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 notes that, from noon on 13 November 2019, a large-scale unauthorised assembly broke out in Central, during which protesters dismantled metal barricades to create roadblocks and obstruct multiple thoroughfares. When the police cleared the area at around 7:30 pm that evening, they arrested the defendant and seven others in a nearby cinema, and seized three wrenches, 200 cable ties, a pair of work gloves and respirator filters from them. The defendant was charged under the fourth offence for possession of tools with intent to destroy or damage property, and accordingly applied for a separate trial from the other defendants.
According to Rule 7 of the Indictment Rules and relevant case law, a joint trial must be based on a common factual origin or a series of similar offences; and section 23(3) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance grants the court discretion to direct separate trials to prevent prejudice to the defendant’s defence.
The court held that the charges against the defendant and the other accused arose from the same unauthorised assembly incident, and that the items in possession and the environmental footage constituted direct trial evidence. A joint trial would avoid duplication of the prosecution’s evidence and would not materially prejudice the defendant’s right to a fair defence.
The judge opined that a joint trial would ensure consistency in the verdict and conserve resources, without introducing irrelevant background or unduly prejudicial evidence; the defendant’s right to choose counsel is not absolute, and there was insufficient reason for a separate trial.
Application dismissed; the defendant will be tried jointly with the other defendants. (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 13 November 2019 an unlawful assembly broke out in Central，the police cleared the scene at around 19:30，arresting a total of 68 people，including the eight defendants in this case。Defendants 2，5，6 and 7 were charged with unlawful assembly，defendants 3 and 8 were respectively charged with possession of tools with intent to damage property，and defendant 7 was also charged with criminal damage。The prosecution relied primarily on the aforementioned CCTV footage and police officers’ evidence，while the defence challenged the identification or the voluntariness of the statements，and the judge examined each issue and ruled on the admissibility of the statements as evidence。
According to 《Public Order Ordinance》 Section 18 and the principles in Court of Final Appeal FACC6/2021，sentencing for unlawful assembly and criminal damage is based on factors such as level of participation，equipment carried，and actual destructive behaviour。
The judge determines conviction and sentences based on whether the defendant remained within the assembly area，set up roadblocks，carried protest tools，and the severity of the conduct；the degree of criminal intent or level of cooperation is also differentiated in terms of seriousness。
The judge accepted defendant 3’s explanations regarding the use of protective equipment and spray paint，and those charges did not stand；for the remaining defendants the evidence was conclusive with no reasonable doubt，and thus verdicts of guilty or not guilty were rendered。
The court found defendants 2，5 and 6 guilty of unlawful assembly，defendant 7 guilty of unlawful assembly and criminal damage，defendant 8 guilty of possession of tools with intent to destroy property；the charges against defendant 3 were dismissed。 (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書