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 evening of 2019年11月10日 at approximately 22時25分, the police dispersed a crowd blocking the road with bricks and other items at Nathan Road and Shantung Street. Defendant One was wearing a face mask, goggles and gloves, carrying a red light baton while running along the street, and was subdued by an officer who pressed a knee on his neck; Defendant Two was alleged to have kicked bricks on the road and then mingled with the crowd at the roadside, where an officer intercepted him and confiscated his mask, swimming goggles and other items. Relying on on-site footage and witness statements, the prosecution charged both defendants with unlawful assembly under Section 18 of the Public Order Ordinance and with mask-wearing prohibition under Regulation 3 of the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation.
Unlawful assembly carries a maximum term of five years’ imprisonment; mask-wearing prohibition is punishable by a level 4 fine and one year’s imprisonment.
The prosecution failed to prove that Defendant One participated with others in blocking the road or engaged in threatening behaviour; he merely ran with the light baton and there was no evidence of intent to disturb public order. As for Defendant Two, the testimony regarding him kicking bricks and the colours of his swimming goggles and mask at the time of arrest conflicted with the physical evidence, and the identification conditions did not meet the required rigour, so reasonable doubt could not be excluded.
The judge held that the police witnesses’ statements contained multiple inconsistencies, were self-contradictory and lacked credibility; Defendant One’s flight was a reasonable reaction to the crowd being dispersed; and the evidence for identifying Defendant Two was weak, thus finding that the prosecution had failed to establish any of the charges.
The court found none of the charges against the two defendants established, released them immediately and did not impose any sentence. (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 a large group of around 100 persons assembled unlawfully in the Nathan Road and Shantung Street area in Hong Kong, barricading roads, occupying road carriageways and using laser pointers against police. During a dispersal operation, three Defendants were arrested: one Defendant was seen holding and later discarding a petrol bomb, resisted arrest and was found carrying a spring-loaded knife, multiple petrol bombs, a wireless microphone and other implements; a second Defendant, aged 17, was present dressed similarly but carried no weapons; a third Defendant was found in possession of two petrol bombs, lighters and isopropyl alcohol. All pleaded guilty to unlawful assembly, and the first and third Defendants admitted additional charges for possession of prohibited weapons and intent to damage property. These events occurred amid a period of severe social unrest in Hong Kong during late 2019.
The judge applied the Public Order Ordinance and appellate guidance, emphasizing that serious unlawful assembly involving violence demands immediate custodial sentences focused primarily on punishment and deterrence, with personal mitigation given minimal weight absent exceptional circumstances. For petrol bomb possession under section 62A of the Crimes Ordinance, a starting point of 3 to 4½ years is appropriate, subject to a one-third discount for early guilty pleas. Weapons possession, resisting arrest and unlicensed radio equipment charges carry additional maximum terms, and sentencing must reflect both concurrency and consecutiveness to account for overlapping offences.
The judge determined that the unlawful assembly was characterized by violent obstruction, property damage potential and threats to public safety. He noted use of laser pointers against police, road blockages with bricks and debris, and presence of petrol bombs and other implements. Aggravating factors included coordinated participation, possession of a spring-loaded knife, crowbar and hammer, intent to damage property and engagement in “black bloc” tactics. Mitigating factors comprised the Defendants’ previously unblemished records, genuine remorse, early guilty pleas, letters of support and commendation, family responsibilities—particularly the first Defendant’s role as sole breadwinner and public servant—and the second Defendant’s youth, good school conduct and promising athletic career. The youth Defendant’s rehabilitation potential led to consideration of Correctional Services’ training orders.
In his opinion, the judge emphasized strict adherence to appellate precedents mandating custodial outcomes for serious public disorder, reserving non-custodial options for truly exceptional cases. He held that personal circumstances, while earnest, could not outweigh the pressing need for deterrence amid escalating violence in late 2019. The structure of concurrent service for related charges and consecutive terms for distinct offences was necessary to reflect full culpability and maintain sentencing consistency.
The first Defendant was sentenced to 34 months’ imprisonment, comprising concurrent terms on unlawful assembly, weapon and radiocommunications offences, with resisting arrest served consecutively. The third Defendant received 28 months’ imprisonment to run concurrently on unlawful assembly and intent to damage property charges. The second Defendant, being 17 and demonstrating rehabilitative promise, was ordered to serve a placement in a rehabilitation centre under the Correctional Services Department’s youth training regime.
查看完整判刑理由書