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 around 4 p.m. on 29 September 2019, approximately 500 protesters gathered outside the Government Headquarters in Admiralty, occupied the east- and westbound lanes of Harcourt Road, and continued to throw bricks and petrol bombs at the police lines and set fire to destroy the water-filled barriers. The police had issued warnings multiple times by raising yellow, blue and black flags before dispersing the crowd with tear gas and water cannons. At around 4:48 p.m., officers rushed out from multiple exits and arrested eleven defendants at various points outside the Government Headquarters. Although the defence challenged the defendants’ testimonies and the items they carried, based on CCTV footage and the testimony of seventeen police officers, each defendant was found to be dressed in protester attire, equipped with protective gear and to have remained within the riot area, and were convicted of rioting.
Pursuant to section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance and the local criminal sentencing guidelines, the maximum penalty for rioting is ten years’ imprisonment, with the sentence to be determined having regard to the defendants’ level of participation, their equipment and their remorse.
The defendants were present in an area where serious rioting had taken place and were fully equipped; they remained at the scene despite multiple police warnings and acted in concert with other rioters, thereby assisting and encouraging the riot. The circumstances are grave and warrant severe punishment.
The judge considers unlawful assembly and rioting to be highly fluid in nature, and that the scope and degree of participation should be assessed based on the actual scene, conduct and the evidential chain, and affirms that the police witness testimony is honest and reliable.
The court found all defendants guilty of 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 stated that at around 4 pm on 29 September 2019, approximately 500 protesters gathered outside the Government Headquarters in Admiralty, occupying both eastbound and westbound lanes of Harcourt Road. They threw miscellaneous objects and petrol bombs at the Government Headquarters, started fires, and damaged water-filled barriers. Despite multiple police warnings, the protesters continued their violent actions until about 4:48 pm, when the police suddenly advanced to disperse the crowd and arrested the 11 defendants. The defendants were not innocent bystanders but members of the group that formed the riot.
According to section 19 of Chapter 245 of the Public Order Ordinance and the Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Leung Tin-kei, factors to consider include whether the riot was premeditated, the number of participants, use of weapons, the scale and duration of the riot, continuation after warnings, extent of damage and threats posed, public disturbance, impact on the community, burden on public expenditure, the role of each participant and whether other offences were committed concurrently.
In this case, the riot was large-scale and highly violent, targeting the Government Headquarters. Although it lasted only about 20 minutes, the use of petrol bombs to set fires and damage facilities warranted a deterrent sentence. In view of the fact that the defendants merely assisted or encouraged one of the participants, had good backgrounds, no criminal records, pleaded guilty thus saving resources, and showed remorse, and considering their age and rehabilitation needs, the starting point of four years was reduced to three and a half years’ imprisonment.
He held that although the defendants were neither leaders nor organisers, they knowingly participated in the riot, which was a serious crime, and the sentences must reflect societal deterrence and maintain public order. Considering their youth and positive reports, Defendants Four and Eight were subject to reformative centre measures.
Defendants Four and Eight were sentenced to detention at a reformatory centre, while the remaining defendants were each sentenced to three and a half years’ imprisonment. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書