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 the defendants (the third defendant and the fifth defendant) were arrested during an unlawful assembly at the junction of Nathan Road and Shandong Street on the evening of 10 November 2019. The police advanced in three groups to disperse approximately 400 people. The third defendant was accused of blocking the road on Shandong Street with a red light baton and then running from the road into the crowd, where they were subdued. The fifth defendant was accused of kicking a brick on Nathan Road, then walking onto the pavement, where they were arrested and had items such as swimming goggles seized. Both denied the charges of unlawful assembly and the face‐covering ban. During the trial, police video and statements from several officers were presented, but the defence challenged the evidence as confused, inconsistent with the actual situation on the scene, and insufficient for identification. The prosecution’s case was not established.
Unlawful assembly: upon conviction on indictment up to 5 years’ imprisonment; on summary conviction, a level 2 fine and up to 3 years’ imprisonment; face‐covering ban: a level 4 fine and up to 1 year’s imprisonment.
It was considered that the prosecution had failed to prove the defendants’ participation in the specified conduct such as blocking the road, that there was misidentification, and that the officers’ evidence was not reliable, so the elements were not established.
The judge held that the police video and testimonies were inconsistent, that the lighting and acoustics at the scene were poor, and that the defendants’ departure amounted to compliance with the dispersal order; the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction.
In the end, all charges against the two defendants were dismissed; they 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 100 persons assembled unlawfully in the area of Nathan Road and Shantung Street, barricading roads, occupying carriageways and using laser devices against police during a dispersal operation. Three individuals referred to as the first, second and fourth Defendants were arrested. All three pleaded guilty to unlawful assembly, and the first and fourth Defendants also pleaded guilty to additional charges arising from items found on them at arrest, including petrol bombs, weapons and radio apparatus.
The judge applied the principles from Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung & Ors, emphasizing that in cases of serious violent unlawful assembly, the primary purposes of sentencing are punishment and deterrence, with immediate custodial sentences normally required unless very exceptional circumstances exist. For petrol bomb possession under section 62A of the Crimes Ordinance, reference was made to starting points of 3 to 4½ years’ imprisonment.
The court found the unlawful assembly to constitute violent disorder involving road blockages, dangerous weapons and incendiary devices, all occurring during a period of severe social unrest. Possession of petrol bombs and other weapons by the first and fourth Defendants represented a major escalation of danger, and although personal mitigation and remorse were acknowledged, these carried minimal weight against the need for deterrence. The youth of the second Defendant and his absence of active violence were mitigating factors but did not override the requirement for a custodial or equivalent sentence.
The judge considered the offences extremely serious, requiring firm sentences to reflect societal condemnation and deter future disorder. While commending prior good character and remorse, the judge concluded that only immediate custody (or, for the young Defendant, placement in a training centre) could adequately address the gravity of the conduct and uphold consistency with appellate guidance.
The first Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 34 months’ imprisonment, the fourth Defendant to 28 months’ imprisonment, and the second Defendant (aged 17) was ordered to serve his sentence in a rehabilitation centre under the Juvenile Offenders Ordinance.
查看完整判刑理由書