Fang Zhongxian, the former president of the HKBU Student Union, was suspected of possessing 10 laser pens and made a closing statement today (29th).
Wang Zhengyu, a senior lawyer representing Fang Zhongxian, said when he said that the laser pen does not have a battery. If the party wants to use the laser pen as an offensive weapon, why didn't he buy a battery?
Wang Yi pointed out that Fang was suddenly taken on his shoulder by a man in casual clothes. "Two steps away" was a reasonable move. He criticized the increase in control and hindrance only to deal with him, and the prosecution failed to prove that the lost information was related to Tibetan arms control. The crime is related and believes that the prosecution failed to provide evidence.
The case will be decided on February 9 next year.
Fang was charged with obstruction of justice and other crimes
The defendant Fang Zhongxian (23 years old, student) denied that he had carried offensive weapons, namely 10 devices capable of emitting laser beams, on August 6, 2019 in the area of Apliu Street and Guilin Street in Sham Shui Po, and was outside the Guilin Street convenience store Resist the police chief.
Fang also denied committing acts that obstructed justice on that day, that is, resetting the phone before the police seized the mobile phone as an exhibit.
Some demonstrators cannot represent the defendant with a laser pen
Wang Zhengyu, a senior lawyer representing Fang Zhongxian, stated that there was no riot in Sham Shui Po on the day of the incident. Although the demonstrators used laser pointers to irradiate the police during the riot, it does not mean that the defendant would do so, and was told that the laser pointer does not have a battery. If you really want to use it as an offensive weapon, why not buy a battery?
Wang believes that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the charge.
It is a reasonable move to be dodged by a plainclothes man
Wang Xuhui pointed out that the defendant was using the phone before being intercepted by the police officers. The police officers were wearing civilian clothes. The defendant was suddenly ridden by a man in plainclothes and "two steps away". This was a reasonable action. He was not. He walked away because he knew that the other party was a police officer, and he might not have seen the police officer's warrant card.
Accused the defendant of obstructing only to deal with him
Wang pointed out that the intercepted police officer had prejudice against the laser pen and arrested the defendant knowing that the laser pen could not be opened. The police officer had mentioned the defendant twice or was involved in office work, but he was formally arrested 16 months later, criticizing him. The defendant was accused of obstructing only to deal with him.
The prosecution failed to prove that the deleted information was related to the case
Wang also said that the prosecution failed to prove that the lost information on the defendant’s phone was related to the charge of possession of offensive weapons. The ambulanceman at the time did not hear that the police had reminded the defendant that the phone would be seized as evidence. It is believed that the prosecution failed to produce evidence successfully.
Case Number: DCCC1119/2020
01News
