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 28 July 2019 the three defendants successively participated in a public gathering at Chater Garden and the subsequent unauthorised march, demonstrating along Connaught Road Central, Des Voeux Road West and around Western Street. From 5:20 pm, some demonstrators removed and erected barricades and struck metal, and at about 7 pm the police advanced and deployed tear gas, the protest escalating into a riot. The first two defendants were identified along the demonstrators’ retreat route via Kei Ling Lane, Tung Tsz Back Alley and Sai Yuen Lane, carrying distinctive black clothing, helmets, face masks, first aid supplies and radio transceivers, and were charged with riot and unlicensed possession of radio communication equipment; the third defendant was also found in Sai Yuen Lane wearing safety gear. After 18 days of trial with 17 witnesses and CCTV footage, all three denied the charges, the first two defendants exercised their right to remain silent, and the third defended himself in court but could not provide substantive witnesses. The court held that the riot only began when the police advanced and there was no evidence the defendants had acted together during the period of unlawful disturbance, so the charges of riot and unlawful assembly were dismissed; however, the first two defendants were convicted of unlicensed possession of radio equipment.
Pursuant to section 8(1)(b) of the Telecommunications Ordinance, unlicensed possession of radio communication equipment is punishable by a maximum fine of HK$20,000 and two years’ imprisonment.
Defendants 1 and 2 each possessed a fully functional transceiver capable of transmitting and receiving radio waves, in breach of the communications control regime, requiring punishment to uphold the rule of law and curb private communication networks.
The three defendants did not act together or engage in behaviour that disturbed public peace at the scene of the riot, so the charges of riot and unlawful assembly are not made out; however, the first two defendants’ unlicensed possession of communication equipment is supported by a complete chain of evidence and cannot be resisted, and therefore the charge is upheld.
Defendants 1 and 2 were each fined HK$5,000 and given a two-year suspended sentence for the offence of unlicensed possession of radio communication equipment; all charges against defendant 3 were dismissed, and he was acquitted and released. (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 the two defendants were arrested in Sai Yuen Lane on 28 July last year, and the police found in their backpacks two switched-off radio transceivers. In court, the two admitted they did not possess any valid licence. Upon trial, they were acquitted of the riot charge but convicted of the offence of unauthorised possession of radio communications equipment for contravening sections 8(1)(b) and 20 of the Telecommunications Ordinance, and at first instance they made no defence nor explained the purpose of the items.
According to section 20 of the Telecommunications Ordinance, contravention of the offence of unauthorised possession of radio communications equipment is punishable by a level 6 fine (up to HKD 100,000) and five years’ imprisonment; if dealt with summarily, it is punishable by a level 5 fine (up to HKD 50,000) and two years’ imprisonment.
The judge considered that the defendants had neither used nor intended to use the two transceivers at the scene of the riot; the items were switched off and had originally been used for rock-climbing training; neither had a relevant antecedent (the second defendant had no criminal record, and the first had only minor convictions from several years earlier unrelated to this offence); their financial means were only minimally affected by the pandemic and they had government support; their mitigation materials and relevant precedents showed that such cases were generally dealt with by fines.
The judge held that although counts two and three were related to the context of the riot search, having been acquitted of the riot offence, this would not increase the penalty, and considering the defendants’ background, the circumstances and the overarching principles of society, a fine was appropriate.
The court ultimately sentenced each of the two offences of unauthorised possession of radio communications equipment to a fine of HKD 10,000; the defendants must pay the fines within fourteen days, otherwise imprisonment will be substituted. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書