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 Hong Kong Special Administrative Region prosecuted twelve defendants, charging them with participating in a riot and two counts of possession of offensive weapons in a public place on 1 October 2019 in the area of Lung Cheung Road, Wong Tai Sin. On the day of the incident, protesters dressed in black, wore masks, built roadblocks, and threw bricks and petrol bombs. After issuing verbal and flag warnings, the police fired tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse them, and stopped and arrested the defendants under the footbridge between the north and south concourses of the Lung Cheung Road MTR station. The defendants all pleaded not guilty. The prosecution submitted police testimony, video footage and admissions of facts, whereas the defence mostly had no statements or witnesses. After trial, the court accepted the prosecution’s evidence relating to the location and time of the riot, and found some defendants to have participated in the riot.
Under section 18 (unlawful assembly) and section 19 (riot) of the Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245), the elements require proof beyond reasonable doubt of the defendant’s intent and acts of participation (committing breaches of the peace or facilitating others). The burden of proof lies with the prosecution; evidence may include the time and place of arrest and items found on the defendant’s person.
The judge held that D1–D10 were at the core of the riot scene, dressed in black and equipped with protective gear, with no reasonable explanation, sufficient to support the only reasonable inference that they encouraged and fuelled the riot by augmenting numbers and morale; D11, acting as a first aider, carried a large amount of first-aid supplies and was at the riot stronghold, which also constituted participation; D12, lacking equipment and merely present by chance, had no sufficient evidence of participation; the hammer found on D3 and the laser pointer found on D9 were not readily accessible, making it difficult to infer they were intended for injuring others.
The judge determined that riots are highly fluid, with participants confronting the police through numerical superiority; mere presence is insufficient—there must be conduct that encourages or assists others in disrupting public peace; in this case, many defendants lacked explanations, and the combined environmental and equipment evidence warranted conviction.
Defendants 1 to 11 were convicted of riot; defendant 12 was acquitted of riot; defendants 3 and 9 were acquitted of possession of offensive weapons 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。
Reason for the incident, on the afternoon of 1 October 2019 from about 4:15 pm to 4:55 pm at the junction of Lung Cheung Road and Sha Tin Pass Road in Wong Tai Sin, Kowloon, over a hundred protesters dressed in black and wearing masks erected roadblocks, threw bricks and petrol bombs, confronted the police and caused a traffic standstill. After warnings were ignored, the police fired tear gas and rubber bullets and deployed the Rapid Response Unit to disperse the crowd. Eleven defendants were charged with rioting for inciting and participating in the riot at the scene. Of these, three were convicted after trial; the court ordered background and probation reports and adjourned sentencing.
The judge referred to section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance, under which the maximum penalty for rioting is ten years’ imprisonment, and considered the twelve sentencing factors listed by the Court of Appeal in the cases of Leung Tin-kee and Tang Ho Yin.
In this case, the riot was spontaneous, lasted about forty minutes, involved many people but resulted in no serious injuries and limited property damage; the three defendants were students aged only sixteen to nineteen at the time, had no prior convictions, did not lead the events or use weapons, but merely participated in and incited the riot at the scene; the background and probation reports were both favourable and recommended detention in a correctional institution; all three defendants expressed remorse and promised to reform.
Detention in a correctional institution balances the public interest and the defendants’ need for reform and is not excessively lenient; a probation order would not reflect the seriousness of the case; given the similarity in the three defendants’ ages, backgrounds and levels of responsibility, imposing the same sentence is the most fair and reasonable approach.
The judge ultimately ordered that the three defendants serve their sentences in a correctional institution. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書