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 10 November 2019, between approximately 22:25 and 22:30, the defendant, together with about 400 protesters, assembled to block the road around Nathan Road and Shan Tung Street in Tsim Sha Tsui. The road surface was strewn with bricks, barriers, and other debris, and the police advanced in three directions to disperse the crowd. Defendant number 3 is alleged to have worn a face mask and protective gloves and carried a light stick on the road, and was subdued by a sergeant after moving with the crowd to Shan Tung Street; defendant number 5 is charged with kicking bricks into the road on Nathan Road and was later arrested on the pavement, wearing a mask and with swimming goggles around his neck. Both defendants pleaded not guilty, gave no evidence in court, and called no witnesses.
For the offence of unlawful assembly, upon conviction by indictment, the maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment; upon conviction by summary proceedings, a level 2 fine and up to three years’ imprisonment may be imposed. For the offence of mask prohibition, a level 4 fine and up to one year’s imprisonment may be imposed.
The judge held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the defendants fulfilled the elements of unlawful assembly and the use of masking items, that there was sufficient evidence to establish that the defendants acted in concert with two or more other persons or actually used protective equipment, or that the alleged act of flight was connected to the offence.
The judge noted that the prosecution witnesses’ statements were rife with contradictions and omissions in the record, that the evidence for observation and identification did not meet the required rigour, and that the overall testimony lacked credibility, and therefore the charges were found not to be made out.
All charges against both defendants were dismissed, the case was dismissed, and both were found not guilty 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 a large group of around one hundred persons, including the three Defendants, unlawfully assembled at Nathan Road and Shantung Street, barricading roads, occupying carriageways and using laser-pointing devices against police. During the ensuing dispersal operation, the Defendants were arrested: Defendant 1 and Defendant 4 were found carrying petrol bombs and other implements intended to damage property (Defendant 1 also possessed a prohibited weapon and unlicensed radio apparatus and resisted arrest), while Defendant 2, a 17-year-old student, was detained solely for his presence in the assembly without any weapons or direct acts of violence.
In line with Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung & Ors, serious unlawful assemblies involving violence attract immediate custodial sentences focused on punishment and deterrence, with minimal weight accorded to personal circumstances except in rare, exceptional cases.
The Defendants’ participation in a violent disorder, the possession of petrol bombs and other weapons, and the use of masked ‘black bloc’ tactics posed a major escalation of risk to public safety during a period of severe social unrest. While each Defendant’s clear prior record, remorse and, in Defendant 2’s case, youth warranted a one-third reduction from starting points, these mitigating factors could not outweigh the imperative of deterrence and public protection.
The Defendants demonstrated genuine remorse and commendable backgrounds, but the seriousness of their offences—particularly the possession of incendiary devices at a violent assembly—mandated custodial punishment. For the adult Defendants, prison terms were unavoidable; for the juvenile Defendant, a structured rehabilitation centre order was considered more beneficial than traditional imprisonment or probation.
Defendant 1 is sentenced to a total of 34 months’ imprisonment (concurrent and consecutive terms aggregated); Defendant 4 is sentenced to 28 months’ imprisonment (concurrent terms); and Defendant 2, aged 17, is ordered to serve his sentence in a rehabilitation centre operated by the Correctional Services Department.
查看完整判刑理由書