up by the police whild the pictures were taken. The bottles
were also shown in the court as evidence of offensive weapons.
The defendants were represented by a lawyer, (Appendix 4) but
it was found later that this lawyer could not represent the
people too well.
1
On August 30, 18 dedendants were
convicted. The Judge's statement clearly showed that only the 'evidence' produced by the police were considered and not one single point raised by the defence counsel seemed to be counted. (Appendix 5) Worst of all, eleven of the defendants were refused bail and were kept in custody for 14 days while waiting for the reparts from the probation officer before the Judge passed the
sentence.
The sentence
On September 14, those who were convicted of unlawful assembly received sentences of imprisonment ranging from three months to eighteen months. Those with other charges received heavier sentences. Three were thrown into jail at once while waiting for appeal. In his sentencing statement, the Judge justified the police's use of teargas bombs.
Defendant No. 1 Mr Yu Tit Shan was assumed to be the ringleader of the event and he was put into jail for 12 months with the charge of unlawful assembly alone. Actually he was asked to speak to the police on the day of confrontation because he was better educated than the rest of the people. fact he was arrested inside his own home. (Appendix 6 & 7) On September 19, the defense counsel asked for a review against conviction and sentence but was completely rejected by the Judge without a word of explanation. (Appendix 8 & 9)
The appeal
In
On November 21 to 27, 13 of those convicted defendants appealed. They were represented by another two counsels. Since On Lok Chuen is on private land and the clearance was originally en Lot 16 only, therefore the people inside Lot 15 should not
be involved. But the police intruded Lot 15 which is next to Lot 16 and most of the people arrested were residents of Lot 15. Therefore the defense counsel stressed these two points:..
15