3 Sept 2025法庭線#7250
Autistic student convicted of insulting national flag seeks leave to appeal to top court; court requires reasons why application should not be dismissed
2022 年 10 月 1 日，19 歲患自閉症男學生被指在深水埗損毀 5 支國旗及區旗旗桿，旗幟則沒受損。他否認「侮辱國旗」等 3 罪受審，稱旗幟顏色鮮艷令他不適而扯下旗杆，原審裁判官裁定其行為致旗幟未能莊嚴展示，削弱國家尊嚴，全數判處罪成，判入更生中心。他不服定罪提出上訴，今年 3 月被高院駁回。
男生其後直接向終院申請上訴許可，終院司法常務官周三（3 日）指案件沒有合理可供爭辯之處，限申請方在 10 月 2 日前，提出不應駁回其申請的原因。
On October 1, 2022, a 19-year-old male student with autism was alleged to have damaged the flagpoles of five national and regional flags in Sham Shui Po, while the flags themselves were not damaged. He denied three charges, including insulting the national flag, and said at trial that the flags’ bright colours made him uncomfortable, causing him to pull down the flagpoles. The magistrate ruled that his actions meant the flags could not be displayed solemnly and undermined national dignity. He was convicted on all charges and sentenced to a rehabilitation centre. He appealed against the convictions, but the High Court dismissed the appeal in March this year.
The student subsequently applied directly to the Court of Final Appeal for leave to appeal. On Wednesday (the 3rd), the court’s registrar said there was no reasonably arguable point in the case and ordered the applicant to submit, by October 2, reasons why the application should not be dismissed.
3 Sept 2025法庭線#7251
Former League of Social Democrats Yu Wai-pan acquitted over alleged unauthorised banner display; judge says protest rights warrant greater caution
在今年「七一」前宣布解散的社民連，2022 年 9 月在銅鑼灣設街站，展示印有梁國雄、岑子杰、陳皓桓相片的橫額。內務副主席余煒彬、成員「阿牛」曾健成及唐婉清，遭票控「未經准許而在政府土地展示招貼或海報」；曾及唐認罪被判罰款。余不認罪，案件經審訊後，裁判官林子康周三（3 日）於東區裁判法院裁定余傳票控罪罪名不成立。
裁判官裁決時指，涉案橫額面積細，在五光十色的銅鑼灣鬧市懸掛橫額，稱不上顯眼，亦沒對市容構成「大污點」。當天街站及橫額只佔行人專用區有限位置，沒有構成環境滋擾，行人亦可輕易及舒服地步行。此外，懸掛橫額的時間僅約 40 分鐘，相對短暫。官提到，涉案橫額有政治成分，有利辯方案情，因涉及遊行示威權利，法庭要更審慎考慮。
官總結指，控方未能證明當天展示的橫額，達條文限制的「展示」，即「固定程度的慣常規律性」，裁定余傳票控罪罪名不成立。余於庭外稱法庭正確詮釋法例，但是次判決「代表唔到啲咩」，因為社民連已解散，「究竟街頭上仲會見到咩街站？」他又提到，「只要政府刻意打擊異見，依舊可以武器化咁利用呢條法律。」
The League of Social Democrats, which announced its dissolution before this year’s July 1, set up a street booth in Causeway Bay in September 2022 and displayed a banner featuring photographs of Leung Kwok-hung, Shum Tsz-kit and Chan Ho-fung. Its vice-chairman Yu Wai-pan, member “Niu” Tsang Kin-shing and Christina Yuen Ching Tang were charged by summons with displaying bills or posters on government land without permission. Tsang and Tong pleaded guilty and were fined. Yu pleaded not guilty, and after a trial, magistrate Chee Hong Lam ruled at Eastern Magistrates’ Courts on Wednesday (the 3rd) that Yu was not guilty of the summons charge.
In the ruling, the magistrate said the banner was small and, hung in the colourful streets of Causeway Bay, could not be considered conspicuous or a “major blemish” on the cityscape. The street booth and banner occupied only a limited area of the pedestrian zone that day and did not cause environmental nuisance; pedestrians could also walk through easily and comfortably. In addition, the banner was displayed for only about 40 minutes, which was relatively brief. The magistrate noted that the banner had a political element, which favoured the defence, and said the court had to consider the rights to procession and demonstration with greater caution.
