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 noted that on 7 September 2019 the defendants one to three gathered with dozens of protesters at Sha Tin station and instigated a riot. Defendant three initially shone a torch’s strong beam at officers and resisted arrest; two laser pointers were later found in their rucksack during detention. Defendant one, at the scene, threw an umbrella and a metal mooncake tin at police officers lawfully performing their duties. The police used pepper spray and batons outside the control room to disperse the protesters and recorded closed-circuit television and publicly released footage. Afterwards, relying on that footage and the physical evidence seized at the scene and at residences, the police identified defendants one and two as the riot organisers (labelled S1 and S2 in the footage) and charged them with rioting and assaulting a police officer; defendant three was charged with resisting law enforcement and possession of an offensive weapon.
In accordance with the Public Order Ordinance and relevant case law, the social harm and public order impact of rioting, assaulting officers, resisting law enforcement and armed assault on police officers, along with the defendants’ culpability, are taken into account.
The defendants’ conduct was organised and violent, posing a serious threat to public safety and law enforcement officers. It is necessary to impose severe sentences to punish and send a clear deterrent message; at the same time, the roles of each defendant in the incident, the circumstances of weapon use and the degree of remorse are considered.
The defendants showed contempt for the rule of law, deliberately provoking and using violence, thus undermining social peace. Sentencing must highlight both punitive and preventive functions in order to uphold public order and the rule of law.
Defendants one and two were found guilty of rioting and assaulting police officers; defendant three was found guilty of resisting law enforcement and possession of an offensive weapon. The court will determine each defendant’s sentence at a separate sentencing hearing. (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 7 September 2019, protesters confronted officers at the MTR Sha Tin station. During this incident, the third defendant shone a torch into an inspector’s eyes and, after fleeing, fiercely resisted arrest inside the station, biting an officer, which led to a riot. The first defendant first used a folding umbrella to strike at officers and then threw a metal mooncake tin at the back of an inspector’s head; the second defendant, together with other protesters, stormed the control room door, raised umbrellas, hurled miscellaneous objects and sprayed a fire extinguisher, intending to prevent officers from closing the door and making arrests. Officers ultimately subdued the third defendant inside the control room and recovered two potentially harmful laser pens from his backpack. All three were convicted after trial.
It cites the Public Order Ordinance’s maximum penalty for the offence of riot and the Court of Appeal’s sentencing principles for riot, with reference to the principles of maintaining public order, deterrence and the overall coherence of the sentence.
The court considered that the three defendants participated in a riot at a public transport facility and committed violence against law enforcement officers; the collective seriousness of the first and second defendants justified a starting point of 3 years and 6 months, increased by 2 months to 3 years and 8 months. The first defendant received an additional 3 months for assaulting a police officer (of which one month is to be served in instalments), totalling 3 years and 9 months. The third defendant was sentenced to 3 months for resisting arrest and 9 months for possession of an offensive weapon, totalling 12 months. The sentences serve punitive and deterrent purposes.
It emphasises that political background is irrelevant, upholds the core value of the rule of law, and will not tolerate violence against public officials. Sentencing must reflect the protection of public order and law enforcement authority and serve as a deterrent to society.
The first defendant was sentenced to 3 years and 8 months’ imprisonment for riot, and an additional 3 months’ imprisonment for assaulting a police officer (of which one month is to be served in instalments), totalling 3 years and 9 months; the second defendant was sentenced to 3 years and 8 months’ imprisonment for riot; the third defendant was sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment for resisting police execution of duty and 9 months’ imprisonment for possession of an offensive weapon, totalling 12 months. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書