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 notes that this case involves eight defendants and concerns an unauthorised assembly at the ‘Lunch with You’ event in Central on 13 November 2019. Protesters dismantled metal barricades, piled debris and created roadblocks on Pedder Street, Des Voeux Road Central and other locations, causing traffic paralysis. The police launched a clearance operation from all sides at around 19:30 that evening and arrested a total of 68 people, including the defendants. The defendants were arrested inside a cinema and were carrying three wrenches, two hundred cable ties, a pair of gloves and respirator filters. The defendants applied for severance of charges on the basis that most of the evidence was unrelated to the charge of intent to destroy property with which they were charged, in order to save resources and prevent injustice; the prosecution, however, maintained that all charges stemmed from the same factual origin and should be tried together without severance.
Applies Rule 7 of the Indictment Rules and relevant UK judgments (R v Assim, R v Barrell, etc.) to ascertain whether the charges arise from the same facts; and, pursuant to section 23(3) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, evaluates the standards for severance.
All charges arise from the same unlawful assembly and share a common factual origin; the evidence is directly relevant and carries contextual value. Severing the charges would result in duplication of prosecutorial resources and decreased trial efficiency, and there is no substantial need to mitigate any unfairness to the defendants.
The judge is of the view that a joint trial will not cause unfairness to the defendants, as the presiding judge can exclude irrelevant evidence; the defendants have sufficient time to retain or persuade counsel, and scheduling conflicts alone do not constitute a proper reason for severance.
Upon balancing the considerations, the court dismissed the defendants’ severance application and ordered that they 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 points out that on 13 November 2019 an unlawful assembly erupted in Central, and the police cleared the scene at about 19:30, arresting sixty-eight people, including eight defendants. The defendants are charged with unlawful assembly, criminal damage, and possession of items with intent to destroy property, among other offences. The defence challenged the identities, the statements, and the purposes of the items, and the court examined the evidence one by one.
According to Section 18 (unlawful assembly) and Section 19 (rioting) of the Public Order Ordinance and the relevant provisions on criminal damage and possession of items, and with reference to FACC Nos. 6 and 7 regarding the judicial interpretation of participatory offences.
The court found that the defendants possessed protest equipment, and the video evidence showed involvement in setting up roadblocks, toppling obstructions, and defacing walls, among other disorderly or destructive acts, and that the defence’s arguments could not dispel reasonable doubts; Defendants Three and Six were acquitted due to insufficient evidence.
The judge considered that the features of the video and the equipment could establish identity, that the defence’s arguments failed to undermine the prosecution’s evidence, and that sentencing should prioritise the maintenance of order in accordance with the degree of conviction.
Defendants Two, Five and Seven were convicted of unlawful assembly; Defendant Seven was also convicted of criminal damage; Defendant Eight was convicted of possession of an item with intent to damage property; Defendants Three and Six were acquitted on all charges. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書