涉事地點 :
PolyU (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University)
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 18 November 2019, between approximately 22:30 and 23:26, a riot broke out on Nathan Road at the junction of Waterloo Road and Hamilton Street in Yau Ma Tei. The prosecution, relying on the testimony of 32 officers from the Special Tactical Squad, police and CCTV footage, screenshots and section 65B statements, showed that protesters wore dark clothing, carried gas masks, goggles and umbrellas, formed defensive positions, threw about 250 petrol bombs, shone lasers, set fires to block roads and repeatedly ignored police warnings via flags and loudspeakers; the police then fired tear gas in a controlled sequence and carried out phased dispersals at Pit Street, the lane by Po Ning Building and MTR Station Exit A1, arresting five defendants. The judge considered the defence’s argument that bystanders might have inadvertently entered the area and examined the consistency of the defendants’ evidence. Ultimately, the first defendant was acquitted as the medical evidence provided a reasonable explanation, while the remaining four were convicted for being present at the riot, wearing protest gear, fleeing from south to north and other conduct.
The prosecution must prove the defendant’s participation and intent to participate in the riot beyond a reasonable doubt; when sentencing, the court must consider the defendant’s level of involvement, the equipment used and the impact on public order.
The first defendant was found not guilty as the evidence showed that they were seeking emergency medical assistance and the exhibits were consistent with their account; the other defendants were convicted because they wore protest gear within the riot area, gathered with others and were intercepted while fleeing, from which intent to participate in the riot could be inferred.
The judge considered that riots are highly fluid, and participation in such an offence does not require being an original organiser; mere presence at the scene and providing encouragement can constitute participation; adjudication must combine the facts of the case and accumulated evidence to form the only reasonable inference.
The first defendant was acquitted of the riot offence; the third, fifth, sixth and eighth defendants were convicted of the riot offence. (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 notes that from 11 to 18 November 2019, protesters occupied the Hong Kong Polytechnic University and a riot broke out, with police establishing defences. On the evening of 18 November, a large number of protesters confronted the police on Nathan Road between Yau Ma Tei and Waterloo Road, repeatedly throwing Molotov cocktails, using umbrella formations, blocking roads and causing fires. The defendant participated in the riot at that location from around 22:30 until his arrest, attempted to flee in disobedience of warnings, and was wearing protective gear when stopped. The incident resulted in injuries to police officers, damage to street lamps and MTR facilities, and seriously affected community safety and traffic order.
The offence of riot carries a maximum sentence of ten years’ imprisonment. According to relevant cases, the starting point for sentencing is not less than five years, taking into account the scale of the riot, injuries caused, the role played and the deterrent effect.
The defendant participated in large numbers and employed violent means by throwing Molotov cocktails and miscellaneous objects, constituting serious violence and disruption of public order; at the same time, the defendant was merely a follower, with no active violent behaviour or leadership role, and, having pleaded guilty and shown remorse, is suitable to receive rehabilitative training at a reformatory.
Given that the defendant was only sixteen at the time of the offence and is now nineteen, with no prior convictions, and suffers from autism spectrum disorder and oppositional defiant disorder, has sincerely repented and is suitable for disciplinary training, detention at a reformatory can balance punishment with the need for rehabilitation.
The court, considering the defendant’s youth, guilty plea and need for counselling, sentenced him to detention at a reformatory for the offence of riot. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書