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 29 September 2019 the two defendants participated without police authorisation in a demonstration outside the Government Headquarters on Harcourt Road in Admiralty, which escalated into a riot. Protesters in the core area hurled petrol bombs and other projectiles and set up barricades. The police issued repeated warnings and deployed water cannon and tear gas to disperse the crowd. At around 16:48 they charged out through a concealed exit and were subdued and arrested. The prosecution submitted footage from CCTV, online live streams and body-worn cameras, and after forensic examiners and investigation officers compared clothing and equipment it was established that Defendant One, having received gloves at a nearby bus stop, threw items towards the Government Headquarters building, while Defendant Two threw items in the same direction from the pavement by a flower bed; Defendant One’s defence claimed he had only strayed in while searching for a missing friend, and Defendant Two declined to testify. After trial, the court accepted the prosecution’s evidence and the reliability of the witnesses and ruled that both defendants had actively facilitated conduct that destroyed public order within the core area of the riot, finding them guilty.
Sentencing must follow the statutory framework for the offence of riot under section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance and the guidelines on participation offences, taking into account the defendants’ roles, the nature of their conduct, their intent and the extent of disruption to public order.
Both defendants used objects to hurl at the Government Headquarters building within the core area of the riot, were equipped with goggles, gas masks and backpacks to conceal their identities, and showed no reasonable withdrawal or attempt to desist. The defence arguments were illogical and could not plausibly explain the high-definition surveillance footage, leaving the evidence conclusive and without reasonable doubt.
The judge found the testimony of the prosecution’s officers and forensic experts to be honest and reliable, with identification procedures rigorously followed. Mere presence at the scene does not constitute a crime, but the only reasonable inference is that the two defendants actively participated with the intent to facilitate the riot and disrupt public order.
Both defendants were convicted of the offence of rioting. (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 accused took part in an unauthorised march outside the Government Headquarters in Admiralty, subsequently occupied Harcourt Road and, together with other demonstrators, instigated a riot; during this period, some threw petrol bombs, bricks and other hard objects towards the Government Headquarters, and also used laser beams to interfere with police recording. After multiple warnings went unheeded, the police deployed tear gas and water cannon to disperse the crowd and at around 16:48 moved in to restrain and arrest all the accused, who were wearing dark clothing and masks at the time to conceal their identities.
According to Section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance and relevant Court of Appeal decisions, the maximum penalty for riot is ten years’ imprisonment. The starting point for sentencing is 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, and if participants engaged in violent acts such as actual throwing of objects, the term is increased by 3 months; a guilty plea may reduce the sentence by 10% to 25%; for minors or defendants under 21, disposition to a training centre may be considered.
In this case, the riot was large in scale, with numerous participants, lasting over 30 minutes and repeatedly throwing petrol bombs and hard objects at law enforcement officers and government buildings, seriously threatening public order and the safety of officers. To achieve a deterrent effect and maintain social tranquillity, a sentence with sufficient deterrence is required. At the same time, as the defendants have good backgrounds, are first-time offenders or have shown genuine remorse, a moderate reduction for a guilty plea or age is granted.
Riot is a serious offence that must be firmly countered and a strong deterrent message sent out; most of the defendants come from good backgrounds and acted on a momentary impulse, straying into wrongdoing with a low likelihood of reoffending; for younger defendants, punishment is balanced with rehabilitation, applying training centre orders.
Defendant 1 (D1) was sentenced to 4 years and 7 months’ imprisonment; Defendant 2 (D2) and Defendant 3 (D3) were ordered to enter a training centre; Defendant 4 (D4) was sentenced to 4 years and 1 month’s imprisonment; Defendant 5 (D5) was sentenced to 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment; Defendant 7 (D7) was sentenced to 3 years and 5 months’ imprisonment; Defendant 8 (D8) was sentenced to 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書