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 the night of 18 November 2019, at around 2230 to 2326, a riot broke out along Nathan Road near the junction with Waterloo Road and Hamilton Street in Yau Ma Tei. A large number of protesters dressed in dark clothing, wearing masks, gas masks and goggles, formed an umbrella formation and blocked traffic lanes, repeatedly threw petrol bombs and miscellaneous objects at the police, shone laser beams, and ignored verbal and flag warnings. The police used tear gas to disperse them and the Special Tactical Squad advanced in phases to encircle and arrest. Ultimately, over two hundred people were arrested at the scene. The five defendants in this case were all charged with a single count of rioting.
Proof must reach beyond reasonable doubt. As a participatory offence, it must be proven that the defendant jointly participated in an unlawful assembly or riot with others and intended to participate; it is not necessary to prove any additional common purpose.
The third, fifth, sixth and eighth defendants were within the area of the riot during the police advance, their clothing and equipment were no different from those of other protesters, and during the dispersal they fled from south to north, interacting with other rioters in a coordinated manner. The only reasonable inference is that they came prepared with the intention to participate and did in fact participate in the riot; the first defendant, however, offered reasonable explanations such as seeking a restroom and medical attention, which may be true, and was acquitted.
The judge held that unlawful assemblies and riots are highly fluid and do not require original participants; the defendants’ location, timing, clothing and equipment constitute cumulative evidence from which the only reasonable inference can be drawn. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution; statements from those who testify for the defence must be given equal consideration, and silence does not justify an adverse inference.
The first defendant was acquitted of the rioting charge; the third, fifth, sixth and eighth defendants were found guilty of rioting. The court will set a date for the sentencing hearing. (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 from 11 November 2019, a large number of protesters occupied the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, and the standoff between police and protesters continued until late on 18 November. On that day, at approximately 22:30, the defendant and others erected barricades on Nathan Road at the junction with Waterloo Road in Yau Ma Tei using umbrellas and miscellaneous items, and threw around 250 petrol bombs and other objects at the police on multiple occasions, confronting them with laser lights and formations. The police fired tear gas to disperse them, and at 23:26 launched a cordon-and-arrest operation. The defendant attempted to flee outside Exit A1 of Yau Ma Tei MTR station but was subdued. He was arrested the next day for rioting. The incident caused several officers to slip and sustain injuries, disrupted nearby traffic and business operations, and damaged public facilities.
For the offence of rioting, the maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment. Sentencing must take into account the scale of the riot, the threat posed to public and law enforcement officers’ safety, the group’s coordinated conduct, and other aggravating or mitigating factors. The general starting point for sentencing is not less than 5 years’ imprisonment.
In this case, a large number of protesters used violent means and threw a substantial number of petrol bombs, posing a direct threat to the police and causing fires. Numerous public facilities were destroyed, and community peace was severely affected. These circumstances reflect the characteristics of a serious offence. Therefore, the starting point for sentencing must remain a sufficiently deterrent punishment.
Considering that the defendant was 16 years old at the time, had no prior convictions and showed remorse, and that the report from the training centre indicated he was suited for disciplinary training and had prospects for rehabilitation, and with no evidence that he was a leader or an active violent participant, it is appropriate, balancing deterrence and rehabilitation, to order detention at a training centre.
The defendant was sentenced to detention at a training centre for the offence of rioting, during which he will undergo comprehensive disciplinary training and subsequent supervision. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書