#九龍城裁判法院第七庭
#張天雁裁判官 #裁決 英文版本
#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.
#張天雁裁判官 #裁決 英文版本
#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.