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 the twelve accused confronted the police on Lung Cheung Road in Wong Tai Sin between approximately 4:15 pm and 4:55 pm on 1 October 2019. Protesters at the scene wore black clothing, masks, goggles and helmets, and used railings and miscellaneous items to build barricades, threw bricks and what appeared to be petrol bombs. After multiple oral warnings via loudspeakers and flag signals, the police fired tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse the crowd. The Rapid Response Unit promptly subdued and arrested the accused. The prosecution, relying on admitted facts, police testimony and multiple video clips, confirmed that the relevant period constituted a riot and alleged that the accused participated in and furthered the riot by virtue of their numbers.
Under the sentencing guidelines for the offence of riot in Section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance and for the offence of possessing an offensive weapon in a public place under Section 33, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Court of Final Appeal’s Lo Kin-man case, which clarified the elements of “participation” and the standard for “encouraging others to disturb the public peace”.
Accused 1 to 11, in the core area of the riot route, were clad in protective and offensive gear, moving together with others, thereby enhancing their capacity for violence and confrontation with the police and effectively facilitating conduct that disrupted public peace; Accused 12 lacked any protective or offensive items, making it difficult to infer participation in the riot; and although Accused 3 and Accused 9 were found in possession of hammers and laser pointers, there was insufficient evidence to prove an intention to use them to injure others.
The accused, at the hub-like central road area of the riot scene where roads converge from all directions, facilitated confrontation by virtue of their numbers, contravened public order and posed a serious threat to social stability; appropriate punishment is required to uphold the rule of law and serve as a warning to others.
The court found Accused 1 to 11 guilty of riot and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment; Accused 12 was acquitted of the riot charge and released; and Accused 3 and Accused 9 were found not guilty of the offence of possessing an offensive weapon in a public place. (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 defendants, on 1 October 2019 between 4:15 pm and 4:55 pm, at the section of road between Tung Tau Estate Road and Lung Cheung Road in Wong Tai Sin, together with approximately one hundred to one thousand protesters, erected roadblocks and obstructed six lanes of traffic, ignored repeated warnings from the police, confronted the police and threw bricks and petrol bombs. The police fired tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse the crowd. Ultimately, the defendants at that location were subdued and convicted of rioting under section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance.
In accordance with paragraphs 78 to 80 of the Court of Appeal’s 2021 judgment on the principles of sentencing for riot offences, twelve factors were considered, including whether the act was premeditated, the number of participants, the weapons used and the degree of violence, the scale and duration of the riot, any damage to property or bodily harm caused, the public disturbance caused, the role and level of participation of the defendant, and whether other offences were committed simultaneously.
At the time of the offence, the defendants were students aged between 16 and 18 with no prior convictions; the riot lasted approximately 40 minutes, causing no loss of life or personal injury, and only limited property damage; none of the individuals engaged in leadership or violent acts, participating only by encouragement; they have shown remorse and have positive intentions regarding further education and employment; their backgrounds and the report from the training centre recommend their placement in a training centre to facilitate education and vocational training during detention.
The judge considered that the three individuals were low-level participants with no instigation or leadership roles, and that detention in a training centre would balance social deterrence with rehabilitation needs, ensuring a fair and consistent sentence.
The court orders that the defendants be detained in a training centre. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書