23 Dec 2025法庭線#7725
膳心小館遭檢走月餅放棄申訴 官下令撤銷申訴指對雙方最公平公正
The social enterprise “Saan Sam” had its mooncakes seized by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department last year. It subsequently challenged the decision in court, seeking an order to revoke the department’s decision and compensation. An FEHD officer testified during the trial that the mooncakes were evidence in a criminal case and that the Department of Justice had been consulted before the operation. The magistrate expressed concern that the Department of Justice’s prosecution decisions should not be interfered with. “Saan Sam” decided to abandon the challenge, while the department argued that the court should order its withdrawal.
On Tuesday (23), Magistrate Pang Leung-ting formally ordered the challenge withdrawn at Kwun Tong Magistrates’ Courts, saying this was the fairest and most just course for both sides. In response to the department’s reliance on the Criminal Procedure (Costs) Ordinance to argue that the court could make a costs order, the magistrate said the case was civil in nature. He questioned whether the department had distorted the original intention of the Ordinance and said its argument was far-fetched, holding that the court had no power to make a costs order.
社企「膳心小館」去年遭食環署查封及檢走月餅，其後向法庭申訴，要求頒令撤銷署方決定及賠償。食環署職員在審訊供稱，月餅為刑事案證物，行動前已徵詢律政司意見。官關注，律政司檢控決定不受干預，「膳心」一方決定放棄申訴，署方則指應由法庭撤銷申訴。
裁判官彭亮廷周二（23 日）在觀塘裁判法院，正式下令撤銷申訴，指做法對雙方最公平、公正。就署方引《刑事案件訟費條例》，指法庭可頒訟費令，官反駁指本案屬民事性質，質疑署方扭曲《條例》原意、說法牽強，指法庭無權頒訟費令。
23 Dec 2025法庭線#7726
反恐第二案｜無罪何培欣向終院申上訴許可 終院要求提出不應駁回原因
In the second case under the anti-terrorism legislation, five of the eight defendants, including Ho Pui-yan, were acquitted of all charges. After the verdict, Ho applied for costs, but High Court trial judge Chan Chung-hang said she had brought suspicion upon herself and dismissed the application. The judge also ruled that HK$163,000 and RMB400 found by police at Ho’s residence had been obtained by the defendants in the course of committing the offence and entrusted to Ho for safekeeping, and ordered the money forfeited.
Ho Pui-yan subsequently applied to the Court of Final Appeal for leave to appeal, reportedly in relation to the costs and the handling of the exhibits. On Tuesday (23rd), the Registrar of the Court of Final Appeal said there was no reasonably arguable point, and required the applicant to provide, by 20 January next year, reasons why the application should not be dismissed.
反恐條例第二案，8 名被告中有 5 人獲裁定全部罪名不成立，包括何培欣。何在裁決後申請訟費，原審高院法官陳仲衡指她自招嫌疑，駁回申請。官另裁斷，警方在何住所搜出的 16.3 萬元港幣及 400 元人民幣，是案中被告在犯案過程中取得，交由何保管，予以充公。
何培欣其後向終院申請上訴許可，據悉與訟費及證物處理有關。終院司法常務官周二（23 日）指案件沒有合理可供爭辯之處，限申請方在明年 1 月 20 日前，提出不應駁回其申請的原因。
23 Dec 2025法庭線#7727
郭鳳儀父否認企圖處理潛逃者財產 控辯方結案爭議保單權益誰屬 明年2.11裁決
The 68-year-old father of Kwok Fung-yi, executive director of the Hong Kong Democracy Council, who is wanted by the Police National Security Department, was accused of attempting to deal with his daughter’s insurance policy and charged under Article 23 with attempting to deal with a fugitive’s property. The case entered its fourth day of trial at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts on Tuesday (the 23rd), with the prosecution and defence completing their closing submissions. The case was adjourned until Feb. 11 next year for judgment.
