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 eight defendants in this case participated in a riot outside the Government Headquarters in Admiralty on 29 September 2019. Before trial, five defendants pleaded guilty, while the other three pleaded not guilty and proceedings began; subsequently one of those admitted guilt, leaving only two defendants maintaining their innocence during trial. The prosecution collected CCTV footage, online videos and testimony from officers on the scene, alleging that the two defendants were in the core area of the riot and threw objects at the Government Headquarters; experts and officers identified their identities. The defence argued they were merely bystanders and questioned the identification. Ultimately, the court found the two defendants guilty.
Under section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245) of Hong Kong law, the offence of riot is a participatory offence, requiring proof that the defendant intended to participate in the unlawful assembly and actually committed conduct that disrupted public peace; the prosecution must prove this beyond reasonable doubt.
The two defendants were subdued by officers in the core area of the riot; evidence included multiple segments of CCTV footage and expert comparisons confirming that their attire and distinguishing features matched, and in the footage they threw objects at the Government Headquarters, excluding the possibility of innocent bystanders. The defence’s arguments were not accepted.
The judge considered the prosecution’s evidence and the video analysis to be honest and reliable; the only reasonable and irresistible inference was that the two defendants were aware of and intended to further the riot, and thus found them guilty.
The defendants were convicted of participating in a riot; a conviction was entered and sentencing was adjourned. (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 in this case, outside the Central Government Offices on Harcourt Road in Admiralty, Hong Kong, engaged in an unauthorised demonstration which escalated into a riot. The protesters occupied the carriageway, hurled petrol bombs and hard objects at government buildings, used giant elastic bands as slingshots, and employed laser beams to disrupt police enforcement. After multiple warnings were ignored, the police deployed water cannon and tear gas, and at around 16:48 in the afternoon cleared the area from multiple exits to arrest the defendants, six of whom were recorded as having actually committed violent acts.
According to Section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance, the maximum sentence for rioting is 10 years’ imprisonment. With reference to Court of Appeal precedents, the starting point for sentencing is four years and six months, to be adjusted based on the scale of the riot, the use of force, and the extent of damage; for defendants under 21, an order to a training centre may be considered.
The riot in this case lasted approximately 30 minutes, involved over a hundred participants, and used petrol bombs and various obstacles, severely threatening public order and targeting government buildings, necessitating strong deterrence. The six defendants who actually committed violence receive an additional three months on the starting point; the five guilty-pleading defendants receive reductions of between 20% and 25% depending on the plea stage; and reductions are also given at the court’s discretion for factors such as first-time offence, remorse, and age.
The judge emphasised that in a society governed by the rule of law, serious group violence cannot be tolerated and a deterrent sentence is required to maintain public peace; however, with first-time and young offenders, a balance must be struck between punishment and rehabilitation, and qualifying individuals may be ordered to a training centre.
The sentences in this case are as follows: Defendant One was sentenced to four years and seven months’ imprisonment; Defendants Two and Three were ordered to be sent to a training centre; Defendant Four was sentenced to four years and one month’s imprisonment; Defendants Five and Eight were each sentenced to three years and four months’ imprisonment; Defendant Seven was sentenced to three years and five months’ imprisonment. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書