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 from 17 to 19 November 2019, consecutive days of demonstrations at the Polytechnic University escalated into violent clashes. Online platforms called on citizens to go to Chatham Road South, Carnarvon Road, Kimberley Street and other areas in Tsim Sha Tsui to support protestors besieged on campus. Some individuals improvised, transported and repeatedly threw petrol bombs at police lines, obstructed roads and initiated explosions. The police used tear gas, water cannon vehicles and multiple operations to surround and arrest them. Four defendants were arrested while hiding in a rear lane and stairwells around Hou Fuk Street, and were ultimately charged with riot under section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance.
Under sections 19(1) and 19(2) of the Public Order Ordinance punishing riot, the court must take into account factors such as the defendant’s level of participation in the riot, their location at the scene, the equipment they carried, and their lack of prior convictions.
On the grounds that the defendant remained at the riot scene and by their actions encouraged and assisted others in disrupting public order, carrying equipment suspected to be used for making or throwing petrol bombs, not merely passing by or observing, their conduct severely disturbed the public order and warrants severe punishment.
The court is of the view that riots are highly volatile; the defendants not only were present at the scene but also by their actions bolstered the protestors’ momentum. The accumulated circumstantial evidence is sufficient to eliminate reasonable doubt. The only rational inference is that each defendant harboured intent to participate and did indeed engage in the riot, and their charges are upheld.
The four defendants were convicted of rioting; pleas for mitigation and sentencing were adjourned. (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 in November 2019 a protest at the Polytechnic University escalated into a riot. Calls were made online to “besiege Wei to rescue Zhao” in support. Protesters successively blocked roads, manufactured and threw petrol bombs along Chatham Road South, Kimberley Street, Kimberley Road and Hough Road, using umbrellas and debris as cover, and pushed trolleys loaded with petrol bombs, confronting the police repeatedly. The police fired tear gas, water cannon and rubber bullets to disperse them. During the early morning sweep, a petrol bomb exploded in a back alley and ignited a fireball. Many protesters fled into buildings and alleys. Five defendants were arrested at different locations. After trial or guilty pleas, all were convicted of rioting.
According to Section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance on the offence of “rioting”, the maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment, and in the District Court defendants can be sentenced to up to 7 years; the Court of Appeal in related cases has emphasised that sentences must be punitive and deterrent, and 12 sentencing factors must be considered, such as planning, number of participants, use of weapons, duration, and assaults on public servants, among others.
In this case the protesters came prepared, gathering in large numbers, transporting and manufacturing petrol bombs with the intention of diverting police resources and rescuing protesters inside the campus, and even feinting attacks on the police. The wilful ignition of incendiary devices increased the danger to the public and constituted an aggravating factor. At the same time, the defendants had no prior convictions, some pleaded guilty or submitted letters of mitigation showing remorse and good social backgrounds, and may receive reductions for pleading guilty and cooperating with the trial.
The judge considered that upholding public order and the rule of law are core values of the Hong Kong government, and will not tolerate violence against law enforcement personnel. Therefore, rioters must be given punishments with strong deterrent and punitive effects to warn society and prevent recurrence.
The five defendants were ultimately sentenced to imprisonment: the first defendant for 41 months, the second defendant for 48 months, the third defendant for 37 months, the fourth defendant for 41 months, and the fifth defendant for 48 months. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書