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 notes that Defendant No.1, a 20-year-old student, on the day of the incident travelled by MTR from Kowloon to Causeway Bay and then walked to Admiralty. He and Defendant No.3 (14 years old), both dressed in dark clothing and wearing goggles, gas masks and gloves, carrying backpacks, mobile phones and other items, gathered with other protesters on 29 September 2019 on the pedestrian walkway and at the bus stops outside the Government Headquarters on Harcourt Road in Admiralty without authorisation. They repeatedly threw petrol bombs and hard objects at the Government Headquarters. The police issued multiple warnings and deployed water cannon vehicles and tear gas but were unable to disperse the crowd. At about 16:48 they rushed out from the concealed exit of the Government Headquarters, subdued and arrested the two defendants. The prosecution, through CCTV, online live broadcasts and police footage, and with forensic analysts and detective officers comparing features of the clothing, protective gear, backpacks and shoe soles, confirmed that both defendants had thrown objects within the core area of the riot; the defence questioned the clarity of the images and argued that the defendants had merely passed by by chance, but after careful evaluation the court found the charges proven.
Pursuant to Sections 19(1) and (2) of the Public Order Ordinance, the maximum penalty for riot is seven years’ imprisonment.
The defendants were present in the core area of the riot and actively threw objects, demonstrating participation and a high degree of disruption to public order, warranting punishment and deterrence.
The court considers the prosecution’s evidence to be thorough and beyond reasonable doubt. The two defendants’ attire demonstrated strong premeditation and coordination with the protest group, indicating an intent to further the riot, and therefore a severe sentence is warranted.
Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.3 were found guilty of the offence of riot under Section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance, and sentencing was adjourned to a later date. (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 29 September 2019, the eight defendants participated in a riot during an unauthorised march from Causeway Bay along Hennessy Road to the outside of the Government Headquarters in Admiralty. Protesters occupied Harcourt Road, set up roadblocks, wore black clothing and masks, threw petrol bombs and hard objects, and used large elastic bands as slingshots to hurl debris at the Government Headquarters and the police, intensifying the conflict. After multiple warnings, the police fired water cannon and tear gas to disperse the crowd and arrested eight people on the spot. Five pleaded guilty before trial; three pleaded not guilty at trial but admitted the charges during proceedings. All defendants were convicted of the offence of riot.
With reference to the sentencing benchmarks in the Yang Jialun case (5 years) and the Deng Haoxian case (4 years and 6 months), and considering twelve sentencing factors including the scale of the riot, number of participants, use of weapons, duration, threat to law enforcement officers and public disturbance, the starting point for sentencing was set at 4 years and 6 months, with an additional 3 months added for those who actually used violence.
A large number of individuals were involved in the riot, targeting the Government Headquarters and law enforcement officers, disguising their identities and throwing petrol bombs, which underscores the seriousness. Pleas of guilt before and during trial may attract a 10% to 25% reduction in sentence depending on the timing. Most defendants have no prior convictions and have good backgrounds, which is not a ground for reduction; however, a discretionary reduction of 2 months is applied to reflect remorse.
To uphold the rule of law and maintain social order, riotous conduct that disregards order and endangers law enforcement officers must be met with a highly deterrent penalty; otherwise, it will be difficult to prevent similar incidents from recurring. Personal circumstances and mental health issues are not primary grounds for sentence reduction, but slight adjustments may be made in consideration of remorse and age.
On Count 1, the sentences for the eight defendants are as follows: Defendant 1 was sentenced to 4 years and 7 months’ imprisonment; Defendants 2 and 3 were committed to a training centre; Defendant 4 was sentenced to 4 years and 1 month’s imprisonment; Defendants 5 and 8 were each sentenced to 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment; Defendant 7 was sentenced to 3 years and 5 months’ imprisonment. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書