The magistrate concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove that the banner displayed that day met the statutory restriction’s meaning of “display”, namely “the usual regularity of a fixed nature”, and acquitted Yu of the summons charge. Outside court, Yu said the court had interpreted the law correctly, but the ruling “doesn’t represent anything”, because the League of Social Democrats had dissolved: “What street booths will we still see?” He also said, “As long as the government deliberately suppresses dissent, it can still weaponise this law.”
3 Sept 2025法庭線#7252
Second terrorism case | Jury enters third day of deliberations without verdict, revisits Telegram test-explosion video and voice messages
反恐條例第二案周三（3 日）於高院踏入第 162 天審訊，9 人陪審團繼續退庭商議裁決，至周三晚逾 23 小時仍未有結果，法官陳仲衡押後至周四早上繼續商議。
陪審團周三再要求觀看涉案片段，據悉包括被指試爆炸藥的影片、Telegram 語音訊息等。至晚上 8 時，官請陪審團休息，翌晨繼續。官向控辯雙方指，陪審團不斷要求重溫錄音訊息，「似乎唔係出現咗死結，咁係進展中」，故暫不會詢問其進度。官另應陪審團要求提供水果。
The second case under the anti-terrorism law entered its 162nd day of trial at the High Court on Wednesday (the 3rd). The nine-member jury continued deliberating its verdict and had still reached no decision after more than 23 hours by Wednesday night. Judge Chan Chung-hang adjourned the proceedings until Thursday morning for deliberations to continue.
The jury again asked on Wednesday to watch sections of evidence, reportedly including a video allegedly showing explosives being test-detonated and Telegram voice messages. At 8 p.m., the judge asked the jury to take a break and continue the following morning. The judge told the prosecution and defence that the jury had repeatedly asked to review recorded messages, and that it "did not seem to have reached an impasse, so it was making progress"; he therefore would not ask about its progress for the time being. The judge also provided fruit at the jury's request.
3 Sept 2025法庭線#7253
35-year-old man accused of falsely reporting bombs at central government offices and other locations; case adjourned
警方國安處早前拘捕 5 人，指他們今年 4 月底至 5 月中，多次經電話、電郵和即時通訊軟件，向警方發放虛假訊息，聲稱會引爆在中央駐港機構和啟德主場館內的炸彈，並發放宣揚「台獨」和「港獨」等訊息。其中一名 35 歲男子被控炸彈嚇詐行為、意圖妨礙司法公正共 5 罪，周三（3 日）在西九龍裁判法院提堂。
控方指，正與辯方商討控罪、案情，「好有機會可以比較簡單地處理到呢單案件。」《國安法》指定法官、署理主任裁判官鄭念慈押至 10 月 15 日再訊，被告繼續還押。
The Police National Security Department earlier arrested five people, alleging that from late April to mid-May this year they repeatedly sent false messages to police by telephone, email and instant messaging applications, claiming that they would detonate bombs at central government offices in Hong Kong and the Kai Tak Main Stadium. They also disseminated messages promoting “Taiwan independence” and “Hong Kong independence”, among others. One of the men, aged 35, was charged with five offences, including bomb hoaxes and intending to pervert the course of justice. He appeared at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts on Wednesday (3rd).
2 Sept 2025法庭線#7243
Anti-Terrorism Second Case | Jury Enters Second Day of Deliberations Without Verdict, Asks About Difference Between Principal and Alternative Charges
反恐條例第二案周二（2 日）於高院踏入第 161 天審訊，9 人陪審團仍未達成裁決。法官早上指陪審團提出 6 條問題，包括《反恐條例》主要控罪與交替控罪的分別；有陪審員提出晚上休庭後繼續商討，官拒絕，但安排周三提早開始繼續商議。
就主控罪，官解釋指陪審員要確信被告有意圖藉爆炸品導致他人死亡，或身體嚴重受傷，而爆炸裝置有能力造成此後果，才可以定罪；而若主控罪不成立，陪審員須考慮交替控罪，判斷被告是否有意圖藉爆炸裝置造成爆炸，而該爆炸「相當可能」危害生命或嚴重傷害。
在陪審團要求下，庭上其後播放宏創方保安員、首被告何卓為及第四被告張家俊庭上作供的錄音，另閉門播放涉案的語音訊息。
The second case under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance entered its 161st day of trial at the High Court on Tuesday (the 2nd), with the nine-member jury still unable to reach a verdict. The judge said in the morning that the jury had raised six questions, including the difference between the principal charge and the alternative charge under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance. A juror asked to continue deliberating after the evening adjournment, but the judge refused and arranged for deliberations to resume earlier on Wednesday. Regarding the principal charge, the judge explained that the jury could convict only if they were sure that the defendant intended, by means of explosives, to cause the death or serious bodily injury of another person, and that the explosive device was capable of producing that result. If the principal charge was not proved, the jury would then have to consider the alternative charge and determine whether the defendant intended to cause an explosion by means of an explosive device, where that explosion was likely to endanger life or cause serious injury.
