When off-duty police were chasing a tripped man at Causeway Bay MTR station in December of the previous year, an in-house lawyer of an American bank was accused of snatching his truncheon and slapped him on his face. The lawyer Meijii was charged with assaulting a police officer and alternate ordinary assault. The case was decided in the Eastern Magistracy today (22nd). Magistrate Lin Xiwei bluntly stated that the defendant’s confession was absurd and refused to accept his self-defense statement. The magistrate combined the police’s testimony and closed-circuit television and other footages. He believed that the attacked police officer had repeatedly stated his identity as a police officer and was performing his duties properly. The defendant intentionally used illegal force to attack the police officer, so he was found guilty of assaulting the police officer. The case was adjourned to a ruling on July 6, pending a background report, during which the defendant must be remanded in custody.
The defendant, a criminal lawyer from the United States, pointed out in the statement after the ruling that the ruling was outrageous. He believed that this result lacked legal and evidential support, which made him feel sad about the status quo of the rule of law in Hong Kong. He also said that he will appeal and accept all difficulties until justice is demonstrated (I will not rest until the justice is done), so that at least one police officer may have to respond to his crimes.
The attacked police officer was honest and reliable and the defendant gave evidence that was absurd and contrary to common sense
The magistrate said in the ruling that the defense questioned that the attacked police officer lied and shouted “disrespect” when chasing the tripping man. This was not honest and reliable. However, the magistrate accepted the police officer’s statement that he only wanted to attract the attention of others instead of Lie deliberately. The magistrate continued that after watching the video clip carefully, he believed that the police officer had fully revealed the truth and was an honest and credible witness. Regarding the content of the defendant’s self-defense, the magistrate bluntly stated that his statement was absurd and contrary to common sense, saying that the defendant claimed that the man who had witnessed a trip was pressed against the wall with a police baton and seemed to have difficulty breathing. However, the magistrate said that the man quickly ran away so that the officers could not see him. If the defendant said it was true, the man was pressed to the point of suffocation, and he should have been unable to adjust his breathing in a short period of time and run quickly.
The defendant confessed that he did not know where the man and the policeman ran to at the time. The magistrate referred to the two as key figures and wondered why the defendant had not been paying attention to them. Therefore, he believed that the defendant’s testimony was not credible. The magistrate continued. In the video clip, the police officer could hear the defendant’s first question “Are you popo?” answering “No!”, and after the second question, he said “Yes!” According to the clip, the defendant was very far away from the police officer. Recently, the magistrate said frankly that he did not believe that the defendant could not hear the police yelling “Yes!” The magistrate also disagreed with the defendant’s arguing that he was worried that a police officer holding a stick would attack other people. He pointed out that no police were seen in the clip. The defenders wantonly attacked passers-by or stretched out their batons, so there is no immediate danger, and the defendant does not have to defend himself.
The magistrate pointed out that in the video, the defendant pressed the police officer to the ground and stepped his foot on him, believing that the defendant was not trying to control the scene and did not honestly tell the truth. “Popo” is insulting and denies that “Popo” does not mean concealing the identity of a police officer. The magistrate said that the police officer’s behavior is fully understandable and that “Popo” is insulting and insulting. Disrespect means that denying him as “Popo” does not mean concealing the identity of a police officer.
The magistrate stated that the police officer stated his identity many times in the footage, and even told the defendant that if he let go of the baton, he would show the warrant card, but the defendant still held the baton tightly after hearing the words. The magistrate believed that the environment was noisy, and many people yelled for the police officer to show the warrant card, which made it difficult for him to take out the warrant card. If the police officer let go and ordered the defendant to take the baton, it would be regarded as negligence of duty. The police officer and later sought medical attention and found bruises on his left face, left thigh and left shoulder. It is believed that the facial injuries were caused by the defendant, and the remaining injuries were accidental injuries caused by the two people entangled.
The magistrate combined the witnesses’ testimony and video footage of the police officers and found that the defendant was not in self-defense, but deliberately used improper force to assault the police officer and found him guilty of assaulting a police officer. The defense’s application for bail was rejected, and the magistrate adjourned the case to a ruling on July 6, pending a background report, during which the defendant must be remanded in custody.
The defendant BICKETT, SAMUEL PHILLIP (37 years old, investment bank employee), was charged with one count of assault on a police officer after amendments; and one count of ordinary assault, alleging that he was at MTR Causeway Bay Station near F on December 7, 2019 At the exit stairs, 1519 police officers were assaulted. This crime is an alternate charge of assaulting a police officer.
The defendant later asked a friend to issue a statement (see separate article for details). He also mentioned that during his detention, the police refused to provide warm clothing and medicine, and prevented him from contacting his lawyer, the U.S. consulate and his family. Before the interrogation, the police destroyed the two. An important CCTV footage and bribes a key witness because he embarrassed the police (embarrassed the police).
“Position News” has inquired about the defendant’s allegations with the Police Public Relations Division and is awaiting a reply.
Case Number: ESCC 2692/2019