英籍手足被控九龍遊行當日管有長棒 罪名不成立
極速神驅
78 回覆
418 Like
2 Dislike
快啲移民
一陣律狗又不受刑期要覆核
一陣律狗又不受刑期要覆核
要去一去旅行啦
裁判官鄭念慈今（14日）於九龍城裁判法院裁定兩項罪名成立，指彈弓與螺絲帽可配合使用射擊，涉案雷射筆亦屬最高級別，必然用作傷人，最終判處監禁 12 個月及罰款 5,000 元，並拒絕辯方申請保釋等候上訴，是 8.31 太子站事件首宗罪成案件 ...
https://www.facebook.com/standnewshk/posts/3358690900883173/
呢單就好痴線....."必然用作傷人"咁都講得出......
https://www.facebook.com/standnewshk/posts/3358690900883173/
呢單就好痴線....."必然用作傷人"咁都講得出......
返鄉下探親啦
連鄭狗都判罪名不成立
即係濫告得大好撚嚴重
即係濫告得大好撚嚴重
推
英藉手足你走先，我頂住。
其實，係好多唔同場合，包括建築地盤，都見過有西人手足。
其實，係好多唔同場合，包括建築地盤，都見過有西人手足。
呢個我都O撚咗
呢個仆街都會不成立？
呢個仆街都會不成立？
佢都有罪，生果光頭佬又點計
返英國啦仲係香港定居
一定會，所以手足真係快d走
裁決官說，事發時被告仍戴著耳機、把它掛在頸上，不排除他不為意現場在警方施放催淚彈後的情況。裁判官指，雖然被告手持長竹的確惹人懷疑，但控方未能證明被告是意圖作出傷害別人的行為，故裁定被告罪名不成立。
https://www.thestandnews.com/court/10-20-%E6%B7%B1%E6%B0%B4%E5%9F%97-%E6%89%8B%E6%8C%81%E9%95%B7%E7%AB%B9%E8%A2%AB%E6%8E%A7-%E8%8B%B1%E7%B1%8D%E9%9D%92%E5%B9%B4%E7%8D%B2%E5%88%A4%E7%84%A1%E7%BD%AA-%E5%AE%98-%E8%AD%A6%E7%84%A1%E5%90%91%E6%B3%95%E5%BA%AD%E9%81%93%E5%87%BA%E7%9C%9F%E7%9B%B8/
https://www.thestandnews.com/court/10-20-%E6%B7%B1%E6%B0%B4%E5%9F%97-%E6%89%8B%E6%8C%81%E9%95%B7%E7%AB%B9%E8%A2%AB%E6%8E%A7-%E8%8B%B1%E7%B1%8D%E9%9D%92%E5%B9%B4%E7%8D%B2%E5%88%A4%E7%84%A1%E7%BD%AA-%E5%AE%98-%E8%AD%A6%E7%84%A1%E5%90%91%E6%B3%95%E5%BA%AD%E9%81%93%E5%87%BA%E7%9C%9F%E7%9B%B8/
https://t.me/youarenotalonehk_live/11632
Mr Clarke (22)
Here are the Verdict and Reasons for the case.
📌Background
The defendant is charged with possession of offensive weapons ( a bamboo stick) in a public place (intersection between Lai Chi Kok Road and Poplar Street), violating Section 33 of Cap 245.
In this case, the Prosecution relied on PW1, PC13714, the police officer who first stopped the defendant, and PW2, PC13618, the police officer who subdued the defendant, and the video clips, to make the Prosecution.
At the time the incident happened, a police vehicle stopped by Lai Chi Kok road, then some units of police force got off swiftly and got to Poplar Street. PW1 then stopped the defendant, and he was holding a bamboo stick at the time.
The dispute is whether the bamboo stick found on the defendant is intended to cause any injuries to other people.
📌PW1:
In the view of the Magistrate, the testimony by PW1 did not go in line with the video shown. The visibility was pretty low after the police shot the teargas. PW1 said that he turned to Poplar Street and stopped the defendant in a mist.
PW1 was seen holding the defendant behind briefly before other police officer arrived. PW1 then disappeared after other's arrival.
PW1 strongly claimed in the Court that he announced to the defendant that he was arrested, but the Magistrate believed that this is quite impossible, as shown in the video clips.
Also, PW1 told different versions of the time when he spotted the defendant, at first he claimed that he saw him from about 20 meters, then he claimed that he saw him when he was about to turn to Lai Chi Kok road.
Therefore, the Magistrate judged that PW1 is not telling the whole truth to the Court, PW1 may have seen someone else who wore similar clothing with the defendant, and so she would not accept the testimony given by PW1.
The Magistrate then needed to rely on the videos provided, in which she saw the video herself, and she saw that the defendant was seen just turning around the corner and subdued by the police officer. The defendant was not running or doing anything. When the defendant was arrested, the bamboo stick is placed on the upper body of the defendant. The bamboo stick was later thrown aside by PW2.
