The man who destroyed the office of He Junyao was commuted to the training center and the appeal court accused of privately robbing the legal function

Social News

Written by: Li Huina

2021-04-29 17:55

Last update date: 2021-04-29 17:55

The office of Legislative Council Member Ho Junyao was violently damaged the day after the attack by a man in white on July 21, the previous year in Yuen Long.

The 20-year-old male student had previously believed that he was sabotaged and was sentenced to one year's probation. The appeal court earlier commuted him to the training center.

The Court of Appeal today (29th) issued a verdict stating that the case had an anti-Fugitive Offenders Ordinance background. The crowd gathered at the office because of the "721 Incident," and the defendant must have put on his equipment to attack the office.

The Court of Appeal also pointed out that the "private" behavior is to grab the function and status of the law, impose right and wrong in the eyes of individuals and retaliate, creating a vicious circle and making society lawless.

The defendant Zhu Peiheng (20 years old, student) was charged with damaging the glass wall belonging to He Junyao's office in the Tsuen Fung Center on July 22, 2019.

He pleaded guilty in the Magistrate’s Court. The trial magistrate Wen Shaoming sentenced him to 12 months’ probation. The Attorney General then applied for a review of his sentence in the Magistrate’s Court. The Court of Appeal applied for a review, and the Court of Appeal had earlier commuted him to the training center.

He Junyao’s office was destroyed and the prosecutor accused the politician as a factor of aggravating punishment. The boy was sentenced heavily

The 19-year-old boy in the case of the destruction of He Junyao's office was commuted to the social service officer who said he could better compensate the society

The man ruined the office of Mr. Ho Jun Yiu, the Court of Appeal condemned that the social service order was too light to be sentenced to training center

Alleged that the defendant had planned to commit a crime, riding on the sudden restlessness of the crowd and began to commit the crime

The Court of Appeal issued a verdict today that the original trial did not voluntarily request to watch the live video footage. The practice was not ideal, and therefore failed to grasp all the defendant’s movements in the mall, including that he also wore a guard’s elbow, a tactical vest, and a helmet. The equipment is owned by others, but the owner and the defendant must have a consensus before allowing the defendant to wear it. In the circumstances of this case, the office must be attacked.

The Court of Appeal also believed that there were various signs that the defendant had committed a premeditated crime. At least 15 minutes before the incident, he should put on his equipment, calmly talk to others and take advantage of the sudden restlessness of the crowd to start the crime. He did not commit the crime alone. Against the background of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, a large number of people gathered in the office because of the "721 Incident," and the defendant's behavior can trigger other illegal acts at any time.

The Department of Justice has made a review of sentences related to the anti-legislation movement.

(See the picture below for details)

+16

+16

+16

Refers to the "private" behavior is to grab the function and status of the law

The Court of Appeal also pointed out that even if someone harms someone else’s body and property out of a sense of justice, the court will never tolerate it. It believes that “private” behavior is to grab the function and status of the law, and impose the right and wrong in the eyes of the individual on others. Retaliation, whether right or wrong, can also create a vicious circle, causing people with different positions to attack each other and making society lawless.

The Court of Appeal held that the original trial mistakenly regarded the defendant as an unprepared and imprudent teenager who only wanted to vent his anger. He did not realize that there were hatred, bullying, intimidation, and silence in the case. It was insufficient in identifying the seriousness of the case and questioned whether the defendant was sincere. Regret.

Case Number: CAAR2/2021

Court sentence review of fugitive offenders Ordinance related hearings Junyao Ho criminal damage