At the jury’s request, recordings of the trial testimony of a security guard from Mega Cube, the first defendant Ho Cheuk-wai, and the fourth defendant Cheung Ka-chun were subsequently played in court. Audio messages relating to the case were also played in a closed session.
1 Sept 2025法庭線#7233
Anti-terrorism Case 2 | Jury reaches no result on first day of deliberations; security guard’s testimony to be reviewed on Tuesday
反恐條例第二案周一（9 月 1 日）於高院踏入第 160 天審訊，7 女 2 男陪審團早上約 11 時開始退庭商議，至晚上 7 時仍未有結果。法官陳仲衡押後至周二繼續。休庭前，有旁聽人士向被告席揮手。
法官晚上開庭，向控辯雙方指陪審團要求重溫聲音紀錄與證人證供，內容包括宏創方保安員在庭上作供的紀錄，將在周二早上處理。
原有 3 名被告獲准保釋，官早上暫時撤銷，3 人須繼續還押等候裁決。辯方詢問法官，可否安排被告家人提供更換衣物，官指這屬懲教署的事務，他不會處理，「我冇話唔好，呢個唔係我應該干涉、處理嘅事情」。
控方指第一至第五被告均為主謀，第六、七被告被牽涉入案件；第八被告則不涉及在串謀案。各被告案情見內文。
The trial of the second case under the Anti-terrorism Ordinance entered its 160th day at the High Court on Monday (September 1). The jury, comprising seven women and two men, began deliberating at about 11 a.m. and had still not reached a result by 7 p.m. Justice Chan Chung-hang adjourned the case until Tuesday for deliberations to continue. Before the adjournment, a member of the public in the gallery waved towards the defendants’ dock.
When the court reconvened in the evening, the judge told the prosecution and defence that the jury had requested to review audio recordings and witness testimony, including the testimony given in court by a security guard from Wang Cheong Fong. This would be dealt with on Tuesday morning.
Three defendants who had originally been granted bail had their bail temporarily revoked by the judge in the morning and were required to remain in custody pending the verdicts. The defence asked whether arrangements could be made for the defendants’ families to provide them with replacement clothing. The judge said this was a matter for the Correctional Services Department and that he would not deal with it: “I didn’t say no, but this is not something I should interfere with or handle.”
The prosecution said the first to fifth defendants were the masterminds, while the sixth and seventh defendants were implicated in the case. The eighth defendant was not involved in the conspiracy. Details of the case against each defendant are set out in the main text.
1 Sept 2025HK01#7235
Law Society Responds to Kevin Yam’s Striking Off: Decision Based on Professional Conduct Standards, Unrelated to Political Views
政府早前刊憲公布，律師會紀律審裁組裁定，前「法政匯思」召集人任建峰在2023年5月11日的美國「國會及行政當局中國委員會」上公開呼籲制裁香港司法人員，行為嚴重失當，已從律師登記冊除名。任建峰須在28天內支付逾81萬元訟費。
律師會發表聲明回應外界關注，強調審裁組的裁決僅基於專業行為準則，與任何涉嫌犯罪行為或政治觀點無關，又強調紀律處分程序旨在保障公眾利益、維護行業聲譽公眾對司法制度的信心。
The Government earlier published a notice in the Gazette announcing that the Law Society’s disciplinary tribunal had found former Progressive Lawyers Group convenor Kevin Yam guilty of serious professional misconduct for publicly calling for sanctions against Hong Kong judicial personnel at a hearing of the United States Congressional-Executive Commission on China on 11 May 2023. He was struck off the roll of solicitors and ordered to pay more than HK$810,000 in costs within 28 days.
The Law Society issued a statement in response to public concern, stressing that the tribunal’s decision was based solely on professional conduct standards and was unrelated to any alleged criminal conduct or political views. It also stressed that disciplinary proceedings are intended to protect the public interest, uphold the reputation of the profession and maintain public confidence in the justice system.
