控罪：
Wearing facial covering
涉事地點 :
PolyU (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University)
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 stated that in the early hours of 18 November 2019, while police were dispersing protesters around Jordan Road and Nathan Road, protesters threw bricks and petrol bombs during the clash, triggering a riot. About ten people ran in via the side-street entrance at 524A Nathan Road; subsequently, the first, second and fourth defendants were arrested respectively in an alleyway or at the end of the street, while the third defendant, wearing a helmet, mask and gloves, remained hidden for over half an hour before being discovered. The prosecution relied on CCTV footage and the testimony of seven police officers to allege that all four participated in the riot and carried protest equipment, and that under caution the third defendant gave his address and said, ‘I went in as soon as I saw the police.’
Under sections 18 and 19 of the Public Order Ordinance, the offences of unlawful assembly and riot require proof beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware of and participated in the event; the maximum penalty for riot is seven years’ imprisonment; the maximum penalty for using a covering during an unlawful assembly is one year’s imprisonment.
The judge considered that sentencing should reflect the defendant’s role in the riot, the purpose of the equipment and whether it encouraged or supported the rioters; the third defendant hid at the scene carrying a helmet, mask and gloves, and did not leave until discovered, indicating voluntary participation and a shared intent to commit the offence, warranting punishment; the other defendants failed to prove involvement in the riot or unlawful assembly at the scene, lacked a basis for conviction, and should be acquitted.
The judge found the prosecution’s witnesses to be honest and reliable, with the CCTV footage and witness testimony consistent overall; although there were flaws in the cautioning procedure by the officers, these did not affect the integrity of the key evidence; upholding the presumption of innocence, convictions were only entered where the evidence was sufficient.
The court ultimately found the third defendant guilty of riot and of using a covering during an unlawful assembly; the first, second and fourth defendants were acquitted on all charges. (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 stated that the defendants demonstrated outside the Polytechnic University and around Jordan Road and Nathan Road from 17 to 18 November 2019. During that period, protesters built an umbrella barricade and threw bricks and petrol bombs at the police, provoking a riot. At around 04:40 that night, protesters gathered near the Yoshinoya restaurant, and the police fired rubber bullets and dispersed them. One of the defendants was arrested on a side street and refused to produce identification; the other defendant was found in an alley wearing a helmet, a mask and gloves, and admitted to having accompanied the protest and attached himself to the rioting crowd.
For the offence of rioting there is no fixed guideline; one must consider the scale of the riot, the harm caused to society, and the defendant’s level of participation and role. Violation of Section 17D of the Public Order Ordinance (failure to produce identification) is punishable by a fine, up to HK$5,000.
The court found that, whether or not the defendants directly threw objects, they were aware of the riot and actively attached themselves to it, thereby supporting the rioting crowd; defendants with previous convictions are not entitled to mitigation; by contrast, failure to produce identification is a minor matter and should be punished with a fine.
The judge opined that the defendants’ actions posed a potential threat to public tranquillity; although they lacked a leading role in the riot, they acted as accomplices and should not be pardoned; in the case of failure to produce identification, the circumstances are minor and a fine suffices as punishment.
Defendant One was fined HK$2,000 for failure to produce identification; Defendant Two was sentenced for riot and for using a facial covering during an unlawful assembly, with imprisonment terms of four years and six months respectively, to be served concurrently, totalling four years’ imprisonment. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書