Case Law: 2019 Hong Kong Extradition Bill Protests
1. CUHK Clashes Riot Case
Facts: In November 2019, five students at the Chinese University of Hong Kong participated in violent clashes with police while attempting to block a highway. Bricks and petrol bombs were reportedly used.
Charges: Riot, possession of offensive weapons, and mask covering (under the anti-mask regulation).
Court’s Findings: The court rejected the defendants’ claims of being bystanders. Evidence including video footage and presence of protest gear indicated active participation.
Legal Significance:
Being present with protective gear during a riot is sufficient for conviction.
Reinforced the criminal liability associated with mask-wearing during unauthorized assemblies.
2. PolyU Siege Riot Cases
a) Ten Protesters Convicted (PolyU Siege, Nov 2019)
Facts: During the siege at Polytechnic University, thousands of protesters clashed with police; petrol bombs and other weapons were thrown.
Charges: Riot and related offenses.
Court’s Reasoning: Even without direct evidence of violent acts for each defendant, their presence and behavior in a large-scale riot justified conviction.
Sentence: 45–58 months imprisonment.
Legal Significance: Demonstrated collective responsibility for rioting and emphasized the danger of participating in violent protests.
b) Eight Protesters Convicted (Tsim Sha Tsui)
Facts: Arrested near PolyU, defendants carried gas masks, gloves, and lighter fluid.
Court’s Findings: The court inferred their intent to participate in violent activity, rejecting the idea they were mere bystanders.
Legal Significance: Possession of protest equipment at a riot scene can establish criminal liability.
c) Seven Sentenced (Jan 2022)
Facts: Nine individuals tried for rioting; two were juveniles.
Outcome: Seven adults received 38–40 months imprisonment; juveniles sent to a training center.
Significance: Showed age-based sentencing differentiation while maintaining accountability for riot participation.
3. Sam Yip & Chan Kai-kiu – Unlawful Assembly & Anti-Mask Case
Facts: Two men participated in a protest in Tsuen Wan, wearing masks.
Charges: Taking part in an unlawful assembly and violating the anti-mask regulation.
Court Findings: Initially acquitted, but retrial ordered as presence and circumstantial evidence indicated participation in the assembly.
Legal Significance: Expanded the legal definition of “participation” in illegal assemblies to include passive but intentional presence.
4. Jackie Chen – Social Worker Convicted
Facts: Social worker mediated between police and protesters using a loudspeaker, urging police to avoid excessive force.
Charges: Riot (initially acquitted).
Court Findings: Retrial concluded her mediation efforts encouraged others and constituted active participation.
Legal Significance: Even nonviolent roles such as mediation can be criminalized if seen as encouraging riotous behavior.
5. Chan & Lam – Riot Retrial Case
Facts: Two men claimed they were passing through a riot scene on Hennessy Road and wore gas masks.
Court Findings: Retrial convicted them, concluding that their presence with protective gear indicated deliberate participation.
Legal Significance: Reinforced that mere presence with certain equipment during riots can be criminally sufficient for conviction.
6. Hong Kong Polytechnic Siege – Mass Rioting Conviction (Group Liability)
Facts: Large-scale protest and siege of PolyU in November 2019. Hundreds of protesters involved; some threw petrol bombs, others blocked roads.
Court Reasoning: Even those not directly committing violent acts were held liable due to the group’s collective criminal intent.
Significance: Solidified group liability in riot cases, making it clear that being part of a violent collective can attract serious penalties.
Key Patterns Across These Cases
Riot charges are applied broadly: Courts have held individuals criminally liable even without direct violent acts if they are part of a violent assembly.
Possession of protest tools or protective gear is often interpreted as intent to participate in the riot.
Anti-mask law enforcement has been significant in protests; masks are viewed as facilitating illegal assembly.
Nonviolent participation (mediation, shouting, using loudspeakers) can still lead to conviction if deemed supportive of the riot.
Collective responsibility: Hong Kong courts frequently rely on the idea of group liability in mass protest cases.
RELATED Blog
comments