The prosecution said the policy in question was a trust policy, with the insured person also being the beneficiary. Even though Kwok Fung-yi had not signed the form transferring the policy interest, the policy was a gift and she would “automatically” become its owner upon reaching adulthood. The defence argued that the legislative intent of the charge was to target “sanctions” or “countermeasures” and prevent members of the public from supporting people overseas who endanger national security, rather than dealing with “a baby policy bought a long time ago”. It described the current prosecution as “in effect a prosecution of family ties”.
遭警方國安處通緝的「香港民主委員會」執行總監郭鳳儀，其 68 歲父親郭賢生被指企圖處理女兒的保單，被起訴「23 條」下企圖處理潛逃者財產罪。案件周二（23 日）在西九龍裁判法院展開第四天審訊，控辯完成結案陳詞，押至明年 2 月 11 日裁決。
控方指，涉案保單為信託保單，受保人亦即受益人，即使郭鳳儀沒簽署保單權益轉移回條，該保單屬餽贈，她成年後會「自動」成為擁有人。辯方則指，本案控罪的立法原意針對「制裁」或「反制措施」，防止市民支援在外國危害國安的人，並非處理「一個人好耐之前買嬰兒單」的情況，形容現時的檢控「變相係對親情嘅檢控」。
22 Dec 2025法庭線#7724
鄭嘉如檢控《華爾街日報》 鄭供稱記協選舉前遭上司要求退選及退出執委會
The private criminal prosecution brought by Hong Kong Journalists Association chairperson Cheng Ka-yu against The Wall Street Journal entered its third day of hearings on Monday (22nd), with Cheng testifying as a prosecution witness. She said that on the eve of the HKJA election, her direct supervisor sent her messages and called her to ask her to withdraw, otherwise the union chairperson’s position would be “incompatiable” with her work at the Journal, and expressed the wish that she also quit the HKJA executive committee.
After Cheng told her supervisor that she would continue to stand for election, a human resources staff member emailed her saying that she had not applied to the company for permission and that her candidacy had not been approved. About half a month after she was elected chairperson, she was formally dismissed by the Journal on the grounds that her position would be assigned to another region.
In response to the Journal’s earlier suggestion that she brought the prosecution to seek a large compensation payment, Cheng explained that she pursued the case because an employer cannot dismiss an employee for participating in a trade union, but few employers have been held legally responsible for doing so. “As a union leader defending journalists [’ rights], I felt that I needed to take action to hold the employer responsible,” she said. She also said she was deeply disappointed by the Labour Department and Department of Justice decisions not to prosecute the Journal. The hearing will continue on Tuesday.
記協主席鄭嘉如私人刑事檢控《華爾街日報》一案，周一（22 日）踏入第三天聆訊，鄭以控方證人身分作供。她供稱在記協選舉前夕，其直屬上司發訊息及打電話要求她退選，否則工會主席職務將與她在《華》的工作「不相容」（incompatiable），並希望她一併退出記協執委會。
鄭向上司稱會繼續參選後，人事部職員發電郵稱，鄭沒向公司申請許可，參選不獲公司批准。鄭當選主席後約半個月，被《華》正式解僱，理由為她的職位會分配到其他地區。
就《華》一方早前質疑鄭興訟是為取巨額賠償，鄭解釋，提出檢控是因為僱主不能因僱員參與工會而解僱他，惟很少僱主因此負上法律責任，「而我作為一個捍衛記者（權利）的工會領袖，我覺得我需要採取行動，令僱主負上責任」，又提到對勞工處和律政司決定不檢控《華》大感失望。審訊周二續。
19 Dec 2025法庭線#7711
助理律師未經授權助鄒家成寄投訴信罪成 申終極上訴許可 明年1月聆訊
Zou Gaa-sing, who was remanded in custody in the “47-person case”, was alleged to have sent a complaint letter to the Office of the Ombudsman through a lawyer in 2023 without authorisation. The letter complained that the Correctional Services Department had damaged and refused to allow his relatives and friends to bring in two Buddhist books. Zou and a female lawyer were convicted of “taking an unauthorised article out of a prison”. Zou was sentenced to three days’ imprisonment, while the lawyer was fined HK$1,800.
