涉事地點 :
CUHK (Chinese University of Hong Kong)
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 pointed out that on the night of 7 September 2019, dozens of protesters illegally assembled at Sha Tin Station and confronted the railway police. During the incident, someone shone a laser beam at an officer causing discomfort, and the officer was taken to hospital by ambulance for examination. When the prosecution’s first witness was escorting the injured officer back to the station, the third defendant provoked him by shining a torch in his face; the officer then deployed pepper spray and chased him into the station. A violent struggle ensued outside the control room, during which the protesters struck the control room door with umbrellas, metal rubbish bins, fire extinguishers and other debris before the officers could escort the third defendant inside. Afterwards, the police seized two laser pointers, spectacles, clothing, backpacks and other exhibits at the hospital and at the defendants’ homes. All three defendants denied the charges.
In accordance with Sections 18 and 19 of the Public Order Ordinance and the definition of offensive weapon in Section 2 of the Public Order Ordinance, and Section 17 of the Criminal Procedure (Summary Proceedings) Ordinance, the maximum penalty for riot is ten years’ imprisonment, while the offences of assaulting a police officer, resisting law enforcement and possession of an offensive weapon are each to be sentenced at the discretion of the court up to the statutory maximum sentences.
The judge held that the three defendants’ conduct seriously disrupted public peace: the protesters collectively used violence to intimidate officers, causing injuries, and abused pepper spray, laser pointers and miscellaneous objects to batter the control room, with evidence that was conclusive and beyond reasonable doubt; the three defendants respectively shone laser beams at officers, threw umbrellas and metal mooncake tins in assaults, strongly resisted law enforcement and possessed offensive weapons. Given the grave circumstances, severe punishment is warranted.
The judge accepted the prosecution’s video footage and witness testimony as reliable, finding the chain of custody intact and any flaws not affecting overall coherence; the identification of the defendants, based on multiple feature comparisons, left no reasonable doubt; and the defendants’ actions met the elements of riot, assaulting a police officer, resisting law enforcement and possession of an offensive weapon, such that they should be found guilty in accordance with the law.
Defendant I was convicted of riot and assaulting a police officer; Defendant II was convicted of riot; Defendant III was convicted of resisting law enforcement and possession of an offensive weapon. (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 noted that from around 11:25 on 12 November 2019, several dozen protesters near Bridge No.2 of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, wearing black clothing, masks and gas masks, used rubbish bins, water barriers and umbrellas to build roadblocks and confront the police, constituting an unlawful assembly. By 3:11 pm, the protesters advanced towards the police lines and threw petrol bombs, bricks and other objects, causing the unlawful assembly to escalate into a riot. The third defendant and the fourth defendant were present and directly participated in the throwing attacks, remaining at the scene for over thirteen minutes; although the first defendant did not participate in the riot, he was wearing a face covering when arrested at 3:24 pm.
For the offence of rioting, the maximum penalty is ten years’ imprisonment (seven years in the District Court), with sentencing precedents around four to five years; for the offence under the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation, the maximum is one year’s imprisonment and a fine. Sentencing must consider the premeditation of the riot, the number of participants, the use of weapons, the duration, the harm and threat posed to the public and law enforcement officers, and the purpose of wearing masks during an unlawful assembly, and may refer to a community service order report under section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences.
In this case, the violence escalated to the throwing of petrol bombs, bricks and the like, posing a serious threat to the safety of police officers and the public; the third and fourth defendants directly participated in the riot for a prolonged duration, requiring sufficient deterrence; the first defendant was convicted solely for wearing a face covering during the unlawful assembly, involving relatively minor conduct and not involving an actual assault.
The judge considered that collective violence must be punished severely to uphold the rule of law and social order, that youth and lack of prior convictions are not primary grounds for sentence reduction, and that public interest and deterrent effect take precedence, necessitating a clear message against such wanton violent acts.
The first defendant was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment for using a face covering in an unlawful assembly; the third defendant was sentenced to four years and six months’ imprisonment for rioting and violating the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation; the fourth defendant was sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment for rioting and violating the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書