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 defendant marched from Causeway Bay to the area of Harcourt Road outside the Government Headquarters in Admiralty, occupied pedestrian and vehicular lanes without authorisation, threw petrol bombs and hard objects, and used laser beams to interfere with filming, repeatedly obstructing traffic and undermining public order. The police attempted to disperse the crowd with water cannon and tear gas without success, and ultimately rushed out from a concealed exit of the Government Headquarters, subduing and arresting the defendant in the central area of a bus stop. Based on CCTV footage and identifications by officers and experts, the court determined that the defendant had thrown objects at the Government Headquarters building within the core zone and convicted him of riot.
According to Section 19(1) and (2) of the Public Order Ordinance, the maximum penalty for riot is ten years’ imprisonment; the sentence depends on the defendant’s role at the scene of the riot, the intensity of his actions, and the impact on public order.
The defendant actively threw objects at a key location and collaborated with others to further the riot; his covert gear demonstrated premeditation and organised action, warranting severe punishment to achieve deterrence.
The judge held that the defendant was not an innocent bystander at the scene; his conduct went beyond mere observation, constituting joint intent and active participation in the riot, for which he must bear criminal responsibility.
The defendant was convicted of riot; sentencing is pending. (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 marched without authorisation to the area of Harcourt Road outside the Government Headquarters in Admiralty, gathered with other protesters and the assembly escalated into a riot. During the riot, they threw petrol bombs and hard objects towards the Government Headquarters and used laser beams to interfere with police law enforcement. The police issued multiple warnings and deployed water cannon, tear gas and police charges to disperse them. Ultimately, at around 16:48, the defendants present were subdued and arrested. Some defendants pleaded guilty before or during the trial, and the remaining two were also convicted of rioting following trial.
The offence of rioting is a serious crime, carrying a maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment. With reference to Court of Appeal precedents, the baseline sentence for rioting is around five years’ imprisonment. Considering the scale of group violence, the degree of weapons use and other offences, the starting point is set at four years and six months, with an additional three months for the actual use of violence; a guilty plea may result in a reduction of 10% to 25% depending on the stage at which it is entered.
In this case, the riot involved over one hundred people and lasted more than thirty minutes. The protesters wore masks to conceal their identities, repeatedly threw petrol bombs and hard objects, and erected roadblocks that paralysed traffic, posing a significant threat to public order and law enforcement personnel and requiring a severe sentence for deterrence. The defendants have no prior convictions, have largely expressed remorse, are young or have special circumstances, and therefore a discretionary reduction was applied.
The judge held that Hong Kong is a society governed by the rule of law and will not tolerate unprovoked and serious acts of violence, especially those targeting law enforcement officers. Sentences must have a deterrent effect; at the same time, factors such as the timing of the guilty plea, the defendants’ age, background and remorse were considered, but personal circumstances are not the main grounds for mitigation and are only eligible as discretionary considerations.
Defendant One was sentenced to four years and seven months’ imprisonment; Defendants Two and Three were each sent to a training centre; Defendant Four was sentenced to four years and one month’s imprisonment; Defendants Five and Eight were each sentenced to three years and four months’ imprisonment; Defendants Six and Seven were each sentenced to three years and five months’ imprisonment. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書