搞鳩藍屍大行動 (半休台)

【#上庭聲援 - １１月２６日星期四】
［其他和你寫團］
［旁聽須知］［交通資訊］
［保釋及出車位置］
［疫症期間安排］
［政府最新公告 2020.07.28］
［一週總結截止 2020.11.07］
［20201125 被捕個案跟進情況］
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
⚠️ 拘捕請聯絡 @YOUARENOTALONEHK_BOT
（不要蹉跎光陰🙇🏻‍♂️救人要緊🙏🏻）
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

🌟低調案件不在列表內🌟

🏛區域法院８樓２７庭
👨🏻‍⚖️高勁修首席區域法院法官
🕝14:30
👥林卓廷,許智峯,曾,鍾(28-43) #聆取對控罪的回答 (#0706屯門妨礙司法公正有不誠實意圖而取用電腦刑事毀壞非法集結)

🕞15:30
👥楊,湯(20-25) #提訊 (#0831灣仔暴動無牌管有無線電通訊器具管有攻擊性武器)
👤黃(16) #提訊 (#20200524天后暴動傷人)
👤劉(17) #提訊 (#20200212香港仔縱火刑事毀壞)
👤溫(16) #提訊 (#20200212香港仔縱火刑事毀壞)

🏛區域法院９樓２８庭
👨🏻‍⚖️姚勳智法官
🕙10:00
👥陳,金,劉,郭,許,陳,鄒(20-33) #續審 [7/14] (#0831銅鑼灣暴動無牌管有無線電通訊器具)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

🏛東區裁判法院５樓４庭
👩🏻‍⚖️崔美霞裁判官
🕤09:30
👥陳,陳(28-29) #審訊 [1/1] (#1031銅鑼灣 3項管有物品意圖損壞財產)

🏛東區裁判法院５樓５庭
👩🏻‍⚖️劉綺雲裁判官
🕦11:30
👤潘/畫家(32)🛑已還押逾16個月 🔥#判刑 (#0621警察總部參與未經批准集結 7項襲警刑事毀壞)

🕝14:30
👤何(63) #續審 [3/2] (#20200119金鐘在公眾地方內作出擾亂秩序的行為)

🏛東區裁判法院９樓１０庭
👨🏻‍⚖️張志偉裁判官
🕤09:30
👥高,黎,梁(16-21) #審訊 [1/5] (#20200101灣仔刑事毀壞管有適合作非法用途的工具 2項拒捕)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

🏛九龍城裁判法院５樓１庭
👩🏻‍⚖️嚴舜儀主任裁判官
🕤09:30
👥林,楊(20) #提堂 (#1113九龍城 2項管有物品意圖損壞財產)

🏛九龍城裁判法院８樓７庭
👩🏻‍⚖️張天雁裁判官
🕝14:30
👤康(22) #裁決 (#1020深水埗管有攻擊性武器)

🏛九龍城裁判法院１０樓１３庭
👨🏻‍⚖️鄭念慈裁判官
🕤09:30
👤何(37) #審訊 [1/1] (#1027尖沙咀管有物品意圖損壞財產)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

🏛西九龍裁判法院５樓７庭
👩🏻‍⚖️劉淑嫻裁判官
🕤09:30
👤陳(16) #審訊 [1/1] (#20200125旺角管有適合作非法用途的工具)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

🏛觀塘裁判法院６樓８庭
👩🏻‍⚖️梁少玲裁判官
🕤09:30
👤陳(17) #審訊 [1/2] (#1225九龍灣襲警)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

🏛屯門裁判法院６樓７庭
👨🏻‍⚖️李志豪裁判官
🕤09:30
👤陳(27) #續審 [2/3] (#1007屯門管有攻擊性武器)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

🏛粉嶺裁判法院７樓６庭
👨🏻‍⚖️黃國輝裁判官
🕝14:30
👥陳,蔡,陳 #審前覆核 (#1025大埔刑事毀壞)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

＊＊＊＊＊

#死因研訊
09:30 西九龍裁判法院第十八庭 (死因裁判法庭) 👤周梓樂(22) #研訊［9/25］

#其他案件
09:30 西九龍裁判法院第一庭 👤賴(65) #提堂 (#20200825西九龍法院大樓在公眾地方作出擾亂秩序的行為)

2 views13:00

搞鳩藍屍大行動 (半休台)