Their appeals against conviction were dismissed, while Zou’s sentence was subsequently replaced with a fine of HK$1,800. After the lawyer’s application for a certificate granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was again rejected, she applied directly to the Court of Final Appeal for leave to appeal. According to the Judiciary’s website, the case will be heard on 21 January 2026 by Permanent Judges Li Yee, Fok Siu-kong and Lam Man-hon.
因「47 人案」還押的鄒家成，2023 年被指未經授權下，透過律師寄出予申訴專員公署的投訴信，投訴懲教署損毀及拒絕其親友送入的兩本佛學書籍。鄒與一名女律師被裁定「將未經授權的物品攜離監獄」罪成，鄒判囚 3 日，律師罰款 1,800 元。
兩人不服提定罪上訴被駁回，鄒則獲改判罰款 1,800 元。涉案律師申請上訴至終院許可證明書再駁回後，再直接向終院申請上訴許可。根據司法機構網頁，案件將於 2026 年 1 月 21 日聆訊，由常任法官李義、霍兆剛及林文瀚處理。
19 Dec 2025法庭線#7713
黎智英案｜裁決日、判詞報道合集 拆解855頁判詞重點
Media tycoon and Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai, who has been remanded in custody for more than five years, was convicted on Monday (15th) of conspiracy to collude with foreign forces and three counts of sedition. He and the other eight defendants were remanded in custody until mid-January next year for mitigation submissions. The judgment said Lai had harboured resentment towards China for many years, and that his sole intention, both before and after the National Security Law came into force, was to seek the downfall of the Chinese Communist Party. It also said that although Lai became more implicit and obscure in calling for sanctions after the National Security Law took effect, his intention remained unchanged.
What are the key points in the 855-page judgment? What did Apple Daily represent in the judges’ eyes? Why did they find that Lai resented China? And why did the judgment devote extensive coverage to Lai’s words and actions before the National Security Law came into force?
The Witness has brought together all its coverage of the case’s verdict day and the judgment, allowing readers to revisit the proceedings.
還押逾 5 年的壹傳媒創辦人黎智英，周一（15 日）被裁定串謀勾結外力、煽動 3 罪成，與另外 8 被告續還押至明年一月中處理求情。判詞指，黎長年對中國心懷怨恨，指他無論在《國安法》實施前後，唯一意圖是尋求中共倒台，又指在《國安法》後，雖然黎請求制裁時變得含蓄及隱晦，他的意圖依然如故。
究竟 855 頁判詞有何重點？法官眼中的《蘋果》代表甚麼？為何認為黎怨恨中國？判詞又為何要大篇幅提及黎智英在《國安法》生效前的言行？
《法庭線》整合案件裁決日，以及判詞相關的所有報道，方便讀者重溫。
19 Dec 2025法庭線#7714
擺擴音器播訴求罪成罰款 大坑西邨居民上訴失敗 高院拒發上訴至終院證明書
Tai Hang Sai Estate resident Wong Kwai-keung was accused of placing a loudspeaker in the estate last June and broadcasting demands expressing dissatisfaction with its redevelopment. He was convicted after trial on a summons charge of “noise nuisance caused by a loudspeaker” and fined $1,500. High Court acting judge Chun Man (OIAP) Li dismissed his appeal and, in a judgment handed down on Friday (19th), refused to issue Wong a certificate to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
The judgment said Wong’s grounds of appeal concerned only how the relevant legal principles should be applied, and did not involve “a point of law of great and general importance”. They therefore did not meet the requirements for an appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
大坑西邨居民黃桂強被指去年 6 月在邨內擺放擴音器、播放不滿重建的訴求，受審後被裁定「擴音器造成的噪音煩擾」傳票罪成，罰款 1,500 元。高院暫委法官李俊文駁回他的上訴，周五（19 日）再頒下判詞，拒絕向黃發出上訴至終審法院證明書。
判詞指，黃的上訴理據只涉如何應用相關法律原則，不屬「具有重大而廣泛重要性的法律論點」，不符合案件上訴至終院的要求。
19 Dec 2025法庭線#7715
男子撕走兩張選舉事務處海報 認罪指貪玩判罰$2000 另須向處方賠償$10
A 59-year-old man was accused of tearing down two posters for the 2025 Legislative Council election belonging to the Registration and Electoral Office in North Point on 19 November. After his arrest, he admitted under caution that he had committed the offence impulsively and for fun.
