 weeks’ imprisonment. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書