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 11 to 18 November 2019, the Government Information Services and the police repeatedly called on those inside the PolyU campus to leave via newspapers and social media, and from the evening of 17 November established cordons, stopping, searching and then arresting individuals on site. On that day the defendant carried various items including saline solution, gas masks, goggles, first-aid vests and torches, claiming to provide voluntary first aid in fulfilment of professional nursing duties; during this time they assisted in rinsing injured persons’ eyes and moving the lightly injured. Ultimately, they were arrested at dawn the following morning inside the Science Building, along with 17 others. The defence emphasised that the defendant was not aware of the full scale of the campus riot beforehand and entered only on the grounds of studying a nursing course and having a mother in hospital. The prosecution cited CCTV footage, police testimony and expert reports indicating the defendant’s actual participation in and support for the riot.
In accordance with the sentencing guidelines for the offence of riot under the Public Order Ordinance, taking into account the extent of the defendant’s participation in the riot, the items carried and the seriousness of the public disorder; also considering the legal provisions on possession of a communication device without a licence.
Although the equipment carried by the defendant was claimed to be for first-aid purposes, in reality it bolstered the rioters’ morale and operational effectiveness, facilitating the continuation of the riot; the claimed motivations were self-contradictory and insufficient to rule out an intention to participate in and support the riot, and thus a conviction is warranted under the law.
The defendant was not a mere bystander; their actions clearly demonstrated support for and participation in the riot; the argument of providing voluntary first aid failed to reasonably explain their entry into the campus, the items they carried and their conduct, and is therefore not accepted.
The court found the defendant guilty of the first and third counts of riot and confirmed that they had pleaded guilty to the tenth count of unlawful possession of a communication device without a licence. (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 points out that the defendant, between 17 and 18 November 2019, impersonated a ‘voluntary first aider’ to enter the Hong Kong Polytechnic University campus, carrying saline solution, gas masks and other first aid supplies and an unlicensed two-way radio, claiming to administer first aid to the injured, but in fact provided support to the occupiers at the riot scene. In the early hours of the following day, the defendant left the campus with a group of people and was arrested near the Science Building. He first pleaded guilty to the offence of unlicensed possession of a radio communication device, and after trial, was also convicted of two other riot offences.
The starting point sentence for the first riot offence (involving only 18 November) is two years’ imprisonment, and for the third riot offence (the Polytechnic University riot from 17 to 18 November) is four years’ imprisonment; for the offence of unlicensed possession of a radio communication device, a fine of HK$2,500.
Having considered the defendant’s lack of prior convictions, non-leadership role, absence of violence, willingness to plead guilty, clear remorse, and strong support from family, teachers and friends, a total reduction of nine months was granted; the sentences for the first and third riot offences were to run concurrently, and the fine for the unlicensed communication device offence was upheld.
The judge held that the defendant was misled by the prevailing social atmosphere, mistakenly believing that first aiders could be exempt from liability, and entered the riot scene on the basis of false assurances from others, and must be held accountable for his actions; however, given his good character, deep remorse, and genuine potential for reform, a lenient sentence was applied.
The judge sentenced the defendant to 21 months’ imprisonment for the first riot offence and 45 months’ imprisonment for the third riot offence, to be served concurrently; on this basis, a further discretionary reduction of three months was applied, making a total of 42 months’ imprisonment. Additionally, for the offence of unlicensed possession of a radio communication device, a fine of HK$2,500 was imposed. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書