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 prosecution, due to adjustments to venues and resources by the judiciary under the epidemic, applied to combine five criminal cases involving a total of 49 defendants into two separate trials, and to handle related hearing arrangements in writing. Most of the defendants on the defence side opposed the first consolidation, and some defendants opposed the second consolidation, with disputes focusing on postponements of trial dates, expansion of trial scale, time for legal representation, and epidemic prevention risks. After considering factors of openness, fairness, judicial resources, and the epidemic, the court made decisions on the two applications.
Unless there are sufficient reasons and the court’s approval, the established timetable should not be altered to maintain trial progress targets.
The original split and scheduling arrangements were pragmatically devised based on court venues and resources, and the prosecution failed to prove that the proposed changes sufficiently supported the first consolidation; the second consolidation, however, would make good use of the newly added large courtroom resources and the points of contention are similar, so it would not complicate the case.
Given the ongoing epidemic and limited judicial resources, it is reasonable to handle non-substantive disputed applications in writing; the first consolidation lacked sufficient grounds and is therefore dismissed, while the second consolidation, being consistent with saving judicial resources and trial efficiency, can be approved.
Ultimately, the prosecution’s application to consolidate the first group of cases was dismissed and the consolidation of the second group of cases was approved, and the hearing for the consolidated cases was set from 14 August 2023 to 9 October 2023, with an estimated duration of 40 days. (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 pointed out that on 29 September 2019, about one thousand people, without police approval, launched the “Global Anti-Authoritarian March” around Admiralty, and the demonstration escalated into a riot. The 23 defendants were moved in groups from outside the Sogo department store to Harcourt Road, Queensway and outside Government Headquarters, carrying umbrellas, helmets, gas masks and various coverings and weapons, including petrol bombs, bricks and laser pointers. They built roadblocks to obstruct traffic and threw miscellaneous objects and flames at officers, causing the paralysis of east–west traffic on Hong Kong Island. The police issued several verbal warnings, displayed warning flags and deployed tear gas and water cannon for dispersal, and ultimately arrested 23 people in the areas outside Queensway and Pacific Place. Among them, 21 pleaded guilty, and one was additionally charged with possession of an offensive weapon in a public place.
The offence of rioting carries a maximum sentence of ten years’ imprisonment and generally requires immediate custody; sentencing benchmarks are centred on the scale of the incident, the degree of the defendant’s involvement and the impact on society, with 51 months’ imprisonment set as the benchmark sentence.
The court emphasised that the sentence must reflect the law’s determination to maintain public order and to severely punish violent protesters for a deterrent effect; participants’ motivations and principles are not factors for mitigation, but guilty pleas and genuine remorse may be considered for discretionary reduction.
The judge considered that violent protests are not a means of resolving issues, that riots severely undermine social harmony and Hong Kong’s international reputation, and hopes that the defendants will learn from this lesson and reform themselves.
In the end, the 21 defendants who pleaded guilty were each sentenced to between 32 and 46 months’ imprisonment, having received discretionary reductions for late guilty pleas; the two defendants who did not plead guilty were, after trial, sentenced to 46 and 50 months respectively; the defendant charged with possession of a laser pointer had his two charges merged for a total term of 43 months’ imprisonment, to be served immediately. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書