香港特別行政區 訴 鄧家樂及另一人

香港特別行政區 訴 鄧家樂及另一人

The court held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that both D18 and D23 participated in the riot. The conviction rested on contemporaneous evidence of a sustained violent confrontation, multiple police warnings, defendants' clothing and protective equipment consistent with participating...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKDC 1210
Parties
Prosecution: 香港特別行政區; Defendant: 鄧家樂 (D18); Defendant: 樊耀淦 (D23)
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 September 2023
Case Number
DCCC116/2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Verdict and Reasons (conviction)
Outcome
D18 and D23 convicted of Riot (Cap.245 s19(1),(2))
Legal Topics
Riot, Participation in Riot, Mens Rea, Circumstantial Evidence (attire and Conduct), Innocent Bystander Defence
Source Language
ch
Criminal Law Public Order Law Evidence Riot Participation in Riot Mens Rea Circumstantial Evidence (attire and Conduct) Innocent Bystander Defence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

香港特別行政區

Prosecution

鄧家樂 (D18)

Defendant

樊耀淦 (D23)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Verdict and Reasons (conviction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants participated in the riot on 29 September 2019 at Admiralty/Queensway/Harbour area
  2. 2 Whether mere presence and clothing can constitute participation and intent
  3. 3 Whether defendants were innocent third parties or had intent to assist/encourage riotous conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that both D18 and D23 participated in the riot. The conviction rested on contemporaneous evidence of a sustained violent confrontation, multiple police warnings, defendants' clothing and protective equipment consistent with participating demonstrators, D18's conduct of fleeing with demonstrators and being subdued, and D23's deliberate collision with a police officer to assist escape of a masked protester. The court rejected D23's account as not credible and found no innocent‑bystander explanation for either defendant; accordingly both were convicted of riot under Cap.245 s19.

Court Disposition

D18 and D23 convicted of Riot (Cap.245 s19(1),(2))

Orders

  • D18 convicted of Riot contrary to Public Order Ordinance (Cap.245 s19(1),(2))
  • D23 convicted of Riot contrary to Public Order Ordinance (Cap.245 s19(1),(2))