Read the full judgment text of CACC 243/2021 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 5 September 2023 before Pang JA, Maggie Poon JA, Anthea Pang JA.
Criminal law – riot – using facial coverings at unlawful assembly – possession of offensive weapon – appeal against conviction and sentence – riot at No.2 Bridge and Campus Circuit East near Chinese University of Hong Kong on 11 November 2019 – four rounds of charging at police checkline – approximately 23 petrol bombs thrown – applicants arrested shortly after dispersal operation began – whether trial judge improperly drew inference upon inference in finding applicant participated in riot – whether starting point of five years for riot was manifestly excessive – whether trial judge erred in refusing sentence discount for agreeing to prosecution case – Court of Appeal follows HKSAR v Chiu Yu Man in holding that further inferences may be drawn from primary inferences provided the chain of reasoning remains compelling and the only reasonable inference – distinguishes Winnie Lo v HKSAR – primary facts including absence of bystanders behind yellow wheeled bins, disturbance lasting one and a half hours, applicant's full equipment and unique blond hair formed solid basis for inference of participation – starting point of five years held not wrong on basis of Choy Ka Fai comparable sentencing principle – four consecutive rounds of charging reflecting persistence and high degree of unity – location at No.2 Bridge straddling MTR tracks and Tolo Highway posed real threats to public order – absence of police injuries was fortuitous – refusal of sentence discount for agreeing to prosecution case was within trial judge's discretion where agreed facts were shown on video – all applications and appeals dismissed – conviction and sentences of 4 years and 9 months' imprisonment affirmed.
Legal issues: Whether trial judge's inference of A4's participation in the riot was properly grounded · Whether 5-year starting point for riot offence was manifestly excessive · Whether trial judge erred in refusing sentence discount for agreeing to prosecution case
Outcome: All applications and appeals of the four applicants dismissed; convictions and sentences affirmed. A4's application for leave to appeal against conviction refused. A1, A3 and A5's applications for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Cited by 28 cases · Cites 6 cases