A procession approved by the police in Kwun Tong in August the previous year turned into a police-civilian clash. When the police dispersed, many people were arrested. One of the arrested clerks denied the riot. District Court Deputy Judge Hui Shiu Keung today (8th) in West Kowloon The court ruled that he testified that when the police officers were cross-examined, the foreword was incorrect and the backword was repeatedly encountered. It was really "exhausted" and difficult to trust safely.
Although the defendant was dressed in black on that day, he did not have any tools for illegal use. The equipment alone cannot infer that he would undermine the rule of law and ruled that the clerk was not guilty.
Defendant Zhou Jianhao (clerk, 26 years old), was charged on August 24, 2019 for participating in a riot near Wai Yip Street in Kowloon Bay with an unknown person.
Surprise arrest by police triggers riots
In the ruling, Xu Guan pointed out that the demonstrators were only shouting at the beginning of the day, beating hard objects with sticks to make noises, and throwing debris from time to time. There was no immediate danger until the "sudden" arrest by the police was triggered. riot.
Dress color does not mean that it will destroy the rule of law
The defendant was dressed in black, wore a black face mask and gas mask, and carried a backup mask and two gloves.
Xu Guan pointed out that since the anti-regulation movement, according to relevant media clips, most of the people who participated in the parade were dressed in black, so they believed that the color of the clothes did not mean that they would definitely undermine the rule of law.
In the past, there were also elderly people and housewives who wore black clothes and masks to participate in the parade. Xu Guan believed that their purpose might be to hide their identities because they did not want people who knew them to know their political positions.
Have extra masks or just replace them
Regarding the extra masks on the defendant, Xu Guan believes that the Observatory issued a hot weather warning that day. It cannot be ruled out that the defendant was wearing a replacement mask. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the defendant intends to conceal the identity of the offender because he has one more mask.
In addition, based on the fact that some media photographed that someone was sending supplies at the scene on the same day, it cannot be ruled out that the defendant claimed that the mask was assigned to him by someone else.
Secondly, although Xu Guan had reservations about the defendant's argument that his mother used the gloves to keep him warm, he believed that if the defendant had the intention of destroying social peace, they would inevitably carry them in his hands instead of hiding them in a bag.
It is an instinctive reaction for the police to rush to follow the crowd with a shield
Regarding the prosecution’s earlier questioning that the defendant ran away at the time of the incident, Xu Guan believed that other demonstrators were also running at the time. The police rushed towards them with shields in hand. Anyone’s instinctive reaction would follow the crowd.
Xu Guan believed that the defendant’s equipment and escape were not enough to prove that he was involved in the riot.
Finally, Xu Guan pointed out that the police officers involved in the case repeatedly had wrong words before and after cross-examination, which is really "exhaustive."
For example, a police officer initially stated that he had observed the defendant for 30 seconds at the time of the incident, but after watching the relevant clip, he changed his narrative and said that it was only 3 seconds.
Xu Guan questioned why he would pay attention to the defendant who did nothing in just three seconds.
Moreover, the police officer was observing from 30 meters away, and if the defendant was really wearing glasses and a gas mask at the time, how could the police officer judge that the defendant was 30 years old.
Based on the above, Guan Xu believed that the court could not safely rely on his evidence and finally ruled that the defendant was guilty.
Case Number: DCCC 205/2020
7.28 Going to the Tangdu Fire Case｜Interpretation of the judgment: Wearing black clothes to assist in the first aid is insufficient to prove to be involved in the riot. The man wearing a yellow umbrella and black sweater wants to enter the court to listen to the incident. Female security guard was arrested during the rejection. The final court ruled that those who were not at the scene of the riots cannot be regarded as the principal offenders in the Tangdu fire case | The driver of the sentinel parent car can also be involved in a joint crime and the male defendant is allowed to file the final appeal
01News