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 on 13 November 2019, from around noon, a large unauthorised assembly took place in the Central area on Connaught Road Central, Des Voeux Road Central, Ice House Street and Queen’s Road Central. Protesters dismantled metal barricades by the roadside and formed roadblocks using cable ties and miscellaneous items. The police commenced a clearance operation at about 7:30 pm and arrested the defendant inside a nearby cinema, seizing three wrenches, two hundred cable ties, a pair of work gloves and respirator filters. The prosecution alleged that the defendant intended to use these items, or to cause others to use them, to destroy or damage property. The defendant faced only the fourth charge of possessing articles with intent to destroy or damage property and was not charged with unlawful assembly. The defendant applied for a separate trial, arguing that the evidence against the other defendants was unrelated and could prejudice him, and that a separate trial would save legal aid resources; the prosecution and the other seven defendants, however, considered that the charges arose from the same factual matrix and could be tried together, and that a separate trial would be inefficient for presenting evidence. The trial court refused the application following a hearing.
Pursuant to Rule 7 of the Public Prosecution Code and section 23(3) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, to determine whether multiple defendants may be joined on the same indictment and whether separate trials should be held.
The judgment held that the fourth charge and the other three charges all arose from the same unlawful assembly and shared a common factual origin, and were of the same or a similar nature, with the relevant evidence being closely linked and constituting important contextual evidence; that separate trials would lead to duplicate evidence, the expenditure of public funds and potentially inconsistent verdicts, and that there was no evidence that a joint trial would result in unfair treatment of the defendant.
He considered that trying the defendant alongside the other defendants would not cause unrelated evidence to unfairly implicate him, that the trial judge was capable of ensuring all defendants received a fair trial, and that separate trials could not be ordered solely on the basis of counsel scheduling or to save time.
It was finally ordered that the defendant’s application for a separate trial be dismissed, and that the fourth charge continue to be tried together with the other three charges on the same indictment. (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, from approximately 14:25 to 19:30, unlawful assemblies broke out in various districts of Central. Protesters toppled flower pots, erected roadblocks and damaged MTR station entrances and exits; the police cleared the area and arrested sixty-eight people at Chater Road, Connaught Road Central, Landmark and Theatre Lane. The second, third, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth defendants were respectively charged with unlawful assembly, criminal damage or possession of items intended to destroy property, among other offences. The defendants disputed identity identification, the voluntariness of their statements and the warning procedure; some pleaded guilty, others not guilty, and the trial proceeded.
In accordance with section 18 of the Public Order Ordinance and the provisions on criminal damage, and with reference to the Court of Final Appeal’s precedents on participation in unlawful assemblies and riots, sentencing is determined by criminal intent, level of participation, equipment carried and the threat posed to public order.
The court found that the defendants deliberately remained and fostered the unlawful assembly; some participated in property destruction and possessed protest equipment, with conclusive evidence. Oral confessions obtained without prior warning were excluded, highlighting procedural justice.
The judge considered that the continuity of the footage and the contrast with clothing and tools were sufficient to reliably identify each defendant; given the high mobility and participatory nature of unlawful assemblies, those who remained on site carrying destructive or protective tools can be inferred to have participated in the assembly, which must be carefully distinguished from mere presence.
The bench ultimately ruled: the second, fifth and eighth defendants were convicted of unlawful assembly or possession of implements for destroying property; the sixth defendant was found guilty only of unlawful assembly but not of criminal damage; the seventh defendant was convicted of unlawful assembly and criminal damage; and all charges against the third defendant were dismissed. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書