Two accusations of 0824 Riots withdrawn . One wearing shirt and shoes suspected of being slandered. One wearing protective gear when arrested was accused of self-induced suspicions, head broken by police baton, surgical sewing needed.

In August 2019, a parade with the theme “Ignite Hong Kong and the Awakening of All Peoples” was held in Kwun Tong, asking the government to respond to the five major demands and paying attention to the privacy issue related to smart lampposts, which eventually turned into a police storm. The police have successively charged three men with riot. However, when the cases were heard again today, two of them were dismissed and paid for their costs. This was the first case in which the crime of riot was withdrawn. One of the accused surnamed Cheung  said outside the court, “Although feeling relieved of the withdrawal, I’m is not particularly happy because there are hundreds of other comrades defendants.”

The defendant Cheung (34 years old), who was withdrawn from the charge, was originally charged on August 24, 2019 with an unknown person in a riot near Wai Yip Street in Kowloon Bay. The prosecution applied for dismissal, but opposed the defense’s application for costs. The accused was among the demonstrators who threw water bottles and stones at the police. The defendant shouted and scolded the police.

The defense retorted that the defendant was wearing a shirt, leather shoes only, no helmets, armor, masks, etc. The protest was issued with a notice of no objection near the crime scene. The prosecution had no evidence to accuse the defendant when he arrived and how long he remained at the scene, etc. There was no evidence to prove that the defendant and the demonstrators gathered together. It is difficult to charge the accused with self-suspect if it is prosecuted only because the accused is at the scene. Acting Chief Magistrate Chui Yi Mei also approved the defense’s application for costs. If the two parties failed to reach a consensus on costs, they would be referred to the hearing officer.

Cheung stated when he was subdued by uniformed police that day, he was “headshot” by a baton, resulting in surgical sewing in his head. He also revealed that he is engaged in the retail industry. “This case affects my job, and my friends and family are very worried.” He pointed out that he worked in a Japanese company, but he had to report to the police station every Saturday during the guarantee period, preventing him from going to the business trip. Fortunately, the employer was considerate.

The defendant continued to say that his parents had always been very worried, “Mommies kept crying, and their emotions were very low that their son was sued.”  His father was also worried that if the police came to press the bell, “I was afraid that I wouldn’t hear the doorbell ringing, had the bell replaced.”

Another withdrawn defendant surnamed Lau,  told us newspaper through friends: “Thanks for the support and help of many people, we can finally get rid of the grievances. People are doing it, the heavens are watching, everything has karmic retribution, I hope there are more people awakening in the world, and there are many injustice and unfair punishment case out there. I hope that a fair and just case can be concluded as soon as possible. The five major demands are indispensable. “

The withdrawn defendant Lau sued the prosecution for legal costs, but the prosecution objected, saying that the defendant recruited himself on that day, wearing a full armor including a gas mask, helmet, and holding an umbrella. He also had gloves and iron belts on his body, gathered with the  violent demonstrators . The prosecution pointed out that some demonstrators gathered near the Ngau Tau Kok Police Station at about 4:30 in the afternoon. Someone shot the police officer behind the line of defense with a laser pen, and some threw bricks and debris at the police line of defense. The police warning went in vain.  As a result, after taking the dispersal operation, police saw the defendant running towards Kwun Tong and arrested him.

However, the defense rebutted that the prosecution ’s accusations and the withdrawal were obviously contradictory, and bluntly stated that the prosecution believed that there was a basis for a reasonable conviction, and that the accused ’s lighter crime of unlawful assembly or participation in unauthorized marches could be charged. The defense explained that the nearby parade was approved without a notice of opposition. However, in view of the social situation at that time, the police used force during the legal procession many times, including tear gas, “using the reasonable force that they think is reasonable”, so the defendant carried a gas mask It is really reasonable. If the prosecution believes that the items concerned are suspicious, the accused may accuse the defendant of possessing appliances for illegal use, etc., but the prosecution does not, which shows that there is simply no reasonable chance of successful conviction.

Regarding the prosecution’s accusation that the accused and the violent demonstrators are gathered together, the defense believes that if the accusation is true, the prosecution should continue to prosecute, because according to the conviction principle of the crime of riot, the accused does not need to commit violent acts, as long as he is on the scene, it is equivalent to committing a crime. The defense stated that the only accusation against the accused was that he ran away during the police dispersal. He bluntly pointed out accusing defendant “escape” was unfair, “If he does not run, he’d be at the scene;  he run, he become self recruited suspect!” The defense also questioned, in fact, the term “escape” is not accurate. “Objectively speaking, it is to go or not to go”, not “escape.”

The defense continued that the case was postponed three times since it was first brought to court on August 26. During this period, the prosecution had pointed out that the police needed further investigation and legal advice, and finally reached a decision to withdraw today, expressed dissatisfaction: “Why not  finishing these actions (investigation and obtain legal advice) first, and prosecute so hastily on August 26? ” Acting Chief Magistrate Chui Yi Mei approved the defense costs application. If both parties fail to reach a consensus on costs, then case would be handed over to Master judiciary.

Article 28 of the Basic Law:

No Hong Kong resident shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful arrest, detention or imprisonment. Arbitrary or unlawful search of the body of any resident or deprivation or restriction of the freedom of the person shall be prohibited.

Section 39 of the Crimes against the Personal Ordinance Ordinance, Chapter 212 of the Laws of Hong Kong:

Any person who is convicted of an assault occasioning actual bodily harm shall be guilty of an offence triable upon indictment, and shall be liable to imprisonment for 3 years.

Hong Kong Police Maneuver Force Training Materials-Police batons:

The tactical unit’s manual states that police using their batons should “never strike the head, neck or back” and “never strike targets who are leaving. turn their backs on officers or are prostrate on the ground.” Officers should “only strike muscles” and “never strike bone,” it adds.

According to use-of-force guidelines, an officer must report to senior commanders if he has hit someone with a baton, either intentionally or accidentally. Guidelines add that only “minimum force necessary” may be used and must “cease” once the officer’s purpose is achieved.

Related events: 0824 Kwun Tong Parade

Apple Daily news