The man pleaded guilty on Friday (19th) at the Eastern Magistrates’ Courts to one count of “criminal damage”. Magistrate Chee Hong Lam said the case was suitable for disposal by a fine and fined him $2,000. At the prosecution’s request, the defendant was also ordered to pay the Registration and Electoral Office $10 in compensation.
59 歲男子被指在 11 月 19 日，在北角撕走兩張屬於選舉事務處的 2025 年立法會選舉海報。他被捕後於警誡下承認，因衝動與貪玩犯案。
男子周五（ 19 日）在東區裁判法院承認一項「刑事損壞罪」。裁判官林子康指，案件適合以罰款處理，遂判罰款 2,000 元，另應控方要求，下令被告須向選舉事務處賠償 10 元。
18 Dec 2025法庭線#7708
青年認舊煽動等4罪判教導所 服刑期間准保釋 高院裁刑罰上訴得直毋須再服刑
A 21-year-old man was accused of altering the lyrics of the national anthem and posting “Hong Kong independence” slogans online between 2020 and 2022. After unsuccessfully challenging legal issues, he admitted four offences including an old sedition offence and was sentenced to a training centre. His sentence appeal was heard at the High Court on Thursday (18th).
現年 21 歲青年被指 2020 至 2022 年篡改國歌歌詞、網上發布「港獨」口號等，他爭議法律議題失敗後承認舊煽動罪等 4 罪，被判入教導所，周四（18 日）於高等法院處理刑罰上訴。
上訴方指，計及還押及在教導所日子，青年已被羈留約 9 個月，有足夠阻嚇性，建議改判短期監禁及以緩刑處理。律政司則指教導所羈留時間為 3 年，青年中途獲准保釋等候上訴，「就算未坐爆都要繼續」，惟法庭亦可考慮改判勞教中心或監禁。
法官短暫退庭考慮後指本案情況特殊，裁定刑罰上訴得直，撤銷原審的教導所命令，青年即時釋放、毋須再服刑，官稍後頒布判詞。青年聞判面露微笑。翻查資料，本案為首宗「舊煽動罪」被告方上訴得直的案件。
17 Dec 2025法庭線#7705
張秀賢不服破產令提上訴 官下令先交11萬保證金 違令即駁回上訴兼付訟費
Former Chinese University of Hong Kong student union president and Yuen Long District Councillor Tommy Sau Yin Cheung was ordered bankrupt by the High Court in July 2024 for failing to repay $140,000 owed to Lai Tak-chung, former chairman of the Liberal Studies Subject Committee of the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority. Cheung is challenging the order and has applied to submit new evidence, while Lai has asked Cheung to first provide about $120,000 as security for costs.
The Court of Appeal handed down its judgment on the security on Wednesday (the 17th), ruling that Cheung had failed to prove that he was able to repay the debt. If he wishes to pursue the appeal, he must pay $110,000 into court as security within 30 days. Failure to comply with the order will result in the appeal being dismissed, and he will also be required to pay the costs.
前中大學生生會會長、元朗區議員張秀賢，因欠前考評局通識科委員會主席賴得鐘 14 萬元未還，2024 年 7 月被高等法院頒令破產。張不服提出上訴，並要求呈上新證據，賴則要求張先支付約 12 萬元訟費保證金。
上訴庭周三（17 日）就保證金頒下判詞，指張未能證明自己有力償還債務，如希望提出上訴，須於 30 日內先向法庭繳交 11 萬元保證金，若違令會被駁回上訴，另須支付訟費。
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
