Social News
Written by: Lu Leqian
2021-06-15 17:14
Last update date: 2021-06-15 17:15
The two young men were accused of participating in an illegal assembly in Wong Tai Sin in August of the previous year. The case was decided in the Kwun Tong Court today (15th). The magistrate stated that most of the demonstrators in this case were in "neighborhood costumes." It was deduced that the two had participated in the demonstration nearby; the magistrate also pointed out that the testimony of many police officers and witnesses on the prosecution had doubts, and some police officers evaded unfavorable problems and kept asking for repetition of the problem. I have already answered", "You asked Huiqu (defendant)".
The magistrate believed that police officers should know the importance of telling facts when giving evidence in court. However, the police officers avoided their testimony, flinched and had many doubts, so they refused to accept their testimony and ruled that the two defendants were not guilty.
A 17-year-old male student and a 19-year-old male waiter, Chen Jida, were charged with one count of illegal assembly, alleging that they participated in an illegal assembly with other unknown persons at the Wong Tai Sin Public Transport Interchange on August 5, 2019; 2. The man was found guilty after trial.
The Magistrate Qu Liwen pointed out that, unlike other anti-revision demonstrations, the demonstrators in this case did not wear black clothes. Most of the demonstrators even wore "neighborhood costumes", and there were no videos or witnesses to prove the two in the court. The defendant was in an illegal assembly; therefore, the court cannot conclude that they were involved based on the fact that the two were near the illegal assembly when the police cleared the scene.
Conflicts in Wong Tai Sin District under the three strikes on August 5, 2019.
(See the picture below for details)
+12
+12
+12
The designer's three strikes clashed to the police officer and pointed out that one person for doing things is not one person sentenced to 3 years and 9 months in prison
Three strikes | Two students involved in carrying laser pens and retractable sticks
The junior year | Boys fled when they saw the police and injured the old woman officials, not believing that they were guilty of crimes such as running arbitration and assaults for fear of the police
Refers to the police officer refusing to accept his confession in an evasive manner
Regarding the second defendant, Qu Guan also stated that the evidence provided by the police officer responsible for his arrest was suspicious, saying that when the police officer encountered unfavorable problems during cross-examination by the defense, he immediately became flickering and kept asking the lawyer to repeat the questions. Pretend that "I have already answered"; Qu Guan believes that the performance of the police officer in court shows that he has normal understanding. After the defense lawyer clarifies the question, the police officer should understand it, and the police officer should also know to give evidence in court. Shi directly told the truth about the importance of the facts, but the police officers still responded with an evasive attitude, so they refused to accept his confession.
Official Qu also pointed out that the injuries described by the police officers in the court were inconsistent with the medical reports of the two defendants. For example, the first defendant was alleged to have been injured while escaping from the stairs, but afterwards he found that the back of the first defendant's head was also Injured; Qu Guan described that unless the first defendant landed in a "somersault" manner when he arrived forward, it would be difficult to hurt the back of his head. Only the police officer’s testimony did not mention this; the second defendant was accused of While escaping, "jumped the stairs" and fell down and hit the fence with his head and was injured. However, the police officer changed his slogan and said that the defendant had slipped and fell. He was cross-examined more times and said that he was "unclear, don't remember." The defense lawyer "you ask Fanqu (second defendant)."
Guan Qu believed that the police officer’s confession had many doubts. He believed that the prosecution could not prove the defendant’s guilt without reasonable doubt, so he ruled that the two defendants were not guilty and were released in court.
Case Number: KTCC 1648/2020
Three hearings related to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance
