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 at around 3:00 pm, the defendants, together with others wearing black clothing and wearing masks or gas masks, used umbrellas, water-filled barriers and miscellaneous items to erect roadblocks and confront police near Bridge No. 2 and Circular Road at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. After 2:00 pm, the number increased to over a hundred. At 3:08 pm they began to advance towards the police line, and from 3:11 pm started throwing petrol bombs, bricks and other objects at the police, escalating into a riot. The police dispersed them at 3:24 pm and arrested the four defendants.
In accordance with section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance for the offence of riot, section 3 of the Prohibition on Face Coverings Regulation for face covering during an unlawful assembly, and section 33 of the Public Order Ordinance for possession of an offensive weapon in a public place.
Based on the defendants’ attire and equipment, conduct during the riot, and supported by video footage and testimony, it was determined that the third and fourth defendants took part in disturbing the social peace without any reasonable excuse; the evidence was insufficient to establish the guilt of the first and second defendants.
The court considered that the prosecution’s video evidence and witness testimonies had a cumulative effect, constituting the only reasonable inference; apart from a few witnesses, the prosecution’s witnesses were honest and reliable; the chain of custody for the evidence that the third defendant possessed a laser pointer was flawed, so that offence was not established.
The Court ruled that the charges of riot and related counts against the first and second defendants were not made out; the third and fourth defendants were found guilty of riot and of violating the Prohibition on Face Coverings Regulation; the charge of possession of an offensive weapon against the third defendant was not made out. (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 notes that from around noon on 12 November 2019, over a hundred people gathered near Bridge No. 2 at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, wearing black clothing and masks, and used rubbish bins, water-filled barriers and miscellaneous items to build roadblocks, confronting the police, amounting to an unlawful assembly. By approximately 3:11 pm, the protesters advanced on the police line and threw petrol bombs, bricks and debris, escalating into a riot. By 3:24 pm the police dispersed the crowd and arrested five people, including the defendants. In court it was ruled that the third and fourth defendants were guilty of riot, the first defendant was not guilty of riot, but all three were found guilty of breaching the anti-mask law.
The offence of riot carries a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment, with the District Court’s limit at 7 years; breach of the anti-mask law carries up to 12 months’ imprisonment and a fine of HK$25,000. The judge referred to numerous cases in the District Court and High Court, establishing that sentences for riot range between 3 years 9 months and 5 years 6 months, while penalties under the anti-mask law range from fines to 2 months’ imprisonment.
Riot involves collectively serious violent conduct and the use of petrol bombs to attack law enforcement officers, posing a significant threat to public peace, and requires a deterrent sentence; the defendants did not receive a reduction for pleading guilty, and their involvement escalated over time; those breaching the anti-mask law concealed their identities during the unlawful assembly with intent to evade arrest, warranting heavier sentences.
Youth and a good background are not mitigating factors; the public interest and deterrence against similar incidents far outweigh rehabilitation needs; the judiciary must maintain consistency in sentencing and have zero tolerance for collective violence.
The judgment ruled that the first defendant was sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment for breaching the anti-mask law; the third defendant was sentenced to a total of 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for riot and mask offences, to run concurrently; the fourth defendant was sentenced to a total of 3 years and 9 months’ imprisonment for riot and mask offences, to run concurrently. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書