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 stated that on 10 November 2019, the defendants gathered with around 400 people at the intersection of Nathan Road and Shandong Street and used bricks, railings, road signs and rubbish to block the road. The police advanced along three routes to disperse them, and the crowd scattered to the east, west and north. The third defendant was found wearing a mask, protective gloves and goggles, waving a red light stick and running out of the crowd; he was pursued by a sergeant and subdued; the fifth defendant was accused of kicking a brick on the road; the sergeant said he had goggles around his neck and removed his mask and the exhibits, before handing him over to other officers at the station for photographs.
According to section 18 of the Public Order Ordinance, the offence of unlawful assembly carries a maximum sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment; according to regulation 3 of the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation, the face-covering offence is punishable by a level 4 fine and 1 year’s imprisonment.
The prosecution failed to prove that the defendants engaged in the “specified conduct” of blocking the road, nor did it rule out other reasonable explanations; witness testimonies contained multiple inconsistencies and lacked credibility, and the evidence was insufficient to support the charges.
The judge considered that the prosecution did not explain the connection between the defendants’ actions and the offences of unlawful assembly and the face-covering regulation, and had doubts about witness identifications and the chain of evidence; therefore, reasonable doubt existed regarding the prosecution’s charges.
Ultimately, it was ruled that none of the charges against the two defendants were made out, and they were acquitted and released. (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 10 November 2019, approximately one hundred individuals assembled unlawfully in the Nathan Road and Shantung Street area, barricading roads and employing laser devices against police during dispersal. Three Defendants pleaded guilty to unlawful assembly. The first Defendant also pleaded guilty to resisting arrest and possessing a prohibited weapon, radiocommunications apparatus, tools and four petrol bombs. The fourth Defendant admitted possession of two petrol bombs, lighters and alcohol with intent to damage property. The events took place amid a period of severe public disorder in Hong Kong following widespread protests, prompting police intervention and subsequent arrests of the Defendants.
The judge applied the Public Order Ordinance (section 18(1)) and obiter guidelines from Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung, emphasizing that serious unlawful assemblies involving violence warrant immediate custodial sentences with primary weight on punishment and deterrence. Possession of petrol bombs under Crimes Ordinance section 62A carries a maximum ten-year term, with sentencing precedents indicating starting points of three to four and a half years. Other relevant maxima include up to six months for resisting arrest, three years for prohibited weapons and up to five years for unlicensed radio apparatus. Youth sentencing options were also considered.
In determining sentence, the judge highlighted the gravity of violent disorder manifested by road barricades, property risk, laser attacks on police and ‘black bloc’ concealment tactics, with Defendants 1 and 4 armed with petrol bombs and other weapons. Mitigating factors included all Defendants’ clear prior records, expressions of remorse, family responsibilities, youth and potential for rehabilitation, especially for the second Defendant aged 17. The first Defendant’s decade of public service and the fourth Defendant’s caring family context were noted but afforded limited weight given the need for general deterrence. The second Defendant’s lesser role and absence of personal weapons reduced but did not eliminate custody requirements.
The judge opined that while personal circumstances such as the first Defendant’s commendable public service and family obligations, and the fourth Defendant’s background and health concerns of dependents, were significant, they were subordinate to the objectives of punishment and deterrence in serious violent public disorder. The court recognized genuine remorse across all Defendants but stressed that leniency must be constrained to uphold public confidence. For the youthful Defendant, the judge expressed a preference for structured rehabilitation over conventional imprisonment, reflecting a balance between accountability and the prospects for reintegration.
The first Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 34 months’ imprisonment, combining concurrent and consecutive terms across five charges. The fourth Defendant received 28 months’ imprisonment concurrently on the unlawful assembly and possession with intent to damage charges. The second Defendant, being 17 at the time of the offence and of good character with no aggravating weapons involvement, was ordered to a young offender rehabilitation centre in lieu of a standard custodial sentence, reflecting the court’s view of youth-specific corrective programming.
查看完整判刑理由書