涉事地點 :
CUHK (Chinese University of Hong Kong)
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 on the afternoon of 12 November 2019, the defendants, along with over a hundred people, successively gathered around Bridge No. 2 and Huan Hui East Road at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, building roadblocks, smashing miscellaneous items, insulting officers and using umbrellas and other items for cover in confrontation with the police. At approximately 15:08, protesters advanced towards the police line, and from 15:11 began throwing petrol bombs, bricks and debris, with the situation on the verge of eruption as the unlawful assembly escalated into a riot. At 15:24, the police commenced dispersal and arrest operations, detaining five people, including the four defendants in this case.
To establish the offence of riot under section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance, it must be proven that the defendant disrupted public peace and had the intent to participate during an unlawful assembly; a breach of the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation is charged under section 18A and its subsidiary legislation of the Public Order Ordinance, and the offence of possession of an offensive weapon is assessed under section 33 of the Public Order Ordinance. The burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, the defence is not required to present evidence, and the defendant’s silence does not give rise to an adverse inference.
The court held that there was no single reasonable evidence of participation in the riot against the first and second defendants, and the offence of riot was not established; the clothing, equipment and accumulated effect of the scene footage in relation to the third and fourth defendants formed the only irresistible inference that they did indeed participate in the riot and used face covering items during the unlawful assembly; and there was a critical defect in the chain of evidence regarding the third defendant’s possession of a laser pointer, so the offence of possession of an offensive weapon in a public place was not established.
Most police witnesses were honest and reliable, although there were unreliability issues in the evidence of the officer who arrested the second defendant and seized the laser pointer from the third defendant; the identification evidence was clear and sufficient to establish that the third defendant was among those who threw petrol bombs during the riot; and the defendants’ explanations of the “mysterious woman” and the “sensory world” lacked credibility.
The Court rules: the offence of riot is not established against the first defendant (D1), but the offence of using a face covering during an unlawful assembly is established; no charges against the second defendant (D2) are established; the third defendant (D3) is convicted of riot and the face covering offence, but the offence of possession of an offensive weapon in a public place is not established; and the fourth defendant (D4) is convicted of riot and the face covering offence. (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, from 11:25 am on 12 November 2019, around dozens of people near Bridge No. 2 of The Chinese University of Hong Kong, wearing black clothing, face masks and gas masks, erected roadblocks using rubbish bins, umbrellas and water-filled barriers, confronting the police, amounting to an unlawful assembly; at about 3:11 pm it escalated into a riot, protesters pushed the police line and threw petrol bombs, bricks and miscellaneous items until 3:24 pm, when the police dispersed the crowd and arrested five people. After trial, the first and second defendants were acquitted of rioting; the third and fourth defendants were convicted of rioting; the first, third and fourth defendants were found guilty of breaching the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation; the third defendant was acquitted of possessing an offensive weapon.
For rioting, the maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment, with the District Court’s upper sentencing limit being 7 years. Having regard to the twelve sentencing factors relating to collective violent conduct in rioting cases and recent decisions of courts of the same level, the sentencing benchmark is 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for the third defendant and 3 years and 9 months for the fourth defendant; under the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation, the maximum penalty is 1 year’s imprisonment and a fine of HK$25,000. Having regard to Magistrates’ Court precedents and the circumstances of masking during the unlawful assembly, the benchmark sentences are 2 months’ imprisonment for the first defendant, 6 months for the third defendant and 3 months for the fourth defendant.
The rioting involved collective violence and the use of petrol bombs and miscellaneous items to attack police officers; it was large-scale, lasted 13 minutes, and posed a significant threat to public safety. The masking conduct was closely linked to the unlawful assembly and riot, intended to conceal identities and evade investigation. The defendants did not plead guilty and are therefore ineligible for sentence reduction. The defendants’ youth and backgrounds had limited mitigating impact, and concurrent sentences were imposed to avoid excessive total incarceration.
Riotous conduct and assaults on the police are grave offences; society must uphold the rule of law and public order. Sentencing must be deterrent; youth or good backgrounds are not primary grounds for mitigation. The Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation aims to prevent masking from undermining peaceful assemblies, and offenders must face serious punishment.
The first defendant was sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment; the third defendant to 4 years and 6 months; the fourth defendant to 3 years and 9 months, with sentences to run concurrently. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書