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。
According to the judgment, on 12 November 2019 from around 12:15 pm to 3:40 pm, thousands of people responded to an online call and held a ‘lunch with you’ gathering at the junction of Pedder Street, Des Voeux Road Central and Connaught Road Central in Central, which escalated into a riot. Protesters at the scene damaged traffic lights, set fires to create roadblocks, used bricks and debris to block roads, sprayed paint and threw objects at several buses. The police raised warning flags and fired tear gas to disperse the crowd. The three defendants appeared at different stages, all wearing masks, carrying folding umbrellas, boxing hand wraps, saline solution and other equipment, standing on the road chanting slogans, picking up and transporting bricks, and fled when the police dispersed the crowd; they were eventually arrested at an emergency exit in Landmark. The defence claimed they were merely passers-by who had accidentally entered the area due to stomach pain or shopping, and had worn masks only to cover physical defects or relieve discomfort. However, their statements contained contradictions and were inconsistent with the footage.
Under section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance, the maximum penalty for riot is ten years’ imprisonment; under regulation 3 of the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation, the offence of concealing one’s identity by wearing a mask is punishable by a fine and imprisonment.
The defendants’ actions constitute the offences of riot and concealing identity by wearing a mask. Environmental evidence and footage show the three participated in a large-scale riot, deliberately remained on site to provide support and conceal their identities. Their statements contained multiple contradictions and lacked reasonable explanation.
The witnesses are reliable; CCTV and publicly available footage clearly show the three were at the core of the riot and participated in the relevant acts, ruling out the possibility of innocent passers-by. The only reasonable inference is that the three were aware of and actively participated in the disturbance.
The three defendants were convicted of riot and the offence under the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation; sentencing will take place on another date. (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 stated that on 12 November 2019, the defendant responded to an online call to take part in a strike march in Central. During the event, together with hundreds of protesters, he blocked Pedder Street and Connaught Road Central, set up and burned roadblocks, damaged traffic lights and buses, sprayed graffiti, tore down restaurant storefronts, and threw bricks and petrol bombs in confrontation with the police. After multiple warnings, the police launched a dispersal operation. The defendant admitted forming an Umbrella formation and defensive line at the scene and twice throwing bricks into a traffic tunnel. He was then arrested. He had no prior convictions and had pleaded guilty to all charges well before the trial.
The sentencing starting point for the offence of rioting is immediate imprisonment for four years. The defendant admitted guilt, leading to a one-third reduction to 32 months; based on his lack of prior convictions and expression of remorse, a further two months were deducted, resulting in 30 months. For using a face covering during an unlawful assembly, the guideline is six weeks’ immediate imprisonment, reduced by one-third to four weeks. For possessing items intended to destroy property, the guideline is three months, reduced by one-third to two months.
In considering sentencing, the defendant’s level of participation was deemed moderate; the actions were neither premeditated nor led by him, and no serious injuries or significant property damage occurred. The primary violent acts at the scene were carried out by others. Although the defendant threw miscellaneous objects and confronted the police, he surrendered, pleaded guilty, had no prior convictions and expressed remorse. His conduct was less severe than in the most serious rioting cases, warranting a discretionary reduction.
The judge held that the offence of rioting must carry punitive and deterrent effects to maintain public order. Although the defendant participated in confrontations with the police, he was not a leader. The law does not tolerate violence that disrupts public order; an immediate custodial sentence is necessary to serve as a warning. However, considering the defendant’s background and genuine remorse, the sentence must be appropriately balanced.
The defendant was sentenced to 30 months’ immediate imprisonment for the three offences, to be served concurrently. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書