8.31 Hong Kong Island Conflict｜The judges who were arrested at the scene did not prove the riot

Social News

Author: Lu Leqian

2020-10-31 12:06

Last update date: 2020-10-31 12:07

During the anti-amendment campaign, on August 31 last year, demonstrators burned debris in Wan Chai, including a ride from Southorn Stadium to the spectator stand. Police arrested 7 men and women in Wan Chai and Causeway Bay afterwards, accusing them of participating in the riot. Court judge Shen Xiaomin today (31st) was found guilty of all the charges.

Official Shen explained the reasons for the ruling. Although it is certain that the defendants had appeared at the scene at the time, there was no sufficient evidence to prove their behavior before their arrest. He believed that participation in the riot was not the only reasonable inference, so he ruled that all the defendants were not guilty.

Shen Guan also pointed out that the situation like that night is not common in Hong Kong. For some people, it is more likely to be a historical moment. It cannot be ruled out that some people want to witness everything.

Seven defendants: Yu Deying (24 years old, self-employed), Lai Siqi (23 years old, female, student), Zhong Jianeng (27 years old, computer programmer), Gong Zishun (23 years old, chef), Jian Jiakang (19 years old, unemployed) , Mo Jiaqing (24 years old, female), Liang Yanbin (25 years old, unemployed).

They were also charged with riots, saying that they participated in the riots along with other people along Hennessy Road and Luard Road in Wan Chai on August 31 last year.

Gong was also charged with one count of possession of offensive weapons in a public place, accusing him of possession of petrol bombs and telescopic sticks. All of them were not convicted.

The defendants did not fully prove to participate in the activities at the scene

Official Shen concluded the ruling and stated that the court must convict the defendant based on the defendant’s clothing, attire, location of arrest, etc. The evidence in front of the court may also have another possibility, such as the defendant just arrived at the scene and did not participate in any activities. He was arrested by the police.

Arbitrarily see that those involved in the riot have a chance to wrong the innocent

Shen Guan continued that there was no evidence to prove what the defendants did at the scene or that they did not actually encourage others in the crime, but the fact that the defendants were at the scene of the crime is not enough to prove their guilt.

Official Shen said bluntly that people who are dressed in black are treated as people who participate in the riots have the opportunity to wrong the innocent. Choosing the color of the clothes is a personal preference, and people who wear white clothes can also participate in the riots.

Shen Guan said that even if someone brings protective equipment to the scene, it is understandable. For example, there is a little protection against tear gas.

Based on the above, the accuser Shen did not have sufficient evidence to prove the defendant's behavior before being arrested, so participation in the riot is not the only reasonable inference.

There is no doubt that what happened that night was not a common phenomenon in Hong Kong. For some people, it may be a rare historical moment. The court does not rule out that some people want to come and witness all this.

It is understandable if they do not want to be mistaken for rioters and thus cover their appearance.

Judge Shen Xiaomin's decision reasons

The conflict on Hong Kong Island turned into a riot on August 31 last year.

(See the picture below for details)

+16

+16

+16

The police did not record that two of the defendants provoked

Shen Guan also analyzed the prosecution's allegations against the defendants. He said that the defense basically did not dispute that there was a riot on the day of the case, but the question is whether each defendant participated in the riot that day.

Official Shen said that as far as the first and seventh defendants were concerned, the evidence from the main prosecution police officers on the scene stated that they had provoke the police, yelling "dead black police, black police killed the whole family", etc., but Shen said the scene The police officers did not mention the above matters at all when they recorded the incident for the first time, so it is not certain that the two defendants provoked the police and fled.

The clothing of the third defendant was not unique at the scene

As for the third defendant, the prosecution insisted that the person who built the roadblock and held the shield in the segment was the defendant. It also pointed out his equipment at the time, including white gloves, black trousers wearing black clothes and patterns, and white. The sneakers and blue backpack are unique at the scene, so it can be confirmed that the person in the film is the defendant.

However, official Shen said bluntly that the court did not consider this combination unique. The defendant was in a big street at the time, and the footage captured in the video segment could only show a small number of people in it. Therefore, it ruled that the prosecution failed to make it beyond reasonable doubt. Prove the guilt of the defendant.

The sixth defendant was beaten to the head

In the case of the sixth defendant, the prosecution relied on the evidence from the police officers at the scene again, saying that the sixth defendant would flee to the police at that time and ignored the police warning, so the police beat him on the shoulder twice, and then rushed there. Together with the robe, subdued the defendant.

Shen Guan believes that the video footage broadcast by the defense in the court showed that 5 to 6 riot police waved their batons at the sixth defendant several times, and the sixth defendant broke his blood on the scene.

But the police officer who gave evidence in court insisted that he had beaten the defendant with a baton.

The sixth defendant has been subdued without bloodshed

Shen Guan pointed out that professionally trained police officers should know how to subdue a suspect with the minimum force. In terms of the situation at the time, the sixth defendant was surrounded by several police officers. Under the 6-to-1 situation, there was no need for bloodshed. The defendant can be subdued. Official Shen said frankly that the police officer who gave evidence in court was obviously avoiding the problem. Facing the video clip, he chose not to tell the truth. Official Shen believed that he was not honest and reliable, so he ruled that the sixth defendant was not guilty.

There are also police officers who have exaggerated and false statements

When analyzing the case of the eighth defendant, Guan Shen once again pointed out that the police officer’s statement was exaggerated and inaccurate, saying that the policeman claimed to have seen the eighth defendant during the accidental advance of 20 meters and was able to describe his attire in full detail; only Guan Shen He pointed out that the police officer was advancing rapidly at the time and did not lock the detainee, questioning why he would concentrate on dealing with the eighth defendant, and was able to write down his attire more carefully, including his gas mask covered by a gray mask and his rucksack. A black flashlight is plugged in.

Shen Guan pointed out that even if the court accepts police officers with excellent eyesight, such evidence is unbelievable, and it is estimated that the eighth defendant will not be guilty.

Case Number: DCCC 12/2020

8.31 Hong Kong Island Conflict | Burning Southorn audience station on the road, 7 male and female riots are not convicted

8.31 Hong Kong Island Conflict | Southorn audience stage set on fire, Chen Hongxiu and 8 men and women involved in riots are tried

Social worker Chen Hongxiu urged the police to calm down and was released in court after the accused riot officer ruled that the evidence was unfounded

01News

Tribunals related to the Fugitive Riot Ordinance