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 between approximately 16:15 and 16:55 on the afternoon of 1 October 2019, Defendants One to Twelve confronted the police around Lung Cheung Road in Wong Tai Sin and Sha Tin Pass Road, where a large number of protesters wearing black clothes and masks erected roadblocks and threw miscellaneous objects and petrol bombs at the police. The prosecution alleges that the defendants jointly participated in a riot and charges Defendant Three with carrying a wooden-handled hammer and Defendant Nine with carrying a laser pen. All defendants denied the charges. During the trial, police officers and expert witnesses were summoned, video footage was examined and facts admitted. The defence only called a witness for Defendant Eleven; the other defendants chose not to give evidence.
In accordance with Section 19 (offence of riot) and Section 33 (offence of possession of offensive weapons) of the Public Order Ordinance, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt for each defendant that they had the intention and took actions to participate; and must follow the Court of Final Appeal’s interpretation in the Lü Jianmin case regarding the requirements of high mobility, participation, and encouragement.
The court inferred from the time and place of arrest and the equipment carried (masks, goggles, gloves, helmets, protective sleeves, etc.) that Defendants One to Eleven knowingly participated in the riot at the scene and, despite multiple warnings, refused to leave, and there was no evidence from the defence to refute this; however, Defendant Twelve did not have the critical equipment and was not involved; although Defendant Three and Defendant Nine were found in possession of a hammer and a laser pen respectively, the evidence was insufficient to show an intention to cause injury.
The judge held that mere presence at the scene is insufficient to constitute participation in a riot, but the fact that Defendants One to Eleven remained on site, were fully equipped, and moved together with the protesters was sufficient to infer their participation in the riot by encouraging it; Defendant Twelve’s lack of equipment raised reasonable doubt as to involvement; and the charges of possession of weapons against Defendants Three and Nine were not established.
Defendants One to Eleven were convicted of the riot offence; Defendant Twelve was acquitted of the riot offence; and the charges of possession of offensive weapons against Defendants Three and Nine were not established. (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, between approximately 4:15 pm and 4:55 pm on 1 October 2019, together with over a hundred demonstrators, committed a riot on Lung Cheung Road in Wong Tai Sin, Kowloon, and a section of Sha Tin Pass Road. They erected roadblocks and threw bricks and petrol bombs. After multiple warnings, the police fired tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse the crowd, with the support of the Rapid Response Team to clear the area, ultimately apprehending each defendant near the obstructions. They were charged with rioting and found guilty.
The maximum penalty for rioting is ten years’ imprisonment; earlier cases indicate that denial of the charge typically results in a sentence of around five years; this case also took into account the twelve sentencing considerations listed by the Court of Appeal, including the degree of planning, the number of participants, use of weapons, duration, resulting injuries or damage, public disruption, participants’ roles, and whether other offences were committed, among others.
Considering that at the time of the offence the defendants were students aged between sixteen and eighteen, first-time offenders, who had only participated in an encouraging capacity without leading or using weapons. During approximately forty minutes of rioting, none caused bodily harm or significant property damage. They all expressed remorse and received positive evaluations from the probation officers and the reform institution report. It was deemed that detention at the reform institution would best balance the needs for punishment and rehabilitation.
The court considered that the defendants’ age, background, and roles in the offence were similar, and imposing the same sentence would reflect fairness; detention at the reform institution would not only serve as a deterrent but also provide education and vocational training, aiding their reintegration into society and aligning with legal and societal interests.
This court orders the three defendants to serve their sentences at the reform institution. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書