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。
According to the judgment, in the early hours of 18 November 2019, the police dispersed protesters on Nathan Road in Jordan. The crowd retreated towards Mong Kok and confronted the police. During the confrontation, bricks and petrol bombs were thrown, and the police fired rubber bullets and gave chase. Approximately ten people ran from the side street at 524 Nathan Road into the alley. Upon entering the alley, the officers found four defendants, one of whom had hidden behind the fire station’s column for over 30 minutes. Defendants One through Four were successively arrested and charged with rioting; Defendant One was additionally charged with failure to produce proof of identity; Defendants Two and Three were also charged with using facial covering articles during an unlawful assembly.
Based on the definitions of unlawful assembly and rioting in Chapter 245 of the Public Order Ordinance, and the sentencing principles regarding whether there was conduct disrupting public peace and obstructing the police in the performance of their duties.
Upon examining the CCTV footage and the officers’ testimonies, it was determined that Defendants One, Two and Four were in the alley rather than at the rioting scene on Nathan Road, and there was insufficient evidence to dispel reasonable doubt; therefore, the riot charges against them failed. Defendant Three was carrying the typical protest gear of a helmet, mask and gloves, and the act of hiding, together with the statement “when I saw the police, I walked in”, proved that he was aware of and participated in the riot, and that he used a facial covering to obstruct identification; both charges were upheld.
It was held that the prosecution’s witnesses were honest and reliable, and that any discrepancies between the footage and the testimony were only of an understandable observational nature; Defendant Three’s voluntary statement given before the caution did not infringe his right to remain silent and should be presented to the jury for consideration of its evidential weight.
Defendant Three was convicted of rioting and of using a facial covering during an unlawful assembly; the remaining three defendants were acquitted. (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 during demonstrations across Hong Kong from 17 to 18 November 2019, the defendants confronted police on Jordan Road and threw bricks and petrol bombs at officers, triggering a riot and then retreating north to the vicinity of the Yoshinoya restaurant at 524A Nathan Road, where they continued throwing devices and forming an umbrella barricade. The defendant was arrested on Heng Street during this period; the first defendant failed to produce identity documents, while the third defendant, wearing a helmet, mask and gloves, attached himself to the rioting crowd. After trial, the third defendant was convicted of rioting and of using a face covering in an unlawful assembly, and the first defendant was convicted of the identity document offence.
Sentencing principles: For the offence of rioting, factors such as the scale of the riot, the harm caused to society, and the defendant’s level of participation and role should be considered holistically; the maximum fine for failing to produce identity documents is HK$5,000; the maximum imprisonment for the face-covering offence is 12 months.
Sentencing rationale: The first defendant was present at the riot but could not explain the absence of identity documents; however, as a student, a first-time offender, and having pleaded guilty, he is eligible for a one-third reduction from a starting fine of HK$3,000. The third defendant knowingly joined the rioting crowd and used a face covering to conceal his identity; his participation was secondary, but he has a previous riot conviction and no mitigating factors. A starting point of four years’ imprisonment was adopted for the offence of rioting and six months for the face-covering offence, to be served concurrently.
Judge’s view: The judge considered that any accessory conduct inherently supports and encourages a riot, thus magnifying its force, and should not be treated lightly; although the first defendant’s involvement was relatively minor, he must still bear legal responsibility; and although the third defendant was neither the mastermind nor a principal actor, he had previously been convicted of similar offences and therefore could not benefit from the usual sentence reductions.
Sentencing result: The first defendant was fined HK$2,000 for failing to produce identity documents; the third defendant was sentenced to a total of four years’ imprisonment for rioting and for using a face covering during an unlawful assembly, to be served concurrently. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書