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 the afternoon of 22 September 2019, Defendants One to Three gathered with over a hundred protesters outside New Town Plaza in Sha Tin and marched to the Fortune Centre on Yuen Wo Road, where they formed three rows of barricades from retractable metal gates and miscellaneous items and set them alight, completely paralysing traffic and escalating into a riot. The police, having been notified, arrived on scene to disperse and detain the crowd. Based on news footage and police testimony, they identified and subdued the first two defendants, and found a hammer, pliers and a screwdriver in Defendant Two’s backpack. They were accordingly charged with riot, possession of an offensive weapon in a public place and obstructing a police officer.
Pursuant to sections 18 and 19 of the Public Order Ordinance (elements of unlawful assembly and riot), section 33 of the Public Order Ordinance (elements of possession of an offensive weapon in a public place), and section 36 of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance (elements of intentional obstruction of public officers), it must be proven that the defendant participated in the conduct with the requisite mens rea.
The court accepted evidence from multiple police witnesses and admitted the news footage as reliable, finding that the three defendants were at the core of the riot and, by their attire, protective gear and actions, encouraged the riot, demonstrating an intention to participate and to aid and abet; however, the items involved were not inherently offensive weapons and there was no evidence of intent to use them to cause harm, so Defendant Two was acquitted of the offence of possession of an offensive weapon.
The court emphasised that riot and unlawful assembly are participatory offences and that mere presence at the scene is not sufficient for conviction. However, when a defendant’s words and actions are coordinated with others to exert collective pressure and impede police enforcement, this constitutes participation in and encouragement of the riot and attracts criminal liability.
The court convicted Defendants One, Two and Three of the offence of riot; acquitted Defendant Two of possession of an offensive weapon in a public place; and convicted Defendant Two of intentionally obstructing a police officer in the proper execution of duty. (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 22 September 2019, the three defendants gathered with more than a hundred protesters outside New Town Plaza in Sha Tin, wearing masks and black clothing, and carrying roadblocks and flammable materials. They then moved to Yuen Wo Road to block the road, set fires, and confront the police. The first and third defendants were stopped, and the second defendant attempted to help the first defendant escape. All three were arrested and charged with riot and related offences.
The judge referred to multiple precedents indicating that the starting point for sentencing a riot offence is approximately five years’ imprisonment. Given that this case involved organised premeditation accompanied by arson, immediate custodial sentences were necessary; the offence of wilfully obstructing police officers carries a maximum sentence of two years and also frequently results in immediate imprisonment.
Considering that over a hundred people were involved, the degree of premeditation, the preparation of metal barricades and flammable materials, the act of setting fires posing a serious threat to public safety, and the defendants’ frontline positions and confrontation with the police, the offences warranted severe punishment with a deterrent effect; the second defendant’s involvement in obstructing law enforcement was also an aggravating factor.
The judge emphasised that in a society governed by the rule of law, unjustified violence disturbing public order is unacceptable. Political motives or good intentions cannot be accepted as grounds for mitigation; deterrence of society must be the primary consideration.
Ultimately, the three defendants were each sentenced to three and a half years’ imprisonment (42 months) for the riot offence. The second defendant was also sentenced to six months for obstructing police officers, of which three months were to be served concurrently with the main sentence in instalments; after considering reductions, the first, second, and third defendants are to serve terms of 41, 44, and 40 months respectively. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書