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 22 September 2019 the three defendants first gathered outside New Town Plaza in Sha Tin and, together with more than a hundred protesters, dressed in black clothing and wearing masks and goggles, walked to the outside of Lucky Centre on Yuen Wo Road, where they erected three rows of roadblocks and set fires to obstruct the road, resulting in a traffic standstill. After the police arrived, protesters at the scene threw miscellaneous items at them and shouted slogans. While the first defendant was being subdued, the second defendant jumped out from a bush trying to pull away his companion, intending to obstruct police officers in the execution of their duties; at the same time, the police found a hammer, pliers and a screwdriver in the second defendant’s backpack. Upon trial, it was found that the three had participated in the riot either directly or indirectly, and the second defendant had also obstructed law enforcement.
Under section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance, the offence of rioting is punishable by up to ten years’ imprisonment; under section 36 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, the offence of intentionally obstructing a police officer is punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment; the offence of possession of an offensive weapon is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment.
The three defendants acted within the core area of the riot, equipped with protective gear and assisting in erecting roadblocks and setting fires, demonstrating intent to organise and act jointly; the second defendant jumped out and obstructed police officers in the execution of their duties; their conduct seriously undermines social order and requires punishment and deterrence.
The evidence is found to be clear and reliable. The three defendants were uniformly equipped, acted in synchrony and were at the forefront, clearly demonstrating their subjective intention to participate in the riot and obstruct law enforcement; there was no reasonable explanation or legitimate justification unrelated to their arrest.
The three defendants were convicted of rioting and the second defendant was convicted of the offence of intentionally obstructing a police officer in the execution of their duties; the second defendant was acquitted of the offence of possession of an offensive weapon; the case was adjourned for sentencing. (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 the afternoon of 22 September 2019, about 100 protesters gathered outside New Town Plaza in Sha Tin, wearing black tops and trousers and face coverings, and armed themselves with telescopic metal barricades, large rubbish bins, crowd-control barriers and dry leaves, erecting three rows of roadblocks on Yuen Wo Road and setting fire to them, causing traffic paralysis. When the police arrived, the three defendants stood at the forefront confronting the officers; the first defendant struggled in resistance, the second defendant jumped out attempting to pull away the first defendant, and the third defendant assisted in moving minibus stop signs to obstruct the road. All three were immediately arrested and charged with rioting, possession of offensive weapons and wilful obstruction of the execution of duty, among other offences.
The sentencing range for rioting starts at three and a half years’ imprisonment, and for obstructing police officers it is six months’ imprisonment. In sentencing, consideration must be given to whether the act was premeditated, the degree of organisation, level of participation, use of weapons and harm to public order, with the primary purposes of punishment and deterrence.
The defendants were fully aware that the protest was premeditated and organised and came equipped with gear, blocking roads and setting fires, seriously endangering public safety; the second defendant also intentionally obstructed officers during enforcement, aggravating the offence; their good character, family responsibilities and public welfare activities do not constitute legally valid grounds for sentence reduction.
In a society governed by the rule of law, violent disruption of public order cannot be tolerated; deterrent sentences must be imposed on rioters to protect the safety of law enforcement officers and maintain social tranquillity, and personal political motivations or ideologies cannot serve as an excuse for mitigating punishment.
The court sentenced the first defendant to 41 months’ immediate imprisonment, the second defendant to 44 months’ immediate imprisonment (of which three months will be served concurrently with the sentence for the rioting offence), and the third defendant to 40 months’ immediate imprisonment. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書