A man taped an anti-police poster at police back jailed for three weeks for assaulting a police officer; Hong Kong court said light punishment could make police difficult to enforce the law in the future.
Hong Kong Echo#Newspaper #Court
(15 Jul) On the Christmas Eve of last year, netizens initiated a “Shopping with you” rally at Harbour City in Hong Kong. A 25-years old real estate agent put a poster at the back of a plainclothes police and he was charged with assaulting police officers. The defendant was convicted today (15 July) at Kowloon City Magistrates’ Courts and sentenced to three weeks’ imprisonment. The magistrate stated the defendant touched others with a hostile attitude which caused battery assault. The magistrate also criticized the behaviour of the defendant silliness like tricks and challenged why he didn’t put a poster on himself first. The magistrate continued to criticize his behaviour was extremely humiliating to police and emphasize that a slap on the wrist kind of punishment makes it difficult for police to enforce the law and orders in the future. The 25-year old defendant pleaded not guilty to attack police officer A outside the shop (no. 24177, 2/F) in Harbour city on 24 December last year.
Chan Wai-mun, the magistrate, stated the defendant put a poster on the back of the officer involved touching other’s body which caused the battery assault. Magistrate Chan didn’t believe the defendant statement that he didn’t know that man was the police and convicted the defendant of assaulting of a police officer.Magistrate Chan considered the defendant didn’t feel remorse and refused to reduce the penalty. The court activated the suspended sentence today for three weeks.
During the hearing, another police as a witness said he heard someone shouted “black cop”. However, it didn’t match the video submitted to the court. Magistrate Chan thought the police might “remember wrongly” and stated that was a minor mistake which couldn’t cause any impact to the case. Therefore, she accepted the police evidence.Magistrate Chan convicted evidence of the defendant was incomplete and misrepresented information and has been clipped. As a result, she rejected to accepted defendant evidence. The defendant said he put that post randomly, and people on the spot were welcome for that. Magistrate Chan questioned his argument and criticized his behaviour was silliness like tricks. Magistrate Chan challenged why he didn’t put the poster on himself first. She continued said the defendant didn’t know the officers and his behaviour was not in goodwill if not have the consent of the police.
Another controversy of this case was if the defendant was genuine not to know the man was the police. Magistrate Chan said even the police dressed in black and wore black mask and people around were not police; however, age, sturdy body and uncompromising attitude of the police and his teammates were incompatible with people on the spot.Magistrate Chan continued said surrounded bystanders have already realized his police identity. Someone has shouted, “plainclothes police are dogs”. Consequently, Magistrate Chan doesn't believe the defendant on the spot wouldn’t know the man was the police.
Magistrate Chan stated the defendant had a slap on the back of the police for no reason and without any provocation and police felt pain because of his action. It was lucky that the police didn’t get hurt. However, this behaviour was to humiliate the police aggressively and provoke police force openly. Magistrate Chan described the police force is the symbol of law and discipline and emphasized that a slap on the wrist kind of punishment could make police difficult to enforce the law in the future. She continued the court has responsibly to protect police from enforcing the law.
Magistrate Chan said the situation was chaos and people were shouting slogans containing assaulting police in high spirit. The behaviour of the defendant might incite other protestors. It was fortune that police was able to control the situation at that moment.
The defendant was held in custody for 31 days after hearing. The number of days he is in custody was more than terms of imprisonment.
The defendant is still waiting for Hong Kong Correctional Services Department (HKCSD) to calculate terms of imprisonment and is still remanded in custody today.
Source: inmediahk
Translated by: Hong Kong Echo
#RuleOfLaw #PoliceState #LennonWall #WhiteTerror #InJustice