1 Sept 2025法庭線#7238
Inspector convicted of dangerous driving causing serious injury after running red light and hitting taxi; sentenced to 240 hours’ community service
駐守東九龍總區的 30 歲男警務督察，涉於 2023 年凌晨休班時，駕駛私家車在旺角疑衝燈撞到一輛的士，致該輛的士失控撞倒一名女途人，途人及後需截肢。警員被控一項「危險駕駛引致他人身體受嚴重傷害」，早前裁定罪成。
暫委法官黃國輝周一（9 月 1 日）於區域法院指，被告的報告內容正面、有悔意，考慮到他已還押 5 周，終判被告 240 小時社會服務令、停牌兩年，及須自費完成駕駛改進課程。被告聞判後於犯人欄內拭淚，其親友相擁而泣。
A 30-year-old male police inspector stationed in the East Kowloon Region allegedly ran a red light while driving his private car in Mong Kok during the early hours of 2023, when he was off duty, and collided with a taxi. The taxi lost control and knocked down a female pedestrian, who subsequently required an amputation. The inspector was charged with dangerous driving causing serious injury to another person and was earlier found guilty.
Acting Judge Kwok Fai (1965) Wong said at the District Court on Monday (September 1) that the contents of the defendant’s report were positive and that he had shown remorse. Taking into account that he had already been remanded for five weeks, the judge sentenced him to 240 hours of community service, disqualified him from driving for two years, and ordered him to complete a driving improvement course at his own expense. The defendant wiped away tears in the dock after the sentence was delivered, while his relatives and friends embraced and cried.
29 Aug 2025法庭線#7228
Man charged with disorderly conduct, assaulting police after dispute at Kwai Chung Plaza; bailed until October
一名巴基斯坦籍男子近日在葵涌廣場與警員爭執。他被控在公眾地方擾亂秩序、襲警兩罪，案件周五（29 日）在西九龍裁判法院首提堂。裁判官朱文瀚押後至 10 月 24 日再訊，男子獲准以 2,000 元保釋。
A Pakistani man recently had a dispute with police officers at Kwai Chung Plaza. He was charged with disorderly conduct in a public place and assaulting a police officer. The case was first heard at West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts on Friday (29th). Magistrate Gary Man Hon Chu adjourned the case until 24 October for mention, and the man was granted $2,000 bail.
28 Aug 2025法庭線#7225
Anti-terrorism case No. 2 | Judge summarises testimony of two defendants, who say police offered bail in exchange for confessions and kneed them
2020 年初，明愛醫院、羅湖港鐵車廂被發現有爆炸品，Telegram 頻道「九十二籤」事後承認責任。7 人被控《反恐條例》罪名，餘下 1 人被控以「企圖製造炸藥」罪。8 人不認罪，周四（28 日）於高院踏入第 159 天審訊。
法官陳仲衡總結首被告何卓為、第四被告張家俊在庭上的供詞，引述何稱與警員商討以招認換取保釋機會，有警員不滿其錄影會面的說法，曾威脅問「係咪想被踩春袋」。官指，若何在庭上未有採納自己的口供，相關證供不能用作指證其他被告。
官亦引述張供稱，有警員破門入屋拘捕他後，踩其左膝，亦有警員曾打他的胸口，但在記事冊寫張在「廁所跣低」，要求張簽署確認。張被捕後向律師要求求醫，其後留醫 10 天。案件下周一續，官料將完成引導，陪審團將退庭商議。
In early 2020, explosives were found at Caritas Medical Centre and in an MTR train carriage at Lo Wu. The Telegram channel “九十二籤” later claimed responsibility. Seven people were charged with offences under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance, while the remaining person was charged with attempting to manufacture explosives. All eight pleaded not guilty. The trial entered its 159th day at the High Court on Thursday (28th).
The judge, Chan Chung-hang, summarised the testimony given in court by the first defendant Ho Cheuk Wai and the fourth defendant Christopher Ka Tsun Cheung. He quoted Ho as saying that he had discussed with police officers exchanging a confession for an opportunity to obtain bail. One officer was dissatisfied with his account of a video-recorded interview and threatened him, asking, “Do you want to be kneed in the groin?” The judge said that if Ho had not adopted his own statement in court, the relevant evidence could not be used to implicate the other defendants.
The judge also quoted Cheung as saying that after police officers broke into his home to arrest him, one officer stepped on his left knee and another hit him in the chest. However, the police notebook recorded that Cheung had “slipped in the toilet” and asked him to sign to confirm it. After his arrest, Cheung asked his lawyer for medical treatment and was subsequently hospitalised for 10 days. The case will resume next Monday. The judge is expected to complete his directions, after which the jury will retire to deliberate.
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
