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 notes that on the evening of 14 November 2019, two defendants participated in a protest at Aberdeen Centre and, together with others, entered the ground-floor Miniso branch in the centre. They are alleged to have prised open the metal shutter and unlawfully moved and damaged merchandise. Subsequently, the police, relying on CCTV footage (P21 to P23), online video (P27) and the defendants’ clothing and possessions at the time, arrested the two nearby, took photographs (P25, P26) at the police station, and recovered evidential items including gloves and umbrellas. The defendants denied the charges, remained silent and contended that there were reasonable doubts as to their identification. The prosecution sought to infer their involvement in the break-in from environmental evidence such as their attire, physique, flight behaviour and their explanations of “joining in” or “just passing by”. The defence submitted that the footage was dark and brief, the intruders wore masks, carried umbrellas and were mixed among thirty to forty others dressed in black, making identification impossible. The store manager testified to losses of approximately HK$5,300. During the trial, the court conducted a detailed examination of identity evidence and environmental factors. In the course of the hearing, the judge, referring to HKSAR v Tagao Saudee Abad and the Turnbull guidelines, emphasised that the prosecution must prove the defendants’ identity beyond reasonable doubt, and no adverse inference may be drawn from their silence or lack of a criminal record. After considering all the evidence, the judge found that the CCTV footage was of insufficient quality, the clothing and items lacked uniqueness, the environmental evidence did not support a single reasonable inference, and that the defendants’ prompt arrests and flight behaviour were not probative, as panic may have motivated them. D2’s claim that he was “just passing by” only established his presence, not an admission of criminal conduct. Accordingly, at the conclusion of the hearing, the judge acquitted the defendants.
In criminal proceedings, the prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt; if the evidence is insufficient to support a single reasonable inference, a conviction may not be entered; where identity is in issue, the Turnbull guidelines must be followed.
The judge held that the CCTV footage was of poor quality, the defendants’ clothing and carried items were common and lacked distinctive features, the environmental evidence was insufficient to support a single reasonable inference, and no adverse inference could be drawn from the defendants’ silence or lack of a criminal record.
The identification of the defendants was central to the case; the prosecution was unable to exclude reasonable doubt from the footage and had no other sufficient environmental evidence, and thus the defendants were acquitted.
The two defendants were found not guilty. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判決理由書／裁決書