Social News
Written by: Lin Leer
2020-10-30 14:54
Last update date: 2020-10-30 14:56
The Form 5 male student was suspected of throwing plastic bottles at the police line at the scene of the conflict in Mong Kok and was charged with disrupting order in public places.
He denied the allegations earlier and heard the verdict in the West Kowloon Juvenile Court today (30th) after trial.
Magistrate Peng Liangting believed the police chief's statement and believed that the police chief could clearly recognize the bottle-thrower as the defendant and found the defendant guilty.
He also alleged that the defendant’s behavior challenged the police and the rule of law. He stated that he would be sentenced to custodial punishment. However, he first obtained multiple reports from the probation, rehabilitation center, and reeducation center for sentencing. The sentence was postponed to the 20th of next month and sentenced at the Shatian court during which the defendant was still sentenced. Wall house.
The male defendant was only 15 years old at the time of the crime and had his 16th birthday during the interrogation earlier.
He was charged with throwing a plastic water bottle at the police line outside the D3 exit of Mong Kok MTR station on Sai Yeung Choi Street South on November 2 last year, with the intention of inciting others to disrupt social peace.
After the court found guilty, the defense revealed its intention to appeal.
The defendant was only 15 years old at the time of the case, but he had reached the age of 16 during the trial, but he was still facing trial in the Juvenile Court of the West Kowloon Court.
(Profile picture)
Sergeant Xin recognized the defendant as a bottler
When the magistrate ruled, the police chief's testimony was clear and smooth, and there was nothing unreasonable. Therefore, he was satisfied with his testimony, that is, the police chief saw someone throwing plastic bottles and recognized the defendant as the thrower.
Although the police could not find the plastic bottle involved, it was probably because someone deliberately put it away afterwards, or kicked it away intentionally or unintentionally.
The magistrate continued that there were passers-by, drivers, etc. who were present at the time. Anyone who threw objects at the police must have the intention to challenge the police, intentionally inciting others to challenge the police, that is, inciting others to destroy social peace, and was convicted.
The teacher said the defendant was not a troublemaker
The defense submitted several letters of plea. In the letters, the defendant's father described his son as quiet and introverted. He accidentally ran into a dangerous road that night and did not react when he was frightened.
The magistrate heard this and questioned his statement and insisted that the defendant was right. The defense later clarified that the defendant's father meant that he did not know the danger and let his son go out that night, and his son's behavior at the time was different from his usual behavior.
The defendant's teacher praised the defendant for his kindness and courtesy, not a troublemaker, and his temper has improved in recent years.
The official stated that the Court of Appeal emphasized that it cannot focus on rehabilitation
The defense stated that there are no sentencing guidelines for the charges, and the case is not too serious. It is hoped that the court will consider non-custodial penalties.
However, the magistrate pointed out that the Court of Appeal issued a verdict on the Juvenile Court case earlier, emphasizing that it should not focus on the defendant’s rehabilitation while ignoring other factors, and finally decided to obtain the probation report, social service order report, rehabilitation center report, detention center report, and youth Criminal assessment task force report, sentencing adjourned.
Case number: WKCC700009/2020
The main cases in which the Department of Justice or the courts have criticized the sentences as too light in recent months are as follows. (See the picture below for details)
+2
+2
+2
Juvenile arson.
Sentence Interpretation｜Sentencing should not only consider rehabilitation and detention punishment is the only option
The Court of Appeals that the Court of Appeals for the Court of Appeals for the Change of the Social Service Order of the Girl Tibetan Gasoline Bomb Materials
Sentence Review | Youth Three Strikes Action for Kicking Police Sentenced to Probation Court Amends 30 Days Imprisonment
01News
Court of hearings related to the Disruption of Order Fugitives Ordinance
