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 stated that on 29 September 2019, multiple protesters marched without authorisation to the area outside the government headquarters on Harcourt Road in Admiralty, during which a riot broke out. The defendant was in the core area, repeatedly throwing petrol bombs and hard objects at the government headquarters, and carried goggles, gas masks and other equipment to conceal their identity. They were ultimately arrested when the police emerged onto Harcourt Road from a concealed passage. The prosecution, relying on CCTV, on-site video footage and expert analysis by forensic scientists and investigating officers, established the defendant’s participation in the riot.
The offence of riot contravenes sections 19(1) and (2) of the Public Order Ordinance; it is a participatory crime requiring proof that the defendant intended to take part in an unlawful assembly and to disturb public peace. Sentencing may refer to the Court of Final Appeal’s decision in HKSAR v Lo Kin Man.
The defendant was in the core area of the riot, wearing protective equipment and carrying various implements, and forcefully threw objects at the government headquarters. Their actions were clearly intended to disrupt public peace and to support one another, making them one of the rioters.
The witnesses’ testimony was consistent throughout, and the video footage and expert analyses clearly showed the defendant’s identity and conduct. The defendant’s explanations were irrational and inconsistent with the circumstances at the scene. There is no reasonable doubt: they indeed participated in the riot and were not an innocent bystander or someone who had inadvertently become involved.
The defendant was convicted of rioting. The court will announce a separate sentencing date to determine the appropriate sentence. (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 29 September 2019, eight defendants participated in an unauthorised procession outside the Government Headquarters in Admiralty, which together with others escalated into a riot. During this time, petrol bombs and various hard objects were thrown towards the government complex, roadblocks were set up and carriageways were obstructed. After multiple warnings, the police used water cannon and tear gas to disperse the crowd, and the defendants were ultimately arrested during the operation. Some defendants pleaded guilty before or during the trial, while the remaining defendants were found guilty of rioting at trial.
Riot is a serious offence, punishable by up to ten years’ imprisonment; sentencing must consider the scale of the riot, the number of participants, the use of weapons and degree of violence, the duration, group behaviour and impact on public order, as well as the need for a strong deterrent effect; using four years and six months’ imprisonment as a baseline, an additional three months’ imprisonment is added for those who actually used violence. For offenders under twenty-one, placement in a training centre may be considered.
In this case, the defendants dressed in dark clothing and wore masks to conceal their identities, and, knowing their actions were unlawful, attacked law enforcement officers with petrol bombs and hard objects. The riot lasted approximately half an hour, causing serious disruption to public order and requiring a deterrent sentence. A reduction of 2–25% is available for guilty pleas, although personal background is not a primary factor for mitigation, but some discretion may be exercised to reduce the sentence appropriately. For young defendants, their welfare and prospects for rehabilitation were taken into account, and some were committed to training centres.
The court must firmly combat violent conduct that disregards the rule of law, maintaining public order and the safety of law enforcement officers; at the same time, for juvenile and young adult defendants, it should balance punishment with rehabilitation and provide appropriate training centre measures.
The sentences for the eight defendants in this case are as follows: Defendant 1 was sentenced to four years and seven months’ imprisonment; Defendants 2 and 3 were committed to training centres; Defendant 4 was sentenced to four years and one month’s imprisonment; Defendant 5 was sentenced to three years and four months’ imprisonment; Defendant 6 was sentenced to three years and five months’ imprisonment; Defendant 7 was sentenced to three years and four months’ imprisonment. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書