During the anti-revision movement in November 2019, clashes broke out between protesters and police officers on the No. 2 Bridge of Chinese University, and many people were arrested.
One of the CUHK girls was convicted of rioting and violating the mask law and was sentenced to 3 years and 9 months in prison.
She appealed the conviction, and Court of Appeal Judge Peng Weichang earlier refused to grant leave to appeal.
Peng Guan also issued a verdict today (29th), explaining the reasons, saying that the original judge has provided clear reasons for the ruling, and his conclusion cannot be criticized.
Peng Guan continued to point out that the original judge could explain his thinking in more detail, but Peng Guan emphasized that writing the verdict is not about participating in an essay competition, and not about perfection.
The appellant, Deng Xiwen, was charged with participating in a riot on 12 November 2019 at the No. 2 Bridge of the Chinese University of Hong Kong and Huanhui East Road, as well as using eye masks and gas masks, which are face masks, in an illegal assembly.
Conflict on the Second Bridge of CUHK | CUHK girls felt the atmosphere on the spot and wrote a literary work after being arrested Conflict on the Second Bridge of CUHK｜College students said that they wanted to attend the graduation ceremony of their sisters, but the police fired tear gas and the CUHK girls rioted on the Second Bridge Claiming to be unaware of what happened to appeal to the appellant: All Hong Kong citizens know that 5 CUHK students were convicted of rioting in the No. 2 bridge conflict, saying that the troublemakers should be punished and imprisoned from 57 to 59 months
It means that the original judge can explain his ideas in more detail, but writing judgments is not perfect without participating in the essay competition
The appellant mentioned a number of reasons, including that on the one hand, the original judge accepted Deng to stay at the scene for more than 13 minutes, but on the other hand, it completely rejected the reason for Deng's stay.
The appellant believes that the trial judge was selective in the defense's statement, only accepting evidence against Deng, while rejecting explanations that were favorable to her, but lacked analysis and did not provide sufficient reasons.
However, Peng Guan pointed out that Deng admitted that he chose to stay at the scene of the riot. If it was not true, he would not admit it indiscriminately.
The judge of the first instance thought that Deng's explanation was not credible, and his reason was not as frivolous as the appellant suggested.
If the conflict on the No. 2 bridge has entered its second day, it is impossible for Deng to not know the sensitivity of the situation.
In addition, Deng was found to be fully outfitted in addition to being dressed in black.
She even admitted that the gas mask had been hung around her neck.
Peng Guan pointed out that the original judge could explain his thinking in more detail.
But Peng Guan stressed that writing a judgment is not about participating in an essay competition, and it is not about perfection.
Peng Guan believed that the original judge provided clear reasons, and his conclusion was beyond criticism.
+5
Court of Appeal Judge Says CUHK Girls Using Face Masks in Unlawful Assembly Is Enough to Convict
The appellant further argued that for the "being in an unlawful assembly" as referred to in the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation, "being in" must be construed as "participating in".
If the appeal grounds for the riot crime are established, Deng is only in the illegal assembly, not participating, and his crime of violating the mask law will also be overturned.
However, Peng Guan disagreed with the interpretation of the appellant, saying that unless it was purely accidental, being in an illegal assembly was sufficient to convict the applicant, and the applicant who deliberately stayed at the scene just to seek a "sense of presence" should also be convicted.
Peng Guan also pointed out that the appeal party's grounds for appeal against the riots have been denied, and the correct interpretation of the "Prohibition of Face Covering Regulations" is not an issue to be dealt with.
Case number: CACC164/2021