College student is accused of hiding petrol bombs and pleads behind closed doors

Police officers intercepted a tertiary student in Kwai Fong Estate the year before and found two petrol bombs in the paper bag he was carrying.

The tertiary student earlier denied being tried for possession of an assault weapon in a public place. The defense said the case was "self-directed" by a sheriff to induce the defendant to commit the crime with money.

The case was ruled in the West Kowloon Court today (14th), Magistrate Qu Liwen stated that the sheriff involved was not charged and has been reinstated after her arrest, and there was no evidence to prove that the sheriff set up a bureau to frame her.

Qu Guan also pointed out that the defendant's argument that his nose was sensitive and could not smell the strong smell of gasoline was not valid, and he was convicted.

The defense's application to plead behind closed doors was approved, and Qu Guan adjourned the case to March 11, pending the defense's collection of more letters of plea and information, during which the defendant was granted bail pending sentencing.

Defendant Lam Wai Ho (21 years old, tertiary student) was charged with possessing two petrol bombs in a public area outside Kwai Ching House, Kwai Fong Estate on April 13, 2020.

It is not said that Mr. A can only testify by hearsay in court

Qu Guan pointed out in the ruling that the defense did not have any evidence to prove that Sheriff Su Zhiheng set up a bureau to frame the defendant, and that the key intermediary in the case, Mr. A, did not appear in court to testify, although he was arrested earlier and confessed that he was ordered by "li sir". It made a single petrol bomb case, but it can only be regarded as hearsay evidence.

Sheriff not charged and can be reinstated

Although Sheriff Su was arrested after the incident, he was not charged and was reinstated.

Qu believes that the defense's accusation that Sheriff Su "made and directed" is unfounded, and it is not critical whether there is a "set-up" in this case, because this will not change the defendant's knowledge of the delivery of petrol bombs. .

Why do you falter with the police if you're delivering red wine?

Qu Guan continued to point out that a police officer said in court earlier that when he questioned the defendant why he was at the scene that day, the defendant hesitated.

It was not until the prosecution cross-examined that the defendant claimed for the first time that he had explained to the police the reason for being at the scene at the scene.

Qu Guan thought that the defendant's statement was not credible and did not accept his statement.

Qu also pointed out that if the defendant sincerely believes that he is only delivering red wine, he should truthfully tell the reason for his presence, rather than hesitantly answer the police's questions.

Claims that the nose is sensitive and can't smell the smell of Tianna water

In addition, the paper bag carrying the petrol bombs that day had neither a zipper nor a cap. The police officer said that he could smell a strong smell of water in the sky 1 meter away from the defendant, but the defendant said that he could not smell it due to his sensitive nose.

And the last time the defendant suffered from nasal allergy was in 2015, and his condition has improved at the follow-up consultation in 2020.

In addition, the defendant later obtained a number of sports coaching certificates. He never mentioned that he would have difficulty breathing during exercise. The defendant also admitted that he was not completely devoid of smell.

Officials accuse defendant of inconsistency

Qu officials believed that the day of the incident was the first meeting between the defendant and the driver in white. It was impossible for the other party to know that the defendant had nasal allergies, and it was impossible for him to try to conceal the presence of petrol bombs while giving the defendant a paper bag full of the smell of petrol bombs.

Moreover, the defendant carefully inquired about the specific content of the work at first, but later turned a blind eye to all unusual things, and his behavior was inconsistent and unreasonable.

In addition, when the defendant was cross-examined by the prosecution, he was reluctant to answer the question directly, and his attitude was quite evasive. The Qu judge believed that the defendant must know that the petrol bomb was in the bag, and finally convicted him.

Case No.: WKCC 827/2020

College student charged with possession of two petrol bombs. Defence accused of being framed by the sheriff's bureau. Retired police officer's son was suspected of throwing 3 petrol bombs and backpacks into Kowloon Tong Station arson case when he fled in arson attack in Causeway Bay on July 1 Human risk and panic prisoners from 50 to 54 April Fools' Day two middle school students dropped petrol bombs at the police station

01 News