HONG KONG · NEWS RECORDS

Search the archive

Explore news reporting in English and traditional Chinese.

Results JSON

Statistics

2matching records

of 7107 in this collection

Records over time

Monthly distribution

0
Feb 20
0
Mar 20
0
Apr 20
0
May 20
0
Jun 20
0
Jul 20
0
Aug 20
0
Sep 20
0
Oct 20
0
Nov 20
0
Dec 20
0
Jan 21
0
Feb 21
0
Mar 21
0
Apr 21
0
May 21
0
Jun 21
0
Jul 21
0
Aug 21
0
Sep 21
0
Oct 21
0
Nov 21
0
Dec 21
0
Jan 22
0
Feb 22
0
Mar 22
0
Apr 22
0
May 22
0
Jun 22
0
Jul 22
0
Aug 22
0
Sep 22
0
Oct 22
0
Nov 22
0
Dec 22
0
Jan 23
0
Feb 23
0
Mar 23
0
Apr 23
0
May 23
0
Jun 23
0
Jul 23
0
Aug 23
0
Sep 23
0
Oct 23
0
Nov 23
0
Dec 23
0
Jan 24
0
Feb 24
0
Mar 24
0
Apr 24
0
May 24
0
Jun 24
0
Jul 24
0
Aug 24
0
Sep 24
1
Oct 24
1
Nov 24
0
Dec 24
0
Jan 25
0
Feb 25
0
Mar 25
0
Apr 25
0
May 25
0
Jun 25
0
Jul 25
0
Aug 25
0
Sep 25
0
Oct 25
0
Nov 25
0
Dec 25
About this collection

14 Feb 2020 - 24 Dec 2025

English translations accompany the original Chinese records.

Results 2

搶槍Clear all
Showing 1-2 of 2 recordsEN
8 Nov 2024獨媒#4219

[Sai Wan Ho shooting case] Wu Tsz-kin jailed six years for attempting to seize police officer’s gun; appeal dismissed as intent to seize was clear

【西灣河開槍案】胡子鍵搶槍罪成囚6年 上訴遭官駁回:搶奪意圖清晰

On 11 November 2019, the male student “Patrick Chow Pak-kwan” Patrick Chow Pak-kwan, who was shot and wounded by police in Sai Wan Ho, and his secondary-school classmate Wu Tsz-kin were convicted after trial of attempted robbery, obstructing a police officer in the execution of duty, and escaping from lawful custody, and were each sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. The two earlier appealed against their convictions and sentences. Zhou subsequently abandoned his appeal, while Wu’s appeals against his conviction and sentence for attempted robbery were both dismissed. The Court of Appeal handed down its judgment yesterday (the 7th), saying the trial judge’s analysis was logical and reasonable, and that the overall evidence showed that Wu’s intention to seize the gun was very clear. The Court of Appeal said Wu had chosen not to give evidence at trial, so there was no evidence to support whether he had merely intended to “push away” the police gun at the time. The trial judge had also stated that if Wu was afraid the police gun would endanger his safety, he could have chosen to leave. The case was heard by Court of Appeal judges Patrick Cheung Wai-cheong, Carlye Pang Man-ki and Maggie Poon Po-ying. At trial, Judge Adriana Noelle Tse Ching convicted Wu Tsz-kin of attempted robbery and obstructing a police officer in the execution of duty. Wu appealed against his conviction and sentence for attempted robbery.

2019年11月11日西灣河遭警員開槍射傷的男學生「熊仔餅」周柏均,以及中學同學胡子鍵被指企圖搶警槍,經審訊被裁定企圖搶劫、阻差辦公及在合法羈押下逃脫罪成,各被判囚6年。二人早前不服定罪及刑罰,提出上訴,其後周放棄上訴,至於胡就「企圖搶劫」罪的定罪及刑罰上訴均遭駁回。上訴庭昨(7日)頒下判詞,指原審法官的分析合乎邏輯情理,整體證據所顯示胡的搶奪意圖甚為清晰。上訴庭指,胡在審訊時選擇不作供,故沒有證據支持他當時是否只是想「推開」警槍。而原審法官亦表明,假如胡害怕警槍會危害其安全,可選擇離開。 案件由上訴庭法官彭偉昌、潘敏琦及彭寶琴審理。於原審時,胡子鍵被法官謝沈智慧裁定企圖搶劫及阻差辦公罪成,胡就企圖搶劫罪提出定罪及刑罰上訴。

22 Oct 2024法庭線#4167

Convicted of Gun Snatching and Other Offences, Man Jailed for Six Years; Student’s Appeal Rejected Same Day, Reasons to Be Handed Down Within Six Months

西灣河搶槍等罪成囚6年 男學生提上訴被即日駁回 官6個月內頒判詞

During the “Dawn Operation” on 11 November 2019, a traffic police officer fired live rounds at 21-year-old “Patrick Chow Pak-kwan” Patrick Chow Pak-kwan in Sai Wan Ho. Chau and a 19-year-old male student arrested at the scene were convicted after trial of obstructing a police officer, attempted robbery and other offences, and both were sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. The student appealed against his conviction and sentence, but the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on Tuesday (22nd), with the judges to hand down their reasons within six months. The appeal argued that it could not be ruled out that the student had grabbed at the gun as a natural reaction. It also said he had approached because he believed the police would exercise restraint and would not open fire, and might have intended to stop the clearance of roadblocks. Even if he had taken the gun, it was only to prevent himself from being injured and did not involve “permanent deprivation” of the officer’s service firearm. The appeal further argued that he was young and had been brainwashed, believing that he was acting for justice: “They were all victims.” The judges repeatedly questioned why the student had not given evidence at trial, meaning there was no evidence proving his account, and said they could not construct every possible scenario on his behalf. The Department of Justice said the trial court had considered the account that he had grabbed at the gun, but found it untenable after analysis.

2019 年 11 月 11 日「黎明行動」,有交通警在西灣河以實彈射擊 21 歲「熊仔餅」周柏均,周與當場被捕的 19 歲男學生,經審訊被裁定阻差、企圖搶劫等罪成,同被判囚 6 年。男學生提出定罪及判刑上訴,周二(22 日)被上訴庭即日駁回,官將於 6 個月內頒判詞。 上訴方指,不能排除男學生案發時是自然反應下作出撥槍動作,又指他走近因信警方執法克制、不會開槍,可能是想阻止清理路障,就算取槍也只是想防止自己受傷,不涉「永久剝奪」警員的配槍。另指案發他年輕、被洗腦,自以為正義,「佢哋都係受害者」。 法官多次質疑男學生原審時沒作供,故沒證據證明其說法,指不能代為構想各式各樣可能性。律政司一方則指,原審有考慮過撥槍說法,但分析後認為不成立。

Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.