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 the prosecution alleges defendants one, three and nine participated in an unlawful assembly from Causeway Bay to outside the Central Government Offices in Admiralty on 29 September 2019, which escalated into a riot. During that time, over a hundred protesters threw petrol bombs and debris at police lines. The police issued multiple broadcast warnings and deployed tear gas and water cannon. Defendant one claimed his vision was impaired by tear gas and that he entered a public toilet in Admiralty to wash his eyes, where he was assisted by someone in putting on a face mask and holding an open umbrella, before being intercepted outside the toilet by officers. Defendant three said he went there out of interest in field recording and, after hearing the sound of breaking glass, recorded video and audio, but was subdued by the police “Raptors” unit amid the chaos. Defendant nine carried saline solution, bandages, a helmet, a mask and other equipment and was alleged to be fully armed in the riot; he resisted and struggled when stopped. All three denied the charges. After trial, this court found all three guilty of rioting, but not guilty of assaulting a police officer in the case of defendant nine.
In accordance with the legal principles on the offence of riot established by the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region v. Lo Kin-man, any person who, knowing others are engaging in serious collective violence, nonetheless joins in or supports them by conduct is guilty as a joint offender in the riot, and there is no need to prove that each defendant actually used violence.
Defendant One’s actions, while not directly violent, nevertheless supported the riot by entering the scene and carrying and using concealment equipment, increasing the pressure on the police; Defendant Three did not demonstrate that his activity was purely artistic—his advancing to the front line to record audio and video amounted to participation; Defendant Nine’s heavy armament and his resistance during detention further underscored his purposeful involvement and met the criteria for joint participation in the riot.
The judge considered that all three defendants remained at and supported the riot within the heart of the city, and that their claims of engaging in artistic activity or seeking temporary refuge were self-serving explanations that could not reasonably justify their presence in a riotous setting; accordingly, the defences were dismissed and convictions entered.
Defendants One, Three and Nine were found guilty on the first count of rioting; Defendant Nine was found not guilty on the ninth count of assaulting a police officer. (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 indicated that on 29 September 2019, approximately 20,000 people gathered in Causeway Bay and marched to the Government Headquarters in Admiralty without police approval. The demonstration escalated progressively; about 500 protesters dressed in black occupied the carriageway and pedestrian footbridge on Harcourt Road, obstructing traffic and using an umbrella formation for protection. They continuously hurled petrol bombs, hard objects and bricks at the police and set fires under the footbridge. The police issued repeated warnings and deployed water cannon and tear gas to disperse the crowd but to no avail. At 16:48 they moved in to arrest six defendants. Subsequently, three more defendants were tried and convicted. The six defendants pleaded guilty and, on 2 December, were resentenced after obtaining reports from the reformatory and the labour training centre under section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance.
The maximum sentence for riot is ten years’ imprisonment, with no specific guidelines. The Court of Appeal in the Edward Leung case listed twelve factors for sentencing consideration, including the number of participants, the degree and scale of violence, duration, threat to society, level of organisation and planning, the role and extent of participation, and the attitude to plea.
The court balanced the objectives of punishment and rehabilitation, taking into account each defendant’s age, mental health, timing of the guilty plea and extent of sentence reduction, their equipment and conduct (whether they threw petrol bombs or hard objects), the gravity of their role, and the recommendations of the reformatory report; heavier sentences were imposed on those who pleaded guilty late or were heavily equipped, while those who pleaded guilty early or played a minor role received discretionary sentence reductions.
The judge considered that the six defendants largely acted out of herd mentality and were clouded by political fervour, mindlessly joining the riot while the true ringleaders remained at large. Their actions severely disrupted public order and warranted deterrent sentences as a warning to others.
Ultimately, one defendant, being young and having mental health issues, was ordered to undergo training at a welfare training centre. Of the remaining five defendants, one received a reduced sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment due to a later plea and a minor role, while the other four were each sentenced to 36 months’ imprisonment. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書