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。
Judgment states that on the night of 29 February 2020, between approximately 22:00 and 22:51, the two defendants, together with several individuals clad in black and wearing masks, blocked the traffic lanes at the junction of Nathan Road and Shantung Street in Mong Kok, Kowloon, using metal barriers, roadblocks and rubbish bins. After three armoured seven-seater police vehicles arrived, they threw miscellaneous objects such as bamboo poles and bricks, severely disrupting public order. The prosecution retrieved the “Cape of Good Hope footage” and other CCTV recordings, and by comparing the defendants’ post-arrest police station photographs and their movements, confirmed that their clothing and physique matched those of the individuals in the footage. Although the defence explained their presence on the scene as seeking food, watching a film and due to environmental concerns, and challenged the identity of the assailants, the court found the prosecution’s evidence to be sufficient and ruled that the defence’s account was self-contradictory and failed to overturn the evidence, thus convicting both defendants of rioting.
Rioting is a serious offence. The sentence must consider the defendants’ roles and behaviour at the scene, the presence of any violence or the throwing of objects, alongside witness testimonies, video footage and the defendants’ criminal histories.
In view of the defendants clapping to cheer, directing others with gestures, and throwing bamboo poles, bricks and other objects at the scene—seriously undermining public tranquillity—and given the numerous self-contradictions in their testimonies, a severe sentence is warranted as a deterrent.
The judge held that the witnesses were honest and reliable, and that the video identifications were credible; although the defendants had no prior convictions, their involvement in the riot must be dealt with sternly to uphold public order.
Both defendants were convicted of rioting and are awaiting sentencing. (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 on the night of 29 February 2020, a large crowd gathered unlawfully around Nathan Road and Shantung Street in Kowloon. At 10:38 pm, the police issued a ‘blue flag’ warning and withdrew. Shortly afterwards, individuals dressed in black began to block the road, to which the defendants on site lent their support, observing the police situation and encouraging the obstruction. At about 10:49 pm, a seven-person police vehicle arrived and, after unloading, only the third vehicle remained on the scene. Some persons, including the defendants, surrounded and threw miscellaneous objects at police officers and the police vehicle. To avoid attack, the officers drove away. During this time, the two defendants rushed forward to pick up or hurl objects, causing extensive damage to the police vehicle. After trial, both defendants were convicted of riot.
With reference to the sentencing factors listed by the Court of Appeal in cases such as Leung Tin-kei and Tang Ho-yin, including the duration of the riot, the degree of violence, the impact on society and the role of the defendant; and in accordance with HKSAR v Tang Ho Yin, emphasising that criminal liability for collective riots should be determined according to their form, aggravating circumstances, and that attacks on law enforcement officers must be severely punished.
Although the riot in this case lasted only a few seconds and did not cause actual bodily harm, and only damaged a seven-person police vehicle, its nature was serious as it involved an attack on law enforcement officers. The two defendants were not the ringleaders, there was no prior planning, and their actions were incited by the atmosphere on site. Moreover, they had no previous convictions, had good backgrounds and were young, which may be considered for mitigation.
Although this case is less serious than the Court of Appeal precedent, it remains a grave act of violence that undermined the rule of law and social order. However, the defendants’ roles were secondary and there are mitigating factors, so a discretionary reduction from the three-and-a-half-year starting point was applied.
The defendant was ultimately sentenced to three years and four months’ imprisonment. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書