Defendant Lydia Siu and her boyfriend.
A 27-year-old barista was charged with throwing plants into a fire to fuel a fire and possession of a laser pen during the September 22, 2019, anti-revision movement, when a large number of protesters gathered outside the Mong Kok Police Station. After a trial, District Court Judge Yao Xunzhi found the barista guilty of two counts of “arson” and one count of “rioting”. She was sentenced on Wednesday (14) to a total of four and a half years in prison for the three crimes. After the sentencing, the defendant’s father wailed and shouted “society is heartless”, many spectators could not help but cry, the defendant’s boyfriend shouted to her “wait for you to get out and get married”, and the defendant waved goodbye to the public gallery. (Fang Dehao reports)
The defendant Siu Lok Ting was charged with two counts of “arson,” one count of “rioting” and one count of “possession of an offensive weapon in a public place. She was charged with two counts of arson at the junction of Prince Edward Road West and Nathan Road in Mong Kok on September 22, 2019; rioting at the same location on the same day; and possession of a device emitting a laser beam at Prince Edward Road West on the same day. She was convicted of arson and rioting, and acquitted of possession of an offensive weapon in a public place on the remaining charge.
District Court Judge Yao Xunzhi sentenced the defendant to four and a half years for arson and five years for rioting, but the defendant did not dispute most of the facts of the case at trial, so the sentence was reduced at his discretion. The defendant was sentenced to four years for the two counts of arson and four and a half years for the two counts of rioting. The sentences for the three counts were served concurrently, for a total sentence of four and a half years.
After the sentencing, the defendant’s father wept, screaming “society is heartless”, “I want to visit him”, “the government is unscrupulous and killing young people”, and many people in the audience could not help but cry. The defendant’s father was comforted. After the hearing, the defendant’s parents continued to cry in the corridor, while friends and relatives kept saying, “He can handle it! “It’s a test”.
The defense argued that the defendant suffered from depression and anxiety and had to be seen regularly, and that she had a low sense of reality and acted impulsively. The defense also claimed that there was no evidence to prove that the assembly was planned and organized, and that there was no large-scale violence on that day, except for the two arson incidents, which were considered peaceful overall, and that the two arson incidents occurred in the same place, i.e. in the middle of the road. The crowd dispersed as soon as the police arrived, and there was no conflict between the police and the public, and no police officers were injured. The defense also produced 24 letters of plea, proving that the defendant was of good character.
Recent Comments