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 pointed out that on the evening of 25 August 2019, the defendants gathered in three phases—at 20:26–20:50, 21:15–21:43 and 21:43–22:08—around the junction of Yan Chow Street and Cheung Sha Wan Road in Sham Shui Po, Kowloon, occupying the carriageway, blocking the road, shining laser light at the police station and officers, and making noisy or insulting provocative remarks. The police repeatedly warned them by loudspeaker and blue and black flags that the assembly was unlawful and used force to disperse them, but the protesters reassembled each time. Defendants Nos. 1, 8, 9 and 10 were charged with unlawful assembly and, after review of video footage, on-site testimonies and identification evidence, were convicted; the remaining defendants were acquitted due to insufficient evidence.
Under section 18 of the Public Order Ordinance and relevant decisions of the Court of Final Appeal, sentencing takes into account factors such as the number of people assembled, the nature of their disorderly conduct, any insulting or provocative speech or behaviour, deliberate refusal to disperse and use of protective equipment, while also considering the defendants’ lack of prior convictions and their individual circumstances.
The first defendant and defendants Nos. 8 through 10, knowing the assembly was unlawful, repeatedly refused to leave the scene and wore or carried tactical helmets, gas masks, gloves and other equipment, thus participating in and inciting others to disturb public order; as for the other defendants, the environmental and identification evidence did not exclude reasonable doubt, making convictions inappropriate.
The judge held that identification and environmental evidence, if capable of giving rise to the only reasonable and irresistible inference, are sufficient to establish participation in an unlawful assembly; those who actually disrupt public order must be punished, while those for whom reasonable doubt exists should be acquitted, thereby upholding legal fairness and the protection of human rights.
The court imposed prison sentences of several months on defendants Nos. 1, 8, 9 and 10 for unlawful assembly; defendants Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 were acquitted for lack of evidence. (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, from about 20:26 to 22:08 on the evening of 25 August 2019, there were three instances of unlawful assembly on a section of Qinzhou Street in Sham Shui Po, between the police station and the junction with Fuk Wa Street and Cheung Sha Wan Road. Protesters occupied and blocked the road, shone laser beams at officers and shouted insulting slogans. After officers raised flags to warn and disperse them, the protesters reassembled, and some of the defendants were stopped and arrested by the police in the third phase.
In accordance with the cases of Chung Ka-ho and Joshua Wong, the Court of Appeal fixed the sentencing range for violent unlawful assembly at 6 to 15 months. As this case involves similar circumstances, a six-month custodial sentence is established as the baseline.
In this case, the protest was unplanned and leaderless, involving between several dozen and two hundred people. The level of violence was minor but resulted in one civilian being injured. The defendants carried protective equipment rather than offensive weapons, and the facts are similar to those in the benchmark cases; the first defendant is suitable for rehabilitation centre education, and the sixth defendant received a one-third reduction for early guilty plea.
The defendants were merely participants without inciting roles; although the unlawful assembly was of a relatively low level, disruption of order cannot be tolerated, and punishment must be balanced with deterrence; the court also took into account the defendants’ youth, remorse and prospects of rehabilitation.
Accordingly, the first defendant received six months’ imprisonment for each of the two charges, to be served concurrently and followed by placement in a rehabilitation centre; the sixth defendant, having pleaded guilty, received a one-third discount, resulting in a final sentence of four months’ imprisonment; defendants eight to ten were each sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書