Forwarded from 被捕人士關注組

4 views13:01

搞鳩藍屍大行動 (半休台)

Forwarded from 被捕人士關注組

3 views01:08

搞鳩藍屍大行動 (半休台)

Forwarded from 法庭文字直播台

#張天雁裁判官
#裁決 #1020深水埗

康(22)

控罪：管有攻擊性武器

🥳速報：罪名不成立🥳

5 views06:43

搞鳩藍屍大行動 (半休台)

Forwarded from 法庭文字直播台

#九龍城裁判法院第七庭
#張天雁裁判官
#裁決中文版本
#攻擊性武器
#1020深水埗

👤康(22)

控罪：在公眾地方管有攻擊性武器

- ENGLISH VERSION BELOW -
（本案以英文進行審訊，本直播附上英文判詞，有出錯請見諒🙇‍♂️）

簡短裁決判詞如下：

📌背景
被告被控於2019年10月20日在深水埗荔枝角道與白楊街交界附近的公眾地方，沒有合法權限或合理辯解而攜有一支長150厘米的長棒(竹枝），違反了香港法例第245章第33條。

控方依靠PW1 PC13714，即制止被告的警察，以及PW2 PC13618 ，亦是制服了被告的警察，以及視頻剪輯來進行起訴。
案發時，一輛警車在荔枝角道停下，隨後一些警察部隊迅速下車到達白楊街。被告被PW1攔下，當時他手持竹棍，當場被捕。

本案爭議點在於被告身上發現的竹枝，是否對他人意圖造成傷害。

📌PW1證供
裁判官認為，PW1的證詞與影片不符。催淚彈射擊後，能見度很低，而PW1則說，他轉向白楊街後在霧中截停了被告。PW1表示在其他警官到達之前看守着被告，待其他警員到達後PW1 便消失了，PW1在法庭上聲稱，他已向被告宣布他被捕，但裁判官認為在這短時間內發生這件事是不可能的。

此外，PW1告訴他發現被告時的時間有前後矛盾，起初他聲稱自己在距離被告20米左右的距離看到了他，後來他聲稱在他即將轉至荔枝角道路時看到了被告。

裁判官認為PW1當日有機會只是看到其他人與被告穿著相似的衣服，並認為PW1沒有將事實之全部告訴法庭，因此不會接納PW1 的證供。

裁判官因而需要依靠所呈堂的視頻進行判斷，她看到被告只是在由荔枝角道轉入白楊街的拐角處被警察制服。被告人當時未有逃跑，被告被捕時竹枝位於被告的上半身，後來被PW2扔到一邊。

📌被告證供
被告證供的與錄像一致。
於庭上被告聲稱他住在附近，並當了教師十個月，而犯案現場亦接近他的工作地點。
他聲稱自己只在被截停前不久，才撿起了竹棍。他正在與身處英國的朋友打視像電話，英國很少有棚架竹枝，因此他的朋友對竹枝很感興趣。他承認得知那天深水埗有示威活動，但他認為他離現場不那麼近。他當時認為他的行動並不太危險。

被告被截停時，他的耳機仍掛在他的耳朵上（在影片中可以看到），因此他對警察的敏感程度較低是合理的。PW1亦同意他在逮捕被告時有拿取被告的電話。

當日荔枝角道上有示威者，然而未有證據證明他們停留的時間長。當警車駛近路口時，由於沒有警笛聲，而警察在很短的時間內便下了車並逮捕了人群，被告當時可能因為戴著耳機，因此可能未有意識到警方在附近。此外，竹棍沒有刻意被磨尖，可見管有其目的並非刻意傷人。

📌裁決
被告沒有任何刑事定罪記錄，因此法庭會信納他的作供有較高的可信性，而說謊的可能性較低。裁判官同意被告的行為可疑，但法院需要考慮到對被告的行為存在合理懷疑。法庭無法確定被告管有竹棍的目的是造成傷害。

被告因而罪名不成立，當庭䆁放。

4 views10:43

搞鳩藍屍大行動 (半休台)

Forwarded from 法庭文字直播台

#九龍城裁判法院第七庭
#張天雁裁判官 #裁決
#攻擊性武器 #1020深水埗

- ENGLISH VERSION -

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's Testimony
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 Testimony
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.

4 views10:43

About

Blog

Apps

Platform