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 afternoon of 29 September 2019, hundreds of protesters blocked traffic lanes, set up umbrella formations, committed arson and threw petrol bombs, traffic cones and laser beams at government buildings along Harcourt Road and Queensway outside the Government Headquarters in Admiralty, Hong Kong. The police repeatedly fired tear gas and used water cannon to disperse them. Between 16:22 and 16:48, the two defendants remained in the riot zone, one on the right side and the other in the centre; one was holding an umbrella and dressed entirely in black, the other wore white gloves and carried promotional leaflets. Both were subdued and arrested when the police advanced. On the basis of video footage and police testimony, the prosecution determined that the two defendants were aware that the riot was ongoing and maliciously assisted in disturbing public order, with no reasonable doubt as to the evidence as a whole.
According to Sections 18 and 19 of Chapter 245 of the Public Order Ordinance, the offence of rioting carries a maximum sentence of up to ten years’ imprisonment; sentencing must refer to the Court of Final Appeal’s decision in Lo Kin Man, taking into account the defendant’s degree of participation, the use of instruments and the social harm caused.
The two defendants were dressed in and carried protective equipment such as umbrellas, protective gear and gloves, coordinated their actions with other rioters, knowingly and actively participated in road obstruction, arson and the throwing of offensive items, thereby disrupting public order and harming public peace; the circumstances were serious.
The defendants’ claims that they were merely passing by or avoiding danger are not credible; their testimonies are contradictory or they did not appear to testify, and fail to undermine the prosecution’s evidence. The court should, based on the overall circumstances and the theory of “participatory” crimes, find their intent and actions amounted to rioting.
Both defendants were found guilty of rioting; sentencing was adjourned. (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 the twelve defendants took part on 29 September 2019 in an unauthorised “Global Anti-Totalitarian March” outside the Government Headquarters in Admiralty. Approximately 500 people successively built roadblocks, occupied lanes and flyovers, threw petrol bombs, bricks and other hard objects, emitted laser beams, set water-filled barricades on fire, among other actions. The police issued multiple warnings and deployed tear gas and water cannons to disperse the crowd to no avail. Finally, at 4:48 pm that afternoon, they rushed into the Government Headquarters and arrested the defendants, ending the riot.
In this case, following the sentencing principles for the offence of riot as set out by the Court of Appeal in the cases of “Leung Tin-kei”, “Yeung Ka-lun” and “Tang Ho Yin”, a custodial term of five years and four months was established as the baseline sentence.
Given that the riot was meticulously planned in advance, involved a large number of participants, targeted core government facilities with high levels of violence and destruction, and the defendants carried protective, communication and offensive equipment, their degree of participation was not at the lowest level and there were no other valid mitigating factors, the baseline sentence had to be applied by law, with only modest discounts granted for the timing of each individual’s plea and other personal factors.
The judge considered that such acts seriously undermined public order and the foundation of the rule of law, and that a heavy sentence was necessary to serve as a deterrent, demonstrating the law’s zero-tolerance stance towards violent challenges to social tranquillity.
Ultimately, Defendant One was sentenced to five years and three months’ imprisonment; Defendants Two, Five, Six, Nine and Eleven were each sentenced to four years’ imprisonment; Defendants Three, Four, Seven and Ten were each sentenced to four years and two months’ imprisonment; and Defendant Twelve was sentenced to five years, two months and two weeks’ imprisonment. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書