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。
According to the judgment, on 1 October 2019 between approximately 16:15 and 16:55, about a thousand protesters dressed in black formed an umbrella blockade and set up roadblocks along Lung Cheung Road in Wong Tai Sin, hurling bricks and petrol bombs in confrontation with the police. The twelve defendants were dressed in black and wore face masks, gas masks and goggles, and were stopped by officers under the North–South Corridor footbridge at around 16:50 to 16:55; one defendant had a hammer concealed in their backpack, and another carried a laser pointer. Based on video footage, police testimony and admitted facts, the court found that the section of road was indeed the scene of a riot that day; considering the time and location of arrest and the defendants’ equipment, eleven were convicted of rioting, one was acquitted of the rioting charge, and both counts of possessing an offensive weapon relating to the hammer and the laser pointer were not proven.
According to Sections 18 and 19 of the Public Order Ordinance, the offence of rioting is a participatory crime requiring proof that the defendant intended to participate in and facilitate rioting, with guilt established beyond reasonable doubt; for the offence of possessing an offensive weapon, it must be proven that the defendant intended to use the item to harm others.
The judge, having considered the video footage, police testimony, the time and place of arrest and the defendants’ protective gear and other contextual evidence, found that the defendants knowingly remained at the riot wearing protest equipment, thereby effectively encouraging and facilitating others to disrupt public order; accordingly, eleven were convicted, while those with insufficient equipment and no evidence of wrongdoing were acquitted.
Merely being present does not constitute participation, but as the defendants were at a key riot location, carried protest gear and offered no reasonable explanation, it is sufficient to infer that they participated in the riot by encouraging others.
Of the twelve defendants, eleven were convicted of rioting; one was acquitted of the rioting charge; and Defendants Three and Nine were acquitted of both counts of possessing an offensive weapon. (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。
According to the judgment, the eleven defendants on 1 October 2019 between approximately 4:15 pm and 4:55 pm at a section of public road connecting Tung Tau Estate Road and Lung Cheung Road in Wong Tai Sin, Kowloon, erected roadblocks, occupied six lanes of traffic and threw bricks and petrol bombs at the police, thereby causing traffic to be nearly paralysed and causing minor damage to the road surface. The police issued multiple verbal and flag warnings and fired tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse them; ultimately, the Special Duties Unit arrived on scene and subdued the group. The defendants were convicted of the offence of riot under section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance based solely on their presence at the scene and encouragement of the actions.
The maximum penalty for riot is ten years’ imprisonment. In sentencing, the five-year baseline established in AG v Tse Ka Wah for convictions following a denial of the charge is taken into account, together with the twelve discretionary sentencing factors for riot set out in paragraphs 78 to 80 of the Court of Final Appeal’s judgments in the cases of Leung Tin-kei and Tang Ho-hin.
In this case, the riot lasted about forty minutes and involved between one hundred and one thousand participants. Although there was the throwing of miscellaneous objects and petrol bombs, no one was injured and the property damage was minor; the defendants were neither organisers nor leaders, did not commit any other offences, and were only minimally involved; they were young, had no prior convictions, showed significant remorse, and intended to resume their studies; the probation officer’s report recommended that the defendants be detained in a training centre to receive education and comprehensive disciplinary training, which would facilitate their rehabilitation.
Given that the defendants were only sixteen to eighteen years old, with good family and academic backgrounds, were first-time offenders and not ringleaders of the riot, detention in a training centre strikes the right balance between the public interest and the individuals’ welfare; it is neither overly lenient nor at odds with legal principles or social justice, and is therefore an appropriate disposition.
This court orders the defendants to be detained in a training centre. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書