📌Defendant's:
The testimony of the defendant was consistent with the video. The defendant claimed that he lived nearby and works as a teacher for ten months. The crime scene is close to his working place. He claimed that he picked up the bamboo stick shortly before he was stopped. He was having a call with his friends from the UK, who are interested in the bamboo stick, as it is rare in the UK. He acknowledged that there were protests in Sham Shui Po that day, but he thought that he was not that close to the scene. He considered it not dangerous at that time.
When the defendant was intercepted, his earphone was still on hanging on his ears, which was seen on the video, and so it was reasonable that he was less sensitive with police. It is noticed that PW1 agreed that he had taken the phone of the defendant when he arrested the defendant.
There is no dispute that there were protestors on Lai Chi Kok road that day, but there was no evidence of the length that they stay. There was no siren sound when the police car is approaching the junction. The police officer got off the car and arrested the crowd in a very short period. Therefore it is possible that the defendant was not aware at the time, as he was wearing earphone at the time.
Besides, the bamboo stick was not sharpened, and so it was not held to cause injury.
📌Verdict
The defendant has a clear record, and so he was regarded as a lower possibility of making lies and higher credibility. The Magistrate agreed that the action of defendant is suspicious, but the Court need to consider that there is reasonable doubt for the actions of the defendant. The Court cannot be sure that the defendant kept the bamboo stick to cause injury.
The defendant is acquitted.
Mr Clarke (22)
Here are the Verdict and Reasons for the case.
📌Background
The defendant is charged with possession of offensive weapons ( a bamboo stick) in a public place (intersection between Lai Chi Kok Road and Poplar Street), violating Section 33 of Cap 245.
In this case, the Prosecution relied on PW1, PC13714, the police officer who first stopped the defendant, and PW2, PC13618, the police officer who subdued the defendant, and the video clips, to make the Prosecution.
At the time the incident happened, a police vehicle stopped by Lai Chi Kok road, then some units of police force got off swiftly and got to Poplar Street. PW1 then stopped the defendant, and he was holding a bamboo stick at the time.
The dispute is whether the bamboo stick found on the defendant is intended to cause any injuries to other people.
📌PW1:
In the view of the Magistrate, the testimony by PW1 did not go in line with the video shown. The visibility was pretty low after the police shot the teargas. PW1 said that he turned to Poplar Street and stopped the defendant in a mist.
PW1 was seen holding the defendant behind briefly before other police officer arrived. PW1 then disappeared after other's arrival.
PW1 strongly claimed in the Court that he announced to the defendant that he was arrested, but the Magistrate believed that this is quite impossible, as shown in the video clips.
Also, PW1 told different versions of the time when he spotted the defendant, at first he claimed that he saw him from about 20 meters, then he claimed that he saw him when he was about to turn to Lai Chi Kok road.
Therefore, the Magistrate judged that PW1 is not telling the whole truth to the Court, PW1 may have seen someone else who wore similar clothing with the defendant, and so she would not accept the testimony given by PW1.
The Magistrate then needed to rely on the videos provided, in which she saw the video herself, and she saw that the defendant was seen just turning around the corner and subdued by the police officer. The defendant was not running or doing anything. When the defendant was arrested, the bamboo stick is placed on the upper body of the defendant. The bamboo stick was later thrown aside by PW2.
📌Defendant's:
The testimony of the defendant was consistent with the video. The defendant claimed that he lived nearby and works as a teacher for ten months. The crime scene is close to his working place. He claimed that he picked up the bamboo stick shortly before he was stopped. He was having a call with his friends from the UK, who are interested in the bamboo stick, as it is rare in the UK. He acknowledged that there were protests in Sham Shui Po that day, but he thought that he was not that close to the scene. He considered it not dangerous at that time.
When the defendant was intercepted, his earphone was still on hanging on his ears, which was seen on the video, and so it was reasonable that he was less sensitive with police. It is noticed that PW1 agreed that he had taken the phone of the defendant when he arrested the defendant.
There is no dispute that there were protestors on Lai Chi Kok road that day, but there was no evidence of the length that they stay. There was no siren sound when the police car is approaching the junction. The police officer got off the car and arrested the crowd in a very short period. Therefore it is possible that the defendant was not aware at the time, as he was wearing earphone at the time.
Besides, the bamboo stick was not sharpened, and so it was not held to cause injury.
📌Verdict
The defendant has a clear record, and so he was regarded as a lower possibility of making lies and higher credibility. The Magistrate agreed that the action of defendant is suspicious, but the Court need to consider that there is reasonable doubt for the actions of the defendant. The Court cannot be sure that the defendant kept the bamboo stick to cause injury.
The defendant is acquitted.
張官 同鄭紀航真係天與地