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 at about 4pm on 29 September 2019, approximately 500 protesters gathered around Harcourt Road outside the Government Headquarters in Admiralty, throwing missiles and petrol bombs, setting fires and damaging protective water barriers. After multiple warnings proved ineffective, the police charged out through Exit 4 at 4:48pm to disperse the crowd and arrested 11 defendants. The court, relying on CCTV footage and testimony from several officers, found that the riot lasted over 20 minutes, spanning from the Tim Mei Avenue exit to beneath the Harcourt Road footbridge. The defendants were present within this area and equipped similarly to the protesters, and were convicted of rioting.
Under section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance, the maximum penalty for rioting is ten years’ imprisonment. Sentencing must take into account the mobility of the riot, the number of participants and the level of danger at the scene.
Each defendant remained at the scene for over 20 minutes after the riot began and was equipped with protective and offensive gear, indicating premeditation. Sentencing should focus on deterrence and the maintenance of order. However, their clean backgrounds and lack of prior convictions may afford slight mitigation.
The judge held that the riot scene was highly fluid and, although the defendants were at different locations, they were all within the same riot area and actively participated in or supported the riot. Sentencing must balance individual circumstances with the needs of public safety.
Defendants 1 to 11 were each sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, without suspension, and must begin serving their terms immediately. (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 the eleven defendants gathered outside the Government Headquarters in Admiralty at about 4pm on 29 September 2019, occupied both eastbound and westbound lanes of Harcourt Road, hurled sundry objects and petrol bombs at the headquarters, set fires and damaged the water-filled barriers. Despite multiple police warnings, the riot continued for more than 20 minutes until the police charged in to disperse the crowd and arrested the defendants. The court found that the defendants were all members of the rioting group, ruled out reasonable doubt, and convicted them of riot.
According to section 19 of Chapter 245 of the Public Order Ordinance and relevant case law, such as the Leung Tin-kee case, sentencing must take into account factors including whether the act was premeditated, the number of participants, the type and quantity of weapons used, the scale and duration of the riot, the personal or property damage caused, the impact on public order, the role of the defendant and other criminal conduct. The starting point for sentencing is generally 4 to 5 years’ imprisonment.
This case involved a large-scale riot breaking out suddenly within a short period, with over 500 people throwing objects and petrol bombs at the Government Headquarters, setting fires and damaging the water-filled barriers. The violence was intense and caused significant disruption to public order. Although the defendant was neither a leader nor an instigator, he was part of the group. Considering his lack of criminal record, his prompt plea of guilty, his youth and potential for rehabilitation, and the good character reflected in the letters of mitigation, the court reduced the sentence from the 4-year starting point to 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, and committed the fourth and eighth defendants, who were 18 and 16 at the time of the offence, to a training centre.
The judge considered that the offence of riot is a serious crime, and sentencing must have a strong deterrent effect to maintain public order and prevent the recurrence of similar incidents; at the same time, the humanity of the justice system should be reflected by considering the defendant’s social background, educational or employment circumstances, remorse and plea attitude, and by recognising that the guilty plea saved judicial resources. Therefore, a balance was struck between the seriousness of the offence and the specific background of the case, and the sentence was appropriately adjusted downward.
The fourth and eighth defendants were committed to a training centre, while the remaining defendants were each sentenced to 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書