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 at around 22:25 on the evening of 10 November 2019, the police, fully armed on three fronts, advanced to the junction of Nathan Road and Shantung Street, dispersing about 400 unlawfully assembled persons blocking the road. The defendant, dressed in light-coloured clothing and wearing a mask and gloves, waved a red light baton on the road or nearby pavement, and carried a gas mask and goggles; he was charged with participating in the road blockade and evading arrest. The other defendant was charged with kicking bricks on the road and concealing his face with swimming goggles and a mask. The prosecution presented several CCTV footage segments, screenshots and police witness statements, while the defence challenged the reliability of the identifications and testimonies.
The offence of unlawful assembly under section 18 of the Public Order Ordinance carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 5 years; the offence of mask ban under regulation 3 of the Prohibition on Face Coverings Regulation carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 1 year and a fine.
The magistrate held that the prosecution failed to prove the prescribed elements of disorderly or intimidating conduct by the defendant; the video evidence and police testimony contained multiple inconsistencies, the basis for identification was weak, and the act of fleeing also had a reasonable explanation.
The judge found the police officers’ testimony to be exaggerated or fabricated, noting multiple changes in their accounts and a lack of credibility; the video material was insufficient to prove that the defendant was the road blocker or brick kicker, and the defendant’s actions were consistent with a reasonable departure or passing by, so all charges were dismissed.
Ultimately, the court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the elements of unlawful assembly and the mask ban offence; all charges were dismissed, both defendants were acquitted and released in court. (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 the evening of 10 November 2019 a large group of about 100 persons unlawfully assembled in the Nathan Road and Shantung Street area during a period of severe social unrest in Hong Kong. Police units were dispatched to disperse the crowd, which had barricaded roads, occupied carriageways, shone laser beams at officers and threw or prepared petrol bombs. Defendant 1 was arrested holding a petrol bomb, resisted arrest by striking an officer’s shield and was found with a spring-loaded knife, a wireless microphone, plastic straps, a hammer, scissors, a crowbar and four petrol bombs. Defendant 4 was arrested nearby wearing black, carrying two petrol bombs, two lighters and isopropyl alcohol. Defendant 2, a 17-year-old student, was arrested among the masked crowd wearing sportswear with no weapons or items other than clothing.
The judge applied established principles for unlawful assembly under section 18(1) of the Public Order Ordinance and the Court of Appeal’s guidance in Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung & Ors: serious violent assemblies attract heavy weight on punishment and deterrence, usually immediate custody. For petrol-bomb possession under section 62A of the Crimes Ordinance, starting points in Hong Kong District Courts range from three to four and a half years’ imprisonment, adjusted for aggravating and mitigating factors. Youth sentencing options included rehabilitation, training or detention centre orders.
The court regarded the 10 November assembly as serious violent disorder during a period of escalated unrest. Defendants 1 and 4 significantly increased public danger by possessing petrol bombs and other weapons while participating in road blockades and intimidation tactics. Their presence in “black bloc” attire and coordination equipment (radio microphone) aggravated risk. Mitigation included clear records, expressions of remorse, family responsibilities (Defendant 1), academic promise and sporting talent (Defendant 2), and personal hardship in family settings (Defendant 4). Defendant 2’s youth, lack of weapons and non-violent role warranted consideration of non-prison training options.
The judge emphasized that in serious violent assemblies personal circumstances, motives and rehabilitation carry limited weight compared to punishment and deterrence. Custodial sentences are the norm unless truly exceptional circumstances exist. For minors, statutory alternatives are available but must reflect the need for deterrence. The court balanced individual mitigation against the imperative to maintain public order and signal that escalation of violence with weapons will attract substantial penalties.
Defendant 1 was sentenced to a total of 34 months’ imprisonment (charges of unlawful assembly, possession of petrol bombs and related offences), with sentences on key counts to run concurrently and minor counts consecutively. Defendant 4 received 28 months’ imprisonment concurrent on unlawful assembly and possession charges. Defendant 2 was ordered to serve a rehabilitation centre placement under the Correctional Services regime in lieu of immediate imprisonment for the unlawful assembly charge.
查看完整判刑理由書