Social News
Written by: Chen Jiayi
2021-04-29 19:23
Last update date: 2021-04-29 19:23
Netizens staged a demonstration on National Day the year before, and clashes broke out in multiple districts. A 23-year-old engineer was involved in throwing a trash can cover at a police officer on the ground at the Tsuen Fung Center flyover in Tsuen Wan. He was convicted of assaulting a police officer and sentenced to three months in prison.
He appealed his conviction to the High Court, claiming that he did not wear a helmet when he was uniformed, but the assailant that the police saw was wearing a helmet, and that the attacked police officer once moved his sight away from the assailant and the testimony was unreliable.
The appeal was dismissed today (29th). The judge alleged that the defendant was wearing a helmet when he was uniformed, and was taken off only after being uniformed. The police officer’s sighting was not a "sweeping glimpse," and there was an insecurity in identification.
The defendant Liang Manhui was accused of assaulting detective male police 9674 Lai Xin'an who was performing his duties on the flyover of Tsuen Fung Centre in Tsuen Wan on October 1, 2019.
He was found guilty of assaulting a police officer and sentenced to three months in prison.
He did not accept the conviction and sentence before appealing, and then withdrew the sentence appeal.
The appellant questioned that the police officer had moved his sights away from the assailant's testimony to be unreliable
The case alleged that the attacked police officer Lai Xin'an disperse the demonstrators blocking the road in the Tsuen Wan section of Castle Peak Road in the afternoon. He saw a trash can cover falling from the sky. A man wearing a helmet on the bridge raised the orange trash can cover towards him. Throw in the direction.
Lai ran up and chased him. There were 20 to 30 demonstrators on the bridge. He saw the man change to the direction of Qiansehui and ordered the other party. When chasing him, the two fell to the ground. Lai pressed the defendant who resisted and used batons. Subdued him.
Another police officer who helped to uniform also confessed that the defendant ignored the police and threw the trash can cover on the road.
The appellant once claimed that the man who threw the lid of the trash can on the bridge was not the defendant, and claimed that the defendant did not wear a helmet when he was subdued.
The appellant explained that if the defendant was wearing a helmet, there could be no laceration on the head.
Since he did not wear a helmet, the police witnesses who witnessed the person wearing the helmet and throwing the lid of the trash can doubted whether he was accused.
Moreover, the attacked police officer once moved his sight away from the assailant and looked at the lid of the trash can on the ground. The confession of the two police witnesses was unreliable.
The appellant also questioned whether the police officer was really frightened, claiming that the action was just to vent his emotions and had no intention of assaulting the police.
The engineer committed the crime of throwing a trash can at the police officer, saying that he had no regrets and could not tolerate the assault on the police. Prisoners March
[Fleeing Offenders Ordinance] Two men involved in hiding telescopic batons and assaulting police during the 10.1 riots were charged and brought to court
The judge said that the police officer was not hit, but he was worried and frightened at the time
Judge Zhang Huiling dismissed the appeal today. All evidence showed that the defendant was wearing a helmet when he was overpowered, and was removed after being overpowered.
Lai could not explain why the defendant suffered a head laceration. I do not remember whether he was wearing a helmet. However, he and the defendant fell together. The defendant’s head touched the ground. It is possible that the helmet did not fully protect the head and was injured when he was subdued.
Based on the circumstances, the judge stated that the helmet was moved and injured when the defendant was uniformed. The wound was not serious, and the helmet was covered by hair. The helmet was later removed, so it is not surprising that the helmet had no blood stains.
The judge pointed out that although the police officer witnessed the object for a short time, it was not a "sweeping glimpse." He disagreed with the appellant's claim that the police officer confused the defendant and the assailant.
She pointed out that although Lai was not hit, he was worried and frightened at the time. No one expected whether the trash bin would continue to roll after it covered the ground. The defendant's behavior constituted an attack.
The judge believed that the prosecution had proved the charge without reasonable doubt and dismissed the appeal.
Case number: HCMA 371/2020
Court Fugitive Offenders Ordinance related hearings and appeals