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 22 September 2019, three defendants gathered with over a hundred protesters outside the Fortune Centre on Yuen Wo Road in Sha Tin. They first assembled on the open space outside New Town Plaza, then marched to Yuen Wo Road to block the road, constructing three barricades using metal railings, rubbish bins, and other objects, and someone poured flammable liquid and set fires. During the riot police’s dispersal operation, Defendant One and Defendant Two stood at the forefront facing the police; when they were intercepted, both covered their faces and wore protective gear. Defendant Two also carried a hammer, pliers, and a screwdriver, and leapt from the bushes attempting to pull away Defendant One, thereby obstructing police officers in the execution of their duties. Defendant Three, meanwhile, helped others at the scene to move a minibus stop sign, further contributing to the road blockage.
With reference to Section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance, the offence of rioting carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment; under Section 36(b) of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, intentional obstruction of a public officer carries a maximum of 2 years’ imprisonment. Section 65C of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance provides that a confession can be used as evidence for conviction.
The three defendants took part in a large-scale, prolonged and destructive riot that posed a serious threat to public safety; Defendant Two furthermore possessed offensive weapons and interfered with another’s arrest, constituting an aggravating factor; all three have no prior convictions and thus mitigation applies.
The defendants acted proactively and with strong planning, using the massed crowds to confront the police, thereby undermining social order inexcusable; only Defendant Two had the tools but there was no evidence of immediate intent to harm, so the weapons offence is not made out; overall, severe punishment is required to enhance judicial deterrence.
Defendant One and Defendant Two were sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment each for rioting and intentionally obstructing police officers in the execution of their duties; Defendant Three was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment for rioting. (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 on the afternoon of 22 September 2019, approximately 100 protesters gathered outside Sha Tin New Town Plaza, among whom three defendants dressed in black with their faces covered and carrying collapsible metal barricades, rubbish bins and other debris proceeded to Yuen Wo Road to erect three rows of roadblocks and set them alight; when the police arrived, the three stood at the front line confronting officers, and as the first defendant was being subdued the second defendant attempted to pull him away while the third defendant assisted in carrying signboards, ultimately all three were arrested and convicted of riot, and the second defendant was convicted of an additional offence.
The starting point for sentencing riot is generally five years’ imprisonment, primarily aimed at deterrence and punishment; the maximum sentence for intentionally obstructing police officers is two years, often imposed as immediate imprisonment.
Aggravating factors considered include the protesters’ premeditation, organised road obstruction, arson, possession of tools and confrontation with the police; mitigating factors include the defendants’ lack of prior convictions, their admission of most of the prosecution’s case after the hearing, and in some instances their involvement in public service activities; as there was no evidence of leading or inciting others, a baseline sentence of three and a half years’ imprisonment was adopted, with adjustments made accordingly.
The court emphasised that public order and the rule of law cannot tolerate violent unlawful assemblies, that penalties must be sufficiently deterrent to alert society, that political motivation does not constitute grounds for sentence reduction, and that offenders must be met with zero tolerance.
The court ultimately sentenced the three defendants to 41 months, 44 months and 40 months’ imprisonment respectively. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書