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 on 12 November 2019, from about 12:00 pm to 3:40 pm, thousands of protesters responded to the online “Lunch With You” call and occupied the areas around Pedder Street, Des Voeux Road Central and Connaught Road Central in Central, without lawful notice of assembly. The protesters lit bonfires, damaged traffic lights and buses, erected roadblocks and umbrella barricades, and confronted riot police with bricks and petrol bombs. At 3:25 pm, the police issued warnings, fired tear gas and pursued the protesters. The three defendants were surrounded by police and arrested at the Landmark’s emergency exit. The third, fifth and ninth defendants denied charges of rioting and offences under the anti-mask law. The prosecution relied on publicly available media footage, CCTV and police witness evidence to present contextual evidence, alleging that the three had worn masks, carried protest equipment, remained in the core area of the riot, incited others to vandalise, and intended to participate in the riot.
The Court, pursuant to section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance for the offence of rioting and regulation 3 of the anti-mask regulations under chapter 241K of the Emergency Regulations Ordinance, must prove that an unlawful assembly disrupted public order and that masks were used during the unlawful assembly. In the trial, the Court considered the degree of participation in the riot, the cumulative weight of the contextual evidence, the credibility of witnesses, the Turnbull identification guidelines, and the prosecution’s burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The defendants repeatedly appeared in the core area of the riot and participated in chanting slogans, picking up and transporting bricks, shielding rioters, moving with the protest group and fleeing to avoid arrest; they were not innocent bystanders. They wore masks to conceal their identities, their explanations were contradictory and lacked reasonable justification, and the cumulative evidence indicated an intention to participate in and support the riot. They should be severely punished in accordance with the law.
The judge concluded that the three defendants were not mere onlookers but deliberately stayed behind to facilitate and support others in disrupting public order. Their dishonest explanations and attempts to evade investigation demonstrated the requisite subjective malice for participating in the riot, and they should be convicted on the statutory elements as defined by law.
The Court found the three defendants guilty of rioting and of using masks during an unlawful assembly. The third defendant was also found guilty of the offence under the anti-mask law. (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 indicates that the defendant, on 12 November 2019, responded to an online call and, together with hundreds of protesters, blocked roads around Pedder Street and Connaught Road Central in Central for approximately three hours. During this period, some protesters damaged traffic lights, bus windows, and restaurant fronts, set up roadblocks, and threw petrol bombs and bricks at the barricades and the police. The defendant participated in the ‘Umbrella Formation’ confronting the police and was captured on video sweeping away and throwing bricks. Afterwards, black clothing, a scarf, a folding umbrella, and aerosol paint cans were found in his backpack. He was immediately arrested and admitted three charges.
For the main charge of rioting, the principle is punitive and deterrent, with reference to the twelve sentencing considerations set out in the ‘Leung Tin-kei’ case; for the offences of unlawful assembly with a mask and possession of items intended to destroy property, the starting points are set in accordance with the statutory maximum sentences.
The rioting amounted to a serious road obstruction in Central’s financial and commercial district, involving damage to public facilities and violent acts such as throwing petrol bombs, but it was not in the most serious category. The defendant was only a minor participant, with no leadership role or causing serious injury; considering his early guilty plea (resulting in a one-third reduction), lack of previous convictions, and genuine remorse, the sentencing starting point for the rioting offence was reduced from four years to 30 months, the masking offence from six weeks to four weeks, and the possession offence from three months to two months.
The judge held that although the defendant was not a ringleader and the level of violence was relatively low, he nonetheless joined the illegal riot and endorsed the conduct of other protesters, thereby undermining public order; however, after discretionary consideration of his personal background and remorse, a mid-range sentencing standard was applied and concurrent sentences were permitted.
The defendant’s sentences for the three charges are to be served concurrently, resulting in an immediate custodial term of 30 months. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書