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 29 August 2019, the eight defendants in this case took part in a riot with others in the area of Yen Chow Street outside the Sham Shui Po Police Station. Three of them were additionally charged with possession of offensive weapons such as laser pointers in a public place. Some defendants admitted to the riot or pleaded not guilty; the fourth defendant was separately dealt with due to being unfit to stand trial on mental health grounds. The prosecution relied on police testimony, CCTV footage and publicly available media videos to detail the course of the riot and the defendants’ actions; the defence disputed the riot’s starting point, the intent of each defendant’s participation, their identification and their mental capacity.
Pursuant to Section 19 (riot) and Section 33 (possession of offensive weapons) of the Public Order Ordinance, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the principles of joint enterprise and participatory offences apply; for possession of offensive weapons, it must be proven that the defendant knew of the weapon and intended to use it to cause harm.
The judge held that the case recordings and evidence showed the protesters persistently caused disorder, clamoured, shone lasers and threw bricks, constituting a riot; several defendants were present at the scene and, despite police warnings, deliberately remained and aided or encouraged others, meeting the criteria for participating in a riot; the possession of laser pointers case lacked proof of intent to attack.
The judge affirmed that the police officers were honest and credible, reiterated the seriousness of the riots during the 2019 social movement; showed humanitarian consideration for those unfit to stand trial on mental health grounds; and emphasised that juvenile defendants must also be held accountable for acts disrupting public order.
In court, it was ruled that the first, second, third, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth defendants were found guilty of riot; the fourth defendant was not tried due to being unfit to stand trial; and the charges of possession of offensive weapons against the fourth and eighth defendants were dismissed. (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 this case occurred on the evening of 29 August 2019, when approximately 30 to 150 protesters gathered outside Sham Shui Po Police Station. They repeatedly shouted loudly and projected green, blue and red laser beams at the police station and officers, and five individuals threw bricks. The eight defendants were present at the scene during the relevant period, wearing masks and black clothing; some used laser pointers or torches to protest. After nine verbal warnings from the police and the display of blue flags failed to disperse the crowd, the police arrested those present for riot offences and possession of offensive weapons in a public place.
The maximum penalty for riot is ten years’ imprisonment. Sentencing must take into account the scale of the riot, number of participants, duration, use of weapons or level of violence, contempt for police officers and impact on public order. For juvenile defendants, placement in a rehabilitation centre or reformatory may also be considered.
Although the defendants did not personally throw petrol bombs or set fires, they all engaged in preparatory acts to assist the riot—wearing masks, carrying protective equipment, using laser pointers or torches to shine at the police station, and moving in synchrony with the group of protesters, thereby exacerbating social unrest. The case, though comparatively less serious among offences of the same level, nonetheless requires punishment and sufficient deterrence. The defendants expressed remorse afterwards and have good backgrounds; hence, the sentences were reduced for adult defendants, and a reformatory placement was adopted for juvenile defendants.
The judgment emphasises that police officers symbolise the rule of law, and open challenge and abuse of them must be severely punished to maintain public order, while also taking into account the rehabilitation needs of juvenile defendants.
Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 were each sentenced to 32 months’ imprisonment; Defendant 3 was convicted concurrently for riot and possession of an offensive weapon and sentenced to a total of 24 months’ imprisonment; Defendants 5 to 8, being under the age of 21 at the time of the incident, were all ordered to be detained in a reformatory institution to receive disciplinary, vocational training and psychological counselling. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書