1. At about 2:45 a.m. on 15 October 2014 the police carried out Operation Solarpeak to clear the protestors of the Occupy Central movement. When the police reached the end of the underpass on Lung Wo Road, Tsang Kin Chiu (“Tsang”) was seen on the planter above Lung Wo Road pouring liquid on the police. 2. The prosecution case was that Tsang was pulled down from the planter to the pavement and subdued by several uniform police officers. After successfully handcuffing Tsang the uniform police officers handed Tsang over to D1-D6, who escorted Tsang away in the direction of Lung Wo Road. On the way Tsang was picked up and carried face down. 3. Protestors were to be taken to the escort coaches and cars on Lung Wo Road for transport to the Central Police Station. D1-D6 did not carry Tsang direct to where the coaches and cars were parked but instead carried Tsang to the north side of the Lung Wui Road Government Building Pump Station East Substation (“the substation”). 4. On reaching the substation D1-D6 were joined by D7, who helped carry Tsang to the north side of the substation. On reaching the north side of the substation Tsang was dumped on the ground and assaulted by the defendants. 5. Tsang was then frogmarched to Lung Wo Road where he boarded a car. D5 and D6 sat on either side of Tsang and accompanied him to the Central Police Station. At the police station Tsang was taken to room 7 where he stayed until he was escorted by coach to the Police College in Wong Chuk Hang. While in room 7 D5, in the presence of D6, slapped Tsang on the face twice. 6. Part of what happened that night was captured on video by TVB, Apple Daily, ATV and Now TV and police video teams. Photographs from Apple Daily and Oriental Daily also showed Tsang being escorted and carried face down. Apart from the police video, the defence objected to the admissibility of the video and photograph evidence. 7. CCTV of the Central Police Station recorded two police officers taking Tsang into and out of the police station. The defence objected to the admissibility of the CCTV recordings. 8. The court ruled all the video evidence, photographs and CCTV recordings admissible in evidence. 9. The defendants elected not to give evidence or call any witnesses on their behalf. Charge 1 - Causing grievous bodily harm with intent 10. The main issues were whether Tsang was the person seen assaulted on the video footage; whether the defendants were the assailants; whether the defendants were part of a joint enterprise and whether Tsang suffered grievous bodily harm. 11. The court was satisfied that the video footage, photographs and CCTV recordings were authentic and accurately depicted the events of that morning. 12. The court was satisfied reliance could be placed on the evidence of Tsang that after he was subdued for pouring liquid on the police he was handed over to other police officers who escorted him, carried him by his arms and legs face down and took him to the substation (the dark corner) where they dumped him on the ground and assaulted him. 13. The court was satisfied that the video footage and photographs showed Tsang being apprehended by uniform police officers for pouring liquid on the police; being handed over to crime officers; and being escorted and carried face down to the substation where he was assaulted. 14. The court was satisfied that Tsang was handed over to D1-D6, who escorted and carried him face down to the substation. The court was satisfied that when they arrived at the substation there was no change in the persons seen carrying Tsang, save that the positions of the six had changed and that they had been joined by D7. 15. The court was satisfied that by carrying Tsang to the substation where he was dumped on the ground and immediately assaulted, the only inference to draw was that Tsang was carried to the substation to be assaulted. 16. The court was satisfied that D3 participated in the assault by stabbing Tsang; stamping on Tsang and kicking Tsang and that D4, D5, D6 and D7 also participated in the assault by kicking Tsang. 17. D1 and D2 did not take part in the assault but watched what happened. The court was satisfied that every police officer has a duty to prevent the commission of a crime, even by fellow police officers. The court was satisfied that by carrying Tsang to the substation and watching their colleagues beat up Tsang, D1 and D2, the two senior officers, intended to and did encourage and support D3-D7 to carry out the assault on Tsang, intending Tsang to sustain unlawful personal violence. 18. The court was satisfied that most of the injuries to the face; the left side of the neck; the left shoulder and clavicle; the left flank; the right flank and some of the circular reddish bruises on the chest and back, were sustained during the assault at the substation. The court was not however satisfied these injuries amounted to grievous bodily harm but was satisfied they amounted to actual bodily harm. The defendants were therefore found not guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Charge 2 – Common assault 19. The main issues were whether Tsang was slapped on his face inside the Central Police Station and, if so, whether D5 was the police officer who slapped him. 20. Tsang identified D5 in a direct confrontation. The defence objected to the admissibility of this evidence. The court was satisfied the holding of a direct confrontation was not unfair and that the direct confrontation was conducted fairly. 21. The court was satisfied reliance could be placed on the evidence of Tsang that the two police officers who escorted him in the car to the Central Police Station were D5 and D6 and that while in room 7 of the police station D5 slapped Tsang on the face twice.